Criminal Law – A branch of municipal law which defines application to favor only those who are not

who are not habitual

crimes, treats of their nature and provides for their delinquents. 
punishment. Consequences if repeal of penal law is partial or
Limitations on the power of Congress to enact penal relative
laws (ON) (1)                If a case is pending in court involving the
1.         Must be general in application. violation of the repealed law, and the repealing law is
2.         Must not partake of the nature of an ex post more favorable to the accused, it shall be the one
facto law. applied to him.  So whether he is a habitual delinquent
3.         Must not partake of the nature of a bill of or not, if the case is still pending in court, the repealing
attainder. law will be the one to apply unless there is a saving
4.         Must not impose cruel and unusual punishment clause in the repealing law that it shall not apply to
or excessive fines. pending causes of action.
Characteristics of Criminal Law: (2)           If a case is already decided and the accused is
General – the law is binding to all persons who reside in already serving sentence by final judgment, even if the
the Philippines repealing law is partial or relative, the crime still
Territorial – the law is binding to all crimes committed remains to be a crime.   Those who are not habitual
within the National Territory of the Philippines delinquents will benefit on the effect of that repeal, so
Exception to Territorial Application: Instances that if the repeal is more lenient to them, it will be the
enumerated under Article 2. repealing law that will henceforth apply to them.
3.   Prospective – the law does not have any retroactive Under Article 22, even if the offender is already
effect. convicted and serving sentence, a law which is beneficial
Exception to Prospective Application: when new statute shall be applied to him unless he is a habitual delinquent
is favorable to the accused. in accordance with Rule 5 of Article 62.
Effect of repeal of penal law to liability of offender Consequences if repeal of penal law is express or
Total or absolute, or partial or relative repeal. — As to implied
the effect of repeal of penal law to the liability of (1)                If a penal law is impliedly repealed,  the
offender, qualify your answer by saying whether the subsequent repeal of the repealing law will revive the
repeal is absolute or total or whether the repeal is original law.  So the act or omission which was punished
partial or relative only. as a crime under the original law will be revived and the
A  repeal is absolute or total when the crime punished same shall again be crimes although during the implied
under the repealed law has been decriminalized by the repeal they may not be punishable.                         
repeal.  Because of the repeal, the act or omission which (2)                If the repeal is express, the repeal of the
used to be a crime is no longer a crime. An example is repealing law will not revive the first law, so the act or
Republic Act No. 7363, which decriminalized subversion. omission will no longer be penalized.
A  repeal is partial or relative when the crime punished These effects of repeal do not apply to self-repealing
under the repealed law continues to be a crime inspite of laws or those which have automatic termination.   An
the repeal.  This means that the repeal merely modified example is the Rent Control Law which is revived by
the conditions affecting the crime under the repealed Congress every two years.
law.  The modification may be prejudicial or beneficial Theories of Criminal Law
to the offender.  Hence, the following rule: Classical Theory – Man is essentially a moral creature
Consequences if repeal of penal law is total or absolute with an absolute free will to choose between good and
(1)                If a case is pending in court involving the evil and therefore more stress is placed upon the result
violation of the repealed law, the same shall be of the felonious act than upon the criminal himself.
dismissed, even though the accused may be a habitual Positivist Theory – Man is subdued occasionally by a
delinquent. strange and morbid phenomenon which conditions him
(2)                If a case is already decided and the accused to do wrong in spite of or contrary to his volition.
is already serving sentence by final judgment,  if the Eclectic or Mixed Philosophy
convict is  not a habitual delinquent, then he will be This combines both positivist and classical thinking. 
entitled to a release unless there is a reservation clause Crimes that are economic and social and nature should
in the penal law that it will not apply to those serving be dealt with in a positivist manner; thus, the law is
sentence at the time of the repeal.   But if there is no more compassionate.  Heinous crimes should be dealt
reservation, those who are not habitual delinquents with in a classical manner; thus, capital punishmen
even if they are already serving their sentence will  
receive the benefit of the repealing law.  They are BASIC MAXIMS IN CRIMINAL LAW
entitled to release. Doctrine of Pro Reo
If they are not discharged from confinement, a petition Whenever a penal law is to be construed or applied and
for habeas corpus should be filed to test the legality of the law admits of two interpretations – one lenient to
their continued confinement in jail. the offender and one strict to the offender – that
If the convict, on the other hand, is a habitual interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the
delinquent, he will continue serving the sentence in spite offender will be adopted.
of the fact that the law under which he was convicted Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege
has already been absolutely repealed.  This is so
because penal laws should be given retroactive
There is no crime when there is no law punishing the In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, the
same.  This is true to civil law countries, but not to moral trait of the offender is considered. This is why
common law countries. liability would only arise when there is dolo or culpa in
Because of this maxim, there is no common law crime in the commission of the punishable act.
the Philippines.  No matter how wrongful, evil or bad the In crimes punished under special laws, the moral trait of
act is, if there is no law defining the act, the same is not the offender is not considered; it is enough that the
considered a crime. prohibited act was voluntarily done.
Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea 2.             As to use of good faith as defense
The act cannot be criminal where the mind is not In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, good
criminal.  This is true to a felony characterized by dolo, faith or lack of criminal intent is a valid defense; unless
but not a felony resulting from culpa.  This maxim is not the crime is the result of culpa
an absolute one because it is not applied to culpable In crimes punished under special laws, good faith is not
felonies, or those that result from negligence. a defense
Utilitarian Theory or Protective Theory 3.             As to degree of accomplishment of the crime
The primary purpose of the punishment under criminal In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, the
law is the protection of society from actual and potential degree of accomplishment of the crime is taken into
wrongdoers.  The courts, therefore, in exacting account in punishing the offender; thus, there are
retribution for the wronged society, should direct the attempted, frustrated, and consummated stages in the
punishment to potential or actual wrongdoers, since commission of the crime.
criminal law is directed against acts and omissions In crimes punished under special laws, the act gives rise
which the society does not approve.  Consistent with this to a crime only when it is consummated; there are no
theory, the mala prohibita principle which punishes an attempted or frustrated stages, unless the special law
offense regardless of malice or criminal intent, should expressly penalize the mere attempt or frustration of
not be utilized to apply the full harshness of the special the crime.
law.  4.             As to mitigating and aggravating
Sources of Criminal Law circumstances
The Revised Penal Code In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code,
Special Penal Laws – Acts enacted of the Philippine mitigating and aggravating circumstances are taken into
Legislature punishing offenses or omissions. account in imposing the penalty since the moral trait of
Construction of Penal Laws the offender is considered.
Criminal Statutes are liberally construed in favor of the In crimes punished under special laws, mitigating and
offender. This means that no person shall be brought aggravating circumstances are not taken into account in
within their terms who is not clearly within them, nor imposing the penalty.
should any act be pronounced criminal which is not 5.             As to degree of participation
clearly made so by statute. In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, when
The original text in which a penal law is approved in case there is more than one offender, the degree of
of a conflict with an official translation. participation of each in the commission of the crime is
Interpretation by analogy has no place in criminal law taken into account in imposing the penalty; thus,
MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA offenders are classified as principal, accomplice and
Violations of the Revised Penal Code are referred to accessory.
as malum in se, which literally means, that the act is In crimes punished under special laws, the degree of
inherently evil or bad or per se wrongful.  On the other participation of the offenders is not considered.  All who
hand, violations of special laws are generally referred to perpetrated the prohibited act are penalized to the
as malum prohibitum. same extent.  There is no principal or accomplice or
Note, however, that not all violations of special laws are accessory to consider.
mala prohibita.  While intentional felonies are always Test to determine if violation of special law is malum
mala in se, it does not follow that prohibited acts done prohibitum or malum in se
in violation of special laws are always mala prohibita.  Analyze the violation:  Is it wrong because there is a law
Even if the crime is punished under a special law, if the prohibiting it or punishing it as such?  If you remove the
act punished is one which is inherently wrong, the same law, will the act still be wrong?
is malum in se, and, therefore, good faith and the lack of If the wording of the law punishing the crime uses the
criminal intent is a valid defense; unless it is the product word “willfully”, then malice must be proven.  Where
of criminal negligence or culpa. malice is a factor, good faith is a defense.
Likewise when the special laws requires that the In violation of special law, the act constituting the crime
punished act be committed knowingly and willfully, is a prohibited act.  Therefore culpa is not a basis of
criminal intent is required to be proved before criminal liability, unless the special law punishes an omission.
liability may arise. When given a problem, take note if the crime is a
When the act penalized is not inherently wrong, it is violation of the Revised Penal Code or a special law.
wrong only because a law punishes the same. Art. 1.  This Code shall take effect on January 1, 1932.
Distinction between crimes punished under the Art. 2.  Except as provided in the treaties and laws of
Revised Penal Code and crimes punished under special preferential application, the provisions of this Code
laws shall be enforced not only within the Philippine
1.             As to moral trait of the offender Archipelago including its atmosphere, its interior
waters and Maritime zone, but also outside of its functions contemplated are those, which are, under the
jurisdiction, against those who: law, to be performed by the public officer in the Foreign
1.  Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship Service of the Philippine government in a foreign
or airship; country.
2.  Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency  
note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and Exception:  The Revised Penal Code governs if the crime
securities issued by the Government of the Philippine was committed within the Philippine Embassy or within
Islands; the embassy grounds in a foreign country.  This is
3.  Should be liable for acts connected with the because embassy grounds are considered an extension
introduction into these islands of the obligations and of sovereignty.
securities mentioned in the preceding number; Paragraph 5 of Article 2,  use the phrase “as defined in
4.  While being public officers or employees, should Title One of Book Two of this Code.”
commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; This is a very important part of the exception, because
or (Some of these crimes are bribery, fraud against Title I of Book 2 (crimes against national security) does
national treasury, malversation of public funds or not include rebellion. 
property, and illegal use of public funds; e.g., A judge Art 3.  Acts and omissions punishable by law are
who accepts a bribe while in Japan.) felonies.
 5.  Should commit any crimes against the national Acts  – an overt or external act
security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Omission – failure to perform a duty required by
Book Two of this Code. (These crimes include treason, law. Example of an omission: failure to render assistance
espionage, piracy, mutiny, and violation of neutrality) to anyone who is in danger of dying or is in an
Rules as to crimes committed aboard foreign merchant uninhabited place or is wounded – abandonment.
vessels: Felonies – acts and omissions punishable by the Revised
French Rule – Such crimes are not triable in the courts Penal Code
of that country, unless their commission affects the Crime – acts and omissions punishable by any law
peace and security of the territory or the safety of the What requisites must concur before a felony may be
state is endangered. committed?
English Rule – Such crimes are triable in that country, There must be (1) an act or omission; (2) punishable by
unless they merely affect things within the vessel or the Revised Penal Code; and (3) the act is performed or
they refer to the internal management thereof. (This is the omission incurred by means of dolo or culpa.
applicable in the Philippines) How felonies are committed:
two situations where the foreign country may not apply by means of deceit (dolo) – There is deceit when the act
its criminal law even if a crime was committed on board is performed with deliberate intent.
a vessel within its territorial waters and these are: Requisites:
(1)                When the crime is committed in a  war freedom
vessel  of a foreign country, because war vessels are part intelligence
of the sovereignty of the country to whose naval force intent
they belong; Examples: murder, treason, and robbery
(2)                When the foreign country in whose territorial Criminal intent is not necessary in these cases:
waters the crime was committed adopts the  French (1)               When the crime is the product of culpa or
Rule, which applies only to merchant vessels, except negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of foresight or lack
when the crime committed affects the national security of skill;
or public order of such foreign country. (2)               When the crime is a prohibited act under a
Requirements of “an offense committed while on a special law or what is called malum prohibitum.
Philippine Ship or Airship” In criminal law, intent is categorized into two:
Registered with the Philippine Bureau of Customs (1)               General criminal intent; and
Ship must be in the high seas or the airship must be in (2)               Specific criminal intent. 
international airspace. General criminal intent  is presumed from the mere
Under international law rule, a vessel which is not doing of a wrong act.  This does not require proof.  The
registered in accordance with the laws of any country is burden is upon the wrong doer to prove that he acted
considered a pirate vessel and piracy is a crime against without such criminal intent. 
humanity in general, such that wherever the pirates may Specific criminal intent  is not presumed because it is an
go, they can be prosecuted.    ingredient or element of a crime, like intent to kill in the
US v. Bull `crimes of attempted or frustrated
A crime which occurred on board of a foreign vessel, homicide/parricide/murder.  The prosecution has the
which began when the ship was in a foreign territory burden of proving the same.
and continued when it entered into Philippine waters, is Distinction between intent and discernment
considered a continuing crime. Hence within the Intent  is the determination to do a certain thing, an aim
jurisdiction of the local courts. or purpose of the mind.  It is the design to resolve or
As a general rule, the Revised Penal Code governs only determination by which a person acts.
when the crime committed pertains to the exercise of On the other hand,  discernment is the mental capacity
the public official’s functions, those having to do with to tell right from wrong.  It relates to the moral
the discharge of their duties in a foreign country.  The significance that a person ascribes to his act and relates
to the intelligence as an element of dolo, distinct from             1.  By any person committing a felony, although
intent.  the wrongful act done be different from that which he
Distinction between intent and motive intended.
Intent is demonstrated by the use of a particular means Article 4, paragraph 1 presupposes that the act done is
to bring about a desired result – it is not a state of mind the proximate cause of the resulting felony. It must be
or a reason for committing a crime. the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the
On the other hand, motive  implies motion.  It is the felonious act.
moving power which impels one to do an act.  When Causes which produce a different result:
there is motive in the commission of a crime, it always Mistake in identity of the victim – injuring one person
comes before the intent.  But a crime may be committed who is mistaken for another (this is a complex crime
without motive.  under Art. 48) e.g., A intended to shoot B, but he instead
If the crime is intentional, it cannot be committed shot C because he (A) mistook C for B.
without intent.  Intent is manifested by the instrument             In error in personae, the intended victim was not
used by the offender.  The specific criminal intent at the scene of the crime.  It was the actual victim upon
becomes material if the crime is to be distinguished from whom the blow was directed, but he was not really the
the attempted or frustrated stage. intended victim. 
by means of fault  (culpa) – There is fault when the How does error in personae affect criminal liability of
wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack the offender?
of foresight, or lack of skill. Error in personae is mitigating if the crime committed is
Imprudence – deficiency of action; e.g. A was driving a different from that which was intended.  If the crime
truck along a road.  He hit B because it was raining – committed is the same as that which was intended, error
reckless imprudence. in personae does not affect the criminal liability of the
Negligence – deficiency of perception; failure to foresee offender.
impending danger, usually involves lack of foresight In mistake of identity, if the crime committed was the
c.           Requisites: same as the crime intended, but on a different victim,
Freedom error in persona does not affect the criminal liability of
Intelligence the offender.  But if the crime committed was different
Imprudence, negligence, lack of skill or foresight from the crime intended, Article 49 will apply and the
Lack of intent penalty for the lesser crime will be applied.  In a way,
The  concept of criminal negligence  is the inexcusable mistake in identity is a mitigating circumstance where
lack of precaution on the part of the person performing Article 49 applies.  Where the crime intended is more
or failing to perform an act.  If the danger impending serious than the crime committed, the error in persona is
from that situation is clearly manifest, you have a case not a mitigating circumstance
of reckless imprudence.  But if the danger that would Mistake in blow – hitting somebody other than the
result from such imprudence is not clear, not manifest target due to lack of skill or fortuitous instances (this is a
nor immediate you have only a case of  simple complex crime under Art. 48) e.g., B and C were walking
negligence. together.  A wanted to shoot B, but he instead injured C.
Mistake of fact – is a misapprehension of fact on the             In aberratio ictus, a person directed the blow at
part of the person who caused injury to another.  He is an intended victim, but because of poor aim, that blow
not criminally liable. landed on somebody else.  In aberratio ictus, the
a. Requisites: intended victim as well as the actual victim are both at
that the act done would have been lawful had the facts the scene of the crime.
been as the accused believed them to be;       aberratio ictus, generally gives rise to a complex
intention of the accused is lawful; crime.   This being so, the penalty for the more serious
mistake must be without fault of carelessness. crime is imposed in the maximum period.
 Example:  United States v. Ah Chong. Injurious result is greater than that intended – causing
Ah Chong being afraid of bad elements, locked himself injury graver than intended or expected (this is a
in his room by placing a chair against the door. After mitigating circumstance due to lack of intent to commit
having gone to bed, he was awakened by somebody so grave a wrong under Art. 13) e.g., A wanted to injure
who was trying to open the door.  He asked the identity B.  However, B died.
of the person, but he did not receive a response.              praeter intentionem is mitigating, particularly
Fearing that this intruder was a robber, he leaped out of covered by paragraph 3 of Article 13.  In order however,
bed and said that he will kill the intruder should he that the situation may qualify as praeter intentionem,
attempt to enter.  At that moment, the chair struck him.  there must be a notable disparity between the means
Believing that he was attacked, he seized a knife and employed and the resulting felony
fatally wounded the intruder. In all these instances the offender can still be held
Mistake of fact would be relevant only when the felony criminally liable, since he is motivated by criminal intent.
would have been intentional or through dolo, but not Requisites:
when the felony is a result of culpa.  When the felony is the felony was intentionally committed
a product of culpa, do not discuss mistake of fact.  the felony is the proximate cause of the wrong done
Art. 4.  Criminal liability shall be incurred: Doctrine of Proximate Cause – such adequate and
efficient cause as, in the natural order of events, and
under the particular circumstances surrounding the Employment of inadequate means: A used poison to kill
case, which would necessarily produce the event. B.  However, B survived because A used small quantities
Requisites: of poison – frustrated murder.
the direct, natural, and logical cause Ineffectual means: A aimed his gun at B.  When he fired
produces the injury or damage the gun, no bullet came out because the gun was
unbroken by any sufficient intervening cause empty.  A is liable.
without which the result would not have occurred               Whenever you are confronted with a problem
Proximate Cause is negated by: where the facts suggest that an impossible crime was
Active force, distinct act, or fact absolutely foreign from committed, be careful about the question asked.  If the
the felonious act of the accused, which serves as a question asked is: “Is an impossible crime committed?”,
sufficient intervening cause. then you judge that question on the basis of  the facts. 
Resulting injury or damage is due to the intentional act If really the facts constitute an impossible crime, then
of the victim. you suggest than an impossible crime is committed, then
        proximate cause does not require that the offender you state the reason for the inherent impossibility.
needs to actually touch the body of the offended party.               If the question asked is “Is he liable for an
It is enough that the offender generated in the mind of impossible crime?”, this is a catching question.  Even
the offended party the belief that made him risk himself. though the facts constitute an impossible crime, if the
Requisite for Presumption blow was cause of the death – act done by the offender constitutes some other crimes
Where there has been an injury inflicted sufficient to under the Revised Penal Code, he will not be liable for an
produce death followed by the demise of the person, impossible crime.  He will be prosecuted for the crime
the presumption arises that the injury was the cause of constituted so far by the act done by him.
the death. Provided:               this idea of an impossible crime is a one of last
victim was in normal health resort, just to teach the offender a lesson because of his
death ensued within a reasonable time criminal perversity.  If he could be taught of the same
          The one who caused the proximate cause is the lesson by charging him with some other crime
one liable.  The one who caused the immediate cause is constituted by his act, then that will be the proper way. 
also liable, but merely contributory or sometimes totally If you want to play safe, you state there that although
not liable. an impossible crime is constituted, yet it is a principle of
2.  By any person performing an act which would be an criminal law that he will only be penalized for an
offense against persons or property, were it not for the impossible crime if he cannot be punished under some
inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on other provision of the Revised Penal Code.
account of the employment of inadequate or Art 5.  Whenever a court has knowledge of any act
ineffectual means. which it may deem proper to repress and which is not
Requisites: (IMPOSSIBLE CRIME) punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision
Act would have been an offense against persons or and shall report to the Chief Executive, through the
property Department of Justice, the reasons which induce the
Act is not an actual violation of another provision of the court to believe that said act should be made subject of
Code or of a special penal law legislation.
There was criminal intent In the same way the court shall submit to the Chief
Accomplishment was inherently impossible; or Executive, through the Department of Justice, such
inadequate or ineffectual means were employed. statement as may be deemed proper, without
Notes: suspending the execution of the sentence, when a
Offender must believe that he can consummate the strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would
intended crime, a man stabbing another who he knew result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty,
was already dead cannot be liable for an impossible taking into consideration the degree of malice and the
crime. injury caused by the offense.
The law intends to punish the criminal intent.                When a person is charged in court, and the
There is no attempted or frustrated impossible crime. court finds that there is no law applicable, the court will
Felonies against persons: parricide, murder, homicide, acquit the accused and the judge will give his opinion
infanticide, physical injuries, etc. that the said act should be punished.
Felonies against property: robbery, theft, usurpation, Paragraph 2 does not apply to crimes punishable by
swindling, etc. special law, including profiteering, and illegal possession
Inherent impossibility: A thought that B was just of firearms or drugs.  There can be no executive
sleeping.  B was already dead.  A shot B.  A is liable.  If A clemency for these crimes.
knew that B is dead and he still shot him, then A is not Art. 6.  Consummated felonies, as well as those which
liable. are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.
When we say inherent impossibility, this means that A felony is consummated when all the elements
under any and all circumstances, the crime could not necessary for its execution and accomplishment are
have materialized.  If the crime could have materialized present; and it is frustrated when the offender
under a different set of facts, employing the same mean performs all the acts of execution which would
or the same act, it is not an impossible crime; it would produce the felony as a consequence but which,
be an attempted felony. nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator.
There is an attempt when the offender commences the frustrated stage, no amount of desistance will negate
commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does criminal liability.
not perform all the acts of execution which should             The spontaneous desistance of the offender
produce the felony by reason of some cause or negates only the attempted stage but not necessarily all
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. criminal liability.  Even though there was desistance on
Development of a crime the part of the offender, if the desistance was made
Internal acts – intent and plans; usually not punishable when acts done by him already resulted to a felony, that
External acts offender will still be criminally liable for the felony
Preparatory Acts – acts tending toward the crime brought about his act
Acts of Execution – acts directly connected the crime                In deciding whether a felony is attempted or
frustrated or consummated, there are three criteria
Stages of Commission of a Crime
involved:
(1)               The manner of committing the crime;
Attempt Frustrated Consummated
(2)               The elements of the crime; and
(3)               The nature of the crime itself.
Overt acts of
Applications:
execution are
A put poison in B’s food.  B threw away his food.  A is
started
liable – attempted murder.[1]
Not all acts of
A stole B’s car, but he returned it.  A is liable
execution are
– (consummated) theft.
present
A aimed his gun at B.  C held A’s hand and prevented
Due to reasons
him from shooting B – attempted murder.
other than the
A inflicted a mortal wound on B.  B managed to survive
spontaneous
– frustrated murder.
desistance of
A intended to kill B by shooting him.  A missed
the
– attempted murder.
perpetrator
A doused B’s house with kerosene.  But before he could
All acts of
light the match, he was caught – attempted arson.
execution are
A cause a blaze, but did not burn the house of B
present
– frustrated arson.
Crime sought
B’s house was set on fire by A – (consummated) arson.
to be
A tried to rape B.  B managed to escape.  There was no
committed is
penetration – attempted rape.
not achieved
A got hold of B’s painting.  A was caught before he could
Due to
leave B’s house – frustrated robbery.[2]
intervening
               The attempted stage is said to be within the
causes
subjective phase of execution of a felony.  On the
independent of
subjective phase, it is that point in time when the
the will of the
offender begins the commission of an overt act until that
perpetrator
point where he loses control of the commission of the
All the acts of
crime already.  If he has reached that point where he
execution are
can no longer control the ensuing consequence, the
present
crime has already passed the subjective phase and,
The result
therefore, it is no longer attempted.  The moment the
sought is
execution of the crime has already gone to that point
achieved
where the felony should follow as a consequence, it is
Stages of a Crime does not apply in: either already frustrated or consummated.  If the felony
Offenses punishable by Special Penal Laws, unless the does not follow as a consequence, it is already
otherwise is provided for. frustrated.  If the felony follows as a consequence, it is
Formal crimes (e.g., slander, adultery, etc.) consummated.
Impossible Crimes            although the offender may not have done the act
Crimes consummated by mere to bring about the felony as a consequence, if he could
attempt. Examples: attempt to flee to an enemy have continued committing those acts but he himself did
country, treason, corruption of minors. not proceed because he believed that he had done
Felonies by omission enough to consummate the crime, Supreme Court said
Crimes committed by mere agreement. Examples:       the subjective phase has passed
betting in sports (endings in basketball), corruption of NOTES ON ARSON;
public officers.             The weight of the authority is that the crime of
Desistance arson cannot be committed in the frustrated stage.  The
           Desistance on the part of the offender negates reason is because we can hardly determine whether the
criminal liability in the attempted stage.  Desistance is offender has performed all the acts of execution that
true only in the attempted stage of the felony.  If under would result in arson, as a consequence, unless a part of
the definition of the felony, the act done is already in the the premises has started to burn.  On the other hand,
the moment a particle or a molecule of the premises has Art. 8.  Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are
blackened, in law, arson is consummated.  This is punishable only in the cases in which the law specially
because consummated arson does not require that the provides a penalty therefore.
whole of the premises be burned.  It is enough that any A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to
part of the premises, no matter how small, has begun to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony
burn. and decide to commit it.
ESTAFA VS. THEFT There is proposal when the person who has decided to
             In estafa, the offender receives the property; he commit a felony proposes its execution to some other
does not take it.  But in receiving the property, the person or persons.
recipient may be committing theft, not estafa, if what Conspiracy is punishable in the following cases: treason,
was transferred to him was only the physical or material rebellion or insurrection, sedition, and monopolies and
possession of the object.  It can only be estafa if what combinations in restraint of trade.
was transferred to him is not only material or physical Conspiracy to commit a crime is not to be confused with
possession but juridical possession as well. conspiracy as a means of committing a crime. In both
              When you are discussing estafa, do not talk cases there is an agreement but mere conspiracy to
about intent to gain.  In the same manner that when commit a crime is not punished EXCEPT in treason,
you are discussing the crime of theft, do not talk of rebellion, or sedition. Even then, if the treason is
damage. actually committed, the conspiracy will be considered as
Nature of the crime itself a means of committing it and the accused will all be
              In crimes involving the taking of human life – charged for treason and not for conspiracy to commit
parricide, homicide, and murder – in the definition of the treason.
frustrated stage, it is indispensable that the victim be
Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit a Crime
mortally wounded.  Under the definition of the
frustrated stage, to consider the offender as having
Conspiracy Proposal
performed all the acts of execution, the acts already
done by him must produce or be capable of producing a Agreement
felony as a consequence. The general rule is that there among 2 or more
must be a fatal injury inflicted, because it is only then persons to
that death will follow. commit a crime
             If the wound is not mortal, the crime is only They decide to
attempted.  The reason is that the wound inflicted is not commit it
capable of bringing about the desired felony of parricide, A person has
murder or homicide as a consequence; it cannot be said decided to
that the offender has performed all the acts of execution commit a crime
which would produce parricide, homicide or murder as a He proposes its
result.  commission to
             An exception to the general rule is the so-called Elements another
subjective phase.  The Supreme Court has decided cases
which applied the subjective standard that when the Conspiracy to
offender himself believed that he had performed all the commit sedition
acts of execution, even though no mortal wound was Conspiracy to
inflicted, the act is already in the frustrated stage. commit rebellion
             The common notion is that when there is Conspiracy to
conspiracy involved, the participants are punished as commit treason
principals.  This notion is no longer absolute.  In the case Proposal to
of People v. Nierra,  the Supreme Court ruled that even commit treason
though there was conspiracy, if a co-conspirator merely Proposal to
cooperated in the commission of the crime with Crimes commit rebellion
insignificant or minimal acts, such that even without his
cooperation, the crime could be carried out as well, such Mere conspiracy in combination in restraint of trade
co-conspirator should be punished as an accomplice (Art. 186), and brigandage (Art. 306).
only. Two ways for conspiracy to exist:
Art. 7.  Light felonies are punishable only when they (1)               There is an agreement.
have been consummated with the exception of those (2)               The participants acted in concert or
committed against persons or property. simultaneously which is indicative of a meeting of the
Examples of light felonies: slight physical injuries; theft; minds towards a common criminal goal or criminal
alteration of boundary marks;  malicious mischief; and objective.  When several offenders act in a synchronized,
intriguing against honor. coordinated manner, the fact that their acts
In commission of crimes against properties and persons, complimented each other is indicative of the meeting of
every stage of execution is punishable but only the the minds.  There is an implied agreement.
principals and accomplices are liable for light felonies, Two kinds of conspiracy:
accessories are not. (1)              Conspiracy as a crime; and
(2)               Conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal consequences.  A conspiracy is possible even when
liability participants are not known to each other.  Do not think
             When conspiracy itself is a crime, no overt act is that participants are always known to each other.
necessary to bring about the criminal liability.  The mere            Conspiracy is a matter of substance which must
conspiracy is the crime itself.  This is only true when the be alleged in the information, otherwise, the court will
law expressly punishes the mere conspiracy; otherwise, not consider the same.
the conspiracy does not bring about the commission of            Proposal is true only up to the point where the
the crime because conspiracy is not an overt act but a party to whom the proposal was made has not yet
mere preparatory act.  Treason, rebellion, sedition, and accepted the proposal.  Once the proposal was
coup d’etat are the only crimes where the conspiracy accepted, a conspiracy arises.  Proposal is unilateral,
and proposal to commit to them are punishable. one party makes a proposition to the other; conspiracy is
             When the conspiracy is only a basis of incurring bilateral, it requires two parties.
criminal liability, there must be an overt act done before  SEDITION;    
the co-conspirators become criminally liable. For as long Proposal to commit sedition is not a crime.  But if Union
as none of the conspirators has committed an overt act, B accepts the proposal, there will be conspiracy to
there is no crime yet.  But when one of them commits commit sedition which is a crime under the Revised
any overt act, all of them shall be held liable, unless a Penal Code.
co-conspirator was absent from the scene of the crime Composite crimes
or he showed up, but he tried to prevent the commission               Composite crimes are crimes which, in
of the crime. substance, consist of more than one crime but in the
             As a general rule, if there has been a conspiracy eyes of the law, there is only one crime.  For example,
to commit a crime in a particular place, anyone who did the crimes of robbery with homicide, robbery with rape,
not appear shall be presumed to have desisted.  The robbery with physical injuries.    
exception to this is if such person who did not  appear               In case the crime committed is a composite
was the mastermind. crime, the conspirator will be liable for all the acts
           For as long as none of the conspirators has committed during the commission of the crime agreed
committed an overt act, there is no crime yet.  But when upon.  This is because, in the eyes of the law, all those
one of them commits any overt act, all of them shall be acts done in pursuance of the crime agreed upon are
held liable, unless a co-conspirator was absent from the acts which constitute a single crime.
scene of the crime or he showed up, but he tried to               As a  general rule, when there is conspiracy, the
prevent the commission of the crime rule is that the act of one is the act of all. This principle
           As a general rule, if there has been a conspiracy to applies only to the crime agreed upon. 
commit a crime in a particular place, anyone who did             The  exception  is if any of the co-conspirator
not appear shall be presumed to have desisted.  The would commit a crime not agreed upon.  This happens
exception to this is if such person who did not  appear when the crime agreed upon and the crime committed
was the mastermind. by one of the co-conspirators are distinct crimes. 
          When the conspiracy itself is a crime, this cannot              Exception to the exception:  In acts constituting a
be inferred or deduced because there is no overt act.  All single indivisible offense, even though the co-conspirator
that there is the agreement.  On the other hand, if the performed different acts bringing about the composite
co-conspirator or any of them would execute an overt crime, all will be liable for such crime.  They can only
act, the crime would no longer be the conspiracy but the evade responsibility for any other crime outside of that
overt act itself. agreed upon if it is proved that the particular
           conspiracy as a crime, must have a clear and conspirator had tried to prevent the commission of such
convincing evidence of its existence.  Every crime must other act.
be proved beyond reasonable doubt. it must be Art.  9.  Grave felonies are those to which the law
established by positive and conclusive evidence, not by attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in
conjectures or speculations. any of their are afflictive, in accordance with Article 25
          When the conspiracy is just a basis of incurring of this Code.
criminal liability, however, the same may be deduced or Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes
inferred from the acts of several offenders in carrying with penalties which in their maximum period are
out the commission of the crime.  The existence of a correctional, in accordance with the above-mentioned
conspiracy may be reasonably inferred from the acts of article.
the offenders when such acts disclose or show a Light felonies are those infractions of law for the
common pursuit of the criminal objective. commission of which he penalty of arresto mayor or a
             mere knowledge, acquiescence to, or approval of fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both is provided.
the act, without cooperation or at least, agreement to Capital punishment – death penalty.
cooperate, is not enough to constitute a conspiracy. Penalties (imprisonment): Grave – six years and one day
There must be an intentional participation in the crime to reclusion perpetua (life);  Less grave – one month and
with a view to further the common felonious objective. one day to six years;  Light – arresto menor (one day to
           When several persons who do not know each 30 days).
other simultaneously attack the victim, the act of one is CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES
the act of all, regardless of the degree of injury inflicted This question was asked in the bar examination: How do
by any one of them.  All will be liable for the you classify felonies or how are felonies classified?
What the examiner had in mind was Articles 3, 6 and 9.  In the case of light felonies, crimes prescribe in two
Do not write the classification of felonies under Book 2 months.   If the crime is correctional, it prescribes in ten
of the Revised Penal Code.  That was not what the years, except arresto mayor, which prescribes in five
examiner had in mind because the question does not years.
require the candidate to classify but also to define.  Art. 10.  Offenses which are or in the future may be
Therefore, the examiner was after the classifications punishable under special laws are not subject to the
under Articles 3, 6 and 9. provisions of this Code.  This Code shall be
Felonies are classified as follows: supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should
(1)                 According to the manner of their specially provide the contrary.
commission For Special Laws: Penalties should be imprisonment, and
Under Article 3, they are classified as, intentional not reclusion perpetua, etc.
felonies or those committed with deliberate intent; and Offenses that are attempted or frustrated are not
culpable felonies or those resulting from negligence, punishable, unless otherwise stated.
reckless imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill. Plea of guilty is not mitigating for offenses punishable by
(2)                         According to the stages of their special laws.
execution No minimum, medium, and maximum periods for
Under Article 6., felonies are classified as attempted penalties.
felony when the offender commences the commission of No penalty for an accessory or accomplice, unless
a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all otherwise stated.
the acts of execution which should produce the felony by  
reason of some cause or accident other than his own Provisions of RPC applicable to special laws:
spontaneous desistance; frustrated felony when the Art. 16 Participation of Accomplices
offender commences the commission of a felony as a Art. 22 Retroactivity of Penal laws if favorable to the
consequence but which would produce the felony as a accused
consequence but which nevertheless do not produce the Art. 45 Confiscation of instruments used in the crime
felony by reason of causes independent of the SUPPLETORY APPLICATION OF THE REVISED PENAL
perpetrator; and, consummated felony when all the CODE
elements necessary for its execution are present. In Article  10,  there is a reservation “provision of the
(3)                 According to their gravity Revised Penal Code may be applied suppletorily to
Under Article 9, felonies are classified as grave felonies special laws”.  You will only apply the provisions of the
or those to which attaches the capital punishment or Revised Penal Code as a supplement to the special law,
penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive; less or simply correlate the violated special law, if needed to
grave felonies or those to which the law punishes with avoid an injustice.  If no justice would result, do not give
penalties which in their maximum period was suppletorily application of the Revised Penal Code  to
correccional; and light felonies or those infractions of that of special law.
law for the commission of which the penalty is arresto For example,  a special law punishes a certain act as a
menor. crime.  The special law is silent as to the civil liability of
Why is it necessary to determine whether the crime is one who violates the same.  Here is a person who
grave, less grave or light?  violated the special law and he was prosecuted.  His
To determine whether these felonies can be complexed violation caused damage or injury to a private party. 
or not, and to determine the prescription of the crime May the court pronounce that he is civilly liable to the
and the prescription of the penalty.  In other words, offended party, considering that the special law is silent
these are felonies classified according to their gravity, on this point?  Yes, because Article 100 of the Revised
stages and the penalty attached to them.  Take note Penal Code may be given suppletory application to
that when the Revised Penal Code speaks of grave and prevent an injustice from being done to the offended
less grave felonies, the definition makes a reference party.  Article 100 states that every person criminally
specifically to Article 25 of the Revised Penal Code.  Do liable for a felony is also civilly liable.  That article shall
not omit the phrase “In accordance with Article 25” be applied suppletory to avoid an injustice that would be
because there is also a classification of penalties under caused to the private offended party, if he would not be
Article 26 that was not applied. indemnified for the damages or injuries sustained by
If the penalty is fine and exactly P200.00, it is only him.
considered a light felony under Article 9. In People v. Rodriguez,  it was held that the use of arms
If the fine is imposed as an alternative penalty or as a is an element of rebellion, so a rebel cannot be further
single penalty, the fine of P200.00 is considered a prosecuted for possession of firearms.  A violation of a
correctional penalty under Article 26. special law can never absorb a crime punishable under
If the penalty is exactly P200.00, apply Article 26.  It is the Revised Penal Code, because violations of the
considered as correctional penalty and it prescribes in 10 Revised Penal Code are more serious than a violation of
years.  If the offender is apprehended at any time within a special law.  But a crime in the Revised Penal Code can
ten years, he can be made to suffer the fine. absorb a crime punishable by a special law if it is a
This classification of felony according to gravity is necessary ingredient of the crime in the Revised Penal
important with respect to the question of prescription of Code
crimes.
In the crime of sedition, the use of firearms is not an Death of the convict as to the personal penalties, and as
ingredient of the crime.  Hence, two prosecutions can be to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished if
had: (1) sedition; and (2) illegal possession of firearms. death occurs before final judgment;
But do not think that when a crime is punished outside Service of the sentence;
of the Revised Penal Code, it is already a special law.  Amnesty;
For example, the crime of cattle-rustling is not a mala Absolute pardon;
prohibitum but a modification of the crime theft of large Prescription of the crime;
cattle.  So Presidential Decree No. 533, punishing cattle- Prescription of the penalty; and
rustling, is not a special law.  It can absorb the crime of Marriage of the offended woman as provided in Article
murder.  If in the course of cattle rustling, murder was 344.
committed, the offender cannot be prosecuted for  
murder.  Murder would be a qualifying circumstance in Under Article 247, a legally married person who kills or
the crime of qualified cattle rustling.  This was the ruling inflicts physical injuries upon his or her spouse whom he
in  People v. Martinada. surprised having sexual intercourse with his or her
The amendments of Presidential Decree No. 6425 (The paramour or mistress in not criminally liable.
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) by Republic Act No. 7659, Under Article 219, discovering secrets through seizure of
which adopted the scale of penalties in the Revised correspondence of the ward by their guardian is not
Penal Code, means that mitigating and aggravating penalized.
circumstances can now be considered in imposing Under Article 332, in the case of theft, swindling and
penalties.  Presidential Decree No. 6425 does not malicious mischief, there is no criminal liability but only
expressly prohibit the suppletory application of the civil liability, when the offender and the offended party
Revised Penal Code.  The stages of the commission of are related as spouse, ascendant, descendant, brother
felonies will also apply since suppletory application is and sister-in-law living together or where in case the
now allowed. widowed spouse and the property involved is that of the
Circumstances affecting criminal liability deceased spouse, before such property had passed on to
There are five circumstances affecting criminal liability: the possession of third parties. 
(1)                 Justifying circumstances; Under Article 344, in cases of seduction, abduction, acts
(2)                 Exempting circumstances; of lasciviousness, and rape, the marriage of the offended
(3)                 Mitigating circumstances; party shall extinguish the criminal action.
(4)                 Aggravating circumstances; and Absolutory cause has the effect of an exempting
(5)                 Alternative circumstances. circumstance and they are predicated on lack of
There are two others which are found elsewhere in the voluntariness like instigation.  Instigation is associated
provisions of the Revised Penal Code: with criminal intent. Do not consider culpa in connection
(1)                 Absolutory cause; and with instigation. If the crime is culpable, do not talk of
(2)                 Extenuating circumstances. instigation. In instigation, the crime is committed with
In justifying and exempting circumstances, there is no dolo. It is confused with entrapment.
criminal liability. When an accused invokes them, he in Entrapment is not an absolutory cause.  Entrapment
effect admits the commission of a crime but tries to does not exempt the offender or mitigate his criminal
avoid the liability thereof.  The burden is upon him to liability.  But instigation absolves the offender from
establish beyond reasonable doubt the required criminal liability because in instigation, the offender
conditions to justify or exempt his acts from criminal simply acts as a tool of the law enforcers and, therefore,
liability.  What is shifted is only the burden of evidence, he is acting without criminal intent because without the
not the burden of proof. instigation, he would not have done the criminal act
Justifying circumstances contemplate intentional acts which he did upon instigation of the law enforcers.
and, hence, are incompatible with dolo.  Exempting Difference between instigation and entrapment
circumstances may be invoked in culpable felonies. In instigation, the criminal plan or design exists in the
Absolutory cause mind of the law enforcer with whom the person
The effect of this is to absolve the offender from criminal instigated cooperated so it is said that the person
liability, although not from civil liability.  It has the same instigated is acting only as a mere instrument or tool of
effect as an exempting circumstance, but you do not call the law enforcer in the performance of his duties.
it as such in order not to confuse it with the  On the other hand, in entrapment, a criminal design is
circumstances under Article 12. already in the mind of the person entrapped. It did not
Article 20 provides that the penalties prescribed for emanate from the mind of the law enforcer entrapping
accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are him. Entrapment involves only ways and means which
such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, are laid down or resorted to facilitate the apprehension
descendants, legitimate, natural and adopted brothers of the culprit.
and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same The element which makes instigation an absolutory
degrees with the exception of accessories who profited cause is the lack of criminal intent as an element of
themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the voluntariness.
effects of the crime. If the instigator is a law enforcer, the person instigated
Then, Article 89 provides how criminal liability is cannot be criminally liable, because it is the law enforcer
extinguished: who planted that criminal mind in him to commit the
crime, without which he would not have been a
criminal.  If the instigator is not a law enforcer, both will The concealment of honor by mother in the crime of
be criminally liable, you cannot have a case of infanticide is an extenuating circumstance but not in the
instigation.  In instigation, the private citizen only case of parricide when the age of the victim is three days
cooperates with the law enforcer to a point when the old and above.
private citizen upon instigation of the law enforcer In the crime of adultery on the part of a married woman
incriminates himself.  It would be contrary to public abandoned by her husband,  at the time she was
policy to prosecute a citizen who only cooperated with abandoned by her husband, is it necessary for her to
the law enforcer.  The private citizen believes that he is seek the company of another man.  Abandonment by
a law enforcer and that is why when the law enforcer the husband does not justify the act of the woman. It
tells him, he believes that it is a civil duty to cooperate. only extenuates or reduces criminal liability.  When the
If the person instigated does not know that the person is effect of the circumstance is to lower the penalty there is
instigating him is a law enforcer or he knows him to be an extenuating circumstance.
not a law enforcer, this is not a case of instigation.  This A kleptomaniac is one who cannot resist the temptation
is a case of inducement, both will be criminally liable. of stealing things which appeal to his desire.  This is not
In entrapment, the person entrapped should not know exempting.  One who is a kleptomaniac and who would
that the person trying to entrap him was a law enforcer.  steal objects of his desire is criminally liable.  But he
The idea is incompatible with each other because in would be given the benefit of a mitigating circumstance
entrapment, the person entrapped is actually analogous to paragraph 9 of Article 13, that of suffering
committing a crime.  The officer who entrapped him from an illness which diminishes the exercise of his will
only lays down ways and means to have evidence of the power without, however, depriving him of the
commission of the crime, but even without those ways consciousness of his act.  So this is an extenuating
and means, the person entrapped is actually engaged in circumstance.  The effect is to mitigate the criminal
a violation of the law. liability.
Instigation absolves the person instigated from criminal Distinctions between justifying circumstances and
liability. This is based on the rule that a person cannot exempting circumstances
be a criminal if his mind is not criminal.  On the other In justifying circumstances –
hand, entrapment is not an absolutory cause.  It is not (1)                         The circumstance affects the act, not
even mitigating. the actor;
In case of somnambulism or one who acts while (2)                         The act complained of is considered to
sleeping, the person involved is definitely acting without have been done within the bounds of law; hence, it is
freedom and without sufficient intelligence, because he legitimate and lawful in the eyes of the law;
is asleep.  He is moving like a robot, unaware of what he (3)                         Since the act is considered lawful, there
is doing.  So the element of voluntariness which is is no crime, and because there is no crime, there is no
necessary in dolo and culpa is not present.  criminal;
Somnambulism is an absolutory cause.  If element of (4)                         Since there is no crime or criminal, there
voluntariness is absent, there is no criminal liability, is no criminal liability as well as civil liability.
although there is civil liability, and if the circumstance is In exempting circumstances –
not among those enumerated in Article 12, refer to the (1)                         The circumstances affect the actor, not
circumstance as an absolutory cause. the act;
Mistake of fact is an absolutory cause.   The offender is (2)                         The act complained of is actually
acting without criminal intent.  So in mistake of fact, it is wrongful, but the actor acted without voluntariness.  He
necessary that had the facts been true as the accused is a mere tool or instrument of the crime;
believed them to be, this act is justified.  If not, there is (3)                         Since the act complained of is actually
criminal liability, because there is no mistake of fact wrongful, there is a crime.  But because the actor acted
anymore.  The offender must believe he is performing a without voluntariness, there is absence of dolo or culpa. 
lawful act. There is no criminal;
  (4)                         Since there is a crime committed but
Extenuating circumstances there is no criminal, there is civil liability for the wrong
The effect of this is to mitigate the criminal liability of done.  But there is no criminal liability.  However, in
the offender.  In other words, this has the same effect as paragraphs 4 and 7 of Article 12, there is neither
mitigating circumstances, only you do not call it criminal nor civil liability.
mitigating because this is not found in Article 13. When you apply for justifying or exempting
  circumstances, it is confession and avoidance and
Illustrations: burden of proof shifts to the accused and he can no
An unwed mother killed her child in order to conceal a longer rely on weakness of prosecution’s evidence.
dishonor.  The concealment of dishonor is an
extenuating circumstance insofar as the unwed mother                 [1]The difference between murder and
or the maternal grandparents is concerned, but not homicide will be discussed in Criminal Law II.  These
insofar as the father of the child is concerned.  Mother crimes are found in Articles 248 and 249, Book II of the
killing her new born child to conceal her dishonor, Revised Penal Code.
penalty is lowered by two degrees.  Since there is a                 [2] The difference between theft and robbery
material lowering of the penalty or mitigating the will be discussed in Criminal Law II.  These crimes are
penalty, this is an extenuating circumstance.
found in Title Ten, Chapters  One and Three, Book II of
the Revised Penal Code.