CRIMINAL LAW IJune 4, 2014, Wednesday

Enlightenment We can learn the law by ourselveswe can study the law and advocate it.We can now access the law directly through technology.We do not need anybody to tell us anymore.

Philippine Criminal Law Online Systems

Grades: 50 item Midterms, 50 item Final Exams (Multiple Choice Questions)

Objectives:REVISED PENAL CODE = GENERAL PENAL LAWSpecial Criminal LegislationRA 6232 Anti-Violence Against Women and ChildrenComprehensive Dangerous Drugs ActAnti-Trafficking ActTobacco Regulation Act

Learn about Crimes Concepts of Felonies and Offenses The notion of crime is a consequence of the existence of legislation criminalizing the activity. There cannot be a crime without a law making it a crime, or a penalty without a law that has prescribed it. Motivations behind penal laws.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW Preliminary Considerations Definition of Criminal or Penal Law

OBJECTIVE: Deterring Criminality; but note: the Govt does not want to impose punishment on its constituents. Medidas de Seguridad (Measures of Security/Prevention or Safety non-penalties) The imposition of Punishment fines, inhibitions, imprisonment

Example: Joseph Estrada convicted of plunder, pardoned by President, but prohibited him from running for public office. Challenged in the SC.

HISTORY: Spanish Legal Code of 1870 (3 volumes) was extended to the Philippines in the 1880s became our Penal Law until Revised Penal Code of 1932 (2 volumes, excluding crimes of little consequence/minor faults designated to local governments/ordinances).

Lorenzo vs Posadas Dissent of Malcolm, J in People vs Moran

Criminal Law as a branch of Municipal Law (individuals and the state)Municipal Law separated from Intl Law (dualist theory)Private Law: individuals and their relationshipsThats why its People of the Philippines vs X

CRIMINOLOGY Criminal Biology Criminal Sociology Penology Criminal Policy Etiology Criminal statistics

RATIONALE OF PENAL LAW: People vs Young 83 Phil 72, US vs Sotto 38 Phil 666, People vs Carillo and Raquenio 85 Phil 611, People vs de la Cruz 76 Phil 169, People vs Revilla CA 37 OG 1898 People vs Galano CA 54 OG 5897

Two theories in Criminal Law, Basic Principles, Rationale, Report on Code of Crimes (p.2?)

June 7, 2014, SaturdayDEFINITION OF CRIMINAL OR PENAL LAW(12 CYC. 129; Lorenzo vs. Posadas (retroactivity), 64 Phil. 353, citing 59 C, J. 1110; Dissent of Malcolm, J., in People vs. Moran (Prescriptive Periods, 44 Phil. 387).)

If the new law shortens the prescriptive period, the retroactivity in Sec. 122 of the Revised Penal Code can be applied.

TWO THEORIES IN CRIMINAL LAW1887 Spanish Penal Law (applying 1870 Penal Law in Spain) Revised by Rafael Belpan Presented as Correctional Code rejected by Phil Legislature 1932 DOJ appoints Commission to draft Revised Penal Code.

Unfortunately, this barely modified the Spanish Penal Code. There was an effort justifying and exempting some circumstances.

1. CHARACTERISTICS OF CLASSICAL THEORYa. Human Free Will as Basis of Criminal Liability; Retribution as Purpose of Penalty. Section 12 enumerates circumstances granting exemption from criminal liability. RA 9344. Age 9-15, with discernment is possible to incur criminal liability with free will and judgment.b. Man as Essentially Moral Creature, with absolutely free will to choose between good and evil: with stress on effect or result of felonious act, rather than upon man, criminal himself. The absence of criminal intent is a defense for exculpation. Article 365 is a remnant of the basis of result of focus on effect.Example: Reckless Imprudence. Part of Quasi-Offenses. Murder and Homicide (Article 248).c. Endeavors to establish a mechanical and direct proportion between crime and penalty.d. Pays scant regard to human element.Justification of Classical Theory is Retribution for the crime.

2. CHARACTERISTICS OF POSITIVIST THEORYa. Man as being subdued occasionally by strange and morbid phenomenon constraining him to do wrong, in spite of or contrary to his volition.b. Crime as essentially social and natural phenomenon that cannot be treated and checked by application of abstract principles of law and jurisprudence nor by imposition of punishment, fixed and determined a priori (HistoryFurbach: French Revolutions concept of legality taken against ancient regime: the exercise of despotic power of judges. There can now be no more crime without a law that defines the act as a crime (the situation before was socially dangerous) at the time of commission, and there can be no penalty without a law that imposes such penalties.c. d. Advocates personal and individual investigation, conducted by a competent body of psychiatrists and social scientists.e. Revised Penal Code is based mainly on Classical Theory.

June 11, 2014, Wednesday

For today:Definition of Criminal LawRelated disciplines in criminal scienceIts rationaleTwo prevailing theories in Criminal Law as well as to identify

Characteristics of Criminal Law Generality Territoriality Irretrospectivity

Art. 1,2,3,21, 22, Revised Penal Code Art. 3, 14, New Civil Code Sec. 23, Ch 5, Bk 1, Admin Code of 1987 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic relations and Optional Protocols, Arts. 22, 29, 30, 31, 32, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44,45, 53, 58, 59, 61, 63, 70 RA 9522, amending RA 3046, amended by RA 5446

TERRITORIALITY Art 3: NOT EXCEEDING 12 Nautical Miles Territorial Sea, measured from Baselines. Art. 33 Contiguous Zone MAY NOT EXTEND beyond 24 Nautical Miles 200 NM Exclusive Economic Zoneor Internal Economic Zone Art. 27 Criminal Jurisdiction on board a foreign ship

UNCLOS Arts. 2, 3, 4-26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34-45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51-54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60-72, 73, 74-76, 77,78, 79-85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96-107

INTERNAL WATERS Breadth of the EEZ: Shall not extend beyond 200 NM from the baselines from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.

High Seas are what lies beyond the territorial waters. Free for all states, whether coastal or landlocked.

*NOTE: Some crimes may be tried anywhere (usually these are against mankind): Slavery, Piracy.

EXAMPLES OF SPECIAL PENAL LAWS Art. 2 Revised Penal Code Philippine ship/airship (nationality of vessels) RA 9775 Child Pornography RA 9372 Human Security Act RA 10168 Financing of Terrorism RA 9851 Crimes against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and other crimes against humanity

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Genocide, Crimes against Humanity, War Crimes, Crimes of Aggression)

RA 10175 Cybercrime (sec. 21 Jurisdiction, 22- Intl Cooperation)

Exceptions: Genocide cannot be a basis for exemption from criminal liability (No prescriptive period) by a head of state or diplomatic agents/head of the mission/members of the mission/diplomatic staff.

NOTE: Diplomatic Officials have immunity from criminal action. What is the difference between consular officials and diplomats?Consuls: Civil Functions documents etc.Diplomats: Diplomacy/ Diplomatic Actions.

Definition of Crimes (Bouviers Law Dictionary, Rawles third Revision, Vol. 1, p 729, Whartons criminal Law, 1957, Vol. 1, p11).

Acts or Omissions punishable by law are classified into: Felony Offense Infraction of Ordinances

**When the penalty imposed is not an exercise of sovereign power to define crimes and provide punishment (de Guzman v Subido, 120 SCRA 443; Conde v Mamenta Jr., 142 SCRA 500).

The Philippine Legal System is a mix of the Continental and Anglo-American Legal System.Spanish Civil Code+Penal Code+Corporation Code + American Constitution.

There have been concepts that are lost in translation, such as:Delito el faltas = now construed as felony and misdemeanors.

CRIMES: Felony (punishable by Revised Penal Code) vs. Offense vs. Infraction (of Ordinances) Only violations of statutes enacted by the National Legislature can give rise to crimes or a criminal record--as these terms are used in our law on Local Govts or the Law of Public Officers.

**NOTE: The Local Government Units are not delegated with authority to define what is a crime.

June 14, 2014, Saturday

De Guzman v Subido there is a certain level of moral depravity for an act to be considered a CRIME. There are certain acts, the commission for which would entail a penalty but they would not necessarily be referred to as a crime. Calesa and Cuchero case. Cuchero rode on the passengers seat against a local ordinance. Related to Jaywalking.

US v Santiago Power to criminalize is possessed by the State. This power has not been questioned. Power to criminalize lies.

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT.Louis XIV. The law, thats me. (Power lay in the French Monarch). After the French Revolution, there arose the Principle of Legality, as now recognized by the statute of the International Criminal Court. There can be no crime without a law. Also, there can be no penalty without a law.

Note: The concept of the Civil Code is from the Romans.

In our modern forms of government, the Legislature is considered an attribute of sovereignty, as part of the three great powers of the government. Its among Governments power to tax, eminent domain (taking private property for public use e.g. Land Reform) and police power (power to enact laws and regulations for the general welfare of the people).

Criminalization is also subject to limitations by the constitution. (e.g. Substantive and Procedural due process) The Bill of Rights is one of the sources of such limitations.

This Principle of Limitation became recognized in the Continental/European and Anglo-American Legal Systems:

Ex-post facto legislation the passing of a law arising after the act was committed, and penalizing the act. Limitation of the Arbitrary Powers possessed by the judges in the time of Louis XIVwhen judges can prescribe penalties not prescribed by law. Art. 21-22, embodiment in the Revised Penal Code (Criminal/Penalty Guarantee [no crime can be committed unless prescribed by law/no penalty can be imposed without being prescribed by law] Universality of Principle as stated in the Rome Convention. International laws will be made in accordance with these principles as taught by history.

*Note: US v Tionghong-Power of Government is not only exercised by the legislature. Some offenses are better dealt with by LGUs.

Example: Sheriff Omayatit v Sheriff of Manila.

Bill of Attainder substitutes legislation by judicial determination of guilt. Separation of Powers: Executive cannot enact laws except in times of emergency. Executive should only execute laws. Legislature enacts laws. Judiciary interprets laws.

Example: US v Montecillo Example: US v Donoso power to apply the law is vested in the courts. Executives cannot take unto themselves the impostion of penalties (extra-judicial killings) unlike during the Inquisition: suspects were killed before they were given the chance to prove they were innocent.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Power cannot be done selectively or manner that can be done to promote the interest of certain groups.

Example: Sheriff of Manila vs Moya all cases must be done for all. People of the Philippines vs X. Procedure is being undertaken on behalf of all.

Example: Cooli vs Mamenta very close to de Guzman v Subido (Cuchero Case). Rental of a stall near a public market. What constitutes a crime? Lessee failed to pay his rent. Local Government in Zambales filed criminal charges under ordinance involving penalty and charges. Perception of prosecutor that it is a criminal act.

Lorenzo v Posadas also enables us to interpret a legal provision as criminal. The criminal act would have a penalty involved. Not all acts with penalties would constitute a crime. Penalties/surcharges could constitute only a civil case/administrative process.

E.g. Price controls by DTI. Pricing above SRP is against the imposition of price ceiling/controlling/fixing by the governmentis not a crime except in emergency cases. So there should be an emergency. )

June 18, 2014, Wednesday

DEFINITION OF A CRIME Felony Offense Infraction of Ordinance

*When penalty imposed is not an exercise of sovereign power to define crimes and provide punishment (de Guzman v Subido 120 SCRA 443, Conde v Mamenta, Jr. 142 SCRA 500).

GENERAL PRINCIPLESA. Power to Punish Crimes (People v Pomar 46 Phil 440, US v Taylor (only the legislature can define crimes), 28 Phil 599, US v Pablo, 35 Phil 94, US v Gustilo [on unlicensed firearms different kinds: one violation. One inclination, several acts], 19 Phil 208, People v Gregorio Santiago, 43 Phil 120, People v Chong Hong, 65 Phil 625).a. No Common Law Crimes (made through pronouncements of courts) in the PH (US v Taylor, 28 Phil 599)b. Defensor-Santiago v Garchitorena [32 acts motivated by just one criminal impulse and done on the same occasion. This is charged only once.] one cannot be penalized twice for the same act. Unless there is a difference in elements. In that case there will be simultaneous trials.

*Note: The Sangguniang Bayan/Sangguniang Panlalawigan acts are the same as the Legislature, on a local level.

B. Power to Apply Laws in Criminal Cases (US v Donoso, 3 Phil 234, US v Montecillo 11 Phil 109) Executive cannot try or decide on cases. Only the judiciary exclusively has the power. Sentence is only carried out by the Executive.

C. Characteristics of Criminal Lawa. Generality (Art. 14, New Civil Code) Penal Laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public intl law and to treaty stipulations a waiver can be obtained to try the person exempted from persecution.i. Absolute Exemption from Criminal Prosecution1. Sovereigns or Heads of State.2. Ambassadors (see also Vienna convention on diplomatic relations and optional protocols, arts. 22, 29, 30, 31, 32)3. Ministers Plenipotentiary4. Ministers-Resident5. Charges daffaires6. Warships (US v Bull)ii. Relative Exemption: Dependent on Treaty Stipulation1. Consuls and Vice-Consuls (Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and Optional Protocols Arts 31, 40, 41, 42, 43,44,45,46,47,48,492. Honorary Consul not exempted (Schneckenburger v Moran, 63 Phil 250).iii. Treaty Provisions1. Consuls and Vice Consuls2. US-RP Military Bases Agreement3. VFAiv. Laws of Preferential Application1. 1987 Constitutiona. Members of Congress not liable for libel or slander in connection with speeches or debates in congress or any committee thereof (Sec. 11, Article 6, Const.)b. RA 75 (Oct. 21, 1946) Sec. 4i. Domestics or domestic servants of duly accredited ambassadors, if registered with the DFA are immune from criminal prosecution.c. Persons Subject to Military Lawi. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts over offenses committed by persons subject to Military Law.1. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts unaffected by military character of persons brought before them for trial (US v Sweet, 1 Phil 18), provided civil courts are functioning and no actual hostilities in progress (Valdez v. Lucero, 76 Phil 356). (Oakwood: Art. 67 of the Articles of War and Art. 134-a of Revised Penal Code)2. Sec. 2 of Articles of War.3. Civilian Inducted by proper military authorities as officer and later authorized to head Guerilla Movement (Ruffy vs Chief of Staff, 76 Phil 875).b. Territorialityi. General Rule: Territorial Application of Criminality1. Philippine Territory (Art. 1, 1987 Const.)2. Sec. 3, Administrative Code of 19873. UNCLOS 46,47,48,49, 50 submerged islands not included [those which are only visible during low tide]4. RA 9522, RA 3046, RA 5446, PD 1596, RA 7942 (s3)5. Exclusive Economic Zone, interior waters and maritime zone, atmosphere.6. Exceptionsa. Art. 2 of RPC: Extra-territorialityPersons committing offenses while on Philippine ship or airship.b. Persons forging or counterfeiting coins or currency notes or obligations or securities of the Philippine Government.c. Persons liable for acts connected with introduction into the Philippines of said obligations or security.d. Persons who, while being public officers or employees, should commit offenses in the exercise of their functions.e. Persons committing crimes against national security and the Law of Nations.f. Warships [US v Fowler 1 Phil 614]g. Merchant Vessels (US v Bull, 15 Phil 7)i. French Rule: not triable unless affecting peace and security or endangering safety of state.ii. English Rule: triable unless affecting only internal management of vessel [followed in this jurisdiction].1. When not applicable [mere possession on board foreign vessel in transit [US v Look Chow] 18 Phil 573]2. Applicable when foreign vessel not in transit and Philippine port is destination [US v3. Article 19, Article 60, UNCLOSh. Recent Legislations with Extraterritorial application: International crimesa. RA 9372 Section 58(Human Security Act of 2007) b. RA 10168 (Terrorism) s19-20c. RA 9851 Crimes against humanity, genocide, international humanitarian law s4-9, 17d. Rome Statute of the Intl Criminal Court, art 5, 6,7,8,9,11e. RA 10175 Cybercrime, s 21-22i. Extradition, Definition, and Concepti. Philippine Extradition law (PD 1069), wright, v CA GR 113213, Aug 15, 1994ii. Intl Cooperation, regimes of Mutual Assistancec. Irretrospectivity/Non-/Irretroactivity (Art. 3,21,22&366, Rev. Penal Code) i. Penal Statutes Operate Prospectively (People v Moran, 44 Phil 387; US V Macasaet, 11 Phil 447)ii. Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies [delitos]iii. Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit [dolo] but also by means of fault [culpa].iv. 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 skill.v. Penal Statues Operate Prospectively, nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege. (Art 3, RPC) Art. 22 of the Rome Statute of the Intl Criminal Court.

June 21, 2014, SaturdayArticle 22Nullum crimen sine lege 1. A person shall not be criminally responsible under this Statute unless the conduct in question constitutes, at the time it takes place, a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court.2. The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.3. This article shall not affect the characterization of any conduct as criminal under international law independently of this Statute.Article 23Nulla poena sine lege A person convicted by the Court may be punished only in accordance with this Statute. 1. Ex post facto Law (Sec. 22, Art. III, Const; In re Kay Villegas Kami, Inc., 35 SCRA 429; Tolentino v Angeles 99 Phil 309; Nuez v Sandiganbayan, 111 SCRA 433)a. Test of Ex Post Facto Law (Nuez v Sandiganbayan, supra)

EX POST FACTO1. 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 makes it greater than it was, when committed;3. Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed4. 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. Assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful; and6. Deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty.-In re Kay Villegas Kami, Inc.

2. Bill of Attainder as ex-post facto law (Sec. 22, Art. III, Const.; People v Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382, Montenegro v Castaeda, 91 Phil. 82)vi. Judicial Rulings not applied retroactively (People v Jabinal, [possession of guns] 55 SCRA 607).

*Note: Prescription is the concept where the state has a defined period of time to act on the crime. Afterwards, the state loses the right to prosecute. Imprescriptible Crimes: Genocide, War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity

Mala Prohibita: not wrong in itself, but because the law prohibits it.Example: Right to bear arms / right to revolution.Good faith is irrelevant/not a defense for mala prohibita. The only question to be asked is, Was the act committed? That would be enough for you to bear criminal responsibility.

Versus Mala in sethe act is wrong in itself.

June 25, 2014, Wednesday

vii. When Penal Laws Apply Retroactively (Art. 22 and Rule 5, Art. 62, RPC)1. Favorable to Accused (US v Macasaet, supra, Escalante v Santos, 56 Phil 483; see also Art 366, RPC)a. Examples:i. Degree of imposable penalty is reduced (People v Simon, GR No 93028, July 29, 1994), amendment of Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 by RA 7659 resulted in lower imposable penalty, offense itself is eliminated, removal of subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency to pay civil liability (People v Subido, 66 SCRA 545); For example: Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002 has superseded dangerous drugs act of 1972. People v Simonif court sees retroactive application as favorable to the accused, it may do so without being asked.ii. Prescribing grounds for mitigation or extinction of criminal liability (Laceste v Santos, 56 Phil 472).iii. Providing for prescription of offenses (People v Moran supra)b. Exceptions:i. Accused is a habitual criminal (Art 22, ibid.; People v Alcaraz, 56 Phil 520).Note: A principal can be coerced. Or be liable by mere execution. Or by conspiracy. Or can be liable as part of collective conspiracy.ii. Later Statute precludes application to existing actions or pending cases (Tavera v Valdez, 1 Phil. 468); People v Moran, supra)iii. Accused disregards later law and invokes prior statute under which he was prosecuted (Ferrer v Pecson, 92 Phil. 172).d. Art. 22 of the RPC applies to Special Penal Statutes as well (People v Simon, GR No 93028, July 29, 1994)e. Courts can Sua Sponte (on its own) apply provisions of Art. 22, Revised Penal Code to retroactively extend benefits of more benign law? (People v Simon, GR 92028, July 29, 1994).D. Certainty (Rule of Certainty).a. Every Act made punishable by law must be so defined as to leave no penumbra of uncertainty as to its applicability to a given case.i. Criminal Law in Statute FormE. Personal.a. Penal Law does not allow one to assume anothers criminal liability (People v Gensola, 29 SCRA 483).F. Legalitya. All Crimes must be so defined and penalized by law (Art. 3, 21, 22, Revised Penal Code).i. No Common Law Crimesii. No analogous crimes (Contra: in the defunct Soviet union, an act deemed socially dangerous although not specifically denounced by law, may be punished on grounds of its analogy to conduct prohibited by law.)1. But see (People v Atento), 196 SCRA 357: has the Supreme Court established an offense by analogy when it held that sexual intercourse with a 17 y/o girl with mentality of a 7 y/o child is rape because sexual intercourse with 12 y/o victim is rape?

OTHER FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTIONS OF PENAL LAW.b. Free will, or freedom to choose between right and wrong.i. No Liability if felonious act is committed without free will. (Intelligence, Imbecility, IntentFor Mala in se, elements) c. Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith. (Art. 3, New Civil Code; Sec. 23, Chapter 5, Book I, Admin Code of 1987; People v Navarro, CA, 51 OG 4062).

CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF PENAL LAWS1. Liberal Construction in favor of the offender (US v Abad Santos, 36 Phil. 243).a. Reason (People v Purisima, 86 SCRA 542)i. Reasonable Doubts resolved in favor of accused (People v Ng, 142 SCRA 615).2. Strict Construction against the State (Ibid.)a. Rule does not apply when law is clear or when strict construction will defeat intent, policy and purpose (People v Manantan, 115 Phil 637; People v Gatchalian, 104 Phil 664).b. When capable of Interpretations, adopt that which will give effect to manifest intent and promote its object (US v Toribio, 15 Phil 85; US v Go Chico, 14 Phil 128).3. Construction in Light of Cultural Environment (Legamia v Intermediate Appellate Court, GR No 63817, Aug 28, 1984). Example: Anti-Alias Law Cute Decision by Justice Abad Santos. Who was the real Mrs. Reyes?4. Approved Texta. English Text yields to Spanish Text (People v Manaba, 58 Phil 665; People v Mangulabnan et al., 99 Phil 992; Spanish Text is controlling, People v Mesias, 65 Phil 267; People v Balubar, 60 Phil 698; People v Abilong, 82 Phil 172).b. Brought about by errors in translation, as the Original Penal Code was in Spanish.5. Amendment, Revision and Codificationa. Amendment or Repeali. How effected (David v Dancel, 17 SCRA 696; Estrada v Caseda, 84 Phil 791; People v Garcia, 85 Phil 651).b. Effect of Repeals.i. Distinguished from Expiration of Law (Ang Beng v Commissioner of Immigration, 100 Phil 810).ii. Express Repeals.1. Crime is obliterated (People v Almuete 69 SCRA 410; People v Tamayo, 61 Phil 225; People v Pastor, 77 Phil 1000; Ramirez v CA, 71 SCRA 231; Buscayno (Commander Dante of CPP-NPA) v Military Commission Nos. 1, 2, 6, 25, 109 SCRA 273; People v Concepcion, 44 Phil 126; US v Cua, 12 Phil 241; People v Monton, 158 SCRA 328).2. Pending Action, if any, is dismissed (Ibid).3. Release of Persons convicted under repealed law (Ibid).a. Except:i. Habitual Delinquentii. Repealing law provides otherwise.iii. Implied Repeals (Repeals by re-enactment). when there is irreconcilable inconsistency in the law.1. Repeals by implication not favored.

June 28, 2014, Saturday2. Omission deemed as Repeal (People v Binuya 61 Phil 208; Joaquin v Navarro, 81 Phil 373).3. Implied Repeal by revision or codification (People v Almuete, 69 SCRA 410; People v Binuya, In re Guzman, 73 Phil 51; US v Palacio, Supra; People v Castro, Supra; People v Perfecto, Supra).4. Effect of Repeal on Jurisdiction to try Criminal Cases (People v Pegarum, 58 Phil 715; People v Almuete, supra; People v Pastor, 77 Phil 1000).iv. Effect of repeal or nullity of repealing law (US v Soliman, 36 Phil 5; Cruz v Youngberg, 56 Phil 234).

Example: Piracy in the Revised Penal Code was only defined to be only in high waters. Marcos issued PD 532 on Piracy in PH waters. There was a difference in the definition. You can be prosecuted for both because there is no irreconcilable inconsistency. 6. Resolving Doubts in Favor of Accuseda. When there are inculpatory facts susceptible of two interpretations, the one that will be used is the interpretation leading to acquittal favored (People v Alzaga, 177 SCRA 644 accused may not provide evidence to prove innocence if evidence of the prosecution is weak.)

It is better to have a guilty man go free than an innocent man go to jail.

IV. ARTICLE 1: This Code shall take effect on the first day of January, 1932. It was a revision of an older law of the Spanish dated December 17, 1886, enforcing royal decree of September 4 1884effective four months after.) A. History of Revised Penal Code (US v Tamporong, 31 Phil 321; In Shoop, 41 Phil 213; US v Balcorta, 25 Phil 373; Berbari v Concepcion, 40 Phil 837; Rationale of code of Crimes, Report, p.2)B. Date of Effectiveness (Art. 1 and 366, RPC). If provisions of the older Penal Code are helpful to the accused, they may apply.C. Date of Effectivity of Penal Laws (Time, Inc. v Reyes, 39 SCRA 303; Tanada v Tuvera [1986], 146 SCRA 446). The promulgation of a law must take place before law takes effect.V. ARTICLE 2. (Note: Memorize Article 1-22)A. Source (Sec. 2 of Rafael del Pans Correctional Code of 1916; Code of Maruecos; original draft of German Penal Code of 1913.)B. Jurisdictional Limits of the Philippines (Opinion of Atty-Gen., January 18,1912; Art. 1, Constitution, Sec 3, Chap1, Book 1, Admin Code of 1982, see also discussion under territoriality, above).C. Where offense punishable under the Revised Penal Code is also Punished under Military Lawa. Military and Civil Courts have concurrent Jurisdiction (Domiit Cabiling v Prison Officer, 75 Phil 1, Reyes v Crisologo, 75 Phil 225; Ruffy v Chief of Staff, 75 Phil 875; Concepcino v Jalandoni, 75 Phil 655; Untal v Chief of Staff, 84 Phil. 586).i. But War Crimes are not triable in Civil Courts (Cantos v Styer, 76 Phil 748; Yamashita v Styer, 75 Phil 563, 66 Sup Ct. 340; Kuroda v Jalandoni, 83 Phil 171; Raquiza v Bradford, 75 Phil 50). Criminal law and war crimes is sui generis (of its own kind)criminal law is different from international law on war crimes.1. But See: presently, RA 9851 (Philippine Act on Crimes against Intl Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and other crimes against humanity), Section: 4, War Crimes, 5 Genocide, 6 Other crimes against humanity, 9 irrelevance of official capacity), 33 Superior Orders and Prescription of Law).4. Piracy is triable anywhere (People v Lol-lo and Saraw, 43 Phil 19).VI. ARTICLE III: Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos).Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa).

In the original design: these are the ELEMENTS OF A CRIME under the Revised Penal Code:1. Freedom no one can be convicted when the person was not free to commit the act. (also for Special Penal Laws and Ordinances)2. Intelligence capacity to think. 15 years old and below is incapable of exercising intelligence/discernment (Art. 12) (also for Special Penal Laws and Ordinances)3. Dolo (criminal intent/malice/deceit -- > delicto /dolo / delictum) and Culpa (imprudence lack of skill/negligence -lack of foresight/ fault). For Special Penal Laws and Ordinances, intent to perpetrate the act. (Homicide - Art. 246 Parricide, Art. 248 Murder, Art. 249 Infanticide) Without regard to the mind of the offender.

*Note: In terms of history, we have a lot of Special Penal Laws that deal with Mala In Se.

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.

*Note: Criminal law only aspires to provide penal sanctions by acts manifested externally (positive/negativeomission or commission). Not thoughts.

1. Elements of Felonies (People v Lopez, CA 44, OG 584; US v Barnes, 12 Phil 93). (FELONY/FALTAS/PAGKUKULANG/DELITOS Book 2: Felony vs crime Violations of Ordinances: infractions; Violations of the Special Penal Laws/ Revised Penal Code: offense; violations of the Revised Penal Code are felonies/crimes. In general, they are all violations BUT the term felony/crime/offense is interchangeable anyway!)A. Act.1. Only External Acts are Punished.B. Omission. Art. 275, par. 1; Art. 213, par. 2 [b]; Art. 116 Revised Penal Code.1. Omission must be punishable by Law (People v. Silvestres and Atienza, 56 Phil. 353).C. Punishable by Law (People v. Silvestre and Atienza, supra).1. Nulum Crimen, Nulla Poena Sine Lege (There is no crime where there is no law punishing it).

July 2, 2014, Wednesday

Revised Penal Code usually covers mala in se. Special Penal Laws and Ordinances are mala prohibita but nothing stops LGUs form legislating criminal actsas long as it does not violate constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy.

People v Purisima: National legislation prohibiting carrying deadly weapons. Elements of BP 22 (Bouncing Checks) and Estafa (Art. 315 of Revised Penal Code mala in se not because a check bounced, but because of deceit) are different. Deceit will not be tried under BP 22.

People involved in a crime: Principal Accomplice not principal. What is the act being imputed upon her? Her silence. Her passive presence. NOT GUILTY of complicity/cooperation/collaboration/being an accessory. Accessory

Criminal Law is not to make persons good but to prevent them from committing evil.

Good Samaritan Lawonly when in an isolated location, with an injured person are you liable to help the person.

There can only arise a crime by omission where there is a legal duty that was omitted. Examples: Crime of Possessing an Unlicensed Firearms, Explosives, Dangerous Drugs. Filing of Income Tax Returns.

Note: In the Revised Penal Code there are:250 crimes that have to be deliberate. treason/rape114 crimes that may be committed by negligence/imprudence.

Kusang-loob Kusang-loob pero hindi mo gusto ang kinahinatnan Hindi kusang-loob.US v Maleza classification of falsification of documents by reason of reckless negligence is perfectly legal. You can be punished for recklessly falsifying documents.

Common Sense. It is mans duty to be careful. For fear of punishment. Because you would be responsible for such result. Unless its not forseeable.

July 5, 2014, Saturday

Imprudency = deficiency in skill and foresight. Dolo and culpa.

Medidas de seguridad=security measures. A way of preventing crime. Crime prevention would be better than punishing people. (Article 24)

Imbecility, Somnambulism (sleepwalking) in the case of Taneo no freedom or intelligence.

For as long as there is an absence of any of the elements of a felony, there is a ground for acquittal. Elements are for all crimes, even for mala prohibita. Not withstanding the fact that mala prohibita do not require intent. There must still be intelligence.

Tragedy occurs while 3 people were hunting in the forest. They saw a deer, accidentally/involuntarily killing the person in front. Accident = acting in due care, without intent to cause damage, injures somebody. This is not punishable.

US v Catangay. Punishable because of culpa. There was negligence resulting to homicide.

US v Siy Cong Bieng = adulterated coffee. This is a crime of mala prohibita. Just intent is required to be punished. 30 Phil 577.

Good faith negates criminal intent. But if crime is mala prohibita, good faith is not a defense. Mala prohibita does not require intent. (Art. 217)

Guevarra v Almodovar. GR 75256, Jan 26, 1989. Intelligence is different from discernment. Two children played William Tell. They had bottlecaps on their heads. Tragedy struck. Legal Age of Discernment in the old Penal Code: 9 years old. Now it is 15 years old. 15-18 y/o discernment is still provable.

Discernment is more relative to intelligence than criminal intent. To say therefore that a person acted with criminal intent is not necessarily to act with intelligence.

Timoner v People 125 SCRA 830. Coercion is a defense in itself. This means good faith for the mayor who destroyed a barbershop built ON Maharlika Highway.Being a nuisance per se can be abated.

People v People, Go Foo Suy, People v Diva, People v Marcos 70 Phil 468. The Role of Motive. Motive impels us to do something. Intent is what we strive for ahead of us. Motive is not an element of a crime except in a few crimes. Rebellion: there must be political motive. Acts of Lasciviousness: There must be a lewd motive. Malicious mischief.

Nalunudasan case. Marcos says: no evidence. Nalundasan was shot by a sharpshooter. There may be motive on the part of Marcos, but there was no evidence. There wasnt necessarily intent.

Related: People v Taneo

July 9, 2014, Wednesday

Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code.A. Criminal Liability shall be incurred:1. By any person committing a felony (Delito) although the wrongful act done is different from that which he intended.A) Elements:1) Felony is committed (People v Bindoy, 56 Phil 15; People v Galacgac, CA, 54 OG 1027).A) when act is lawful (People v Salinas, CA 62 OG 3186).2) Wrong done is direct, natural, logical, consequence of felony committed (US v Sornito, 4 Phil 357; US v Zamora, 32 Phil 218; People v Cornel 78 Phil 458; US v Valdez, 41 Phil 497; People v Buhay, 79 Phil 372; People v Quianzon, 62 Phil 162; People v Moldes, 61 Phil 1; US v Marasigan, 27 Phil 604; Uni v Intermediate Appellate Court, 157 SCRA 1).A) Blow was the efficient Cause of Death (People v Ilustres, 54 Phil 544).B) Blow was proximate cause of Death (People v Reyes, 61 Phil 341; Villanueva vda de Bataclan v Medina 102 Phil 181; People v Piamonte, et al, 94 Phil 293)i) How proximate cause is determined (Villanueva vda de Bataclan v Medina 102 Phil 181; People v Luces, CA GR No. 131011-R, July 15, 1955; Definition: Urbano v IAC, 157 SCRA 1).ii) when Felony committed is not the proximate cause: C) Intervening Active Force, which is distinct and absolutely foreign to felonious act of accused (People v Rellin, 77 Phil 1038).i) Resulting injury is due to the intentional act of victim.ii) Death attributable to fever prevalent in locality (People v Palalon, 49 Phil 177).iii) Cause of death not proved (US v Embate, 3 Phil 640).iv) Death attributable to tetanus (Urbano v IAC, 157 SCRA 1).D) Blow Accelerated Death (US v Rodriguez, 23 Phil 22).3) When there is an intervening Cause (People v Palalon, 49 Phil 177).A) Instances not constituting efficient intervening cause:i) Weak or diseased physical condition of Victim (People v Illustre, supra; People v Reyes, supra).ii) Nervousness or Temperament of Victim (People v Almonte, 56 Phil 54; see also People v Quianzon, 62 Phil 162).iii) Causes inherent in victim: Addiction to tuba drinking (US v Bayutas, 31 Phil 584); Victim did not know how to swim US v Valdez, supra.iv) Neglect of victim or third person: (1) victim refused medical attendance or surgical operation (US v Marasigan, 27 Phil 504); (2) failure of doctor to give anti-tetanus injection (People v Red, CA, 43 OG 5072).v) Erroneous or Unskillful medical attention (People v Moldes, supra; People v Morallos, CA, 50 OG 179).4) Even if unintended.A) Error in Personae: mistake in identity of Victim.

2. Impossible CrimesBy 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.

a) Elements1) Act performed would be a crime against persons or property.a) Crimes against persons:1) parricide (Article 246, RPC)2) murder (Article 248, RPC)3) Homicide (Article 249, RPC)4) Infanticide (Article 255, RPC)5) Abortion (Article 256-259, RPC)6) Duel (Article 260-261, RPC)7) Physical Injuries (Article 262-266, RPC)8) Rape (Article 266A-B, RPC)b) Crimes against propertyTheft (308,310,313), usurpation (312-313), culpable insolvency (314), swindling and other deceits (315-317), chattel mortgage (319), arson and other crimes involving destruction (320-326, Amended by PD 1613, Art 320, amended by Sec. 10, RA 7659, PD 1613), malicious mischiefs (Article 327-331).2) Evil Intent.3) Not Accomplished.a) Inherent Impossibilityb) Employment of inadequate or ineffectual meansi) if crime is not produced despite adequate or effectual means: Frustrated felony.4) Reason why impossible crimes are punished.5) No frustrated or attempted stage.b) When accused cannot be convicted of impossible crime. (People v Ignacio)

July 12, 2014, Saturday

Good faith applies for crimes that are committed intentionally. Negligence, it doesnt apply.

For the midterms:1. People v Ramirez, 48 Phil 2062. People v Mabug-at 51 Phil 9673. US v Catolico 18 Phil 5044. US v Penalosa 1 Phil 1095. US v Ah Chong 15 Phil 4886. People v Oanis, et al. 74 Phil 2577. People v de Fernando, 49 Phil 758. People v Guillen 85 Phil 3079. People v Nanguiql, 43 Phil 23210. People v Guevarra 23 SCRA 58

MISTAKE (Ay Mali!/Akala ko) --- may be Criminal or Non-Criminal.

Criminal: Praeter intertionem (fatal injury on account of the weakness of the victimresult going beyond intent), aberration iltus (mistake in the blowhit someone/something else than the intended victim), error in personae (mistaken identity).

Non-Criminal: Prove good faith (DAP). Else, this will be treated as criminal. Good Faith must be one of fact. For foreign laws, mistake of law is not a mistake of fact. Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.

Mistake upon a difficult case of law, (Case of First Impression) good faith may be a defense.

*Note: Every act is presumed to be voluntary.

WHAT IS CULPABILITY?!

In ENGLISH: Culpable: done with criminal intent.In Continental/SPANISH: (Delito doloso (dolo) vs delito culposo (culpa-negligence or imprudence)

An unlawful (illegal, unconstitutional, criminal) act is presumed to have been committed with a lawful intent. Good faith is a defense!If an act is determined to be unlawful, criminal intent has to be presumed and person being accused has to prove good faith. This does not contravene presumption of good faith.

Mala prohibita: not even good faith is an excuse. Technical malversation. Article 220 of RPC. Has public service been embarrassed by DAP?

Go Chico not even an error in law is an excusebecause of mala prohibita; good faith is not relevant.

Mala in segood faith may be used as a defense.

US v Catolico. Acquitted on the ground of action in good faith. Not motivated by personal considerations.

US v Penalosa, 1 Phil 109.

US v Ah Chong, 15 Phil 488. Dagger underneath a pillow. (Fear of robber)

People v Oanis- mistaken identity of Balagtas (Wanted: Dead or Alive criminal)

People v de Fernando escapees in zamboanga going up the stairs.

People v Guillen assassin of Roxas.

US v Divinogood end is not always justified by wrong means. (Practice of Medicine without proper license)

Coverage of Midterms will be Program Modules 1-8 (mostly on the codal side up to 11-15). July 25, 2014Codal: Up to Article 26.

July 19, 2014, Saturday

Article 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.

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.

Malice and degree of injury mala in se. not applicable to mala prohibita.

1. 2. Clearly excessive penalty (Art. 5, Part 2, RPC)A. Act charged is not punished by law but which court deems proper to repress (Art. 5, par. 1, RPC)1. Reasons: Nullum Crimen, Nulla Poena Sine Lege.2. Acting with Lesser Degree of Malice (People v Orifon, 57 Phil 594; People v Castaneda, 60 Phil 604; People v Espino, et al, CA-GR No 14029-R, Feb 20, 1956).3. Duty to apply law as interpreted by SC (People v Santos, et al., 104 Phil 1184).4. Not applicable to Special Penal Laws: Possession of Firearms (People v Estoista, 93 Phil. 654; People v Lubo, 101 Phil. 179); Offenses punished by price control law (Ayuda v People, GR L-6149, Apr 12, 1954); Violation of Dangerous Drugs Act (People v Jandayan, GR No 74871, Feb 27, 1989)5. Does not refer to Crimes Mala Prohibita (People v Quebral, CA, 58 OG 7399).Article 6. 1. Phases in Commission of FeloniesA. Subjective (US v Eduave, 36 Phil. 209)B. Objective (People v Sy Pio (GR No. L-5848).2. Development of Crimes (Actus Reuscriminal act) Actions and Thoughts for Mala In Se (Mens Reafrom a criminal mind/malice/Criminal IntentGood Faith negates Mens Rea)A. Internal Acts.

Motive has nothing to do with criminal intent.Absence of criminal intent may be used to show good motives.

1. US v Eduave, 36 Phil. 209;2. US v Maghirang, 28 Phil. 655; - Intent to injure (only) farmer.3. People v Quianzon, 62 Phil. 162; - injury resulting in death.4. People v de los Reyes, 203 SCRA 707;5. US v Adiao, 38 Phil. 754; - 2009 Valenzuela v People overruled People v Dio (Frustrated theft): At the Bureau of Customs, a belt was stolen.

*Note: Robbery is when there is force or intimidation, in the act of stealing. Theft is when there was none, but there was stealing with intent to gain. US v Erina/Orita (?) frustrated rape [erroneous/wrong/stray case on rape] there is no such thing as frustrated rape, bribery and trespassing. People v Lamahang (attempted robbery), People v Gloria (attempted bribery-conspiracy, proposals to commit an illegal act).6. People v Mercado, 51 Phil. 99;7. People v Borinaga, 55 Phil. 433;8. US v Simeon (farmer with bolo).

Indeterminate Offense-Asks woman for clothes with a gun to her head. (US v limbuangco) checks and estafa.

People v Toling, 91 SCRA 382 A,B,C intimidated D to join them. Present but did not participate. C and B guns for hire. To rob a house. But to Kill X is the real purpose. Murder AB. Robbery ABC. Acquitted D.

People v Quinto, 93 SCRA 605.

Sirs Awesome Pre-Midterm Lecture Below

August 2, 2014, SaturdayOrientation towards Individualizing Penalties and Humanizing Criminal LawGrave Felonies/Grave Penalties MapagpasakitLess Grave Felonies/Correctional Penalties MapagwastoLight Felonies/Light Penalty

Capital = beheading

DEGREES OF PENALTIES:Grave PenaltiesDeath - indivisibleReclusion Perpetual (20 yesars+ 1 day - 40Reclusion Temporal (12 y + 1 day 20y)Prison Mayor (6 y + 1 day 12y)

Correctional Penalties:Prison Correctional (6m +1y 6 y)Arresto Mayor (1m + 1d to 6y)

Light Penalties:Arresto Menor (1-30 days ) (min, med, max)

Modifying Circumstances/Aggravating Circumstances and Mitigating Circumstances

Art. 49 Reclusion Temporal If a crime is committed and penalty is divisiblewithout mitigating/aggravating circumstance, penalty is automatically medium. One ordinary mitigating circumstance = minimum. One ordinary aggravating circumstance = maximum.

RA 9346 suspension of Death Penalty

Generic Mitigating Circumstance (just up to minimum of degree of penalty) v Privileged/Special Mitigating Circumstances (up to 1 to two degrees of penalty lower).

Special Aggravating Circumstance (ex. quasi-recidivism not susceptible of being cancelled out by any ordinary mitigating circumstance. But only raises) v Generic Aggravating Circumstance.

Inherent to the act not aggravating.Obtain partial defense/acquit/absolve duty of a defense counsel.

People v Mesias translation of rice robbery forced upon things. Palay is a mitigating circumstance v bigas.Absolutory Cases (article 6 attempted stage) when attempted only

Image on Circumstances

CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITYI. In General.A. Justifying Circumstances.1. Acts in Accordance With Law.2. Neither Criminal Nor Civil Liability Arises.1. Except under Art. 11 par. 4B. Exempting Circumstances.1. Acts not quite voluntary (imbecility/insanity also)2. No criminal liability results, but civil liability rises.C. Mitigating or Extenuating Circumstances.1. Diminution of Elements of Dolo or Culpa2. Lesser Perversity of Offender.3. Results in Lesser Penalty.D. Aggravating Circumstances.1. Greater Perversity of Offender as shown by:1. Motivating Power.2. Time and Place.3. Means Employed.4. Personal Circumstances of Offender.2. Results in greater penalty without exceeding maximum provided by law or changes nature of crime.E. Alternative Circumstances (QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES)1. Aggravates or mitigates, according to:1. Nature and effects of crime.2. Other conditions attending commission of crime.F. Absolutory Causes.1. Acts actually constituting crime.2. No criminal liability by reason of public policy and sentiment.3. Specific instances.1. Spontaneous desistance at attempted stage (Art. 6, RPC, See people v Cadile, et al., CA 50 OG 5425) and acts performed so far do not constitute crime under other legal provision.2. Light felony is only attempted or frustrated and is not against persons or property (Art 7, RPC)3. Accessories are relatives of principal: Certain relatives NT (People v Galicia, CA 40 OG 4476; People v de la pena, GR 92534, July 9, 1991; People v Ramos, GR Ramos , GR 88301, Oct. 28, 1991)4. Less Serious and Slight Physical Injuries Inflicted under Exceptional Circumstances (Art. 247, RPC)5. Legal Grounds for Trespass: Entry of anothers dwelling to prevent serious personal harm or to render service to humanity or justice or entry of cafes, taverns, inns and other public houses while same are open (Art. 280, RPC).6. Legal Grounds for Detention: Commission of crime, violent insanity or other ailment requiring compulsory confinement of patient in hospital (Art. 124, RPC)7. Theft, swindling, or malicious mischief committed mutually by certain persons related to each other as specified by law (Art. 332, RPC)8. Marriage by Offender with offended party in certain private crimes (Art. 266-C and 344, RPC)9. Instigation (US v Phelps, 16 Phil. 440; People v Gatong-o, 168 SCRA 716).1. Distinguished from Entrapment (People v Galicia, CA 40 OG 4476; People v de la Pena, GR No. 92534, July 9, 1991; People v Ramos, GR 88301, Oct. 28, 1991, Underlying Difference Lies in Origin of Criminal Intent).1. Entrapment not Absolutory (People v Lua Chu and Uy Se Tieng, 56 Phil. 44).2. Why Instigation is Absolutory (State v Hayes, 105 Mo.76; Saunders v People, 38 Mich. 218).3. Simple Discovery is neither instigation nor entrapment (People v Tan Tiong, CA 43 OG 1285).4. Assurance of Immunity from Public Officer is not instigation and does not exempt from criminal liability (People v Alabas, CA 52 OG 3091).G. Performance of righteous Action is Neither Justifying , Exempting, nor Mitigating (People v Victoria, 78 Phil. 122), and neither is it an absolutory Cause.H. Imputability, responsibility, guilt and imputation.1. Imputability: Ascribability of Act to Author.2. Responsibility: Obligation to suffer effects of crime.1. Distinguished from imputability.3. Guilt.1. Sin, Vice and Crime distinguished.4. Imputability Distinguished From Imputation.II. COMPLETE DEFENSES IN CRIMINAL CASES.1. Absence of Proof as to essential element and elemnts proved do not constitute crime.2. Act falls under any justifying circumstances (Art. 11, RPC).3. Act falls under any exempting circumstnaces (Art. 12, RPC).4. Case is covered by absolutory causes (see above).5. Guilt not established beyond reasonable doubt (Rule 133, Sec. 2, New Rules on Evidence).6. Crime has Prescribed (Art. 89, RPC)7. Pardon by offended party before institution of criminal action in crimes against chastity (Art. 344, RPC).III. Article 11.1. Justifying Circumstances.A. DefinitionB. Basis.2. Old Penal Code did not distinguish between justifying and exempting circumstances.A. Freedom from both criminal and civil liability versus freedom from criminal liability alone.3. Burden of Proof of Justification: Upon Accused (People v Bausing, GR No. 64965, July 18, 1991; People v Nabayra, GR No. 96368-69, Oct. 17, 1991).IV. Article 11, Par. 1.1. Self-Defense (Propia Defensa).A. Scope1. Defense of Person or life (Defensa de su vida).2. Defense of Honor (Defensa de su honor).1. When killing for honor held justified.1. Picking up knife of rapist preparing to lie with accused and stabbing him (People v Luague, et al., 62 Phil 504).2. Husband and wife cooperating to kill unarmed person trying to rape wife (People v Ruperto Pineda , 8 ACR 285).3. Inflicting bolo wounds on assailant attempting rape, even if cry for assistance might have been heard by people nearby (US v Sta. Ana and Ramos, 22 Phil. 249).4. Stabbing with knife an attacker who grabbed accused from behind, refused to identify himself, touched her private parts and trying to throw her down (People v de la Cruz, 61 Phil 344).5. Starring with knife for several times assailant who attacked accused in an uninhabited place, has pinned her down, face upward, raised her dress, touched her breast and endeavoring to effect penetration (People v Mengote, CA 49 OG 4874).2. When killing held unjustified.1. No actual danger of being raped, as deceased touched upper thighs of accused inside well-lighted chapel where there were people around (People v Jaurigue, 76 Phil 174).2. Mere touching or grasping of arm, without insistence or repetition which could be considered an attempt against honor, even if intruder did not reply when asked who he was (US v Apego, 23 Phil 391).3. Using Barong (Bolo) of assailant to inflict mortal wound on back of latters neck in struggle of accused to protect her honor (People v Salip Milha, CA 35 OG 3496).4. Killing of paramour not attributable to attempt to rape accused who maintained illicit relation with victim for some time (US v Potestas, 23 Phil. 466).3. Defense of Property Rights (Defensa de sus derechos).1. Basic Presupposition: coupled with attack or person entrusted with property (People v Apolinar, 38 OG 2870).1. When Not Justified.1. After firing in the air, shooting twice victim believed to be stealing palay for not stopping despite calls of accused (People v APolinar, 38 OG. 2870).2. Shooting complainant who was going out with sack of palay from bodega under guard by accused (People v Goya, CA-GR No. 1673-R, Sept. 29, 1956).3. Killing an intruder who entered bodega with apparent intent to steal palay but came out without having carried away any palay (People v Talastas, CA 40 OG 12th Supp. 127; see also US v Vallados, 4 Phil 339).4. Killing an adversary within disputed property, even if attempting to gather crops therein (People v Co Arquiza, 62 Phil 611).5. Killing suspected robber/thief trying to carry away stolen palay from granary (US v Bumanglag, 14 Phil 143).2. When Justified.1. Use by tenant of reasonable force to prevent dispossession from parcel of land he has already cultivated (People v Amado Reyes, CA 40 OG 1690; Art. 429, Civil Code).2. Pointing a gun, whether real or toy, at person demolishing his wall, although same is constructed on land of another (People v Fuentebella, 23 CAR (2s) 946).2. Self-Help: Use of Reasonable Force under Art. 429, Civil Code (People v Amado Reyes, CA 40 OG 1690; see Dissent in US v Brobst, 14 Phil 310; People v Depante, CA 58 OG 926; People v Tilos, CA 36 OG Sup. 5, 277).3. B. Self-Defense Under Mistake of Facts (US v Ah Chong, 15 Phil. 488; People v Boral, 11 CAR (2s) 914).C. Basis: Rationale.1. Positivist and Classical Theories (People v Boholst-Caballero, 61 SCRA 180; Castanares v Court of Appeals, 92 SCRA 567).D. Elements of Self-Defense (Art. 11, par. 1, RPC).E. Unlawful Aggression (Agresion Illegitima).1. Defined (People v LAcson, 10 CAR (2s) 78; People v Sulabo, 15 CAR (2s) 962); People v Alconga, et al, 78 Phil. 466; People v Encomienda, 46 SCRA 522; People v Crisostomo, 108 SCRA 288; People v Pasco, Jr., 137 SCRA 137).2. Nature.3. Significance.5. 6. Elements.1. Actual, Real or imminent.2. Unprovoked or unjustified.3. Externally Initiated.4. But no self-defense when author of aggression not known.7. When required to exist.8. When unlawful aggression held present.1. Aiming a revolver with intent to shoot (People v Resurreccion, CA GR No. 00048-R, Feb 9, 1962).2. Opening a Knife and making a motion as if to attack3. Attempting to Rape a woman4. Unlawful Arrest1. Unlawful aggression by agents of authority:Acting in extra-limitation of functions5. Seizure of Fishing Net without judicial Authority6. Taking personal property of judgment debtor with sentimental value although other personal property of sufficient value are made available (people v Hernandez, 59 Phil 343)7. Strong retaliation for injury or threat (US v Carrero, 9 Phil 544)8. Libel (People v Chua Hiong, CA 51 OG 1932).1. Retaliation must also be in form of another libel (id)9. Efforts by violence or surprise to commit felony in ones home: Provided, coupled with attack on person (People v Salatan, CA 69 OG 10134; People v Mirabiles, CA 45 OG Supp. 5, 277).1. Assault by thief inside house in the dark (People v Salatan, CA 69 OG 10134).2. Violent Entry in ones home (People v Mirabiles)10. Raising a bolo as if to attack (People v Samonte, CA-GR no. 167-R, June 27, 1950).11. Attack with Deadly Weapon where intent to Kill is manifest (People v de la cruz, 61 Phil 422)12. Hurling a piece of wood (People v Alconga, et al., 78 Phil 332). Wife and Guests (People v Javier)9. When unlawful aggression held absent.1. Evasion of promise to marry (People v Guias, 8 CAR (2s) 446).2. Thief caught in the act of stealing property but not manifesting intent to assault persons (People v Apolinar, People v Goya, CA-GR No. 16373-R, Sept. 29, 1965).3. Forcibly pushing picketers to allow entry of trucks in company compound. (People v Calip, et al., 3 CAR (2s) 808).4. Mere threatening attitude:1. Aiming to throw a pot (People v Labinia, 115 SCRA 223).2. Pressing right hand at revolvers holster, even if accompanied by angry countenance (People v Padin, CA-GR No. 11836-R, Feb. 12, 1960).3. Approaching with bolo hanging from waist, with kris on hand but undrawn from sheath (People v de la cruz, 61 Phil. 422).4. Placing hand in pocket as if going to draw something (People v Calantoc; US v Carrero)5. Mere cracking (not firing) of gun, where accused does not even see gun or holder thereof6. Holding hand of person with hunting knife while requesting that same be released so nothing untoward might happen.7. Holding barrel of rifle even trying to grab it, after accused pointed it at deceased and accused was physically located as 8. Mere push or shove not followed by other acts: playful kick at foot by way of greeting among friends (People v Sabio)9. May be mere slight provocation but not aggression10. Kicks and blows which, although excessive, were known to be intended as mere disciplinary measures11. Slight push on the head12. Wounding another while struggling to free oneself from hold of gang (People v Obeda, 101 SCRA 675).13. Retreating Aggressor.1. Aggressor manifested refusal to continue fighting (People v Nicolas, People v Alviar)2. Aggressor lying down and defenseless (People v del Rosario)14. When there was agreement to fight15. Acceptance of challenge to fight as negating unlawful aggression16. Free-for-all fights (People v Kreuse, 12 CAR (2s) 399).

August 9, 2014, Saturday

V. Article 11, Paragraph 2.1. Defense of Relative (Art. 11, Par. 2, RPC).2. Relatives Mentioned by Law (Art. 11, Par. 2 RPC, People v Cabellon, 51 Phil 846).a. Spouseb. Ascendantsc. Descendantsd. Legitimate, Natural or Adopted Brothers nad sisterse. Relatives By Affinityi. Within same degree as those previously mentionedii. Death of Spouse Terminates relationship by affinity (Kelly v Neely, 12 Ark. 667)1. But Continuing if marriage results in issue who is still living (Dearmond v Dearmond, 10 Ind. 191; bigelow v Sprague, 140 Mass. 425).f. Relatives by Consanguinity within fourth civil degree.i. Blood Relatives1. Nephews and nieces2. Uncles and aunts.3. First cousins3. Basis4. Requisitesa. Unlawful Aggression (See discussions under Art. 11, Par. 1, RPC)i. When absence in defense of relative (People v Moro Munabe, CA 46 OG 4392; People v Panuril, CA 40 OG 1477).ii. May be based on honest belief:

Does not preclude defense of relative.(1) Reason: Defender may be purely prompted by noble, generous sentiment

VI. Article 11, Paragraph 3A. Defense of Relatives (art. 11, par.3 RPC)1. Who are deemed strangers (People v Ancehta, et al., 66 Phil 638; People v Valdez, 58 Phil 31; US v Subingsubing, 31 Phil 376).2. Basis (US v Aviado, 38 Phil. 10).3. Requisites.1. Unlawful Aggression (See discussion under Art. 11, Par. 1, RPC)2. Reasonable Necessity of Means Employed (See discussions under Art. 11, Par. 1, RPC)3. Defender not induced by revenge, resentment, or or other evil motive1. When third requirement not present (People v Cabellon and Gaviola, 51 Phil 851, Acting under impulse of resentment).

VII. ARTICLE 11, Paragraph 4A. State of Necessity: Avoidance of greater evil or injury (Art. 11, Par. 4, RPC)B. Damage ot another Embraces:1. Injury to Persons (People v Norma Hernandez, CA 55 OG 8465).2. Damage to Property (Tan v Standard Vacuum Oil Co. 91 Phil 672).3. Requisites.1. Actual Existence of Evil Sought to be Avoided.1. When No avoidance of evil (People v Ricohermoso, etal., 56 SCRA 431).2. Injury Feared Greater than that done to avoid it.3. Absence of other practical, less harmful means.C. Civil liability obtains even if no criminal liability arises (Art. 101, RPC)

August 23, 2014, SaturdayArticle 12: Deprivation of Freedom of Action Exempting CircumstancesIrresistible Force or Uncontrollable FearDegree of Irresistible Force or Uncontrollable Fear = For the person to act as a weapon of another.Crimes committed by Omission insuperable cause vs refusal to do soArbitrary Detention Warrantless Arrest (Article 124, Book 2 RPC)

Article 13: Other Circumstances or Analogous Lack of Freedom or IntelligenceUS v Taneo Not Insane! Just overate fiesta siesta sleepwalked and killed pregnant wife and injured father in law.

Diminished Freedom or Intelligence + one or more requisites for exemption (Privileged Mitigating Circumstance, e.g. 15-18 y/o with discernment)

Total Absence of Freedom = Volition TestTotal Absence of Intelligence = Cognition Test (Insanity)

One for of Mistake (Praeter Intentionem) Act was wrong as to that which he intended (People v Cagoco)

Sufficient Provocation preceding the act must be commensurate to act (Self-Defense) Unlawful Aggression

(People v Quiamzon)..effect of provocation on the offender leading to diminution in the exercise of his intelligence.

Vindication of Grave Offense = Diminished Intelligence Immediately Preceded (Proximate, reasonable interval in Spanish) by sufficient Provocation or Threat to close relatives

Impulse (Pagdidilim ng Isip) US v Hicks Shooting of common law wife is not lawful. People v Bello Old man in the forest with woman from a well-lighted place. Man kills woman in movie theater. Man was provoked by the promiscuity of the woman.

Woman pours water on herself. She gets raped. Lawful sentiment as provocation, not bestial instinct.

Disposition of Offender to Reform and Saving the Govt the expense and effort in finding offender and prosecute him asMitigating Circumstance:Voluntary Surrender to a person in authority without force.Admission of Guilt in Court when case is filed prior to presentation of evidence.Spontaneity is KEY.

Diminished Freedom on Account of Restrictive Physical Defects/Disability (Deaf/Mute/Blind) possibly unjustifiably provoked.

Illness of Offender that would diminish willpower of offender without depriving him of his acts.

August 27, 2014, Wednesday

Aggravating Circumstances-Article 14Greater Criminal Perversity of the Offender.Place, Time and other Circumstances.Generic Aggravating CircumstancesSpecial Aggravating CircumstancesCertain inapplicable Aggravating CircumstancesInherent Aggravating CircumstancesPersonal to the Offenders.Qualifying Circumstances

August 30, 2014, SaturdayArticle 14, Par. 131. Evident PremeditationA. Applies to an intended victim.B. Contemplated on a specific class of persons (US v Manalinde running amok)Article 14, Par. 14Aggravating Circumstance:1. Employment of Craft, fraud, or disguise (Art. 14, Par. 14, RPC)2. Basis: Means employed in the Commission of Crime Showing Greater Perversity.3. Application (US v Rodriguez, 19 Phil. 155)A. Craft (US v Gampona, 36 Pihl 817) -- pretending to be an innocent person to avoid suspicion or weaken ersistance1. When Craft not Aggravating Element of Qualified Theft, whereby offender gained possession of jeep from owner through a sham transaction of purchase and sale (People v Tiongson, CA 59 OG 4521)B. Fraudintellectual deception.(inducing victims to give up their arms on promise that they will not be harmed then killing them after they did so) Where accused made victim believe she was to be taken to her godmothers house but actually took her elsewhere to be raped. Victim induced to go down to lower story of dwelling where wine was stored on pretext of accused of wanting to buy wine, then assaulting him as soon as the door was opened. C. DisguiseAccused blacked his face to prevent recognition. Accused covered his face handkerchief before committing crime. Not aggravating when victim recognized the culprit. Wearing of constabulary uniform. Use of assumed name in publication of libel.Article 14, Par. 15.Taking Advantage or superior strength or means employed to weaken defense.1. Basis: Greater perversity shown by means employed.2. Specific Instances.A. Abuse of Superior Strength (Marked difference of physical strength between offended party and offender. Aggressors were armed police officers and deceased was a smaller man, defenseless and intoxicated.B. Evidence of relative physical strength necessary.1. Number of aggressors may point abuse of superiority (US v Tandoc, 40 Phil. 954; People v Caroz, et al. 68 Phil 521).1. But no abuse of superior number when attack made alternately (People v Narciso, et al., GR No. L-24484, May 28, 1968).2. No Abuse of superiority where one acted as principal and two acted only as accomplices (People v Cortes, 55 Phil. 143).C. Abuse of Superior Strength may be aggravating even in coercion and forcible abduction when force used is greatly in excess of what is required to commit offense (People v Fernando et al, CA 43 OG 1717).D. Other Instances when held aggravating.1. Other Instances when held Aggravating.1. Illegal Detention (US v Santiago, 4 Phil 168, 6 Persons took and carried away victim).2. Robbery with Rape (People v Macaya, et al, 85 Phil 540, committed by 5 persons).3. Multiple Rape (US v Camiloy, et al, 36 Phil 757, Committed by 4 Men).E. Cuadrilla does not absorb abuse of superiority (People v Apduhan, Jr., 24 SCRA 800).F. Means employed to weaken the defense (US v Davela et al, 3 Phil 625, Accused suddenly throws cloak over victim and wounds and kills him in that situation, People v Ducusin, 53 Phil 280, Accused intoxicated the deceased; People v Slaotong et al, GR No L-9242, Mar. 29, 1957, Accused Cast sand or dirt on eyes of victim and then wounded and killed him).

Article 15, Paragraph 16.A. TREACHERY = DECEIT = KATRAYDURANB. Basis: Means and ways employed in committing crime, showing greater perversity.C. Rules.1. Applicable only to crimes against Persons (People v Ramos. CA 47 OG 1913). NOT applicable to crimes with public interest (falsification), or against property (estafa)2. Means, methods or forms of execution need not insure accomplishment of crime (People v Parana, 64 Phil. 331).3. Mode of attack must be consciously adopted (People v Tumaob, 83 Phil 742, People v Saez, 1 SCRA 937, People v Dauz, CA 40 OG Supp. 11, 107, People v Abalos, 84 Phil 771, People v Narvaez, 121 SCRA 389, Not Appreciated because merely accidental, the slayer having acted instantaneously).1. Treachery not presumed (People v Ardisa, 55 SCRA 245, Needs to be proven as fully as crime itself, People v Barba, GR No 50434, Nov. 13, 1991, must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, US v Perdon, 4 Phil 141, Not established from mere suppositions; US v Panaligan, 34 Phil. 786, People v Lubreo, GR No 74146, Aug. 2, 1991, cannot be deduced from presumption).1. Rule with exceptions (US v Santos, 1 Phil. 222, Victim tied elbow to elbow, his body bore numerous wounds and his head was cut off, People v Laggui, CA 34 OG 1708, victim is a child, US v Oro, 19 Phil. 554, Victim is child of tender age).D. Requisites.1. At the time of attack, victim was not in a position to defend himself (People v Saquing, 30 SCRA 835, victims made to lie down, hands tied at back, before being killed).1. Treachery may exist even in frontal attack (US v Cornejo, 28 Phil 457, Attack not preceded by dispute and offended party unable to prepare himself for defense; People v Noble 77 Phil. 93), attack so sudden and unexpected).1. But mere suddenness of attack does not itself constitute treachery.2. Offender consciously adopted particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him (People v Saez, 1 SCRA 937).1. Method is to ensure offenders safety: Purpose is to eliminate risk to himself. People v Yadaonvictim on his back, drowsy and unarmed; People v Dequina, People v Miranda, Victims killed while asleep; People v Avila, Victim shot while just awkawening from sleep, People v Noble, Unsuspecting vitim hit on abdomen while wheeling around to face assailant, US v Valdez and Gamit Victim wounded while held from behind by another, People v Mukung, Calling Victim down from house and subjecting him while doing so in volley of shots, People v Rendora, Sudden attack with firearms.3. Treachery must precede commencement of attack which caused injury (US v Balagtas).1. But not needed at beginning of assault where victim was first seized and bound and then killed (US v Elicanal, US v Candelaria)1. But not needed at the beginning of assault where victim was first seiezed and bound the moment the fatalb low was inflicted, Victim was not killed at first shot but on return of accused wafter searching for others, when victim was utterly defenseless.1. GR 427692. Wounding and killing was all so sudden that victims were left defenseless. (People v Pinto)3. Suddenly stabbing victim at stomach after accused came from behind victim who was reading newspaper. (People v GAbatin)4. Stabbing victim while engaged in otherwise peaceful activity of selling Social boxes in a dances party immediately after victim had fallen on dance floor (People v Gabatin)5. Stabbing deceased without warning the moment he unsuspecting released the hand of accused (People v Lacao GR 95320, Sep 4 1991)6. Ambuscade (People v Arroyo, GR No 99258, Sep 13, 1991)7. Shooting victim from a distance of six feet while citim has just started talking to an other person.1. No showing that mode of commission was deliberately adopted, but circumstance proves abuse of superiority.2. Meting between accused and victim was only accidental and attack followed heated dispute between them (People v Velaga, attack done on sudden impulse)E. Relationship to other aggravating circumstances.1. Absorbed in treason by killings (People v Racaza)2. Absorbed abuse of superior strength, aid of arm men, by a band and menas to weaken defense (People v Siaotong, US v Estopia, US v Oro, US v Vitug, People v Mori, People v Sespene, People v Sangalang, People v Sudoy).1. But Defeneseless condition of victims held included in abuse of superiority, not treachery (People v Lawas).3. Nighttime inherent in treachery (People v Pardo, People v Corpuz, People v Balagtas).1. When Treachery does not absorb nighttime: When they each rest on independent factual bases (People v John Doe, GR No. L-2463, Mar 31, 1950, People v VErdida et al, 17 SCRA 520, People v Guevarra, GR No. L-24371, April 13, 1968).4. Treachery absorbs taking advantage of official position (People v Pascual, GR No. 42769, Dec, 5, 1991)5. Treachery includes and absorbs craft (People v Malig et al, 83 Phil 804. People v Daos, where craft was considered separately from treachery, it having an independent factual basis, craft used to board taxi without arousing drivers suspicioin, killing done from behind was treacherous)6. Treachery includes disregard of age and sex.7. But treachery does not include dwelling.8. Treachery inherent in murder by poisoning.9. Treachery incompatible with passion and obfuscation (since there is no impulse) People v Wong, CA 70 OG 4844.10. But treachery is not incompatible with lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed (where lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed was not appreciated because treachery characterized the offense ).11. Treachery may be appreciated against co-conspirator. Mastermind held liable for employment of treachery even if he was not present when crime was committed because there was conspiracy.12. But, treachery not appreciated against mastermind charged only as principal by inducement per se wirhout proof of conspiracy when employment of treachery was done without his knowledge and he was not present when crime was committed.

Article 14, Paragraph 17.1. Ignominy.2. Basis: Means employed which shows greater perversity.3. Ignominy defined (US v Abaigar, 2 Phil 417)4. When applicable.A. Crimes against chastity (People v Jose, 37 SCRA 450, People v Torrefiel et al, CA 45 OG 803, Victim raped after accused wound cogon grass around his genital organ (But see discussion on cruelty); US v Iglesias et al, 21 Phil 55, Wife raped in front of husband, US v Casanas, 5 Phil 377, Woman Raped in presence of bethrothed , US v Camiloy, 36 Phil 757, Woman successively raped by four men, People v Detuya, 154 SCRA 410, Wife raped successively by five accused in front of husband , but see People v Mongado, 28 SCRA 642, Not appreciated because rape was done after husband was killed).B. Less serious physical injuries or maltreatment (People v Fernando, CA 43 OG 1717, Accused took off drawers of woman being forced to confess charge of theft).C. Light or grave coercion (People v Cantiong CA 50 OG 5899, Accused, acting under the impulse of anger, rather than desire to satisfy lust, embraced and kiss offended party who was a young woman, people v Fernando, CA 43 OG 1717, Removal by accused of old woman drawers to force her to confess to charge of theft could have no other purpose but to put her to shame).D. Murder (US v de leon, 1 Phil 163, victim land owner forced to kneel before house servants before being killed, People v Nierra, 96 SCRA 1, victim shot in mouth while defacating).

Article 14, Par. 181. Committing Crime after unlawful entry 2. Basis: Means and ways employed to commit crime, showing greater perversity.3. Unlawful entry, defined (People v Sunga, 43 Phil 205R).4. Application (People v Sunga, People v Barruga, 61 Phil 318, Dwelling and unlawful entry taken separately in murders committed in dwelling).A. When not aggravating (US v Barnedo, 17 Phil 509, Trespass to dwelling, unlawful entry bing integral to the crime).

Article 14, Par. 19.1. Breaking wall, etc. (Art. 14, Par. 19)2. Basis: Means and ways employed to cimmit crime showing greater perversity.3. ApplicationA. Cutting of ropes of field tent embraced (US v Matanug, 11 Phil 192).B. When Breaking of door or window is lawful (Rule 113, Sec. 12, Rule 126, Sec. 6, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure).C. Break means actual Breaking, not merely removal of chips as a result of application of force (People v Fernandez, 59 Phil 674).Article 14, Par. 201. Aid of Minor, or by means of motor vehicle2. Basis: Means and ways employed showing greater perversity3. Two aggravating circumstances.A. Aid of minor.B. Use of motor vehicle (People v Espejo, 20 SCRA 400, Motor vehicle used in going to place of crime, carrying effects thereof, facilitating escape, people v Arabia, CA 53 OG 6569, motor vehicle used in carrying away stolen rails and iron and wooden ties from scene of theft, People v Valeriano et al, 90 Phil 31, Motor Vehicle used in transporting accused in robbery with homicide (People v de la Cruz, et al, 100 Phil 625, and People v Atitiw, et al, 14 CA Rep 457, Motor vehicle used to lure and take victims to place where they were killed (People v Maraigan, 70 Phil 583, Taxi hired and used by accused as place where he inflicted mortal wounds upon his girl friend, People v Soriano et al, 134 SCRA 542, victim mauled inside mini-bus, kicked off, and ran over by minibus.1. When not aggravating (People v Batas et al, CA-GR No. 10823-R, Sep. 12 1955, Jeep used in carting away Vicks Vaporub in estafa case, People v Real, 10 CA Rep 668, Car and then hired jeep used in going to and coming from where theft was committed, People v Veloso, 112 SCRA 174, Motor vehicle used only to facilitate escape, but seePeople v Bartulay, 192 Scra 621, where motor vehicle appreciated as aggravating although used only to facilitate escape).C. Other similar means: Understood as referring to motorized vehicles and other efficient means of transportation similar to automobile or airplane per reyes, per kapunan and faylona, Spanish text refers to means of equal efficacy or utility and has no reference to motorized vehicles, hence include horse-drawn vehicle.

Article 14, Par. 21.1. Crueltypurpose is to enjoy the suffering of the victim.2. Basis: Ways employed in committing crime which shows greater perversity.3. Cruelty defined (People v Dayug, et al, 49 Phil 423).A. Distinguished from ignominy.4. Requisites:A. Injury caused deliberately augmented by causing other wrong (US v Gasal, 3 Phil 354, Not Present in stoning victim twice to kill him, not to augment his suffering, Us v Corteso, 32 Phil 104, Assailants had decided purpose to kill, not to prolong agony).B. Other wrong committed is unnecessary for execution of purpose of offender (US v Oro, 19 Phil 548, Burning Mouth of Child, People v Mariquina, 84 Phil 39, Extracting victims eye and stuffing his mouth with mud, People v Torrifiel, CA-GR No 659-R, Nov. 29, 1947, Offender in committing rape tied cogon grass around his genital organ, People v Beleno, 92 Phil 872, Brutal Acts in rapid succession, but see People v Dayug, et al, 49 Phil 423, where mere infliction of various successive wound, with no appreciable length of time between infliction of one wound and that of another, considered not sufficient to constitute cruelty).5. Cruelty not presumed (People v Jimenez, 54 OG 1361).6. When Cruelty held not present (People v Bersabal, 48 Phil 439, Cutting of extremities after victim has died, People v Piring, 63 Phil 549, setting fire to house where inmates were already dead, People v Curiano, et al, 9 SCRA 332, No showing that wounds were unnecessarily inflicted while victims were still alive, People v Aquino, GR No. L-49808, Feb 26, 1988, Victims Carabao, goat, and cow, were killed as well: Physical suffering of victim himself was not augmented).7. In Treason, acts of rapes, robbery, and other forms of cruelties are considered as aggravating circumstances of ignominy and cruelty (People v Racaza, 82 Phil 623).A. Rape is also aggravating in robbery with homicide (People v Basca, 55 OG 797, People v Plaga, GR No. 73462, Sep. 30, 1991).other wrongs not necessarily for the commission of the crime.

Article 15Alternative Circumstances.1. Definition or Concept (Art. 15, RPC)2. Basis:A. Nature and effects of crime.B. Other conditions attending the commission of crime.3. Specific Circumstance.A. Relationship.1. Defined.2. Relatives Included.1. Spouse.2. Ascendant.3. Descendant.4. Legitimate,Natural or Adopted Brothers or Sisters5. Relatives by Affinity within same degrees as the foregoing.3. Other Relatives Included.1. Stepparents and stepchildren (People v Bersabal, 48 Phil 439, People v Portento, CA 38 OG 467, Similar to Ascendants and Descendants).2. Adopted Parents and Adopted Child.4. Relatives Excluded.1. Uncle and Niece (US v Incierto, 15 Phil 358, People v BAlondo, 30 SCRA 155).5. When Exempting.1. Theft (Art. 332 -- No criminal but only civil liability shall result from the commission of the crime of theft, swindling ,ro malicious mischief committeed or caused mutualy by the following persons:. Parents and siblings up to parents and siblings in-law.)2. Swindling or Estafa (Art.332)3. Malicious Mischief (Art. 332)6. When Mitigating1. Crimes against Property1. Robbery (Art. 294-302)2. Usurpation (Art. 312)3. Fraudulent Insolvency (Art. 314)4. Arson (Art 321-322, Art 325-326)2. Mitigation in Trespass to Dwelling (US v Ostrea, et al 2 Phil 93).7. When Aggravating1. Crimes against persons.1. Offended party is of higher degree.2. Offended party and offender are relatives of same level.1. Brother (People v Alisub, 69 Phil 362)2. Brother-in-law, People v Mercado, 51 Phil 99, People v Mendova et al, 100 Phil 811, However in People v Causi, GR No L-16498, June 19, 1963, Proof that deceased was brother-in-law of accused was held not aggravating because relationship by affinity only aggravates where offended party is of higher degree, on the other hand, see US v Ancheta, 1 Phil 30, where relationship was appreciated as mitigating because accused killed his brother-in-law in view of conduct pursued by the latter in contracting adulterous relations with wife of accused; Also v Velarde, 39 Phil 991, where accused clubbed his brother-in-law who was suffering from an attack of insanity, and where such relationship was held mitigating: cause of maltreatment held to be the desire to render service to a relative3. Half-brother4. Adopted brother5. Offended party is of lower degree6. Serious physical injuries, except when inflicted by parent upon his child by excessive chastisement.7. Less or slight physical injuries: ordinary rule applies.8. In homicide or mrder: always aggravating.9. Crimes against chastity: always aggravating.1. Appreciated as aggravating in rape by stepfather of his stepdaughter, rape by father of his daughter.8. When neither mitigating, aggravating nor exempting.1. When an element of crime.1. Parricide.2. Adultery.3. Concubinage.B. Intoxication.1. Defined.2. Reason why intoxication affect criminal liability (People v Amenamen, CA 37 OG 2324), when mitigating, because of impairment of will-power, when aggravating, because it is intentional, lessens individual resistance to eveil thoughts and undermines the will power making himself a potential evil-doer).3. Reason why intoxication modifies criminal liability (People v Amenamen).4. When Mitigating.1. Not habitual.1. Presumption in favor of non-habitual character of intoxication (US v Fitzgerald, 2 Phil 419, People v Dungka, 64 Phil 423, Intoxication once proved is presumed accidental; see also People v Dacanay, GR No L-11568, Mar 30, 1959).When Intoxication found habitual (People v Amenamen, defining habitual drunkard as one given to intoxication by excessive use of intoxicating drinks, US v McMann, 4 Phil 561, Accused seen drunk twelve times or more).2. Not subsequent to plan to commit felony (People v Hernandez et al, 91 Phil 334).3. Proven by satisfactory evidence (People v Noble 77 Phil 93; People v Apduhan, Jr. 24 SCRA 798).1. Intoxication not proved in (People v Noble, 77 Phil 93, People v Pardo, 79 Phil 568).4. But not appreciated separately when concurring with obfuscation and lack of instruction (People v Baterna, 49 Phil 997).5. When Aggravating1. Habitual (People v Ponciano, GR No. 86453, Dec. 5, 1991, accused admitted abit of drinking and taking prohibited drugs while drinking liquor).2. Intentional (Subsequent to plan to commit felony).C. Degree of instruction and education.1. When mitigating.1. Low Degree of Education.1. Exceptions.1. In crimes against property (US v Pascual 9 Phil 491, People v de la Cruz, et al 77 Phil 444, People v Melendrez, 59 Phil 154; But see US v Maqui, 27 Phil 97, Mitigating in theft of large cattle, accused beign member of uncivilized tribe of igorots, People v Patricio, 79 Phil 227, People v Mantawar, 80 Phil 817, Robbery with homicide. Contra: People v Enot et al, GR L-17530, Oct. 30, 1962.2. In crimes against chastity (Molesa v Director, 59 Phil 406, US v Borjal, 9 Phil 140).3. In Treason (People v Lansanas)4. In murder or homicide (People v Mutya)5. Lacking education but highly and exceptionally intelligent and mentally alert as to realize the full significance of his acts not entitled to this mitigating circumstance (People v ORbista et al, 95 Phil 63, People v Geronimo 53 SCRA 246).2. Who are illiterate.1. Accused who only finished caton (basic alphabet and numbers up to grade 1, People v Marasigan, 85 Phil 427).2. Accused who did not even finish first grade of elementary school (People v Limaco, 88 Phil 35).3. Who are literate.1. Accused who studied up to 6th grade (people v Pujilino 27 SCRA 1185).2. Accused who finished grade two and usually answered in tagalog questions propounded in english.3. City Resident hwo knows hhow to sign his name.4. But see people v Orbista where it was conceded that a person able to sign his name may still be so densely ignorant and of such low intelligence that he does not fully realize the consequences of his act.2. When aggravating.1. High degree of education1. Being a lawyer not aggravating in case of physical injuries, he not having taken advantage of his high degree of education. (People v Sulit CA-GR No. 21102-R, Sep. 29, 1959).

DEGREES OF PARTICIPATION IN THE COMMISSION OF CRIMES.

Persons criminally liable for felonies Principals, accomplices and accessories.1. Subjects of Crimes.2. Article 16.A. Division of Persons Criminally LiableB. For Grave and Less Grave Felonies (Art. 16)C. For Light Felonies

stages of executionconsummatedfrustratedattempted

stages of participation

principalsinducement0-1-2

execution

indispensible cooperation

accomplices-1-2-3

accessoriestagatulong-2-3-4

tagatago

tagatakas

Wednesday, September 3, 2014

PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR FELONIESArticle 151. Subjects of Crimes.A. Active Subjects.1. Only Natural Persons1. As to Corporations, officers are liable.1. Must be participis criminis (People v Montilla, CA 52 OG 4327).2. Exceptions (Under Special Laws, Corporation Code, Public Service Law, People v Lao Chio, CA 59 OG 4859, People v Cartesiano, 53 OG 3276).2. Passive Subjects.1. Holder of Injured Right.1. On Unborn, Dead men and animals (Arts 40-42, Civil Code, 256-259, 353, RPC)Article 16A. Division of Persons Criminally Liable.B. For Grave and less grave felonies (Art. 16, RPC)1. Principals.1. Distinguished from Co-conspirators (People v Peralta et al 25 SCRA 759, Art 8 and 17 RPC)2. Accomplices.1. Distinguished from principals.2. Distinguished from accessories.3. Accessories.1. Distinguished from principals.2. Distinguished from accomplices.4. For light Felonies (Art. 16, RPC)1. Principals2. Accomplices.Article 171. Principals by direct participation (Art. 17 RPC)A. Participation in criminal resolution (People v Ibanez, 77 Phil 664; People v Izon et al, 104 Phil 690, People v Ortiz and Zausa, 55 Phil 995).1. When There is conspiracy: collective Responsibility (People v Monroy, et al, 104 Phil 759, US v Bundal et al, 3 Phil 89).1. When Conspiracy exists.1. Formal agreement or previous acquaintance not necessary (People v Garduque et al, GR No L-10133, Jul 31, 1958).1. Common Purpose.1. Spontaneous Agreement. (People v Allado 43 OG 1717; People v Caballero, 53 Phil 585).2. Active Cooperation (People v Manlao, et al 52 Phil 484).3. Contributing by Positive Acts (People v Agbuya et al 57 Phil 238).4. Presence in Crimes committed by a band and lending moral support (US v Ancheta, et al, 1 Phil 30, US v Santos et al, 2Phil 454; Conspiracy presumed when crime committed by band, US v Asilo, 4 Phil 175; US v Perez, 13 Phil 287).2. Unity in Execution.2. But mere silence does not make a conspirator (People v Gensola et al, 29 SCRA 485, People v Silvestre and Atienza, 56 Phil 353, People v Assad, 55 Phil 697, People v Timbol et al, GR Nos L47471-73, Aug. 4, 1944).2. How Proved (People v Bernardo et al, CA 57 OG 8675, People v San Luis, 85 Phil 485, People v Ancheta and del Rosario, 66 Phil 638).2. When there is no conspiracy: Individual Liability (US v Magcomot, 13 Phil 386; US v Reyes and Javierm 14 Phil 27, Peeople v Quiosay, 103 Phil 1160).1. No conspiracy to commit crimes by negligence1. Co-principal by omission in criminal negligence (People v Santos and Teves CA 44 OG 1289, US v Siy Cong Bieng and Co Kong, 30 Phil 577).3. Participation in criminal resolution must be previous or simultaneous (People v Tan Diong et al, 59 Phil 539).B. Carrying out Plan and personally taking part by acts directly tending to same end (People v Ong Chiat Lay, 60 Phil 788, Personal Presence Generally Required).1. Presence at crime scene.1. Exception: when pursuant to conspiracy, absent participant had already performed his part (People v Santos, 84 Phil 104).2. Act directly tending to same end (People v Mandagay, et al 46 Phil 638).3. Effect of absence of personal participation (People v Ong Chiat Lay, 60 Phil 788).2. Principals by induction (Art. 17, 2nd Par, RPC)A. Forcing another to commit crime.1. Using irresistible force.2. Causing uncontrollable fear.B. Inducing another to commit a crime (People v Gensola, et al, 29 SCRA 484).1. Giving price or offering reward or promise.1. Positive Resolution2. Persistent Effort3. Presentation of strongest temptation to commit crime.1. Absence of personal reason to commit crime on part of direct participant.4. Determining cause of commission of crime by material executor (People v Camaguran et al, GR No 108174, Oct 28 1999, When Absent).1. Previous to act induced and so influential.2. Using words of command (US v Gamao, 23 Phil 82).1. Made directly with intention to procure commission of crime (US V Indanan, 24 Phil 203)1. Distinguished from thoughtless expression without intention to produce result (US v INdannan)2. Ascendancy of influence (US v Gamao, 23 Phil 82).1. Words of command of father to son (People v Tamayo, et al. 44 Phil 38).3. Direct, efficacious and powerful enough as to amou