Crimminal Law 1

7/29/2019 Crimminal Law 1

1/36

CRIMINAL LAW BOOK I

GOOD MORNING

CRIMINAL LAW

ONE


2/36

DEFINITIONS

Crime: A transgression done in violation of a ruleof conduct which specifically requires itsperformance or non-performance.

Law: Sanchez Roman defines law as a rule ofconduct, just, obligatory, promulgated bycompetent authority and of common observance& benefit.

Criminal Law: Criminal law is a substantive andpublic law which defines crimes, classifies itsnature and prescribes a penalty therefore.


3/36

No Common Law Crimes in the Philippines

Common law crimes are bodies of legal rules andprinciples which are not based on statute but on

usages and traditions.

There are no common law crimes in the Philippines.

No act shall constitute as a crime unless it is made soby law (U.S. vs. Taylor, 28 Phil 599).

nullum crimen, nulla poena, sine lege

Art 5 RPC: if there is no law punishing the act or

omission, the court must dismiss the case no matterhow wicked the act may seem.

PEOPLE vs. AVECILLA (GR No. 117033, Feb. 15, 2001)


4/36

THEORIES IN CRIMINAL LAW Classical or Juristic Theory Existence of the

offenders free will, or a persons freedom to do an act.Under this theory, the penalty for ones criminal act is

imposed by way of social retribution.

Positivist School of Thought Crime is a natural social

phenomenon to which the actor was exposed; cannotbe treated by the blanket application of abstract legalprinciples; man is a social being and his acts are notonly attributable to his own free will but to otherforces of society

Under this theory, the penalty has a corrective purposeand is imposed by way of prevention or deterrence


5/36

CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIM LAW

Generality

Territoriality

Prospectivity


6/36

GENERALITY: General Application of Criminal Laws: Art 14, Civil Code

On all: military and PNP: Sec 46, RA 6975 (PNP); Sec 1,RA 7055 (AFP and Cafgu, Articles of War Waiver byPresident)

EXCEPTIONS TO GENERALITY Laws of preferential application RA 75, subject to

reciprocity and Parliamentary Immunities

Generally accepted principles of public international

law Diplomatic Convention and Doctrine of SovereignImmunity

Treaty Stipulations Lance Corporal Smith


7/36

General Rule: TERRITORIALITY (Art 2)

EXCEPTIONS:

Art 1 Constitution and the Archipelagic theory

Baselines connect outermost points from

low watermark

UNCLOS, Art 3 12 NA mile territorial sea

UNCLOS, Art 33 contiguo zone

Exclusive Economic Zone 200 nautical mile


8/36

Baselines of Internal

waters

12 mile limit 12 mile cont. zone


9/36

EXCEPTIONS TO TERRITORIALITY

1. Philippine ship or airship place of registry French and English Rules foreign merchant ships

RA 6235

2. 2000 BAR, No. 1

3. Offenses related to forgery and counterfeiting Philippine

coins or currency and in the importation, uttering anddistribution in the Philippines

4. Offenses committed by public officers or employees whileperforming their functions

5. Offenses against national security and the law of nations People vs. Lol-lo and Sarao

2008 Bar

High seas


10/36

PRINCIPLE OF PROSPECTIVITY

Ex post facto laws

Art 22, penal laws favorable to the accused

PEOPLE vs. AVECILLA (GR No. 117033, Feb. 15,

2001)


11/36

FELONIES: Acts or omissions

punishable by the RPC (Art 3)

THREE KINDS OF CRIMES:

felonies: dolo or culpa offenses: special laws (General Rule: Penalties)

infraction or misdemeanors: violations of

municipal ordinances


12/36

Two Modes of Committing Felonies

(Art 3)

Doloor Malice: with deliberate intent.

Culpa or Fault: imprudence, negligence, lackof foresight or lack of skill.


13/36

ELEMENTS OF FELONIES

There is an act or omission

Act or omission is punishable by the RPC(PEOPLE vs. SILVESTRE & ATIENZA and PEOPLE

vs. FRANCIS ABARCA, 153 SCRA 735)

Act or omission is incurred by dolo or culpa

all done with freedom


14/36

FELONIES BY DOLO

REQUISITES OF DOLO OR MALICE: Freedom

Intelligence People vs. Taneo, lack of intelligenceand intent

Intent No criminal intent, no crime, justified, No civil

liabilities, except in Art 11, par. 4 when a personcommits an act to avoid a greater evil or injury

(see Art 432 of the Civil Code) No freedom or intelligence exempting, civilly

liable


15/36

MISTAKE OF FACT

Act should have been lawful and actor is not

negligent

US vs. AH CHONG

People vs. Oanis


16/36

FELONIES BY CULPA

Freely and intelligently but with negligence

People vs. Guillen


17/36

OFFENSES UNDER SPECIAL LAWS

Dolo or criminal intent or mens rea not required

Good faith is not a defense

But there must be intent to perpetuate the

prohibited act

People vs. Asa and Balbastro firearms/civilian guards

People vs. Landicho firearm for turn-over to Mayor

People vs. Lucero confidential agent


18/36

MALA IN SE vs. MALA PROHIBITA

Intent and good faith

Inherently immoral vs. wrongful by statutorypolicy

RPC vs. SPL Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R.

148560, November 19, 2001 and Illegal

Exactions under the RPC


19/36

MOTIVE

Motive is the moving power which impels one

to action while intent is the purpose to use a

particular means

Latter is not essential except:

Questions as to identity

Conflicting versions

People vs. Taneo, somnambulism


20/36

CRIMINAL LIABILITY (Art 4)

Any person committing a felony although the

wrongful act is different from what is intended

Impossible crimes


21/36

REQUIREMENT UNDER PAR. 1

Intentional felony

wrong done is direct, natural and logical

consequence of the felony committed

el que es causa de la cause el que es causa del mal

causado

PEOPLE vs. FRANCIS ABARCA, supra (resulting

crime is different from what is intended)


22/36

ERROR IN PERSONAE (PP v. Oanis)

Actual victim mistaken as intended

victim


23/36

ABERRATIO ICTUS (PP v. MABUG-AT)

Intended victim Actual victim


24/36

PRAETER INTENTIONEM

(People vs. Cagoco)

Intended victim same as actual victim

But a more serious crime is produced


25/36

IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES

2000 Bar, impossible crime is not a crime but

with a penalty; person punished for his

criminal tendencies

Intod vs. CA, 215 SCRA 52


26/36

MANNER OF COMMITTING CRIMES

1. FORMAL CRIMES (offenses under special laws,

Pecho vs. SB)

2. CRIMES BY OMISSION (no attempted stage)

3. MATERIAL CRIMES (3 stages of execution)


27/36

STAGES OF EXECUTION

1. ATTEMPTED

2. FRUSTRATED STAGES

3. CONSUMMATED STAGES


28/36

SUBJECTIVE PHASE

PHASE WHEREIN THE ACTOR CONCEIVES THEIDEA OF COMMITTING A CRIME

Internal Acts not penalized

Preparatory Acts to a particular crime notpenalized for as long as they, in themselves,do not constitute an offense

ACTOR HAS CONTROL OVER HIS ACTIONS

SPONTANEOUS DESISTANCE no liabilityprovided no other crime is committed


29/36

OBJECTIVE STAGE

State wherein the offender performed all the

acts of execution needed for the crime

No more control

Crime is either frustrated or consummated


30/36

CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS

MORTALITY OF WOUND: Borinaga and Kalalo

rulings

When the wound inflicted is not fatal,

homicide or murder is only attempted

(Velasco vs. People, GR 166479, February 28,

2006, 433 SCRA 649 and People vs. Dela Cruz,

GR 154348, June 8, 2004, 431 SCRA 388)


31/36

RAPE

ORITA ruling

People vs. Efren Valez (GR 136738, March 12, 2001) child, inch penetration

People vs. Campuhan (GR 129433, March 30, 2000) epidermal contact

PEOPLE vs. MONTERON (G.R. No. 130709, March 6,2002) adult/ on top of female orgn

PEOPLE vs. MARIO (G. R. No. 132550, February 19,

2001) cannot recall (woke up/wet-sticky substance) PEOPLE vs. COLLADO (G.R. Nos. 135667-70[1],

March 1, 2001) no intent to penetrate


32/36

THEFT AND ROBBERY

1. VALENZUELA VS. PEOPLE (GR No. 160188, June 21,

2007) Theft is a formal crime. It can only be

attempted or consummated and there can be no

frustrated stage in the crime of theft. Unlawful

taking complete when offender gains possession,even if no opportunity to dispose

2. PP v. LEOPOLDO SALVILLA (184 SCRA 671) control

and dominion even if no asportation or no

opportunity to dispose


33/36

CONSPIRACY & PROPOSAL When proposal is accepted, there is conspiracy

Act of one is the act of all

PEOPLE vs. ROEL PUNZALAN, ET. AL. (GR 78853; November 9,1991)A co-conspirator is liable for such other crimes whichcould be foreseen and which are the natural and logicalconsequences of the conspiracy

PEOPLE vs. RICARDO LASCUNA, ET. AL. (GR 90626; August18, 1993) time of commission; liable for graver offenseunless he performed overt acts to prevent the graveroffense

PEOPLE vs. DE LA CERNA, ET. AL. (GR L-20911, October

30, 1967)If the conspirators select a particularindividual or group of individuals to be their victim andanother person was killed by some, only those whoactually participated in the killing are liable


34/36

TWO FACETS OF CONSPIRACY

1. CONSPIRACY AS A MODE OF INCURRING

CRIMINAL LIABILITY (needs an overt act)

2. CONSPIRACY AS A CRIME

Crimes against National Security

Anti-Terrorism Law conspiracy to commit

murder, etc


35/36

ART 10

GEN RULE: RPC principles not applicable to

offenses under special laws:

Penalties

Stages of execution

Degrees of participation

graduation

Exception: Suppletory application when

applicable

MARTIN SIMON RULING


36/36

Documents

Crimminal Law 1