CRIMINAL LAW – branch or division of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for their punishment

1. Defines crimes – [civil law country] when there is no law against an act or omission, then there is no crime

2. Nature – Elements of a crime [absence of one element is a ground for the acquittal of the accused]

CRIME – act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or commanding it

Sources of Philippine Criminal Law1. RPC (Act 3815)2. Special Penal Laws3. Penal P.D. issued during Martial Law

Philippines is CIVIL LAW COUNTRY not common law*Common Law – not defined as crimes or enacted by legislature but considered by society as crimes*Court decisions are not sources of criminal law because they merely explain the meaning of, and apply, the law

Basis of the State’s power to define and punish crime: Police Power*Police Power – power of the state to regulate liberty and property for the promotion of the general welfare of the people

Limitation on the Power of the Lawmaking Body Enact Penal Legislations

1. Art III Sec22 – No ex post facto law or bill attainder shall be enacted

2. Art III Sec14(1) – No person shall be held to answer for criminal offense without due process of law (applies to the judicial branch)

EX POST FACTO:a. Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the

law and which was innocent when done, and punishes such an act

b. Aggravates a crime, or make it greater than it was, when committed

c. Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed

d. 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

e. Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done is lawful

f. Deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty

BILL OF ATTAINDER – legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED:1. All persons shall have the right to speedy disposition

of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative bodies (Sec16)

2. No person shall be held to answer for criminal offense without due process of law (Sec14 [1])

3. All persons, EXCEPT those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or to be released on recognizance as may be provided by law.The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of writ of habeas corpus is suspended.Excessive bail shall not be required.

4. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him, to have speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet with the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. (Sec14[2])

5. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. (Sec17)Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice.If the person cannot afford the services of a counsel, he must be provided with one.These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. (Sec12 [1])No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. (Sec12 [3])

6. Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. (Sec19 [1])

7. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act. (Sec21)

8. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty. (Sec11)

STATUTORY RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED (Section1 Rule 115 of Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure):

1. Presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt

2. To be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him

3. To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of the judgment

4. To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross-examination on matters covered by direct examination. His silence shall not in any manner prejudice him

5. Exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself

6. Confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial

7. Have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and production of other evidence in his behalf

8. Have speedy, impartial and public trial9. Appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner

prescribed by law

Rights which can be waived: right to confrontation and confrontationCannot be waived: right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him*Rights which are personal can be waived, rights involving public interest which may be affected cannot be waived.

CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW1. General2. Territorial3. Prospective

GENERAL – criminal law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory (Art14 of New Civil Code)GR: Jurisdiction of civil courts is not affected by the military character of the accused (U.S. vs. Sweet Sweet, an employee of the US army assaulted a prisoner of war)Exception:

1. Article 2 RPC – “Treatises and laws of preferential application”

2. Article 14 of the new Civil Code – “principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations

Examples of treaty and treaty stipulations: (1) Bases Agreement (2) RP-US Visiting Forces AgreementExample of Law of preferential application: R.A. 75 – in favor of diplomatic representatives and their domestic servantsPERSONS EXEMPT FROM THE OPERATION OF OUR CRIMINAL LAWS BY VIRTUE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

1. Sovereigns and other chiefs of state2. Ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, ministers

resident, and charges d’affaires – diplomatic representatives

*Consuls, vice-consuls and other commercial representatives of foreign nations are not entitled to the privileges or immunities of an ambassador or minister (in the absence of a treaty to the contrary, consuls are subject to the laws of the country to which he is accredited

*Civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction with general courts-martial over soldiers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (murder, malversation by an army finance officer) 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*RPC or other penal laws are not applicable when the military court takes cognizance of the case involving a person subject to military law = Articles of War apply*Prosecution of an accused before a court-martial is a bar to another prosecution of the accused for the same offense (Reason: double jeopardy)

*Offender accused of war crimes are triable by military commission*Military commissions have jurisdiction so long as a technical state of war continues (war is not ended because hostilities have ceased because incidents of war may remain pending which should be disposed of as in time of war)

TERRITORIAL – criminal laws undertake to punish crimes committed within the Philippine territoryPRINCIPLE OF TERRITORIALITY – penal laws of the Philippines are enforceable only within its territory(Art I of the Constitution) – national territory comprises the Philippines archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of all its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, seabed, subsoil, insular shelves and other submarine areas. 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.Exceptions (Article 2, RPC):

1. Commit an offense on board a Philippine ship or airship

2. Forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippines or obligations and securities issued by the Philippine government

3. Liable for acts connected with the introduction into Philippines obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number

4. Public officers or employees who commit an offense in the exercise of their functions

5. Should commit crimes against national security and the law of nations

PROSPECTIVE – penal law cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when committed*Art366, RPC – crimes are punished under the law in force at the time of their commissionExceptions: where penal law is more lenient or favorable to the accused, it can be given retroactive effect*Exception to the exception:

1. New law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of actions

2. Offender is a habitual criminalEffects of Repeal of Penal Law:

1. Repeal makes the penalty lighter – new law shall apply EXCEPT when offender is a habitual delinquent or make inapplicable to pending action or causes of action

2. Repeal makes the penalty heavier – law in force at the time of the commission of the offense will be applied

3. New law totally repeals the existing law – (to the effect that the act which was penalized is no longer punishable) crime is obliterated

Absolute Repeal – offense ceases to be a crime (decriminalization); Effect: pending case is dismissed, those serving time are released*Repeal of a penal law by its reenactment, will not destroy criminal liability. (U.S. vs. Cuna – selling opium)

*When the new law and the old law penalize the same offense, the offender can be tried under the old law (U.S. vs. Cuna) [new law is not more favorable, so old law will be enforced]*When repealing law fails to penalize the offense under the old law, the accused cannot be convicted under the new law (People vs. Sindiong and Pastor – neglecting to make return of sales of newspapers and magazines within the time prescribed by the Revised Administrative Code law was repealed by the National Internal revenue Code wherein such return of sales is not required)*A person erroneously accused and convicted under a repealed statute may be punished under the repealing statute (People vs. Baesa – for having failed to pay his employee’s salary, Baesa was convicted under Com. Act 303, subsequently repealed by RA602, with which its provisions are inconsistent, will not prevent his conviction under the repealing law which punishes the same act, provided that accused had an opportunity to defend himself against the charge brought against him)*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 – cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex (when the reason for the law ceases, the law itself also ceases)Partial or Implied Repeal – still punishable but modified; example, lesser punishmentSelf-repealing law – expiration of a law by its own limitation (Effect: deprivation of the courts to try, convict and sentence persons charged with violation of the old law prior to the repeal)

CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS1. Penal laws are strictly construed against the

government and in favor of the accused (can be invoked only where the law is ambiguous and there is doubt as to its application; no room for interpretation where the law is clear and unambiguous) - (People vs. Garcia Act4130 as amended by Commonwealth Act 301 penalizes persons who sold tickets of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes without being a duly authorized agent. PCSO tickets were different from the tickets being sold by Garcia. He must be acquitted because no person should be brought within the terms of criminal statute who is not clearly within them, nor should any act be pronounced criminal which is not clearly made so by the statute)

2. In the construction or interpretation of the provisions of the RPC, Spanish text is controlling because it was approved by the Philippine Legislature in its Spanish text (People vs. Mangulabnan Robbery with accidental homicide. Spanish text which states that robbery with homicide is a criminal act even if homicide is a mere accident even though the RPC conveys the meaning that homicide should be intentionally committed [Under the Spanish text, it is sufficient that homicide resulted, even if by accident].

REVISED PENAL CODE(ACT 3815, AS AMENDED)

RPC consists of 2 books:

1. Book One – (a) basic principles affecting criminal liability (Art1-20); (b) provisions on penalties including criminal and civil liability (Art21-113)

2. Book Two – defined felonies with corresponding penalties (grouped into 14 different titles; Art114-365)

ARTICLE 1. TIME WHEN ACT TAKES EFFECT – THIS CODE SHALL TAKE EFFECT ON THE FIRST DAY OF JANURAY, NINETEEN HUNDRED AND THIRTY-TWO.RPC took effect on January 1, 19323 Theories in Criminal Law:

1. Classical Theory (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth) a. Basis of criminal liability: human free willb. Purpose of penalty: retributionc. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a toothd. Man is free to choose between good and evil,

thus, there is more stress upon the effect or result of the felonious act (strong sense of responsibility)

e. Establishes a mechanical and direct proportion between crime and penalty

f. Scant regard to the human element2. Positivist Theory (society made man that way)

a. Purpose: Reformationb. Man is subdued occasionally by a strange and

morbid phenomenon which constrains him to do wrong, in spite of or contrary to his volition (no sense of responsibility)

c. Crime is a social and natural phenomenon and cannot be treated and checked by the application of abstract principles of law and jurisprudence nor by the imposition of a punishment

3. Ecclectic Theory (mix of the Classical and Positivist)a. Classical theory for heinous crimesb. Positivist theory for social crimes

*RPC is mainly based on the classical theory but positivistic on some provisions (i.e. juvenile delinquency, impossible crime, aggravating, mitigating and justifying circumstances)

ARTICLE 2. APPLICATION OF ITS PROVISIONS – 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 BOARD 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 BEING PUBLIC OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES, SHOULD COMMIT AN OFFENSE IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR FUNCTIONS

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.

*Exception must be strictly construed (rule in statcon) because the exception was emphasized – first word in Art2Exceptions to Art2: Treatises and laws of preferential applications.Atmosphere – penal laws extend to all air space covered by the territory SUBJECT to right of way or easement in favor of foreign aircrafts.Interior Waters – all body of waters within the 3-mile limitMaritime Zone – includes bays, gulfs, adjacent parts of the sea or recesses in the coastline whose width at their entrance is not more than 12miles measured in a straight line from headland to headland, and all straits of less than 6miles wide (for straits having more width, the space in the center outside of the maritime league limits is considered as open sea)*Foreign merchant ships is an extension of the territory of the country to which it belongs and offenses committed on such in high seas is not triable by our courts*Offenses committed on board a foreign vessel while on Philippine waters is triable before our court Continuing crime on board a foreign vessel is triable when forbidden conditions existed during the time the ship was within territorial waters (ex. Norweigian Ship)2 Rules as to the jurisdiction over crimes committed on board foreign merchant vessels

1. French Rule – Not triable unless the commission affects the peace and security of the territory or safety of the state is endangered

2. English Rule – Triable in the country unless they merely affect things within the vessel or they refer to internal management

*Philippines observes the English Rule (reason: It goes well with the territorial rule).

SHOULD COMMIT AN OFFENSE WHILE ON BOARD A PHILIPPINE SHIP OR AIRSHIPGR: Penal laws do not apply if ship is outside the PhilippinesException: Philippines has jurisdiction over registered private merchant vessels that are outside the Philippine territory but within international waters and outside the jurisdiction of other countries*Applies to Philippine vessels even beyond the 3-mile limit (triable before our civil courts) but when Philippine vessel is found in a foreign territory = subject to the laws of the foreign country*Ownership of the vessel depends on its registration (so long as registered under Philippine laws in the Philippine Bureau of Customs, it shall be considered as an extension of the Philippine territory). A Filipino owning a vessel not registered under Philippine laws will not be criminally liable under Philippine laws.*If vessel is unregistered, Art2 will not apply

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*Persons who make such are liable even though the act is done in a foreign country

SHOULD BE LIABLE FOR ACTS CONNECTED WITH THE INTRODUCTION INTO THESE ISLANDS OF THE OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES MENTIONED IN THE PRECEDING NUMBER*Reason: introduction of such is as dangerous as forging or counterfeiting the same, to the economical interest of the country

WHILE BEING PUBLIC OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES, SHOULD COMMIT AN OFFENSE IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR FUNCTIONSExamples: direct and indirect bribery (Art210,211); frauds against public treasury (Art213), possession of prohibited interest (Art216), malversation of public funds or property (Art217), failure of accountable officer to render accounts (Art218), illegal use of public funds or property (Art220), failure to make delivery of public funds or property (Art221) and falsification by a public officer or employee committed with abuse of his official position (Art171)*Can be prosecuted here even when committed abroad*Philippine ambassador to Australia committed malversation of funds and falsification of public documents while in an office in Australia = liable under Philippine Courts; but if he committed rape, he cannot necessarily be held liable because it is not related to his official functions as a diplomat

SHOULD COMMIT ANY OF THE CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE ALW OF NATIONS, DEFINED IN TITLE ONE OF BOOK TWO OF THIS CODELaw of Nations – Crimes against humanity (example Human Trafficking)Examples: treason (Art114), conspiracy and proposal to commit treason (Art115), espionage (Art117), inciting to war and giving motives for reprisals (Art118), violation of neutrality (Art119), correspondence with hostile country (Art120), flight to enemy’s country (Art121), and piracy and mutiny on the high seas (Art122)

RTC has original jurisdiction over all crimes and offenses committed on the high seas or beyond the jurisdiction of any country on board a ship or warcraft of any kind registered in the Philippines

Jurisdiction over homicide committed on board a foreign merchant vessel by a crew member against another – Philippines will only have jurisdiction if public peace is disturbed, otherwise, the jurisdiction lies with the sovereignty of the home of the ship*Crimes involving breach of public order committed on board a foreign merchant vessel in transit (possession of opium) = not triable by our courts (reason: does not constitute breach of public order without being within Philippine soil); if not in transit, liable for illegal importation*Smoking opium on board a foreign vessel anchored within Philippine territory constitutes breach of public orderWarship Rule –a warship of another country, even though docked in the Philippines is considered an extension of the

territory of its respective country (acts done within a warship of another country cannot be subjected to the criminal law of the Philippines*Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over offenses committed on board foreign warships in territorial waters (warships are always reputed to be the territory of the country to which it belongs and cannot be subject to the laws of another state; A US Army transport is considered a warship)

ARTICLE 3. DEFINITIONS – ACTS AND OMISSIONS PUNISHABLE BY LAW ARE FELONIES (DELITOS).

FELONIES ARE COMMITTED NOT ONLY BY MEANS OF DECEIT (DOLO) BUT ALSO BY MEANS OF FAULTY (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 FORESIGHT, OR LACK OF SKILL.*Deceit = intent*Fault or Culpa – Quasi-offenses (without intent)

FELONIES – acts and omissions punishable by the RPC-different from-

“Crime” and “Offense” – infractions of the law punished by special statutes

RPC Special Law

Mala in SeMala Prohibita (Ought to

Know)

Wrongful from their natureWrong merely because prohibited by statute

Intent is required to determine whether or not

there is a violation

Intent is not Required as long as a violation was committed

Examples: Acts of Lasciviousness vs. HarassmentTheft vs. Anti-Fencing Law

*Inherently immoral = mala in se even if punishable by special lawsCause of Action (Wrong must be and Actionable Wrong)1.2.3.4. Enforceable at Law

Elements:1. Act or omission2. Punishable by RPC3. Such act or omission is incurred by means of dolo or

culpaAct – external act which has direct connection with the felony intended to be committed*Internal acts are beyond the sphere of penal lawsOmission – inaction; the failure to perform a positive duty which one is bound to do (there must be a law requiring the doing or performance of an act)Examples of felony by omission:

1. Abandonment of persons in danger2. Illegal exaction for officers collecting taxes who

voluntarily fails to issue a receipt

3. Persons owing allegiance to the Philippines not disclosing knowledge of conspiracy against the government – misprision of treason

*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 punishablePunishable by law – no crime where there is no law punishing it (punished by RPC not by a special law)

Classifications of felonies:1. Intentional Felonies – act or omission of the offender

is malicious; done with deliberate intent (with the intention to cause an injury to another)

2. Culpable Felonies – act or omission of the offender is not malicious; unintentional injury caused to another; done without malice (imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, lack of skill)Examples: Malversation through negligence (Art217), Evasion through negligence (Art224), Acts by imprudence of negligence (Art365)

Dolus – malice; intent to do an injuryIMPRUDENCE – deficiency of action (lack of skills); fails to take the necessary precaution to avoid injury to person or damage to property; performed without prudence in connection with the circumstancesNEGLIGENCE – deficiency of perception (lack of foresight); fails to pay proper attention and to use due diligence in foreseeing the injury or damage impending to be caused; performed without taking into account the consequences(Reason for punishing negligence: a man must use common sense and exercise due reflection in all his acts; duty to be cautious, careful and prudent)*Reckless Imprudence – done voluntarily but without malice; doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results (ex. Hunter with 2 companions Homicide through reckless imprudence [People vs. Ramirez]); a person who caused an injury, without intention to cause an evil may be held liable for culpable felonyVoluntary – concurrence of intelligence, freedom and intent*A criminal act is presumed to be voluntary, and in the absence of indubitable explanation, act must be declared voluntary and punishable.*Act becomes involuntary when there is compulsion or prevention by force or intimidation.

Reasons why the act or omission in felonies must be voluntary1. RPC based on Classical Theory – that the basis for

criminal liability is human free will2. Acts or omissions punished by law are always

deemed voluntary since man is a rational being3. In intentional felonies, act performed with deliberate

intent must necessarily be voluntary, while in culpable felony, it is the voluntary doing or failing to do an act from which material injury results

REQUISITES OF DOLO OR MALICE: (FII)1. Freedom [voluntariness] (reason: person who acts

without freedom is not a human being, he is a tool)2. Intelligence [Deliberate Intent] while doing or

omitting to do an act (reason: without intelligence to determine the morality of the act, there is no crime [examples, insane and minors below 9 years of age])

3. Intent or Malice (Malice or criminal intent is presumed and presumption arises from the proof of commission of an unlawful act)

*A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force is not criminally liable*A person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury I not criminally liable also.

* Freedom + Intelligence – Intent = No fault or Intention = no LiabilityExample: A person conceals the belongings of another and denies such without a satisfactory explanation = with intention*Intent is necessary because:

1. Actus non 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 done by me against my will is not my act

General Intent – third element of voluntariness- different from –

Specific Intent – example, intent to gain, intent to kill, etc.

Presumption of criminal intent does not arise from the proof of the commission of an act which is not unlawfulActus Non Facit Reum, Nisi Mens Sit Rea – a crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained be innocentGR: If it is proved that the accused committed the criminal act charged it is a presumption that the act done was with criminal intention and the burden of proof rests with the accused to rebut such presumptionRequisite: Act from which such presumption springs must be a criminal act*No felony by dolo if there is no intent (mistake of fact) = not voluntary; no criminal intent (example: sleepwalking)

Mistake of Fact (example: US vs. Achong – landmark case)Requisites:

1. (Lawful Facts / Belief) Act would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed it to be

2. (Lawful Intention) Intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful

3. Without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused

Effect of Mistake of Fact:1. Act will constitute justifying circumstance2. Act will constitute an absolutory cause3. Act will constitute an involuntary act

Ignorantia facti excusat – ignorance or mistake fact relieves the accused from criminal liability*Misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused injury to another = not liable = did not act with criminal intentHonest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent which arises upon the commission of a felonies act.Danmum Absque Injuria – Damage without Prejudice (example, US vs. Achong)*Lack of intent to commit a crime may be inferred from the facts of the casePeople vs. Oanis not mistake of fact (at fault)

*Mistake in Identity does not relieve the accused from criminal responsibility (acted maliciously and willfully; there is intent)*No crime of resistance when there is mistake of fact (A person who resist arrest believing the peace officer to be a bandit but who submits to the arrest upon being informed by the peace officer that he is a policeman is not guilty of resistance)When there is negligence, mistake of fact is not a defense (example, People vs. De Fernando – stairs)

Requisites for Culpable Felonies [quasi-offenses; not from a criminal mind]:

1. Freedom2. Intelligence3. Imprudent, Negligent, Lack of foresight, Lack of skill

*In culpable felonies, the injury caused must be unintentional, it being the incident of another act performed without malice (example, People vs. Guillen – Bomb)Causing damage or injury to another without malice or fault does no give rise to criminal liability as long as the act performed is lawful (example: accident without fault or intention – not within the definition of intentional or culpable felony)

3 Classes of Crimes1. Intentional Felonies2. Culpable Felonies3. Punishable by Special Laws

GR: Dolo is not required in crimes punished by special laws (reason: act is injurious to public welfare and the doing of the prohibited act is the crime itself)Requisites:

1. Criminal Intent2. Intent to perpetrate the Act

*It is enough that the prohibited act is done freely and consciously – crimes punished by special laws, it is enough that the act alone, irrespective of its motives, constitutes the offense)Example: People vs. Bayona (Gun during Election Period – Mala Prohibita)*Good faith is and absence of criminal intent not a valid defense in crimes punished by special laws (example: unlicensed possession is sufficient to sustain a conviction of illegal possession of firearms)Exception:

1. People vs. Landicho – temporary and incidental possession of firearms enforcing the law by collecting firearms

2. Civilian Guards3. People vs. Mallari – pending application for

permanent permit to possess firearm with advise of agent of the law to keep it in the meantime

4. People vs. Lucero – civilian confidential agents entrusted with the duty of surveillance and effecting the killing or capture of wanted persons

Motive IntentMoving power which impels one to action for a definite result (example: revenge)

Purpose to use a particular means to effect such result

(malice?)Reason for doing or not doing

an act (not an essential

Without Freedom or = Without Intent

Intelligence

element of a crime)*Person may not have the motive but has the intent (example: serial killers)*Good motive does not prevent an act from being a crime

GR: Proof of motive is not necessary to pin a crime on the accused if the commission of the crime has been proven and the evidence of identification is convincingExceptions:

1. There is doubt as to the identity of the assailant - Identity of the person accused of having committed a crime is in dispute

2. Important in ascertaining the truth between 2 antagonistic theories or versions of killing

3. Identification of the accused proceeds from an unreliable source and the testimony is inconclusive and not free from doubt

4. No eyewitnesses and suspicion is likely to fall upon a number of persons

5. Evidence is merely circumstancial

How motive is provedGR: Testimony of witnesses (Can also be proved by evidence)*Proof of motive is not sufficient to support a conviction IF there is no reliable evidence from which it may be reasonably deduced that the accused was the malefactor*Strong motive to commit the crime cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt because proof beyond reasonable doubt is the mainstay of our accusatorial system of criminal justice*Lack of motive may be an aid in showing the innocence of the accused (example: sleepwalking)

ARTICLE 4. CRIMINAL LIABILITY – CRIMINAL LIABILITY SHALL BE INCURRED:

1. BY PERSONS COMMITTING FELONY (DELITO) ALTHOUGH THE WRONGFUL ACT DONE BE DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH HE INTENDED

2. BY PERSONS PERFORMING AN ACT WHICH WOULD BE AN OFFENSE AGAINST PERSONS OR PROPERTY, WERE IT NOT FOR THE INHERENT IMPOSSIBILITY OF ITS ACCOMPLISHMENT OR ON ACCOUNT OF THE EMPLOYMENT OF INADEQUATE OR INEFFECTUAL MEANS

Article 4 (1) requisites:1. Intentional Felony2. Wrong done to the aggrieved party be direct, natural

and logical consequence of felony committedCoverage of Art 4 (1):

1. Mistake in Identity (Error in Personae) – People vs. Oanis

2. Mistake in the Blow (Aberratio Ictus) – People vs. Mabugat (Intention to shoot Juana but Perfecta was hit instead)

3. Injurious result is greater than that intended (Praeter Intentionem) – People vs. Cagoco [without intention to kill, he struck the victim in the head from behind causing victim to fall and hit his head]

*Any 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.Reason: he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused - Proximate Cause (example: People vs. Mario Mariano – rape = death of the girl)Not Applicable in US vs. Divino – rags with petroleum = physical injuries through reckless imprudence and illegal practice of medicineNo felony = not liable for results which are not intended(example: People vs. Bindoy – bolo and bystander; no intention to hurt anyone)No felony if:

1. Act or omission is not punishable by RPC2. Justifying Circumstances

2nd Requisite of Art4(1): Wrong done to aggrieved party be direct, natural and logical consequence of felony committed

1. Victim chased by a person with a knife jumped into the water and drowned

2. People vs. Quianson – wound inflicted by the accused caused extreme pain and restlessness causing victim to remove the draining from the wound = death by peritonitis

3. Other causes cooperated in producing the fatal result, as long as the wound inflicted is dangerous (calculated to endanger life) [if injury would not have caused death, then there is no homicide]

4. Victim suffering from internal malady5. People vs. Marasigan - offended party not obliged to

submit to a surgical operatio0n to relieve accused from the natural and ordinary results of his crime

a. Blow is the efficient cause of deathb. Blow accelerated deathc. Blow was the proximate cause of death

6. Resulting injury aggravated by infection – (People vs. Martir) Accused is liable for all the consequence of his acts and the infection of a wound he caused is one of the consequence for which he is answerable. (US vs. de los Santos) Infection should not be due to the malicious act of the offended party.

PROXIMATE CAUSE – that cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, producing the injury and without which the injury would not have occurredNatural – occurrence in the ordinary course of human life or eventsLogical – rational connection between the act of the accused and the resulting injury or damage*Felony committed must be the proximate cause of the resulting injuryPROXIMATE LEGAL CAUSE – that acting first and producing the injury, wither immediately or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor*There must be a cause [felony] and effect [injury/death] relation which is NOT altered or changed by pre-existing conditions (example, pre-existing conditions like pathological, predisposition, concomitant/concurrent condition, conditions supervening the felony)NOT proximate cause when:

1. Active force intervened between the felony committed and resulting injury

2. Resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim (example, US vs. de los Santos – cesspool)

ACTIVE FORCE – direct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused*Supervening event may be the subject of amendment of a new charge without being double jeopardy (example, case filed was for slight physical injuries but it was found out that it will take 30days for the wound to heal = conversion of the case to serious physical injuriesIMPOSSIBLE CRIMES (Potential Crimes)Requisites:

1. Act performed would be an offense against persons or property

2. Act was done with evil intent3. Accomplishment is inherently impossible or the

means employed is inadequate or ineffectual4. Act performed should not constitute violation of

another provision of the RPCFelonies against persons:

1. Parricide (Art246)2. Murder (Art2483. Homicide (Art249)4. Infanticide (Art255)5. Abortion (Art256-2596. Duel (Art260-261)7. Rape (Art 266-a)

Felonies against Property:1. Robbery (Art294, 297-303)2. Brigandage (Art306-307)3. Theft (Art 308, 310-311)4. Usurpation (Art312-313)5. Culpable Insolvency (Art314)6. Swindling and other deceits (Art315-318)7. Chattel Mortgage (Art319)8. Arson and Other Crimes Involving Destruction

(Art320-326)9. Malicious Mischief (Art327-331)

No Crime and Not Impossible Crime – A wanted to kill B but found B dead and stabbed B (reason: no evil intent because A knew that B was already dead = no injury can be caused)

Inherent Impossibility of Accomplishment by:1. Legal Impossibility2. Physical Impossibility

Examples:1. A did not know that B was already dead and A shot B

= impossible crime (legal and physical)2. A with intent to gain from B took B’s watch but later

found out that it was the watch he (A) lost = Impossible Crime (legal impossibility because in theft property taken must belong to another)

Employment of Inadequate means (example, with intent to poison B, A put a small amount of poison in the food believing it was sufficient)*Adequate means employed but result expected was not produced is not impossible crime but frustrated murderEmployment of ineffectual means (example, A tried to kill B by trying to put poison in B’s soup but A put sugar instead, thinking it was arsenic = ineffectual means; A wanting to shoot B but found out that it was empty when the trigger was pressed = ineffectual means = impossibility)

Reason for punishing impossible crimes: Suppress criminal propensity or tendencies

ARTICLE 5. DUTY OF THE COURT IN CONNECTION WITH ACTS WHICH SHOULD BE REPRESSED BUT WHICH ARE NOT COVERED BY LAW AND IN CASES OF EXCESSIVE PENALTIES – WHEN 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 INDUCED THE COURTS TO BELIEVE THAT THE SAID ACT SHOULD BEMADE THE SUBJECT OF PENAL LEGISLATION.

IN THE SAME WAY, THE COURT SHALL SUBMIT TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE, 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.

Requisites of Art5(1):1. Act committed appear not punishable by any law2. Court deems it necessary to repress such act3. Court must render the proper decision by dismissing

the case or acquitting the accused4. Make a report stating the reasons why the said act

should be made the subject of penal legislationRequisites of Art5(2):

1. Court finds accused guilty after trial2. Excessive penalty because:

a. Accused acted with lesser degree of malice and / or…

b. There is no injury or injury caused is of lesser gravity

3. Court should not suspend the execution of the sentence

4. Judge should submit a statement recommending executive clemency

Penalties are not excessive when intended to enforce a public policy.*Duty of the courts to apply the penalty provided by the law*Judge has the duty to apply the law as interpreted by the SCArticle5 applies only to acts mala in se or crimes committed with criminal intent

ARTICLE 6. CONSUMATED, FRUSTRATED AND ATTEMPTED FELONIES [Stages of acts of execution] – CONSUMMATED FELONIES, AS WELL AS THOSE WHICH ARE FRUSTRATED AND ATTEMPTED ARE PUISHABLE.

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

FELONY AS A CONSEQUENCE BUT WHICH, NEVERTHELESS, DO NOT PRODUCE IT BY REASON OF CAUSES INDEPENDENT OG THE WILL OF THE PERPETRATOR.

THERE IS AN ATTEMPT WHEN THE OFFENDER COMMENCES THE COMMISSION OF THE FELONY DIRECTLY BY OVERT ACTS, AND DOES NOT PERFORM ALL THE ACTS OF EXECUTION WHICH SHOULD PRODUCE THE FELONY BY REASON OF SOME CAUSES OR ACCIDENT OTHER THAN HIS OWN SPONTANEOUS DESISTANCE.

CONSUMMATED – all elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are presentFRUSTRATED – all acts of execution was performed but felony was not produced by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetratorATTEMPTED – commission of felony by overt acts was commenced but all the acts of execution was not performed by reason of some causes or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance

2 Stages in the development of a crime1. Internal Acts – mere ideas in the mind (not

punishable)2. External Acts

a. Preparatory Acts (GR: not punishable) – example, possession of picklocks (Art304)

b. Acts of Execution – punishable by RPCELEMENTS OF ATTEMPTED FELONY:

1. Commences the commission of felony by directly overt acts

2. Does not perform all the acts which should produce felony

3. Offender’s act is not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance

4. Non-performance of all acts of execution was due to some other cause or accident

Felony is deemed commenced when:1. There is an external act2. External acts have direct connection with the crime

intended to be committedOVERT ACTS – physical activity or deed indicating intention to commit a particular crime, more than mere planning or preparation, which if carried to its complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles not by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense*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*Overt acts may not be physical activity (example, proposal intended to bribe a public official or employee)INDETERMINATE OFFENSE – purpose of the offender in performing the act is not certain; we do not know what crime is in the mind of the offender; crime has not yet been determined and there are two possibilities when the accused was caught*Intention of the accused must be viewed from the nature of the acts executed by him and not from his admission

*Acts susceptible of double interpretation cannot be considered as ground for attempted crime*Offender must personally execute the commission of the felony by taking direct part in the execution of the act*Spontaneous desistance – discontinuance of the crime by his own free will (not punishable – it is the law’s reward to those having one foot on the verge of the crime and heeding the call of their conscience and return to the path of righteousness)*Desistance should be made before all acts of execution are performed*Spontaneous desistance exempts criminal liability for intended crime but does not exempt him from crime committed before his desistanceSUBJECTIVE PHASE – portion of acts constituting the crime starting from the point offender begins the crime to the point where he still controls his acts, including his acts’ natural courseOBJECTIVE PHASE – no more control over his acts

ELEMENT OF FRUSTRATED FELEONY:1. Performs all acts of execution2. Acts would produce felony as a consequence3. Felony is not produced4. By reason of causes independent of the will of the

perpetrator*It is homicide / murder if felony is consummated and victim dies; but if victim survives = frustrated*Mortal wound without death = frustrated*Wound which is not mortal or absence of wound = attempted (as long as there is intent to kill)

Rules on Crimes Against Persons (murder, homicide, parricide and infanticide) and the stages of execution:

Death IntentGravity of the Wound

Crime

YesPresumed

Conclusively by Law

MortalConsummated

MHPI

No YesMortal

WoundsFrustrated

MHPI

No YesNon-Mortal

WoundsAttempted

MHPI

No YesOvert Act only, no Wound

Attempted MHPI

No NoMortal Wound

Serious Physical Injuries

No NoNon-mortal

Wound

Less Serious / Slight

Physical Injuries

Impossible Crime

Evil intent is present although

the felony was not accomplished

Frustrated / Attempted

Cannot be accomplished

Possible accomplishment

Impossibility of accomplishment or ineffective means

Accomplishment stopped by extraneous variables

CONSUMMATED FELONY - All elements of felony must be present to hold accused liableThere is no felony if:

1. Felony is not shown to be consummated2. Felony is not shown to be committed3. Another felony is committed

How to determine whether the crime is only attempted or frustrated or it is consummated?

1. Nature of the offense (example, consummated arson – any part of the house was burned no matter how small; frustrated arson – there is fire but no part was burned; attempted arson – about to set fire)

2. Elements constituting felony3. Manner of committing the crime

a. Formal Crimes – consummated in one instant, no attempt (example, slander and false testimony)

b. Crimes consummated by mere attempt or proposal or by overt acts (example, fight to enemy’s country, corruption of minors, treason)

c. Felony by omissiond. Crimes requiring the intervention of two

persons to commit them are consummated by mere agreement (example, betting in sport contests and corruption of public officials)

e. Material Crimes – three stages of execution (attempted, frustrated and consummated)

*There is no attempted or frustrated impossible crime (no attempted because acts of execution was already performed; no frustrated because acts performed by offender are considered to constitute consummated offense)

ARTICLE 7. WHEN LIGHT FELONIES ARE PUNISHABLE – LIGHT FELONIES ARE PUNISHABLE ONLY WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN CONSUMMATED, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE COMMITTED AGAINST PERSONS OR PROPERTY

LIGHT FELONIES – infractions of the law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto menor [1-30days improsinment] or a fine not exceeding 200pesos or both is provided [Art9 (3)]GR: Light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated (reason: felonies such light, such insignificant moral and material injuries that public conscience is satisfied with providing a light penalty for their consummation)Exception: Light felonies committed against persons or property are punishable even if attempted or frustrated (reason: felonies against persons or property presupposes in the offender moral depravity)Not consummated = no need for providing for its penaltyLight Felonies under RPC:

1. Slight physical injuries (Art266) – against persons2. Theft (Art309 (7) and (8)) – against property3. Alteration of boundary marks (Art313) – against

property4. Malicious mischiefs (Art328 (3) and Art329(3)) –

against property5. Intriguing against honor (Art 364) – against persons

*Art309 (7) – theft by hunting or fishing or gathering fruits, cereals or other forest or farm products upon an inclosed estate or field where trespass is forbidden and the value of the thing stolen does not exceed 5pesos*Art309 (8) – theft where the value of the stolen property does not exceed 5pesos and the offender was prompted by hunger, poverty, or the difficulty of earning a livelihood

ARTICLE 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 THEREOF.

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 PORPOSES ITS EXECUTION TO SOME OTHER PERSON OR PERSONS.

CONSPIRACY – 2 or more persons come into an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit itGR: Conspiracy is not a crimeException: law specifically provides for its penalty (example, treason, rebellion and sedition) [reason: conspiracy and proposal to commit a crime are preparatory acts which the law regards as innocent or at least permissible except in rare and exceptional cases]Requisites of Conspiracy:

1. 2 or more persons come into an agreement – meeting of the minds

2. The agreement concerned the commission of a felony – agreement to act, to effect or to bring about

3. Execution of the felony be decided upon – determination to commit the crime of treason, rebellion or sedition

*Direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy – it may be inferred from the collective acts of the accused, before, during and after the commission of the crime*No crime if conspirators do not perform overt acts in furtherance of their malevolent designs, Sovereignty of State is not outraged and tranquility of the public is undisturbed.Punishable Conspiracies:

1. Conspiracy to commit treason (Art115) – prision mayor and fine not exceeding 10,000pesos

2. Conspiracy to commit coup d’etat, rebellion or insurrection (Art136) – prision mayor in its minimum period and fine not exceeding 8,000pesos*Rebellion and insurrection punishable by prision correccional in its maximum period and fine not exceeding 5,000pesos

3. Conspiracy to commit sedition (Art141) – prision mayor in its medium period and fine not exceeding 2,000pesos

*Treason, Coup d’etat, rebellion or sedition should not be actually committed to be held liable for conspiracy (sufficient that 2 or more persons agree and decide to commit such)

*If committed, they will be liable for the crime and the conspiracy will be considered as a manner by which criminal liability is incurred – not a separate offense

Conspiracy as FelonyConspiracy as manner of

incurring criminal liabilityCrime actually committed;

the act of one is the act of all; conspiracy is not punishable

as a separate offenseExamples:

1. A and B decided to rise publicly and take arms against the gov’t with the help of their followers = liable for conspiracy. But if it was actually committed, they are liable for rebellion and conspiracy is only a manner of incurring criminal liability

2. A B and C decided to kill D. Even if they fail to carry out the plan, there is no conspiracy because the crime they conspired to commit is murder, not treason, rebellion or sedition. But if plan was executed, conspiracy is again a manner of incurring criminal liability.

Indications of Conspiracy1. People vs. Geronimo – when the defendants by their

acts aimed at the same object, one performing one part and the other performing another part so as to complete it, with a view to the attainment of the same object, and their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact concerted action and concurrence of sentiments, the court will be justified in concluding that said defendants were engaged in a conspiracy

2. People vs. Cantuba – accused has been held as a co-conspirator as the circumstances of his participation indubitably showed unity of purpose and unity in the execution of the unlawful acts, gleaned from that fact that he knew the plot to assassinate the victim as he too had been ordered to scout for a man who could do the job; he also knew exactly the place where the killing was to take place and also the date and approximate time of the assault

3. People vs. Hernandez – for a collective responsibility among the accused to be established, it is sufficient that at the time of the aggression, all of them acted in concert, each doing his part to fulfill their common design to kill their victim, and although only one of them may have actually stabbed the victim, the act of that one is deemed to be the act of all

Acts of the defendants must show a common design – there must be unity of purpose and unity of execution of the unlawful objectivePeriod of time to afford opportunity for meditation and reflection is not required in conspiracy – conspiracy arises on the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the felonyArt186 punishing conspiracy – monopolies in restraint of trade – prision coreccional in its minimum period or fine ranging from 200-6,000pesos or both, upon those who (1) shall enter into a contract or agreement or shall take part in any conspiracy or combination in the form of a trust or otherwise in restraint of trade or commerce to prevent by artificial means

of free competition in the market (3) any person who, being a manufacturer, producer, shall conspire or agree with any person for the purpose of making transactions prejudicial to lawful commerce, or of increasing the market price of any such merchandise

PROPOSAL (must not be actually committed)Requisites:

1. Person has decided to commit a felony2. He proposes its execution to some other person or

persons*Not necessary that the person to whom proposal is made agrees to commit treason or rebellion

No criminal proposal when:1. Person who proposes is not determined to commit the

felony2. There is no decided, concrete and formal proposal3. Not the execution of felony that is proposed

*Desistance before any rebellious act is actually performed = no proposal*Proposal as an overt act of corruption of public officer = crime of corruption of public officerCrimes in which conspiracy and proposal are punishable:

1. Treason – external security of the State2. Coup d’etat and rebellion – internal security of the

State3. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade –

economic security

ARTICLE 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 ARTICLE 25 OF THIS CODE.

LESS GRAVE FELONIES ARE THOSE WHICH THE LAW PUNISHED WITH PENALTIES WHICH IN THEIR MAXIMUM PERIOD ARE CORECCIONAL, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ABOVE-MENTIONED ARTICLE.

LIGHT FELONIES ARE THOSE INFRACTIONS OF LAW FOR THE COMMISSION OF WHICH THE PENALTY OF ARRESTO MENOR OR A FINE NOT EXCEEDING 200PESOS, OR BOTH, IS PROVIDED.

1. Capital Punishment = death penalty2. Grave Felonies = Afflictive Periods – even if the

word “any” is used, when penalty prescribed is composed of two or more distinct penalties, the higher/highest of the two is the afflictive penalty [Art 25 – Afflictive Penalties – Reclusion Perpetua, Reclusion Temporal, Perpetual or Temporary Absolute Disqualification, Perpetual or Temporary Special Disqualification and Prision Mayor; fine exceeding Php6,000]

3. Less Grave Felonies = Coreccional Penalties [Prison Correctional, Arresto Mayor, Suspension, and Destierro; fine not exceeding Php6,000]

4. Light Felony [arresto menor and fine not exceeding Php200]

Death - indivisibleReclusion perpetua - life imprisonment (20years and 1day to

40years)Reclusion temporal - 12 yrs 1 day to 20 yearsPrision Mayor - 6 yrs 1 day to 12 years Prision correctional or destierro - 6 mos. 1 day to 6 yearsArresto Mayor - 1 month 1 day to 6 monthsArresto Menor - 1 day to 30 daysFinePublic Censure - indivisible

ARTICLE 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 SPECIFICALLY PROVIDE THE CONTRARY.

RPC is not intended to supersede special laws.RPC is considered supplementary to special laws unless contrary is provided.SPECIAL LAWS – penal law which punishes acts not defined and penalized by the Penal CodeSupplementary – supplying what us lacking; additional

Provisions of penal code on penalties cannot be applied to offenses punishable under special laws (reason: special laws do not provide for a scale of penalties and penalty provided by special law does not contain three periods)

Attempted or frustrated stage of execution of an offense penalized by special law is not punishable unless the special law provides a penalty therefor (special law has to fix penalties for attempted and frustrated crime).When special law covers the mere attempt to commit the crime defined by it, the attempted stage is punishable by the same penalty provided by that law.*Art10 no applicable to punish an accomplice under special laws (People vs Padaong)Plea of guilty is not mitigating in illegal possession of firearms, punished by special lawsSpecial laws amending RPC are subject to its provisions.

Divisible Penalty – Penalty which can be divided into 3 [Reclusion Perpetua is Indivisible]

Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability:1. Justifying Circumstances (Art11) 2. Exempting Circumstance (Art12) – There is a crime

but no criminal3. Mitigating Circumstance (Art13) – There is a crime

but no full criminal / evil intent (lesser penalty)4. Aggravating Circumstances (Art14) – example,

taking advantage of one’s knowledge5. Alternative Circumstance (Art15) – Depends, it may

mitigate or aggravate

IMPUTABILITY – quality by which the act may be ascribed to a person as its author or owner; implies that the act committed has been freely and consciously done

RESPONSIBILITY - obligation of suffering the consequences of the crime; obligation of taking penal and civil consequences of the crime

GUILT – element of responsibility for a man cannot be made to answer for the consequences of a crime unless he is guilty

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES –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 is free from both criminal and civil 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:FIRST. UNLAWFUL AGGRESSIONSECOND. REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED TO PREVENT OR REPEL ITTHIRD. LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION ON THE PART OF THE PERSON DEFENDING HIMSELF

2. ANYONE WHO ACTS IN DEFENSE OF THE PERSON OR RIGHTS OF HIS SPOUSE, ASCENDANTS, DESCENDANT, OR LEGITIMATE, NATURAL, OR ADOPTED BROTHERS OR SISTERS, OR OF HIS RELATIVES BY AFFINITY IN THE SAME DEGREES, AND THOSE BY CONSANGUINITY WITHIN THE FOURTH CIVIL DEGREE, PROVIDED THAT THE FIRST AND SECOND REQUISITES PRESCRIBED IN THE NEXT RPECEEDING CIRCUMSTANCE ARE PRESENT, AND THE FURTHER REQUISITE, IN CASE THE PROVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE PERSON ATTACKED, THAT THE ONE MAKING DEFENSE HAD NO APRT 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 ARTICLE ARE PRESENT AND THAT THE PERSON DEFENDING BE NOT INDUCED BY REVENG, RESENTMENT OR OTHER EVIL MOTIVE.

4. ANY PERSON WHO, IN ORDER TO AVOID AN EVIL OR INJURY, DOES AN ACT WHICH CAUSES DAMAGE TO ANOTHER, PROVIDED THAT THE FOLLOWING REQUISITES ARE PRESENT:FIRST. THAT THE EVIL SOUGHT TO BE AVOIDED ACTUALLY EXISTSSECOND. THAT INJURY FEARED BE GREATER THAN THAT DONE TO AVOID ITTHIRD. THAT THERE BE NO OTHER PRACTICAL AND LESS HARMFUL MEANS OF PREVENTING IT

5. ANY PERSON WHO ACTS IN THE FULFILLMENT OF A DUTY OR IN THE LAWFUL EXERCISE OF A RIGHT OR OFFICE

6. ANY EPRSON WHO ACTS IN OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED BY A SUPERIOR FOR SOME LAWFUL PURPOSE

Justifying Circumstances – those where the act of a person is said t be in accordance with law so that such person is deemed not to have transgressed the law and is free from criminal and civil liabilityJustifying Circumstances = No crime committed (reason: the element of intent is lacking and without it, there is no voluntariness and no felony)GR: Prosecutor has the burden of proofException: Burden of Proof is upon the accused to prove in order that criminal liability may be avoidedGR: no civil liabilityException: Art11 (4)

SELF-DEFENSE*Must be proved by clear and convincing evidence – accused must rely on his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecutor’s evidence*Includes not only the defense of the person / body but also his rights, the enjoyment of which is provided by the law (life, property, honor)

ELEMENTS:1. Unlawful Aggression2. Reasonable means employed to prevent or repel it3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the

person defending himselfReason why Self-Defense is Lawful: Impossible for the State to prevent aggression upon its citizens, even foreigners and offer protection tot hose who were unjustly attacked; Man’s instinct to protect, prevent, repel and save his person / right from impending danger or peril (Self-preservation of man)

UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION – indispensible element (statutory and doctrinal requirement)*There is no self-defense when there is no unlawful aggressionNo unlawful aggression = nothing to prevent = no basis for second element2 Kinds of Aggression:

1. Lawful – fulfillment of a duty or exercise of a right in a more or less violent manner

2. Unlawful – assault or threatened assault of an immediate and imminent kind; when there is peril to one’s life, limb or right, actual / imminent; there must be actual physical force or actual use of weapon

*Threat must be offensive and positively showing the wrongful intent to cause injury*Unlawful aggression presupposes actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude; refers to an attack which has actually broken out or materialized or at the very least is clearly imminent*There must be real danger to life or personal safetyNo peril to one’s life, limb or right = no unlawful aggression*Insulting words without physical injuries is not unlawful aggression*Slapping = unlawful aggression (reason: dignity of a person)*Mere belief of impending attack is not sufficient

*”foot-kick” greeting is not unlawful aggression*Strong retaliation for an injury or threat is unlawful aggressionRetaliation – aggression begun by injured party ceased to exist when accused attacked him*Unlawful aggression must come from the person who was attacked by the accused*Public officer exceeding his authority is an unlawful aggressor*Nature, character, location and extent of wound of the accused inflicted by the injured party contradicts the claim of self-defense*Improbability of the deceased being the aggressor contradicts the claim of self-defense*When aggressor flees, unlawful aggression no longer exists but if the retreat was made in order to take a more advantageous position, unlawful aggression still exists*Agreement to fight = unlawful aggression (challenge to fight must be accepted, otherwise, it is self-defense)Stand ground when in the right – where the accused is where he has a right to be, the law does not require him to retreat when his assailant is rapidly advancing upon him with a deadly weapon (reason: he runs the risk of being attacked in the back if he flees)*The beliefs of the accused may be considered in determining the existence of unlawful aggression*Threat to inflict real injury is unlawful aggression – act must be offensive and positively strong, showing wrongful intent of the aggressor to cause injury (threatening attitude is not unlawful aggression)*Expected aggression is still real provided that it is imminent

2nd Requisite of Self-Defense: Test of Reasonableness1. Nature and quality of weapon used by aggressor2. Physical condition, character, size and other

circumstances3. Physical condition, character, size of the person

defending himself4. Place and occasion of the assault

*When only minor injuries are inflicted after unlawful aggression has ceased to exist, there is still self-defense if mortal wounds were inflicted at the time the requisites of self-defense were present*Person defending himself is not expected to control his blows (reason: person in the heat of an encounter at close quarters, was not in a position to reflect coolly or to wait after each blow to determine the effects thereof)*In repelling or preventing unlawful aggression, the one defending must aim at his assailant and not indiscriminately fire his deadly weapon*Perfect equality of weapon is not required (reason: person being assaulted does not have sufficient tranquility of mind to think, to calculate and to choose which weapon to use)GR:

1. Dagger / knife is more dangerous than a club (exception: no other available means or no other means by which he can coolly choose a weapon)

2. Firearm vs. dagger / knife (allowed provided it falls under the exception mentioned above)

3. Fist must be repelled by fist also (provided aggressor and defender are of the same size and strength)