Notes - Criminal Law in General, Art. 1 to 20

8/9/2019 Notes - Criminal Law in General, Art. 1 to 20

1/26

LICUP, Kristine Felva P. 1 st year Juris Doctor

NOTE ! Cri"inal La# in $eneral, %rticles 1&'(, )PC

Cri"inal La# A branch of municipal law which defines crimes, treats of their nature and provides for their punishment.Li"itations on t*e +o#er o Con-ress to enact +enal la#s ON/1. Must be general in application.2. Must not partake of the nature of an ex post facto law.3. Must not partake of the nature of a bill of attainder.4. Must not impose cruel and unusual punishment or excessive fines.C*aracteristics o Cri"inal La#!

1. $eneral the law is binding to all persons who reside in the !hilippines2. Territorial the law is binding to all crimes committed within the "ational #erritor$ of the !hilippines

Exception to Territorial Application % &nstances enumerated under Article 2.3. Pros+ective the law does not have an$ retroactive effect.Exception to Prospective Application % when new statute is favorable to the accused.E ect o re+eal o +enal la# to lia0ility o o en er Total or absolute, or partial or relative repeal. As to the effect of repeal of penal law to the liability of offender, qualify your answer by saying whether the repeal is absolute or total or whether the repeal is partial or relative only.

A repeal is absolute or total when the crime punished under the repealed law has been decriminali ed by the repeal. !ecause of therepeal, the act or omission which used to be a crime is no longer a crime. An example is "epublic Act #o. $%&%, which decriminali ed subversion.

A repeal is partial or relative when the crime punished under the repealed law continues to be a crime in spite of the repeal. Thismeans that the repeal merely modified the conditions affecting the crime under the repealed law. The modification may be pre'udicial or beneficial to the offender. (ence, the following rule)Conse2uences i re+eal o +enal la# is total or a0solute*+ &f a case is pending in court involving the violation of the repealed law , the same shall be dismissed, even though the accused may be a habitual delinquent.*- &f a case is alread$ decided and the accused is alread$ serving sentence b$ final 'udgment, if the convict is not a habitualdelin(uent , then he will be entitled to a release unless there is a reservation clause in the penal law that it will not apply to those serving sentence at the time of the repeal. )ut if there is no reservation , those who are not habitual delinquents even if they are already serving their sentence will receive the benefit of the repealing law. They are entitled to release.&f the$ are not discharged from confinement , a petition for habeas corpus should be filed to test the legality of their continued confinement in 'ail.&f the convict, on the other hand, is a habitual delin(uent , he will continue serving the sentence in spite of the fact that the law under which he was convicted has already been absolutely repealed. This is so because penal laws should be given retroactive applicationto favor only those who are not habitual delinquents.Conse2uences i re+eal o +enal la# is +artial or relative*+ &f a case is pending in court involving the violation of the repealed law, and the repealing law is more favorable to theaccused, i t shall be the one applied to him. o whether he is a habitual delinquent or not, if the case is still pending in court, the

repealing law will be the one to apply unless there is a saving clause in the repealing law that it shall not apply to pending causes of action.*2+ &f a case is alread$ decided and the accused is alread$ serving sentence b$ final 'udgment ,even if the repealing law is partial or relative, the crime still remains to be a crime. #hose who are not habitual delin(uents will benefit on the effect of that repeal, so thatif the repeal is more lenient to them, it will be the repealing law that will henceforth appl$ to them./nder Article --, even if the offender is already convicted and serving sentence, a law which is beneficial shall be applied to him unlesshe is a habitual delinquent in accordance with "ule 0 of Article &-.Consequences if repeal of penal law is express or implied *+ &f a penal law is impliedl$ repealed, the subsequent repeal of the repealing law will revive the original law. o the act or omission which was punished as a crime under the original law will be revived and the same shall again be crimes although during theimplied repeal they may not be punishable.*- &f the repeal is express , the repeal of the repealing law will not revive the first law, so the act or omission will no longer be

penali ed.These effects of repeal do not apply to self1repealing laws or those which have automatic termination. An example is the "ent 2ontrol 3aw which is revived by 2ongress every two years.

T*eories o Cri"inal La#1. Classical T*eory Man is essentiall$ a moral creature with an absolute free will to choose between good and evil and

therefore more stress is placed upon the result of the felonious act than upon the criminal himself.1. Positivist T*eory Man is subdued occasionall$ b$ a strange and morbid phenomenon which conditions him to do wrong in

spite of or contrar$ to his volition.Eclectic or 3i4e P*iloso+*yThis combines both positivist and classical thin4ing. 2rimes that are economic and social and nature should be dealt with in a positivist manner5 thus, the law is more compassionate. (einous crimes should be dealt with in a classical manner5 thus, capital punishmen 5% IC 3%6I3 IN C)I3IN%L L%7Doctrine o Pro )eo6henever a penal law is to be construed or applied and the law admits of two interpretations 7 one lenient to the offender and onestrict to the offender 7 that interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the offender will be adopted.Nullu" cri"en, nulla +oena sine le-eThere is no crime when there is no law punishing the same. This is true to civil law countries, but not to common law countries.!ecause of this maxim, there is no common law crime in the Philippines. #o matter how wrongful, evil or bad the act is, if there is nolaw defining the act, the same is not considered a crime.%ctus non acit reu", nisi "ens sit reaThe act cannot be criminal where the mind is not criminal. This is true to a felony characteri ed by dolo, but not a felony resulting fromculpa. This maxim is not an absolute one because it is not applied to culpable felonies, or those that result from negligence.Utilitarian T*eory or Protective T*eoryThe primary purpose of the punishment under criminal law is the protection of society from actual and potential wrongdoers. Thecourts, therefore, in exacting retribution for the wronged society, should direct the punishment to potential or actual wrongdoers, sincecriminal law is directed against acts and omissions which the society does not approve. 2onsistent with this theory, the mala prohibita

principle which punishes an offense regardless of malice or criminal intent, should not be utili ed to apply the full harshness of thespecial law.

ources o Cri"inal La#1. #he evised !enal -ode


2/26


3/26

As a general rule, the "evised Penal 2ode governs only when the crime committed pertains to the exercise of the public official>sfunctions, those having to do with the discharge of their duties in a foreign country. The functions contemplated are those, which are,under the law, to be performed by the public officer in the ?oreign ervice of the Philippine government in a foreign country.Exception) The "evised Penal 2ode governs if the crime was committed within the Philippine Embassy or within the embassy groundsin a foreign country. This is because embassy grounds are considered an extension of sovereignty.Paragraph 0 of Article -, use the phrase ;as defined in Title @ne of !oo4 Two of this 2ode.< This is a very important part of the exception, because Title 9 of !oo4 - *crimes against national security does not include rebellion.%rt 9. %cts an o"issions +unis*a0le 0y la# are elonies.

Acts an overt or external act "mission failure to perform a dut$ re(uired b$ law. Example of an omission % failure to render assistance to an$one who is in

danger of d$ing or is in an uninhabited place or is wounded abandonment. Felonies acts and omissions punishable b$ the evised !enal -ode Crime 7 acts and omissions punishable b$ an$ law

hat re(uisites must concur before a felon$ ma$ be committed8There must be *+ an act or omission5 *- punishable by the "evised Penal 2ode5 and *% the act is performed or the omission incurred by means of dolo or culpa.

#ow felonies are committed %1. 0y "eans o eceit dolo / #here is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent.

Requisites$1. freedom2. intelligence3. intent

Examples % murder, treason, and robber$Criminal intent is not necessar% in these cases$*+ 6hen the crime is the product of culpa or negligence, rec4less imprudence, lac4 of foresight or lac4 of s4ill5*- 6hen the crime is a prohibited act under a special law or what is called malum prohibitum.&n criminal law, intent is categori'ed into two$*+ eneral criminal intent5 and *- pecific criminal intent.(eneral criminal intent is presumed from the mere doing of a wrong act. This does not require proof. The burden is upon the wrong doer to prove that he acted without such criminal intent.!pecific criminal intent is not presumed because it is an ingredient or element of a crime, li4e intent to 4ill in the crimes of attempted or frustrated homicideBparricideBmurder. The prosecution has the burden of proving the same.)istinction between intent and discernment &ntent is the determination to do a certain thing, an aim or purpose of the mind. 9t is the design to resolve or determination by which a

person acts.@n the other hand, discernment is the mental capacity to tell right from wrong. 9t relates to the moral significance that a personascribes to his act and relates to the intelligence as an element of dolo, distinct from intent.)istinction between intent and motive&ntent is demonstrated by the use of a particular means to bring about a desired result 7 it is not a state of mind or a reason for committing a crime.@n the other hand, motive implies motion. 9t is the moving power which impels one to do an act. 6hen there is motive in thecommission of a crime, it always comes before the intent. !ut a crime may be committed without motive.9f the crime is intentional, it cannot be committed without intent. 9ntent is manifested by the instrument used by the offender. Thespecific criminal intent becomes material if the crime is to be distinguished from the attempted or frustrated stage.

1. b% means of fault *culpa+ #here is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.

1. &mprudence deficienc$ of action e.g. A was driving a truck along a road. 6e hit ) because it was raining recklessimprudence.

2. egligence - deficienc$ of perception failure to foresee impending danger, usuall$ involves lack of foresight3. c. Requisites$

1. 9reedom2. &ntelligence3. &mprudence, negligence, lack of skill or foresight

4. /ack of intentThe concept of criminal negligence is the inexcusable lac4 of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform anact. 9f the danger impending from that situation is clearly manifest, you have a case of rec less imprudence . !ut if the danger that would result from such imprudence is not clear, not manifest nor immediate you have only a case of simple negligence .

3ista


4/26

Error in personae is mitigating if the crime committed is different from that which was intended. 9f the crime committed is the same asthat which was intended, error in personae does not affect the criminal liability of the offender.9n mista4e of identity, if the crime committed was the same as the crime intended, but on a different victim, error in persona does not affect the criminal liability of the offender. !ut if the crime committed was different from the crime intended, Article D will apply and the

penalty for the lesser crime will be applied. 9n a way, mista4e in identity is a mitigating circumstance where Article D applies. 6herethe crime intended is more serious than the crime committed, the error in persona is not a mitigating circumstance

2. 0ista e in blow hitting somebod$ other than the target due to lack of skill or fortuitous instances *this is a complex crimeunder Art. 4:+ e.g., ) and - were walking together. A wanted to shoot ), but he instead in'ured -.

9n aberratio ictus, a person directed the blow at an intended victim, but because of poor aim, that blow landed on somebody else.9n aberratio ictus, the intended victim as well as the actual victim are both at the scene of the crime. aberratio ictus, generally gives rise to a complex crime. This being so, the penalty for the more serious crime is imposed in themaximum period.

3. &n1urious result is greater than that intended causing in'ur$ graver than intended or expected *this is a mitigatingcircumstance due to lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong under Art. 13+ e.g., A wanted to in'ure ). 6owever, ) died.

praeter intentionem is mitigating, particularly covered by paragraph % of Article +%. 9n order however, that the situation may qualify as praeter intentionem, there must be a notable disparity between the means employed and the resulting felony

&n all these instances the offender can still be held criminall$ liable, since he is motivated b$ criminal intent.Requisites %

1. the felon$ was intentionall$ committed2. the felon$ is the proximate cause of the wrong done )octrine of roximate Cause such ade(uate and efficient cause as, in the natural order of events, and under the particular

circumstances surrounding the case, which would necessaril$ produce the event.Requisites %

1. the direct, natural, and logical cause2. produces the in'ur$ or damage

3. unbroken b$ an$ sufficient intervening cause4. without which the result would not have occurred roximate Cause is negated b%$1. Active force, distinct act, or fact absolutel$ foreign from the felonious act of the accused, which serves as a sufficient

intervening cause.2. esulting in'ur$ or damage is due to the intentional act of the victim.

proximate cause does not require that the offender needs to actually touch the body of the offended party. 9t is enough that theoffender generated in the mind of the offended party the belief that made him ris4 himself.

"equisite for Presumption blow was cause of the death here there has been an in'ur$ inflicted sufficient to produce deathfollowed b$ the demise of the person, the presumption arises that the in'ur$ was the cause of the death. !rovided%

1. victim was in normal health2. death ensued within a reasonable time

The one who caused the proximate cause is the one liable. The one who caused the immediate cause is also liable, but merely contributory or sometimes totally not liable.'. 5y any +erson +er or"in- an act #*ic* #oul 0e an o ense a-ainst +ersons or +ro+erty, #ere it not or t*e in*erenti"+ossi0ility o its acco"+lis*"ent or on account o t*e e"+loy"ent o ina e2uate or ine ectual "eans.

)e2uisites! I3PO I5LE C)I3E/1. Act would have been an offense against persons or propert$2. Act is not an actual violation of another provision of the -ode or of a special penal law3. #here was criminal intent4. Accomplishment was inherentl$ impossible or inade(uate or ineffectual means were emplo$ed. Notes!1. 0ffender must believe that he can consummate the intended crime, a man stabbing another who he knew was alread$ dead

cannot be liable for an impossible crime.2. #he law intends to punish the criminal intent.3. #here is no attempted or frustrated impossible crime. ?elonies against persons % parricide, murder, homicide, infanticide, ph$sical in'uries, etc. ?elonies against property) robber$, theft, usurpation, swindling, etc. 9nherent impossibility % A thought that ) was 'ust sleeping. ) was alread$ dead. A shot ). A is liable. &f A knew that ) is dead

and he still shot him, then A is not liable.6hen we say inherent impossibility, this means that under any and all circumstances, the crime could not have materiali ed. 9f thecrime could have materiali ed under a different set of facts, employing the same mean or the same act, it is not an impossible crime5 it would be an attempted felony.

Employment of inadequate means % A used poison to kill ). 6owever, ) survived because A used small (uantities of poison frustrated murder.

9neffectual means % A aimed his gun at ). hen he fired the gun, no bullet came out because the gun was empt$. A is liable. 6henever you are confronted with a problem where the facts suggest that an impossible crime was committed, be careful about the question as4ed. 9f the question as4ed is) ;9s an impossible crime committed:


5/26

"ote, however, that not all violations of special laws are mala prohibita. hile intentional felonies are alwa$s mala in se, it does notfollow that prohibited acts done in violation of special laws are alwa$s mala prohibita. ven if the crime is punished under a special law,if the act punished is one which is inherentl$ wrong, the same is malum in se, and, therefore, good faith and the lack of criminal intent isa valid defense unless it is the product of criminal negligence or culpa.

/ikewise when the special laws re(uires that the punished act be committed knowingl$ and willfull$, criminal intent is re(uired to beproved before criminal liabilit$ ma$ arise.

hen the act penali ed is not inherentl$ wrong, it is wrong onl$ because a law punishes the same.

Distinction 0et#een cri"es +unis*e un er t*e )evise Penal Co e an cri"es +unis*e un er s+ecial la#s

1. As to moral trait of the offender

&n crimes punished under the evised !enal -ode, the moral trait of the offender is considered. #his is wh$ liabilit$ would onl$ arisewhen there is dolo or culpa in the commission of the punishable act.

&n crimes punished under special laws, the moral trait of the offender is not considered it is enough that the prohibited act wasvoluntaril$ done.

'. As to use of good faith as defense

&n crimes punished under the evised !enal -ode, good faith or lack of criminal intent is a valid defense unless the crime is the resultof culpa

&n crimes punished under special laws, good faith is not a defense

9. As to degree of accomplishment of the crime

&n crimes punished under the evised !enal -ode, the degree of accomplishment of the crime is taken into account in punishing theoffender thus, there are attempted, frustrated, and consummated stages in the commission of the crime.

&n crimes punished under special laws, the act gives rise to a crime onl$ when it is consummated there are no attempted or frustrated

stages, unless the special law expressl$ penali e the mere attempt or frustration of the crime.

:. As to mitigating and aggravating circumstances

&n crimes punished under the evised !enal -ode, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are taken into account in imposing thepenalt$ since the moral trait of the offender is considered.

&n crimes punished under special laws, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are not taken into account in imposing the penalt$.

;. As to degree of participation

&n crimes punished under the evised !enal -ode, when there is more than one offender, the degree of participation of each in the

commission of the crime is taken into account in imposing the penalt$ thus, offenders are classified as principal, accomplice andaccessor$.

&n crimes punished under special laws, the degree of participation of the offenders is not considered. All who perpetrated the prohibitedact are penali ed to the same extent. #here is no principal or accomplice or accessor$ to consider.

Test to eter"ine i violation o s+ecial la# is "alu" +ro*i0itu" or "alu" in se

Analy e the violation) 9s it wrong because there is a law prohibiting it or punishing it as such: 9f you remove the law, will the act still bewrong:

9f the wording of the law punishing the crime uses the word ;willfully


6/26

#oul result in t*e i"+osition o a clearly e4cessive +enalty, ta


7/26

Nature o t*e cri"e itsel 9n crimes involving the ta4ing of human life 7 parricide, homicide, and murder 7 in the definition of the frustrated stage, it isindispensable that the victim be mortally wounded. /nder the definition of the frustrated stage, to consider the offender as having

performed all the acts of execution, the acts already done by him must produce or be capable of producing a felony as a consequence.The general rule is that there must be a fatal in'ury inflicted, because it is only then that death will follow. 9f the wound is not mortal, the crime is only attempted. The reason is that the wound inflicted is not capable of bringing about thedesired felony of parricide, murder or homicide as a consequence5 it cannot be said that the offender has performed all the acts of execution which would produce parricide, homicide or murder as a result.

An exception to the general rule is the so1called sub'ective phase. The upreme 2ourt has decided cases which applied thesub'ective standard that when the offender himself believed that he had performed all the acts of execution, even though no mortal wound was inflicted, the act is already in the frustrated stage. The common notion is that when there is conspiracy involved, the participants are punished as principals. This notion is nolonger absolute. 9n the case of eople v. ierra, the upreme 2ourt ruled that even though there was conspiracy, if a co1conspirator merely cooperated in the commission of the crime with insignificant or minimal acts, such that even without his cooperation, the crimecould be carried out as well, such co1conspirator should be punished as an accomplice only.

Art. B. /ight felonies are punishable onl$ when the$ have been consummated with the exception of those committed against persons or propert$.

Examples of light felonies % slight ph$sical in'uries theft alteration of boundar$ marks malicious mischief and intriguingagainst honor.

&n commission of crimes against properties and persons, ever$ stage of execution is punishable but onl$ the principals andaccomplices are liable for light felonies, accessories are not.

Art. :. -onspirac$ and proposal to commit felon$ are punishable onl$ in the cases in which the law speciall$ provides a penalt$therefore.% cons+iracy e4ists #*en t#o or "ore +ersons co"e to an a-ree"ent concernin- t*e co""ission o a elony an eci e toco""it it.

T*ere is +ro+osal #*en t*e +erson #*o *as eci e to co""it a elony +ro+oses its e4ecution to so"e ot*er +erson or +ersons. 2onspiracy is punishable in the following cases % treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition, and monopolies and combinations

in restraint of trade. 2onspiracy to commit a crime is not to be confused with conspiracy as a means of committing a crime . &n both cases there is

an agreement but mere conspirac$ to commit a crime is not punished E- !# in treason, rebellion, or sedition. ven then, if the treason is actuall$ committed, the conspirac$ will be considered as a means of committing it and the accused will all becharged for treason and not for conspirac$ to commit treason.

Cons+iracy an Pro+osal to Co""it a Cri"e

Cons+iracy Pro+osal

lements

Agreement among 2 or morepersons to commit a crime

#he$ decide to commit it

A person has decided to commit a crime 6e proposes its commission to another

-rimes

1. -onspirac$ to commit sedition2. -onspirac$ to commit coup

d?Ftat, rebellion or insurrection3. -onspirac$ to commit treason

1. !roposal to commit treason2. !roposal to commit coup d?Ftat, rebellion or insurrection

Mere conspirac$ in combination in restraint of trade *Art. 1:>+, and brigandage *Art. 3D>+.Two wa%s for conspirac% to exist$*+ There is an agreement.*- The participants acted in concert or simultaneously which is indicative of a meeting of the minds towards a common criminal goal or criminal ob'ective. 6hen several offenders act in a synchroni ed, coordinated manner, the fact that their acts complimented each other is indicative of the meeting of the minds. There is an implied agreement.Two inds of conspirac%$

*+ 2onspiracy as a crime5 and *- 2onspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability 6hen conspiracy itself is a crime, no overt act is necessary to bring about the criminal liability. The mere conspiracy is the crimeitself. This is only true when the law expressly punishes the mere conspiracy5 otherwise, the conspiracy does not bring about thecommission of the crime because conspiracy is not an overt act but a mere preparatory act. Treason, rebellion, sedition, and coupd>etat are the only crimes where the conspiracy and proposal to commit to them are punishable. 6hen the conspiracy is only a basis of incurring criminal liability, there must be an overt act done before the co1conspiratorsbecome criminally liable. ?or as long as none of the conspirators has committed an overt act, there is no crime yet. !ut when one of them commits any overt act, all of them shall be held liable, unless a co1conspirator was absent from the scene of the crime or heshowed up, but he tried to prevent the commission of the crime. As a general rule, if there has been a conspiracy to commit a crime in a particular place, anyone who did not appear shall be

presumed to have desisted. The exception to this is if such person who did not appear was the mastermind. ?or as long as none of the conspirators has committed an overt act, there is no crime yet. !ut when one of them commits any overt act, all of them shall be held liable, unless a co1conspirator was absent from the scene of the crime or he showed up, but he tried to prevent the commission of the crime As a general rule, if there has been a conspiracy to commit a crime in a particular place, anyone who did not appear shall be

presumed to have desisted. The exception to this is if such person who did not appear was the mastermind. 6hen the conspiracy itself is a crime, this cannot be inferred or deduced because there is no overt act. All that there is theagreement. @n the other hand, if the co1conspirator or any of them would execute an overt act, the crime would no longer be theconspiracy but the overt act itself. conspiracy as a crime, must have a clear and convincing evidence of its existence. Every crime must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. it must be established by positive and conclusive evidence, not by con'ectures or speculations. 6hen the conspiracy is 'ust a basis of incurring criminal liability, however, the same may be deduced or inferred from the acts of several offenders in carrying out the commission of the crime. The existence of a conspiracy may be reasonably inferred from the actsof the offenders when such acts disclose or show a common pursuit of the criminal ob'ective. mere 4nowledge, acquiescence to, or approval of the act, without cooperation or at least, agreement to cooperate, is not enoughto constitute a conspiracy. There must be an intentional participation in the crime with a view to further the common felonious ob'ective.


8/26

6hen several persons who do not 4now each other simultaneously attac4 the victim, the act of one is the act of all, regardless of the degree of in'ury inflicted by any one of them. All will be liable for the consequences. A conspiracy is possible even when

participants are not 4nown to each other. Fo not thin4 that participants are always 4nown to each other. Conspirac% is a matter of substance which must be alleged in the information, otherwise, the court will not consider the same. roposal is true only up to the point where the party to whom the proposal was made has not yet accepted the proposal. @ncethe proposal was accepted, a conspiracy arises. Proposal is unilateral, one party ma4es a proposition to the other5 conspiracy isbilateral, it requires two parties. EDITION@Proposal to commit sedition is not a crime. !ut if /nion ! accepts the proposal, there will be conspiracy to commit sedition which is acrime under the "evised Penal 2ode.Co"+osite cri"es 2omposite crimes are crimes which, in substance, consist of more than one crime but in the eyes of the law, there is only onecrime. ?or example, the crimes of robbery with homicide, robbery with rape, robbery with physical in'uries.

9n case the crime committed is a composite crime, the conspirator will be liable for all the acts committed during the commissionof the crime agreed upon. This is because, in the eyes of the law, all those acts done in pursuance of the crime agreed upon are actswhich constitute a single crime. As a general rule

, when there is conspiracy, the rule is that the act of one is the act of all. This principle applies only to the crimeagreed upon.

The exception is if any of the co1conspirator would commit a crime not agreed upon. This happens when the crime agreed uponand the crime committed by one of the co1conspirators are distinct crimes.

Exception to the exception) 9n acts constituting a single indivisible offense, even though the co1conspirator performed different acts bringing about the composite crime, all will be liable for such crime. They can only evade responsibility for any other crime outsideof that agreed upon if it is proved that the particular conspirator had tried to prevent the commission of such other act.

Art. C. Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in an$ of their are afflictive, inaccordance with Article 2; of this -ode.Less -rave elonies are t*ose #*ic* t*e la# +unis*es #it* +enalties #*ic* in t*eir "a4i"u" +erio are correctional, inaccor ance #it* t*e a0ove&"entione article.Li-*t elonies are t*ose in ractions o la# or t*e co""ission o #*ic* *e +enalty o arresto menor or a ine not e4cee in-'(( +esos, or 0ot* is +rovi e .

-apital punishment death penalt$. !enalties *imprisonment+% Grave six $ears and one da$ to reclusion perpetua *life+ /ess grave one month and one da$ to

six $ears /ight arresto menor *one da$ to 3D da$s+.CL% IFIC%TION OF FELONIEThis question was as4ed in the bar examination) (ow do you classify felonies or how are felonies classified:6hat the examiner had in mind was Articles %, & and . Fo not write the classification of felonies under !oo4 - of the "evised Penal 2ode. That was not what the examiner had in mind because the question does not require the candidate to classify but also to define.Therefore, the examiner was after the classifications under Articles %, & and .Felonies are classi ie as ollo#s!

1/ According to the manner of their commission/nder Article %, they are classified as, intentional felonies or those committed with deliberate intent5 and culpable felonies or those

resulting from negligence, rec4less imprudence, lac4 of foresight or lac4 of s4ill.*3+ According to the stages of their execution/nder Article &., felonies are classified as attempted felony when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other thanhis own spontaneous desistance5 frustrated felony when the offender commences the commission of a felony as a consequence but which would produce the felony as a consequence but which nevertheless do not produce the felony by reason of causes independent of the perpetrator5 and, consummated felony when all the elements necessary for its execution are present.

9/ According to their gravit% /nder Article , felonies are classified as grave felonies or those to which attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive5 less grave felonies or those to which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period wascorreccional5 and light felonies or those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty is arresto menor.6hy is it necessary to determine whether the crime is grave, less grave or light:To determine whether these felonies can be complexed or not, and to determine the prescription of the crime and the prescription of the

penalty. 9n other words, these are felonies classified according to their gravity, stages and the penalty attached to them. Ta4e note that when the "evised Penal 2ode spea4s of grave and less grave felonies, the definition ma4es a reference specifically to Article -0 of the"evised Penal 2ode. Fo not omit the phrase ;9n accordance with Article -0< because there is also a classification of penalties under

Article -& that was not applied.9f the penalty is fine and exactly P-GG.GG, it is only considered a light felony under Article .9f the fine is imposed as an alternative penalty or as a single penalty, the fine of P-GG.GG is considered a correctional penalty under

Article -&.9f the penalty is exactly P-GG.GG, apply Article -&. 9t is considered as correctional penalty and it prescribes in +G years. 9f the offender is apprehended at any time within ten years, he can be made to suffer the fine.This classification of felony according to gravity is important with respect to the question of prescription of crimes.9n the case of light felonies, crimes prescribe in two months. 9f the crime is correctional, it prescribes in ten years, except arrestomayor, which prescribes in five years.%rt. 1(. O enses #*ic* are or in t*e uture "ay 0e +unis*a0le un er s+ecial la#s are not su0?ect to t*e +rovisions o t*isCo e. T*is Co e s*all 0e su++le"entary to suc* la#s, unless t*e latter s*oul s+ecially +rovi e t*e contrary.

9or pecial /aws% !enalties should be imprisonment, and not reclusion perpetua , etc. 0ffenses that are attempted or frustrated are not punishable, unless otherwise stated.

!lea of guilt$ is not mitigating for offenses punishable b$ special laws. "o minimum, medium, and maximum periods for penalties. "o penalt$ for an accessor$ or accomplice, unless otherwise stated.

rovisions of R C applicable to special laws$1. Art. 1> !articipation of Accomplices2. Art. 22 etroactivit$ of !enal laws if favorable to the accused3. Art. 4; -onfiscation of instruments used in the crime

UPPLETO)A %PPLIC%TION OF T8E )EBI ED PEN%L CODE9n Article +G, there is a reservation ;provision of the "evised Penal 2ode may be applied suppletorily to special laws


9/26

?or example, a special law punishes a certain act as a crime. The special law is silent as to the civil liability of one who violates thesame. (ere is a person who violated the special law and he was prosecuted. (is violation caused damage or in'ury to a private party.Cay the court pronounce that he is civilly liable to the offended party, considering that the special law is silent on this point: Hes,because Article +GG of the "evised Penal 2ode may be given suppletory application to prevent an in'ustice from being done to theoffended party. Article +GG states that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. That article shall be applied suppletory to avoid an in'ustice that would be caused to the private offended party, if he would not be indemnified for the damages or in'uries sustained by him.9n eople v. Rodrigue', it was held that the use of arms is an element of rebellion, so a rebel cannot be further prosecuted for

possession of firearms. A violation of a special law can never absorb a crime punishable under the "evised Penal 2ode, becauseviolations of the "evised Penal 2ode are more serious than a violation of a special law. !ut a crime in the "evised Penal 2ode canabsorb a crime punishable by a special law if it is a necessary ingredient of the crime in the "evised Penal 2ode9n the crime of sedition, the use of firearms is not an ingredient of the crime. (ence, two prosecutions can be had) *+ sedition5 and *-illegal possession of firearms.!ut do not thin4 that when a crime is punished outside of the "evised Penal 2ode, it is already a special law. ?or example, the crime of cattle1rustling is not a mala prohibitum but a modification of the crime theft of large cattle. o Presidential Fecree #o. 0%%, punishing cattle1rustling, is not a special law. 9t can absorb the crime of murder. 9f in the course of cattle rustling, murder was committed, theoffender cannot be prosecuted for murder. Curder would be a qualifying circumstance in the crime of qualified cattle rustling. This wasthe ruling in eople v. 0artinada.The amendments of Presidential Fecree #o. &D-0 *The Fangerous Frugs Act of + $- by "epublic Act #o. $&0 , which adopted thescale of penalties in the "evised Penal 2ode, means that mitigating and aggravating circumstances can now be considered inimposing penalties. Presidential Fecree #o. &D-0 does not expressly prohibit the suppletory application of the "evised Penal 2ode.The stages of the commission of felonies will also apply since suppletory application is now allowed.Circu"stances a ectin- cri"inal lia0ility#here are five circumstances affecting criminal liabilit$%*1+ =ustif$ing circumstances*2+ xempting circumstances*3+ Mitigating circumstances*4+ Aggravating circumstances and*;+ Alternative circumstances.T*ere are t#o ot*ers #*ic* are oun else#*ere in t*e +rovisions o t*e )evise Penal Co e!*1+ Absolutor$ cause and*2+ xtenuating circumstances.9n 'ustifying and exempting circumstances, there is no criminal liability. 6hen an accused invo4es them, he in effect admits thecommission of a crime but tries to avoid the liability thereof. The burden is upon him to establish beyond reasonable doubt the required conditions to 'ustify or exempt his acts from criminal liability. 6hat is shifted is only the burden of evidence, not the burden of proof.=ustifying circumstances contemplate intentional acts and, hence, are incompatible with dolo. Exempting circumstances may beinvo4ed in culpable felonies.%0solutory causeThe effect of this is to absolve the offender from criminal liability, although not from civil liability. 9t has the same effect as an exempting circumstance, but you do not call it as such in order not to confuse it with the circumstances under Article +-.

Article -G provides that the penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the samedegrees with the exception of accessories who profited themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.Then, Article I provides how criminal liability is extinguished)Feath of the convict as to the personal penalties, and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished if death occurs beforefinal 'udgment5

ervice of the sentence5 Amnesty5 Absolute pardon5Prescription of the crime5Prescription of the penalty5 and Carriage of the offended woman as provided in Article %DD. /nder Article -D$, a legally married person who 4ills or inflicts physical in'uries upon his or her spouse whom he surprised having sexual intercourse with his or her paramour or mistress in not criminally liable.

/nder Article -+ , discovering secrets through sei ure of correspondence of the ward by their guardian is not penali ed./nder Article %%-, in the case of theft, swindling and malicious mischief, there is no criminal liability but only civil liability, when theoffender and the offended party are related as spouse, ascendant, descendant, brother and sister1in1law living together or where incase the widowed spouse and the property involved is that of the deceased spouse, before such property had passed on to the

possession of third parties./nder Article %DD, in cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness, and rape, the marriage of the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action.

Absolutory cause has the effect of an exempting circumstance and they are predicated on lac4 of voluntariness li4e instigation.9nstigation is associated with criminal intent. Fo not consider culpa in connection with instigation. 9f the crime is culpable, do not tal4 of instigation. 9n instigation, the crime is committed with dolo. 9t is confused with entrapment.Entrapment is not an absolutory cause. Entrapment does not exempt the offender or mitigate his criminal liability. !ut instigationabsolves the offender from criminal liability because in instigation, the offender simply acts as a tool of the law enforcers and, therefore,he is acting without criminal intent because without the instigation, he would not have done the criminal act which he did uponinstigation of the law enforcers.Di erence 0et#een insti-ation an entra+"ent9n instigation , the criminal plan or design exists in the mind of the law enforcer with whom the person instigated cooperated so it issaid that the person instigated is acting only as a mere instrument or tool of the law enforcer in the performance of his duties. @n the other hand, in entrapment , a criminal design is already in the mind of the person entrapped. 9t did not emanate from the mind of the law enforcer entrapping him. Entrapment involves only ways and means which are laid down or resorted to facilitate theapprehension of the culprit.The element which ma4es instigation an absolutory cause is the lac4 of criminal intent as an element of voluntariness.9f the instigator is a law enforcer, the person instigated cannot be criminally liable, because it is the law enforcer who planted that criminal mind in him to commit the crime, without which he would not have been a criminal. 9f the instigator is not a law enforcer, bothwill be criminally liable, you cannot have a case of instigation. 9n instigation, the private citi en only cooperates with the law enforcer toa point when the private citi en upon instigation of the law enforcer incriminates himself. 9t would be contrary to public policy to

prosecute a citi en who only cooperated with the law enforcer. The private citi en believes that he is a law enforcer and that is why when the law enforcer tells him, he believes that it is a civil duty to cooperate.


10/26

9f the person instigated does not 4now that the person is instigating him is a law enforcer or he 4nows him to be not a law enforcer, thisis not a case of instigation. This is a case of inducement, both will be criminally liable.9n entrapment, the person entrapped should not 4now that the person trying to entrap him was a law enforcer. The idea is incompatiblewith each other because in entrapment, the person entrapped is actually committing a crime. The officer who entrapped him only laysdown ways and means to have evidence of the commission of the crime, but even without those ways and means, the personentrapped is actually engaged in a violation of the law.9nstigation absolves the person instigated from criminal liability. This is based on the rule that a person cannot be a criminal if his mind is not criminal. @n the other hand, entrapment is not an absolutory cause. 9t is not even mitigating .9n case of somnambulism or one who acts while sleeping, the person involved is definitely acting without freedom and without sufficient intelligence, because he is asleep. (e is moving li4e a robot, unaware of what he is doing. o the element of voluntariness which isnecessary in dolo and culpa is not present. omnambulism is an absolutory cause. 9f element of voluntariness is absent, there is nocriminal liability, although there is civil liability, and if the circumstance is not among those enumerated in Article +-, refer to thecircumstance as an absolutory cause.Cista4e of fact is an absolutory cause. The offender is acting without criminal intent. o in mista4e of fact, it is necessary that had thefacts been true as the accused believed them to be, this act is 'ustified. 9f not, there is criminal liability, because there is no mista4e of fact anymore. The offender must believe he is performing a lawful act.

xtenuating circumstancesThe effect of this is to mitigate the criminal liability of the offender. 9n other words, this has the same effect as mitigating circumstances,only you do not call it mitigating because this is not found in Article +%. &llustrations$

An unwed mother 4illed her child in order to conceal a dishonor. The concealment of dishonor is an extenuating circumstance insofar as the unwed mother or the maternal grandparents is concerned, but not insofar as the father of the child is concerned. Cother 4illing her new born child to conceal her dishonor, penalty is lowered by two degrees. ince there is a material lowering of the penalty or mitigating the penalty, this is an extenuating circumstance.The concealment of honor by mother in the crime of infanticide is an extenuating circumstance but not in the case of parricide when theage of the victim is three days old and above.9n the crime of adultery on the part of a married woman abandoned by her husband, at the time she was abandoned by her husband,is it necessary for her to see4 the company of another man. Abandonment by the husband does not 'ustify the act of the woman. 9t only extenuates or reduces criminal liability. 6hen the effect of the circumstance is to lower the penalty there is an extenuating circumstance.

A 4leptomaniac is one who cannot resist the temptation of stealing things which appeal to his desire. This is not exempting. @ne whois a 4leptomaniac and who would steal ob'ects of his desire is criminally liable. !ut he would be given the benefit of a mitigating circumstance analogous to paragraph of Article +%, that of suffering from an illness which diminishes the exercise of his will power without, however, depriving him of the consciousness of his act. o this is an extenuating circumstance. The effect is to mitigate thecriminal liability.Distinctions 0et#een ?usti yin- circu"stances an e4e"+tin- circu"stances&n 1ustif%ing circumstances 8*+ The circumstance affects the act, not the actor5

*- The act complained of is considered to have been done within the bounds of law5 hence, it is legitimate and lawful in theeyes of the law5*% ince the act is considered lawful, there is no crime, and because there is no crime, there is no criminal5*D ince there is no crime or criminal, there is no criminal liability as well as civil liability.&n exempting circumstances 8*+ The circumstances affect the actor, not the act5*- The act complained of is actually wrongful, but the actor acted without voluntariness. (e is a mere tool or instrument of the crime5*% ince the act complained of is actually wrongful, there is a crime. !ut because the actor acted without voluntariness,there is absence of dolo or culpa. There is no criminal5*D ince there is a crime committed but there is no criminal, there is civil liability for the wrong done. !ut there is no criminal liability. (owever, in paragraphs D and $ of Article +-, there is neither criminal nor civil liability.6hen you apply for 'ustifying or exempting circumstances, it is confession and avoidance and burden of proof shifts to the accused and he can no longer rely on wea4ness of prosecution>s evidence.

@1 #he difference between murder and homicide will be discussed in -riminal /aw &&. #hese crimes are found in Articles 24:and 24C, )ook && of the evised !enal -ode. @2 #he difference between theft and robber$ will be discussed in -riminal /aw &&. #hese crimes are found in #itle #en,-hapters 0ne and #hree, )ook && of the evised !enal -ode.%rt. 11! Justi yin- Circu"stances those wherein the acts of the actor are in accordance with law, hence, he is 'ustified. #here isno criminal and civil liabilit$ because there is no crime.

!elf-defense *par. 9+7 eason for lawfulness of self7defense% because it would be impossible for the tate to protect all its citi ens. Also a personcannot 'ust give up his rights without an$ resistance being offered.7 ights included in self7defense%

1.


11/26

bound to arise from one or the other of the combatants. xception% here the attack is made in violation of theconditions agreed upon, there ma$ be unlawful aggression.7 Inlawful aggression in self7defense, to be 'ustif$ing, must exist at the time the defense is made. &t ma$ no longer existif the aggressor runs awa$ after the attack or he has manifested a refusal to continue fighting. &f the person attackedallowed some time to elapse after he suffered the in'ur$ before hitting back, his act of hitting back would not constituteself7defense, but revenge.7 A light push on the head with the hand is not unlawful aggression, but a slap on the face is, because his dignit$ is in

danger.7 A police officer exceeding his authorit$ ma$ become an unlawful aggressor.7 #he nature, character, location, and extent of the wound ma$ belie claim of self7defense.

'. )easona0le necessity o t*e "eans e"+loye to +revent or re+el it@)e2uisites!a. Means were used to prevent or repelb. Means must be necessar$ and there is no other wa$ to prevent or repel itc. Means must be reasonable depending on the circumstances, but generall$ proportionate to the force of the aggressor.

7 #he rule here is to stand $our ground when in the right which ma$ invoked when the defender is unlawfull$ assaulted and theaggressor is armed with a weapon.7 #he rule is more liberal when the accused is a peace officer who, unlike a private person, cannot run awa$.7 #he reasonable necessit$ of the means emplo$ed to put up the defense.7 #he gauge of reasonable necessit$ is the instinct of self7preservation, i.e. a person did not use his rational mind to pick ameans of defense but acted out of self7preservation, using the nearest or onl$ means available to defend himself, even if suchmeans be disproportionatel$ advantageous as compared with the means of violence emplo$ed b$ the aggressor.7 easonableness of the means depends on the nature and the (ualit$ of the weapon used, ph$sical condition, character, si eand other circumstances.

9. Lac< o su icient +rovocation on t*e +art o t*e +erson e en in- *i"sel .7 hen no provocation at all was given to the aggressor b$ the person defending himself.7 hen even if provocation was given b$ the person defending himself, such was not sufficient to cause violent aggression onthe part of the attacker, i.e. the amount of provocation was not sufficient to stir the aggressor into the acts which led the accusedto defend himself.7 hen even if the provocation were sufficient, it was not given b$ the person defending himself.7 hen even if provocation was given b$ the person defending himself, the attack was not proximate or immediate to the act of provocation.7 ufficient means proportionate to the damage caused b$ the act, and ade(uate to stir one to its commission.

Kin s o el &De ense1. el & e ense o c*astity to be entitled to complete self7defense of chastit$, there must be an attempt to rape, mere

imminence thereof will suffice.2. De ense o +ro+erty an attack on the propert$ must be coupled with an attack on the person of the owner, or of

one entrusted with the care of such propert$.3. el & e ense in li0el ph$sical assault ma$ be 'ustified when the libel is aimed at a person?s good name, and while

the libel is in progress, one libel deserves another.

J)urden of proof on the accused *sufficient, clear and convincing evidence must rel$ on the strength of his own evidence and not onthe weakness of the prosecution+. De ense o )elative +ar. '/

Ele"ents!1. unlawful aggression2. reasonable necessit$ of the means emplo$ed to prevent or repel the attack3. in case provocation was given b$ the person attacked, that the person making the defense had no part in such

provocation.)elatives entitle to t*e e ense!1. spouse2. ascendants3. descendants4. legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters;. relatives b$ affinit$ in the same degree>. relatives b$ consanguinit$ within the 4th civil degree.7 #he third element need not take place. #he relative defended ma$ even be the original aggressor. All that is re(uired to 'ustif$the act of the relative defending is that he takes no part in such provocation.7 General opinion is to the effect that all relatives mentioned must be legitimate, except in cases of brothers and sisters who, b$relatives b$ nature, ma$ be illegitimate.7 #he unlawful aggression ma$ depend on the honest belief of the person making the defense.

De ense o tran-er +ar. 9/Ele"ents1. unlawful aggression2. reasonable necessit$ of the means emplo$ed to prevent or repel the attack3. the person defending be not induced b$ revenge, resentment or other evil motive.

7 A relative not included in defense of relative is included in defense of stranger.7 K)e not induced b$ evil motive5 means that even an enem$ of the aggressor who comes to the defense of a stranger ma$invoke this 'ustif$ing circumstances so long as he is not induced b$ a motive that is evil.

tate o Necessity +ar. :/

1. Art. ++, Par. D provides)%ny +erson #*o, in or er to avoi an evil or in?ury, oes an act #*ic* causes a"a-e to anot*er, +rovi e t*at t*e ollo#in-re2uisites are +resent!First. T*at t*e evil sou-*t to 0e avoi e actually e4ists@ econ . T*at t*e in?ury eare 0e -reater t*an t*at one to avoi it@ an T*ir . T*at t*ere 0e no ot*er +ractical an less *ar" ul "eans o +reventin- it.

7 A state of necessit$ exists when there is a clash between une(ual rights, the lesser right giving wa$ to the greater right. Asidefrom the 3 re(uisites stated in the law, it should also be added that the necessit$ must not be due to the negligence or violationof an$ law b$ the actor.7 #he person for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civill$ liable in proportion to the benefit which ma$ havebeen received. #his is the onl$ 'ustif$ing circumstance which provides for the pa$ment of civil indemnit$. Inder the other

'ustif$ing circumstances, no civil liabilit$ attaches. #he courts shall determine, in their sound discretion, the proportionateamount for which law one is liable


12/26

Ful ill"ent o Duty or La# ul E4ercise o a )i-*t or O ice +ar. ;/Ele"ents!

a. that the accused acted in the performance of a dut$, or in the lawful exercise of a right or officeb. that the in'ur$ caused or offense committed be the necessar$ conse(uence of the due performance of the dut$, or the

lawful exercise of such right or office.7 A police officer is 'ustified in shooting and killing a criminal who refuses to stop when ordered to do so, and after such officer

fired warning shots in the air.7 shooting an offender who refused to surrender is 'ustified, but not a thief who refused to be arrested.7 #he accused must prove that he was dul$ appointed to the position he claimed he was discharging at the time of thecommission of the offense. &t must be made to appear not onl$ that the in'ur$ caused or the offense committed was done in thefulfillment of a dut$, or in the lawful exercise of a right or office, but that the offense committed was a necessar$ conse(uence of such fulfillment of dut$, or lawful exercise of a right or office.7 A mere securit$ guard has no authorit$ or dut$ to fire at a thief, resulting in the latter?s death.

O0e ience to a u+erior Or er +ar. /Ele"ents!

a. there is an orderb. the order is for a legal purposec. the means used to carr$ out said order is lawful.

7 #he subordinate who is made to compl$ with the order is the part$ which ma$ avail of this circumstance. #he officer giving theorder ma$ not invoke this.7 #he subordinate?s good faith is material here. &f he obe$ed an order in good faith, not being aware of its illegalit$, he is notliable. 6owever, the order must not be patentl$ illegal. &f the order is patentl$ illegal this circumstance cannot be validl$invoked.7 #he reason for this 'ustif$ing circumstance is the subordinate?s mistake of fact in good faith.7 ven if the order be patentl$ illegal, the subordinate ma$ $et be able to invoke the exempting circumstances of having acted

under the compulsion of an irresistible force, or under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear.

E M!#&"G -& -IM #A"- xempting circumstances *non7imputabilit$+ are those ground for exemption from punishment because there is wanting in the

agent of the crime of an$ of the conditions which make the act voluntar$, or negligent. )asis% #he exemption from punishment is based on the complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or on

the absence of negligence on the part of the accused. A person who acts

Notes - Criminal Law in General, Art. 1 to 20

Documents

Transcript of Notes - Criminal Law in General, Art. 1 to 20