The term municipal law does not refer to municipal ordinance passed or enacted by a exercised by the Chief Executive,

d by the Chief Executive, then the late President

particular municipality. Municipal Law, as far as the definition is concerned, refers to Ferdinand Marcos;
“National Law” as distinguished from International Law; although the latter, as we learned is
deemed part of our national law under the incorporation clause of the constitution, Section c. Executive Order. This is issued as administrative regulations
2, Article II, Constitution, that provides: x xx Philippines adopts the generally accept binding among all executive branch of the government and has
principle of international law as part of the law of the land”. the force and effect of law;
The acts or omissions to be punishable must be defined by law and there must have a
corresponding penalty attached to it. Even if the act is defined by law as criminal or
punishable but if the said law does not provide for a punishment of committing the said act, d. Constitution. The fundamental and the highest law of the land
a person is not to be held liable. The act being defined as a crime must go “hand in hand” that all other laws must conform; otherwise, such laws will be
with the corresponding penalty. Both must concur; declared unconstitutional;
This is the reason why the definition of criminal law states that: “it defines crimes, treats of
their nature and provides for their punishment. Clearly, there is a relationship between the e. Republic Act. This is enacted as a special criminal statute
nature of the offense committed which has been defined to be punishable and the penalty to (Special Law) after the adoption of the 1987 Constitution wherein
be imposed; the Country has restored the democratic republican state after
Example is the act of “Killing”. The law defined killing as criminal act; it treats of its nature the Martial Law.
either homicide or murder; and if the nature is homicide, an act of killing without qualifying
circumstance, then the corresponding penalty is lower, reclusion temporal, as compared to f. Judicial Decision. When interpreting the law and constitution,
murder which is reclusion perpetua. Along those lights,that is how the definition of criminal judicial decision forms part of the judicial system of the country.
law must be taken and understood;
Corollary to that, the legal maxim of “NullumCrimenNullaPoena Sine Lege” which means g. Rules of Court. In the exercise of the rule making power of the
that “There is no crime where there is no law punishing it” illustrates the same legal import Supreme Court vested by the constitution, the “Rules of Court” is
that an act to be considered as crime must be defined by law and must have corresponding part of the law of the land.
penalty attached to it. In sum, our jurisdiction does not recognize “common law” crimes.
2. Theories in Criminal Law:
1. There are sources of Criminal Law, among them but not limited to:
a. Classical/Juristic Theory. Criminal liability is based on the human
a. Revised Penal Code, or Act 3815. This is an Act and not free-will. Human being is a moral creature who has free will to
Republic Act since it was enacted on January 1, 1932, during choose what is right and what is wrong. So that when a person
American regime/government in which the Philippines was not committed a felonious or criminal act, it is presumed that he
yet a Republic and has not yet declared its Independence; committed it with voluntariness which means that he committed
with freedom, intelligence, and intent. Hence, he should be
b. Presidential Decree. This was issued during the period of Martial accountable for the wrongful acts that he committed so long as
Law, from 1972 to 1986 edsa revolution, when both the free will appears unimpaired.
executive power and the legislative power were merged and

1
 b. Positivist/Realistic Theory. The basis of criminal liability is the c. In “Mala in se” modifying circumstances referring to mitigating or
sum total of the social and economic phenomena to which the aggravating circumstances are appreciated. While in “Mala
offense is expressed. The purpose of penalties is to secure Prohibita” modifying circumstances are not appreciated except
justice; when the special law that punishes such act adopts the technical
nomenclature of the penalty of the RPC.
Penalties imposed is not only for punishment or retribution but
also reformation. The convict (PDL) is given a second chance to The technical nomenclature of penalties under the Code that
reform himself so that he will become an obedient, a civic- involve imprisonment are: ArrestoMenor; Arresto Mayor;
spirited minded individual and a law- abiding constituent of the PriscionCorreccional; Priscion Mayor; Reclusion Temporal;
community by the time he will re-integrate and rejoin into the Reclusion Perpetua.
mainstream of the society;
If the Special Law adopts the technical nomenclature of penalty
c. Mixed/Eclectic Theory. Our Criminal Law is a mixture of of the RPC, the intention of the law is to adopt all provisions of
Classical and Positivist Theories. Although, there are some the RPC with respect to penalty, and found in provisions of the
aspects of the Code which are based on Positivist Theory, but it RPC are the Mitigating circumstances under Article 13, RPC,
is mainly based on Classical Theory. and the aggravating circumstances under Article 14, RPC;

3. “Mala in se” as distinguished from “Mala prohibita” Example in the case of dangerous drugs under Special Law, RA
No. 9165, or the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of 2002”,
a. In “Mala in se”, the act is inherently evil, immoral, or wrong; while the penalty attached to that law is “Life Imprisonment”. But under
in “Mala Prohibita” the act is not inherently evil, immoral, or the same law, it provides that if the Offender is Minor or CICL,
wrong. It becomes wrong because of violation of such prohibitory the life imprisonment shall be converted into “Reclusion
laws; Perpetua” and so RA No. 9165 adopts the technical
nomenclature of the penalty of the RPC and as result thereof,
Example: Killing a person, in the case of Homicide or Murder, is mitigating, privilege mitigating and aggravating circumstances
inherently evil, immoral or wrong; while in the case of Illegal are now appreciated.
Possession of Loose Firearm is not inherently evil, immoral or
wrong. It becomes wrong because of such violation committed However, this only applies to CICL who is first time Offender and
notwithstanding the fact that there is a law prohibiting its charged only either illegal use or illegal possession of dangerous
commission. In this case, what is being punished is the act of drug under Section 70, RA. No. 9165. It does not apply to CICL if
being defiant to the prohibitory law; the charged is pushing, trafficking, or selling illegal drugs. Illegal
use or Illegal possession and first time Offender, the law
b. In “Mala In se” lack of malice or good faith is a defense. while in considers them as “victims”; but the persons selling, distributing,
“Mala Prohibita” lack of malice or good faith is not a defense; pushing illegal drugs, the law considers them “predators” and
shall be governed by Section 24, RA No. 9165.

2
 d. In “Mala in se” the act is punishable under the RPC and also that in case of conflict, the latter shall prevail. Furthermore,
under Special Law in which the act being punished by Special Spanish jurisprudence may also aid the court in interpreting the
Law is inherently evil, immoral, or wrong like Terrorism under RA provisions of the RPC;
No. 9372 now repealed by RA No. 11479 or otherwise known as
“Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020”. While “Mala prohibita” the act is e. Title versus body of the penal provision. The Title is merely a
punishable under Special Law; “catchwords” conveniently suggesting in a general way the
subject matter of each article. It is nothing more than a
4. Construction of Penal Laws: “convenient index” to the contents of the articles of the code.
Thus, they cannot in any event have the effect of modifying the
a. Basic is the rule in statutory construction of criminal law that words of the text.
when it is favorable to the accused, it should be resolved in favor
of the accused; . Scope of application and Characteristics of Criminal Law:
1. Basically, there are three (3) characteristics of criminal law, to wit:
b. Resolving in favor of the accused when it is favorable, the a) Generality;
principle involved is “Pro reo”, or “when in doubt, for the b) Territoriality and;
accused”. Thus, the complete phrase must be “In dubio pro reo”; c) Prospectivity;
2. They are sometimes called the cardinal features of the principles in criminal law.
But bear in mind that such principle shall be applied only when Basically, there three (3) characteristics as mentioned above; but to include exceptions
there is doubt. If the law is very categorical and clear in its under Territoriality and Prospectivity, there will be five (5) principles involved because of
language, basic is also the rule in the statutory construction that “extra-territoriality” and “retrospectivity”, not to mention/include the principle of “universality”
there is no room for interpretation but only application; under international law.
3. First, let us tackle the “Generality” principle. The concept of “generality” principle is found
If the law is crystal clear, the judge shall decide the case as what in Article 14, of the New Civil Code (NCC) that provides:
the law says. The law may be harsh but it is the law that must be “Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or
applied. “Dura lex sed lex”; sojourn in the Philippines territory, subject to the principles of public international law and to
treaty stipulations”.
c. Intimately related with the principle of “In dubio pro reo” is the All persons regardless of citizenship or status of stay in the Philippines whether tourist,
“Rule of lenity”. This provides situation that the judge is resident alien, foreigner, etc., for as long as they are living, sojourning, or staying in the
confronted with two possible interpretations of the law: one is Philippine and they committed crimes, our penal laws are obligatory and applicable to them
favorable to the accused and the other is prejudicial to the within our jurisdiction.
accused, the rule calls for the adoption for the An American citizen committed rape here in the Philippines against another American
interpretationwhich is more lenient to the accused; woman, he is not exempt from criminal liability by invoking that they are both, the offender
and the victim are American citizens and they are governed by American law. Our penal
d. Spanish text is controlling in interpreting the provisions of the laws are also obligatory to them, even though they are foreigners;
Revised Penal Code as this was the text approved y the Same through with Military personnel, who are residing or living in the Philippines, penal
Legislature. English text is just a translation of the Spanish text laws are obligatory to them. Our courts have jurisdiction to try Military personnel charged
3
with violation of the penal laws. Court’s jurisdiction is not affected by the military or other In other words, they don’t have blanket immunity from suit; their immunity is limited to
special character of the accused. service- related offenses. The crimes of Slander and Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
But if the crime committed by military personnel (AFP personnel) is service connected, it Homicide, the Consular officer is not covered by immunity from prosecution since the acts
shall be tried by the “Court Martial” as mandated by R.A. No. 7055; are not function related offenses.
The concept of “Generality” is different from “Territoriality”. The applicability of “Generality” b. Another exception is Law of Preferential Application. The best example is the
and “Territoriality” will depend on the issue raised by the accused in invoking immunity: 3rd Marriage of our Muslim brother and sister solemnized under Muslim Rites and
If he invokes the unique characteristics of his person like he being Ambassador, then the Ceremony pursuant to P.D. 1083 which is the “Code of Muslim Personal Law”, our penal
applicable principle is “Generality”. He is immune from suit based on the Vienna Convention laws particularly on “Bigamy” under Article 349, Book 2, RPC, is not obligatory to them;
on Diplomatic Relation, and our penal law is not obligatory to him since “Generality” They are allowed to contract marriage up to the fourth times. For as long as marriage was
principle is subject to International Law and to Treaty Stipulation; celebrated in accordance with Muslim Rites, like getting consent from all prior wives as one
But if he invokes the unique characteristics of the place where the crime was committed like of the requirements, then our penal laws on Bigamy shall not apply.
committed in the U.S. Embassy or committed in the “High Seas”, then he invokes P.D. 1083 is a Law of Preferential Application. But if the marriage was solemnized not in
“Territoriality” principle; accordance with Muslim Rites,absence of consent from one of the wives, then our penal law
While our penal laws shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in the Philippines, there governing Bigamy shall be obligatory to them. He cannot claim criminal exemption from
are exceptions from the character of being obligatory. Based on Article 14, NCC, our penal liability for bigamy on basis of his religious belief as Muslim because of “Generality”
laws are subject to: principle. P.D. 1083 is not applicable considering that the marriage was solemnized not in
a) the principles of International Law and to Treaty Stipulations. accordance with Muslim Law;
In addition to, there are recognized exceptions from the principle of “Generality”, c. Case Law as an exception from the application of “Generality” principle. The
such as: incumbent and sitting President being immune from all suits both civil and criminal case, is
b) Laws of Preferential Applications; and an example of case law. The President enjoys Presidential Immunity from all suits; hence,
c) Case Law. penal laws are not obligatory to him.
a. International Law and Treaty Stipulations as exceptions from generality However, to invoke Presidential Immunity, there are requisites that must be complied with,
principle, are the products of international conventions wherein the Philippines is one of the to wit:
signatories, like International Convention on Civil and Political Rights; Vienna Convention 1) Immunity must be asserted;
on Diplomatic Relations; Convention on Consular Relations; UN Convention on the Law of 2) During the period of his incumbency and tenure; and
the Sea (UNCLOS); etc. Whatever agreement entered into by almost all countries, if not all, 3) The act constituting the crime is committed in the performance of his duty.
it will be binding to the Philippines as its commitment to the community of nations; Presidential Immunity will assure the exercise of Presidential duties and functions free from
For example, the Diplomatic Agents like President, Ambassador, Minister, Chief of the any hindrance or distraction, considering that the Chief Executive is a job that demands
Mission, Charge d’ Affaires, are vested with blanket diplomatic immunity from civil and undivided attention.
criminal suits. Chinese diplomat who killed another Chinese diplomat in Cebu is immune In the case of Mamasapano tragic incident in which 44 SAF Officers and men died, the then
from criminal prosecution, under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. In this late President Benigno Aquino Jr. cannot be charged for Simple Neglect resulting in multiple
case, our penal laws are not obligatory to them; homicide, during his incumbency and tenure considering that he is immune from suit and
However, with respect to Consular Officers, before, they are not immune from suit. But his decisions as well as his handling of police operation were official acts.
under the 1967 Convention on Consular Relations, they now enjoy immunity from criminal 4. Next is the “Territoriality” Principle. The concept is found under Article 2, Book 1, RPC,
prosecution of acts performed in the exercise of functions. which provides:

4
“Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential applications, the provisions of Disturbance in the foreign merchant vessel which only pertains to the internal management
this Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago, including its of the vessel, Philippines has no jurisdiction since it does not affect the peace and security
atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction against of our country;
those who x x x (enumerated by law, the five exceptions from “Territoriality”)x x x” c. UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This is similar to a “Flag
The place where U.S. embassy is situated in Manila is within the territory of the Philippines. State” rule. The flag state of foreign merchant vessel passing through the Territorial Sea of
If the person committed crime in U.S. embassy, we have jurisdiction to prosecute the case the Philippines, has jurisdiction over crime committed therein.
under Philippine law, applying “Territoriality” principle; However, the Philippines which is the coastal state, can exercise jurisdiction to:
However, jurisdiction of the Philippines over the embassy is limited or restricted by the 1) Arrest;
principle of “Inviolability of diplomatic premises” which is a generally accepted principle of 2) To conduct investigation in connection with any crime committed onboard the
the international law. Under Section 2, Article II, of the 1987 Constitution, “Philippines ship during its passage in the following cases, under Section 2, Article 27, of UNCLOS:
adopts the generally accepted principle of International Law as part of the law of the land x a) If the consequences of the crime extend to the Philippines. Example the
x x”. This is the so-called “Incorporation Clause” of the Constitution; destination of the foreign merchant vessel is in the Philippines, and murder was committed
Hence, while we have jurisdiction over crimes committed inside U.S. embassy, yet we during the passage within Territorial Sea, then Philippines has jurisdiction;
cannot serve Warrant of Arrest inside U.S. embassy without first securing waiver from U.S. b) If the crime is of a kind to disturb the peace of the Philippines or the good order
government of its right under the principle of “inviolability of diplomatic premises”; of Territorial Sea. Same example as above;
Territoriality principle includes Territorial Water/Territorial Sea. It is 12 nautical miles from c) If the assistance of local authorities has been requested by the master of the
archipelagic baseline, over which Philippines has sovereignty. Although we exercise full ship or by the diplomatic agent or consular officer of the Flag State; or
sovereignty within Territorial Water, there three (3) fundamental rules in the International d) If such measures are necessary for the suppression of the illicit traffic in narcotic
Law concerning the commission of a crime aboard foreign merchant vessel passing through drugs or psychotropic substance.
“Innocent Passage” within Territorial Water/Territorial Sea, to wit: Before, the Philippines adopted the English Rule; but now adays, it now adopts UNCLOS as
a. French Rule – This is similar to “Flag State” principle. Crimes committed aboard a recent trend in the International Law concerning maritime zones.
a foreign merchant vessel within 12 nautical miles Territorial Water of the Philippines are Spratly Islands and Regime of Islands are chain of Islands in the South China Sea, the
subject to the jurisdiction of the “Flag State” unless their commission affects the peace and ownership of which is being disputed by six (6) countries: China; Taiwan; Vietnam; Brunei;
security of our country; Malaysia; and the Philippines.However, the Western part of Spratly Islands which is
Flag state rule means the state where the vessel was registered has jurisdiction over crime “Kalayaan Islands”, Philippines has jurisdiction over crimes committed therein applying the
committed within Territorial Sea of the Philippines with exception that when the crime principle of “Territoriality;
committed affects the peace and security of the Philippines, then our country can exercise Municipality of Kalayaan has been established in 1978 to assert ownership. National and
jurisdiction. Local Elections have been held there regularly. The court also has jurisdiction over a crime
Murder case committed aboard foreign merchant vessel (not military vessel) within committed in Kalayaan Islands and Scarborough Shoal, regimes of Islands, because the
Territorial Sea, example in Manila Bay, disturbs the peace and order of Manila, thus the Base Line Law, R.A. No. 9522, declares that Philippines exercises jurisdiction and
crime can be prosecuted in Manila. sovereignty over it;
b. English Rule. This is a “Coastal State” principle. Crimes committed aboard Under our National Territory, Article I, Constitution, it provides that: “National Territory
foreign merchant vessel within Territorial Sea of the Philippines are subject to the comprises the Philippine Archipelago x x x and all other Territories over which Philippines
jurisdiction of the Philippines unless their commission does not affect the peace and has sovereignty or jurisdiction x x x”. Kalayaan Group of Islands fall under the category of
security of our country, or has the pernicious effect therein; Territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction as declared under R.A.
No. 9522;
5
With respect to Foreign Country, under the principle of Territoriality, Philippines has c. Introduction into the Philippine the said forged Philippine Coin, or counterfeited
jurisdiction over crimes committed inside its territory except as provided in the Treaties, Philippine Currency being mentioned above, is also covered by “Extra-territoriality” principle;
Laws of Preferential Applications and also the five cases mentioned under Article 2, Book 1, d. Function-related offenses. This refers to our public officers stationed abroad in
RPC, as exceptions from Territoriality principle; the foreign service like: in the embassy of the U.S., or in consular offices of the Philippines
So, the case of concubinage involving illicit relationship maintained in the Philippines, our in the other countries and they committed offenses in relation to their office, Philippine court
court can exercise jurisdiction. But the case of Bigamy involving subsequent marriage has jurisdiction.
solemnized in Hongkong, our court has no jurisdiction being outside of Philippine Territory When they committed Plunder, under RA No. 7080; Graft and Corrupt Practices, under RA
and not falling under exceptions; No. 3019; Direct Bribery in the issuance of visa, under Article 210, RPC, etc., the
5.Further, when we speak of “Territoriality” principle, there is also “Extra-territoriality” Philippines can take cognizance of the case, applying “Extra-territoriality”. This is in line with
principle as an exception to the former, under Article 2,Book 1,RPC, enumerating therein the constitutional mandate on the implementation of Public Accountability of Public Officer
the five (5) exceptions from Territoriality principle, in which case, “Extra-territoriality” rule is and Public Office as Public Trust, under Article XI, of the 1987 Constitution;
applied in the following cases: e. National Security crimes. The crimes involving National Security like: Treason
a. Crimes committed aboard Philippine aircraft or Philippine vessel wherever under Article 114; Proposal and Conspiracy to Commit Treason, under Article 115, RPC;
committed, Philippines has jurisdiction to try or hear the case considering that the said Misprision of Treason, under Article 116, RPC; Espionage, under Article 117, RPC, in all of
Philippine aircraft or vessel is deemed an extension of the Philippine territory, in which case, these cases, the “Extra-territoriality” rule is applied, even committed abroad when
“Extra-territoriality” principle shall apply. Philippines is at the existence of war. The reason behind in applying the “Extra-territoriality”
The long arms of the law will reach them even outside Philippine territory. Interconnected principle, the act of treason undermines the very existence of the state;
principle is also the “Flag State Rule”. The aircraft or vessel registered in the Philippines is As we can see, all felonies mentioned above are found in Book 2, RPC, which defines
considered as flag carrier so that if there is hijacking committed onboard or aboard felonies providing specific elements thereof and the penalties imposed. But we cannot do
Philippines Airline (PAL) in New York, the case can be tried by Philippine court because of away from discussing them as a matter of correlation emphasizing the legal principles
the “Flag State” rule or principle; involved. What we are after is the legal principle found in Book 1, RPC,the “Extra-
b. Forgery. The act of forging or counterfeiting Philippine coins, currency or territoriality” as an exception to the “Territoriality” principle;
securities and obligations issued by the Philippine government, even if committed in f. Crimes against Laws of Nation. Piracy and Mutiny in the high seas, again the
Hongkong by filipinos or even by hongkong residents, Philippines has jurisdiction over the principle of “Extra-territoriality” is applied, under Article 2, Book 1, RPC;
case. There are two (2) types of piracy on the high seas:
Under the mantle of “protective interest rule” they can be charged in the Philippines to 1) Simple Piracy, under Article 122, RPC; and
protect financial stability and security interest of the country. One could just imagine if all the 2) Qualified Piracy, under Article 123, RPC;
coins, money, or currency circulating in the country are all counterfeit and have no value at In this case “Extra-territoriality” shall apply because piracy is defined by our law to be
all, it will create economic crises and financial havoc/instability; punishable even committed in the high seas;
But in the above case, suppose they are forging or counterfeiting U.S. dollars, the In Criminal law, under our jurisdiction, “high seas” means the Water beyond 12 nautical
Philippines court has no jurisdiction to try the case since the place of commission is outside miles from the archipelagic baseline. The 12 nautical miles from the baseline is our
Philippine territory, invoking “Territoriality” principle; Territorial Water, and beyond that is called “high seas”. In criminal law, there are only two
Extra- territoriality is not likewise applicable because what was counterfeited or forged is not kinds of water:
Philippine coin or Philippine currency. The forgery or counterfeiting case where “Extra- 1)Territorial Sea; and
territoriality” can be applied pertains only to Philippine coin, or Philippines Currencies, 2) High seas.
Obligations or Securities issued by the Philippines Government;
6
So, as far as criminal law is concern, forget first our knowledge on the different regimes of d) Theft;
maritime zones like contiguous zone and exclusive economic zone under international law. e) Estafa; and
Even if piracy is committed within our contiguous zone (beyond 12nm but within 24 nautical f) Falsification,
miles from the baseline), still it is considered “high seas” for purposes of piracy and for Under Article 62, Rule Number 5, RPC. There are only six (6) crimes enumerated as
purposes of criminal law; habitual delinquency crimes;
Besides, in piracy, it is committed not only against the particular nation or state. It is 3) The period of committing any of those Habitual Delinquency Crimes must be ten
committed against all nations that pirates are considered as enemy of all mankind, and they (10) years from last release or last conviction.
are called “hostis humani generis”, under international law. Any country can take jurisdiction Say for instance, he committed Robbery as his previous crime, then within ten (10) from last
and try the case against pirates wherever they are found or carried into, applying the release/or last conviction he committed Serious Physical Injury as his subsequent crime,
principle of “universality” as piracy is a “universal crime”; then within ten (10) years from last release or last conviction he committed Theft as his
The “Territoriality” and the “Extra-territoriality” principles under Article 2, Book 1, RPC, are present crime, so on and so forth.
applicable even if crime is punishable by Special Law. Like the case of Piracy under P.D. As you can see, he committed at least three (3) crimes falling under Habitual Delinquency
532 or Plunder under R.A. No. 7080; Both are special laws; Crimes and his commission is within ten (10) years of interval from last release or last
However, Article 2, Book 1, RPC, having two rules, the “Territoriality” and “Exta- conviction. In this case, he is considered as “Habitual Delinquent”.
territoriality”, is not applicable to “Trafficking in Person” and “Terrorism” because the laws But with the same circumstances above, only that he committed Robbery, Estafa, and
that punish them have their own specific provision for “Extra- territorial” rules. Murder, he cannot be considered as “Habitual Delinquent” because one of the crimes is not
6. On the other hand, when we talk of “Prospectivity” principle, there is also “Retrospectivity falling under Habitual Delinquency Crimes, the crime of Murder. Hence, he is a “Non-
or Retroactivity” principle. As a general rule, penal laws are prospective in application. “No Habitual Delinquent”.
felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission”, b. Another instance that the law be given retroactive effect is if the law
under Article 21, RPC. In criminal law, it merely punishes crime committed on or after its decriminalizes an act. The new law that decriminalized an act found in the old law makes
effectivity; the act no longer punishable and therefore not a crime anymore. This is based on the legal
7. However, there are exceptions to the “Prospectivity” rule. Laws shall be given maxim “nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege”, there is no crime when there is no law
“Retroactive effect if: punishing it.
a. The law is favorable to the accused who is not a habitual delinquent. So, there If the case is pending, the case shall be dismissed because the court losses jurisdiction to
are requisites in order that the law, in this case, be given retroactive application: impose penalty considering that such act or crime has been decriminalized.;
1) law must be favorable; Even if accused was convicted and already serving sentence, he should be released
2) accused is Non-Habitual Delinquent. because there is no crime anymore as a consequence of decriminalization of the old law
It mentioned Non-Habitual Delinquent as one of the requisites. It requires knowledge of consistent with such legal maxim of “nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege”.
“Habitual Delinquency” for us to know whether he is habitual delinquent or a non-habitual He should be released not because of the principle that the new law is favorable and he is
delinquent. The concept of “habitual delinquency” must consider the following: not habitual delinquent under Article 22, Book 1, RPC. This principle is not applicable to the
1) There are at least three (3) crimes committed: the previous crime; the decriminalization of the old law by the new one; but instead, what is applicable is the
subsequent crime; and the present crime, so on and so forth; principle that, again, under the pain of being redundant, “There is no crime when there is no
2) The crimes committed are those within the Habitual Delinquency Crimes of: law punishing it”.
a) Serious Physical Injury; c. The last situation in which the law shall be given retroactive effect is if the law
b) Less Serious Physical Injury; itself expressly provides for its retroactivity application as long as it does abridge
c) Robbery; constitutional right against “expost facto” law.
7
In this case, when the law is favorable and even if offender is habitual delinquent, but the a. If the intention of the new law or the repealing law is to decriminalize the criminal
law provides for its retroactivity, then it should be applied retroactively because of the acts under the old law, then the repeal is “absolute repeal” as what we explained in week 2
express provision of the law; with respect to decriminalization of the old law.
But suppose the law is favorable and offender is not habitual delinquent but the law When the new law decriminalized the old law, then it appears that such felonious act
expressly provides that it should be given prospective application, then the law must be previously defined by the old law as punishable act is not anymore considered as crime
applied prospective in character because of the express provision of the law; under the present law and therefore no longer punishable.
The principle under Article 22, RPC, that the law be given retroactive effect when the law is The legal maxim “nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege” is the relevant and the
favorable and the accused or offender is Non-Habitual Delinquent, only applies when the applicable principle in this case considering that there is no more law that defined such act
law is silent as to its prospective application; as punishable and also no more law that punished the said act consistent with the legal
But how about if the law expressly provides for its retroactive application and the offender is maxim “there is no crime where there is no law punishing it”;
non habitual delinquent, but the law is not favorable, should it be given retroactive effect? In Where the acts are no longer punishable or no longer a crime, then the new law or
this case, the answer is in negative, notwithstanding the express provision of the law that it repealing law shall be given retroactive effect without any condition as to the requirement
must be in retroactive application; ofbeing non-habitual delinquent. Article 22, of the RPC, Book 1, does not apply; I repeat
To allow its retroactive application will abridge constitutional proscription against ‘expost what is applicable is the principle of “Nullum Crimen Nulla Poena Siine Lege”.
facto” law. The law as stated in the facts is not favorable, and to give retroactive effect will The absolute repeal which decriminalizes an act in the old law will deprive the
acquire the character of the law as an “expost facto” law being expressly prohibited by the court’s jurisdiction to try or to punish and impose penalty on the Offender charged under the
constitution under Section 22, Article III, Bill of Rights, Constitution which provides: “No bill old law prior to its repeal.
of attainder and expost fact law shall be enacted”. For example, a person was convicted for violation of municipal ordinance, he filed
The Child In Conflict With The Law who is a Habitual Delinquent, is entitled to the an appeal and while pending appeal, another ordinance was passed by the same
retroactive application of the law pursuant to Section 68 of R.A. 9344 which expressly Sanggunian Bayan, repealing the acts complained of, which ceased to be a criminal act but
provides retroactive application of the privileges to CICL without condition; became purely civil in nature; The criminal case should be dismissed because the court
On the other hand, Article 22, Book 1, RPC, provides retroactive application of favorable now losses jurisdiction to impose punishment or penalty of imprisonment. Proceedings will
law subject to the condition of Non-Habitual Delinquency; be converted into a civil case;
Since Section 68, RA No. 9344 is a specific provision of the Special Law; while Article 22, Where the repealing law or the new law failed to wholly penalize the acts, which
Book 1, RPC is a general provision, the latter yields to the former. Hence, the retroactive constituted the crime under the repealed law or old law, again, the repeal deprives the court
effect of R.A. No. 9344 is unconditional with respect to CICL. of its jurisdiction to punish persons charged with a violation of the repealed or old law.
For example, the accused was charged for violation of Section 1458 of the
END OF THE MANUSCRIPT FOR WEEK 2, CRIM LAW 1, BOOK 1, RPC Revised Administrative Code; thereafter, the Tax Code repealed the Revised Administrative
. Effects of Repeal in Absolute Repeal and also in Partial Repeal: Code but did not re-enact the penal provision found in Section 1458 penalizing the acts of
1. In the Repeal of Law, this involves two laws: a) the old law or repealed law; and which the accused was charged. This is tantamount to Absolute Repeal and the accused in
b) the new law or repealing law; this case should be acquitted.
2. Furthermore, in our jurisdiction, Repeal of Law may be: a) Absolute Repeal; b) Partial Repeal:
Partial Repeal; c) Express Repeal; and d) Implied Repeal: b. If the intention of the repealing law or new law is not to decriminalize an act
To determine whether it is an absolute repeal, we have to look into the intention punishable under the old law, but merely to provide new rule, then it is a “Partial Repeal”;
and the spirit of the repealing law or the new law. If the new or repealing law is favorable to the accused and who is not a habitual
Absolute Repeal: delinquent, it shall be given retroactive effect, under Article 22, Book 1, RPC;
8
 If the new law is favorable but accused is habitual delinquent, however the same of Sexual Intercourse, it has been repealed by R.A. 8353 reclassifying it into Crimes against
new law expressly provides for its retro-activity, then it should be retroactive in application Person.
because of the express provision of the law; It is an express repeal but not an absolute repeal because it re- enacted the penal provision
If the law is favorable and accused is non-habitual delinquent but the said law of the repealed Article 336, RPC, on the crime of Rape and in fact it provides for an
provides expressly for its prospective application, then it should be given prospective in increased penalty and a new rule like Rape is no longer a crime against chastity and no
application because of the express provision of the law for its prospectivity; longer a private crime and so it can be prosecuted de officio. In this case, while it is an
If accused is non-habitual delinquent but the new law is not favorable; express repeal but it has the effect of a Partial Repeal;
nonetheless, the said law expressly provides for its retro-activity, then in this case, it should Implied repeal:
not be given retro-active effect. To do otherwise, the new or repealing law will acquire the d. When the Repeal is not expressly stated in the statute but the clear legislativeintent is so
character of an “expost facto law”, which is absolutely prohibited by the constitutional evident and manifest as shown on the following situations:
provision found in Section 22, Article III, Bill of Rights, Constitution that “No Ex post Facto 1. There can be an implied repeal when there is a clear showing on the part of the
Law and Bill of Attainder law shall be enacted”; law maker that the intent in enacting the new law was to abrogate the old one;
Repeal with re-enactment of a penal law does not deprive the court’s jurisdiction to 2. Where provisions in the two (2) Laws/Acts on the same subject matter are in an
punish persons charged with a violation of the old penal law prior to its repeal: irreconcilable conflict, the new law, as to the extent of the conflict, constitutes an implied
Example, Mr. A was accused of Rape under Article 336, Book 1, RPC. But the new repeal;
law was passed, R.A. No. 8353, that repealed Article 336, RPC, reclassifying Rape from 3. When the new law covers the whole subject of the old law and is clearly
crime against chastity into crime against persons, and now found under Article 266-A, and intended as a substitute, then it will operate as an implied repeal;
Article 266-B, Book 1, RPC; Under the new Articles 266-A and B, the crimes of Rape 4. When two (2) Laws covering the same subject matter are so clearly inconsistent
through Sexual Intercourse, and Rape through Sexual Assault, carry a graver penalty and incompatible with each other that they cannot be reconciled or harmonized, in a
compared to the old Article 336, Book 1, RPC; manner that both cannot be given effect or enforced without nullifying the other, then there
In this case, the repeal of Article 336, RPC, does not deprive court’s jurisdiction to is likewise an implied repeal;
punish Mr. A for the Rape under the old Article 336, RPC. If convicted, then Mr. “A” shall be 5. When the new law revises or codifies the whole subject of the old law and the
punished for a penalty provided for under Article 336 and not under Article 266-A or 266-B, intent and scope clearly manifest the idea of a repeal, then all parts and provisions of the
RPC; old law that are omitted from the revised act are deemed repealed;
The new Articles 266-A and B, brought about by R.A. No. 8353 carrying a graver Here, there must be a clear intent of the legislature that the present law be a substitute to
penalty are not favorable to the accused; hence, it shall not be given retroactive effect. If the old law;
allowed, would make the repealing or new law as having acquired the character of an Further, implied repeal or repeal by implication is not favored as a basic rule in statutory
“Expost Facto” Law, explicitly proscribed by the Constitution under Section 22, Article III, Bill construction, unless there is a clear legislative intent of its repeal. This is based on rationale
of Rights, Constitution. that “the will of the legislature cannot be over-turned by the judicial function of construction
Express Repeal: and interpretation;
c. When a declaration in the statute in its repealing clause that a particular and specific law, The presumption is against inconsistency and repugnancy for the legislature is presumed to
identified by its number and title is repealed, then the repeal is an express repeal. The know the existing laws on the subject and not to have enacted inconsistent or conflicting
repeal is expressly stated in the repealing law; statutes;
Again, as to whether the express repeal carries the effect of absolute or partial repeal, is all III. Effects of Amendments:
the matter of legislative intent. Like the repeal of Article 336, RPC, on traditional Rape case

9
 1. As a general rule, amendment of penal law shall be given a prospective effect. “Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application, the provisions of this
However, if the amendatory law is favorable to the accused, who is not a habitual Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere,
delinquent, then it shall also be given a retroactive effect. its interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:
IV. Emphasis on the Application of “Extraterritoriality” with reference to the terms: (the five exceptions) x x x x”
Exterritoriality and Intra-territoriality, as well as its relations on the general principles of The phrase: “within Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior
International Law such as French Rule, English Rule, and UNCLOS: waters and maritime zone” refers to “Territoriality” principle;
1. As what we already discussed in Week 2, the topics covered “Territoriality’ The “interior waters” mean all waters embraced therein or all waters around,
principle, under Article 2, Book 1, RPC, and itsfive (5) exceptions, considered as “Extra- between, and connecting Philippines Archipelago regardless of breadth and dimension.
territoriality”. These are internal waters like rivers, lake, gulf strait, sea lane, ports, harbors, etc., which
In our jurisdiction, whether “Territoriality or Extra-territoriality”, our Philippines could be within the termed as “Intra-territoriality” which is also within the contemplation of
Courts have jurisdiction to hear or try the case; “Territoriality” principle considering that they are within Philippine Territory;
The term “Exterritoriality” may likewise generally refer to “Extra-territoriality” which The maritime zone as mentioned refers only to Territorial water or Territorial Sea
our court has jurisdiction provided that such acts are among those enumerated in Article 2, which is twelve (12) nautical miles from the archipelagic baseline, as far as criminal law is
Book 1, RPC, as exceptions to” Generality” Principle. concern. It does not include other regimes of maritime zones like contiguous zone,
In some jurisdiction, the term “Exterritoriality” means outside government control of exclusive economic zone, insular shelves, and the extended continental shelves, under
one country or outside government boundary, in which case, the latter could not exercise International Law;
jurisdiction over acts committed thereat; This is because beyond 12 nautical miles from the baseline or beyond “Territorial
To illustrate, in our lecture during week 2, contracting second marriage in Sea” is considered as “high seas” when we talk of criminal law;
Hongkong, Philippine court has no jurisdiction, because it is outside territorial boundary and Hence, for purposes of our lectures, we shall only limit to the terms Territoriality
the said act is not covered by “Exta-territoriality”being not among those enumerated as an and Extra-territoriality as provided for by Article 2, Book 1, RPC;
exception under Article 2, Book 1, RPC; We have already discussed exhaustively in the coverage of week 2, the principles
Therefore, in our case, we apply “Territoriality” principle on the reasoning that since penal of “Territoriality” and “Extra-territoriality” principles. For week 3, we will be discussing them
law shall be enforceable within Philippine territory and if it is outside our territory, our court in relation to its application with respect to the generally accepted principles of International
has no jurisdiction of such act committed in Hongkong. Law in various regimes of maritime zones more particularly the crimes committed aboard
This is so because Article 2, Book 1, RPC, only provides for two (2) Rules and the terms or foreign merchant vessel passing or traversing through “Territorial Sea”;
the language used are: “Territoriality” and “Extra-territoriality” principles; The right of “Innocent Passage” of a foreign merchant vessel can be invoked
But applying in the strict sense, in other jurisdiction, the example above, passing or traversing only within Territorial Sea. This right can only be exercised by foreign
contracting second marriage in Hongkong, wherein Philippine court has no jurisdiction, then merchant vessel within Territorial Sea. The right of “Innocent Passage” is a continuous and
the term “Exterritoriality” is more sensible to use than “Territoriality” because Hongkong is uninterrupted passage within Territorial Sea without entering our internal waters;
outside Philippine territory or than “Extra-territoriality” Principle considering that such act of To be considered as “Innocent Passage”, the continuous, expeditious and
contracting second marriage in Hongkong is not among the enumerations under Article 2, uninterrupted passage without however entering the internal water like port or harbor must
Book 1, RPC; not compromise the peace, good order, or security of the coastal state;
With respect to the term “Intra-territoriality” which means “Within” the Territory, In our interior/internal waters like in our gulf, or strait,canal, rivers, lake, port or
then it is embraced under the concept of “Territoriality” principle; harbor,there is no right of “innocent Passage” by the foreign merchant vessel. The right that
Article 2, Book 1, RPC, provides that: the foreign merchant vessel can invoke when it enters our port or harbor, is the “Right of
Arrival under Stress”, or “Right of Involuntary Entrance” like to take shelter during typhon,
10
storm or bad weather; lack of provisions; unseaworthiness of the vessel; pursuit by the 3. UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).This is similar to a “Flag
pirates; and other force majeure; etc. State” rule. The Flag State of foreign merchant vessel passing through the Territorial Sea of
However, as concessions to all Non-Archipelagic Countries by the Archipelagic the Philippines, has jurisdiction over crime committed therein;
Stateslike Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia,there is mandate to establish a “sea However, the Philippines which is the coastal state, can exercise jurisdiction, under Section
lane”within our internal waters that the foreign merchant vessel can use or traverse subject 2, Article 27, UNCLOS, to:
to our control, rules and regulations; 1) Arrest
Going back to fluvial or maritime zones, the twelve nautical miles from the baseline 2) To conduct investigation in connection with any crime committed aboard or
is our “Territorial Sea” over which we exercise sovereigntyor jurisdiction; onboard the ship during its passage in the following cases:
Notwithstanding the full sovereignty over Territorial Sea, there are fundamental a) If the consequences of the crime extend to the Philippines. Example the
rules in the International Law when crime committed aboard foreign merchant vessel destination of the foreign merchant vessel is in the Philippines, and murder was committed
passing through “Innocent Passage” within 12 nautical miles from the baseline, being during the passage within Territorial Sea, then Philippines has jurisdiction;
observed and practiced by the community of nations, considered as generally accepted b) If the crime is of a kind to disturbs the peace of the Philippines or the good order
principles in the International Law. of Territorial Sea;
We learned them already in week 2, but since the same is an included topics in c) If the assistance of local authorities has been requested by the master of the
week 3, based on the newly approved syllabus for year 2021, we might as well reiterate ship or by the diplomatic agent or consular officer of the Flag State; or
them, to wit: d)If such measures are necessary for the suppression of the illicit traffic in narcotic
1. French Rule –This is a “Flag State” principle. Crimes committed aboard a drugs or psychotropic substances.
foreignmerchant vessel within 12 nautical miles Territorial Water of the Philippines are Before, the Philippines adopted the English Rule; but now adays, it now adopts UNCLOS as
subject to the jurisdiction of the “Flag Sate” unless their commission affects the peace and a recent trend in the International Law concerning maritime zones. Philippines is one of the
security of our country; signatories of UNCLOS; hence, its provisions are binding to the Philippines as our
Again, Flag State Rule means the state where the vessel was registered has jurisdiction commitment to the International Communities, notwithstanding that those rules above are
over crime committed within Territorial Sea of the Philippines with exception that when the generally accepted principles of International Law;
crime committed affects the peace and security of the Philippines, then our country can Moreso, that under Section 2, Article II, Constitution, it provides that: “x x xPhilippines
exercise jurisdiction; adopts the generally accepted principles of International Law as part of the law of the land x
Murder committed aboard foreign merchant vessel (not military) within Territorial Sea, say in x x” known as “Incorporation Clause” of the Constitution;
Manila Bay, disturbs the peace and order of Manila; thus, such crime can be prosecuted in Let us correlate our study of criminal law with brief concept of International Law in relation to
Manila; our “National Territory” as defined under Article I, 1987 Constitution. In International Law,
2. English Rule – This a “Coastal State” principle. Crimes committed aboard there are three components of the Territory of the State: Terrestrial or Land Domain; Fluvial
foreign merchant vessel within Territorial Sea of the Philippines are subject to the or Maritime Domain; and Aerial Domain;
jurisdiction of the Philippines unless their commission does not affect the peace and On the other hand, Article I, National Territory, Constitution, provides:
security of our country, or has the pernicious effect therein; “The National Territory comprises the Philippine Archipelago, with all the Islands
Disturbance in the foreign merchant vessel which only pertains to the internal management and Waters embraced therein, and all other Territories over which the Philippines has
of the vessel, Philippines has no jurisdiction since it does not affect the peace and security sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its Terrestrial, Fluvial, and Aerial Domain, including
of our country; its Territorial Sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other sub marine areas.
The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of
their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines”
11
The term “Terrestrial” means “Terrestrial or Land Domain. There can be no “State” if there is as explained before, part of terrestrial and land domain of our National Territory correlating
no Land Domain. From the provision of National Territory, INTERNAL WATERS, referring to International Law;
all waters around, between and connecting the main islands of the archipelago: Luzon, Again, in International Law, the regimes of maritime zones are always measured from the
Visayas and Mindanao, are part of Terrestrial/Land Domain, and not part of Fluvial/Maritime baseline. So, the extent of 12 nautical miles from the baseline is our Territorial Sea which is
Domain.That is why there is no right of “Innocent Passage” in our INTERNAL WATERS. also part of our National Territory under Article I, of 1987 Constitution. Both International
Hence, it is still within the concept of Territoriality principle. Law and Constitution recognized the right of full sovereignty or jurisdiction of our country
The term “Fluvial” means “Fluvial or Maritime Domain”. Again, under our National Territory, over “Territorial Sea”;
it includes Territorial Sea, its seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other sub marine From the baseline, 24 nautical miles is the regime of contiguous zone. In the International
areas. Its extent istwelve (12) nautical miles from the archipelagic baseline, and it is called Law, Philippines has the sovereign right, (as differentiated from full sovereignty), or
Territorial Sea whichis part of our Fluvial or Maritime Domain, and still covered by jurisdiction to enforce custom, fiscal, immigration and sanitary laws. Technically, contiguous
Territoriality Principle because it is part of our National Territory from which full sovereignty zone is only 12 nautical miles from Territorial Sea; but as explained, measurement should
or jurisdiction is exercised by the Philippines; always be reconned from the baseline;
However, as we earlier explained, Territoriality is subject to principles of International Laws From the baseline, 200 nautical miles is the regime of “Exclusive Economic Zone”.
and to Treaty Stipulations. The right of “Innocent Passage” within Territorial Sea is a Philippines exercises sovereign rights (not full sovereignty) to exclusively explore, manage,
fundamental rule or principle in International Law that Philippines adopted and used to and exploit natural resources, both living or non-living, of the sea, the seabed, the sub-soil,
observe; continental shelves and other sub-marine areas. This is exclusively reserved for Filipino
As you can see, as far as criminal law is concern, beyond Territorial Sea or beyond 12 People. Technically, the exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is only 176 nautical miles from
nautical miles from the baseline, is considered as “High Seas”; Contiguous Zone;
That is why, as we keep on emphasizing, one of the exceptions from Territoriality, as Beyond 200 nautical miles from the baseline, is “High Seas” under International Law, and
enumerated in Article 2, Book 1, RPC, is a crime against laws of nation like the case of the regime of fluvial or maritime zone/domain is known as “Freedom of the High Seas (Mare
Piracy committed in the High Seas which is beyond Territorial Sea; Liberum).It is “Res Communis” (belonging to anyone) not susceptible of appropriation by
Let us say, committed 15 nautical miles from the baseline or within our contiguous zone. As any single state to the exclusion of the other states. It forms part of the common heritage of
far as criminal law is concern, that is piracy in the high seas governed by Article 122 and all mankind. “Freedom of the High Seas” has the following basic rights, that any other state
Article 123, Book 2, RPC, and not by PD No. 532,that the applicable principle is “Extra- can undertake, to wit:
territoriality” principle; 1) Freedom of navigation and of over flight;
Under International Law, there is UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which 2) Fishing rights;
is now being adopted by the Philippines instead of English Rule. In UNCLOS which is a 3) Mining;
multi-lateral treaty, it established different regimes of maritime zones as well as the 4) To lay under water or sub-marine pipe lines, cables and wires;
corresponding rights being observed by the coastal state. UNCLOS does not involve loss 5) To do scientific research;
or acquisition of state’s territory butdealing purely on maritime zones; Under the regime of “Freedom of the High Seas”, it is ONLY the Flag State that
Archipelagic doctrine provides for an archipelagic baseline. The baseline is drawn by first has jurisdiction over the vessel navigating in the “High Seas”, except when:
marking the farthest or the outer most points of the islands in the archipelago in the low a) Vessel is a Pirates’ Vessel;
water marks and then connecting all points to form an archipelagic baseline. b) Vessel is engaged in “Slave Trade”;
As a result thereof, all islands and waters embraced therein or all islands and all water c) Vessel has no Flag, or it refused to display the Flag when required, or carrying a
around, between and connecting the islands of archipelago, regardless of breadth or false Flag;
dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines and they are all considered,
12
 d) Vessel is engaged in an unauthorized broadcasting directed against another The essence of it, is the twin requirements of “Notice and Hearing” or the “Opportunity to be
state; Heard”. In criminal case, the notice and hearing cannot be dispensed with. Under Section
e) Vessel is under hot pursuit under the “Doctrine of Hot Pursuit” as differentiated 14, paragraph 1, Article III, Bill of Rights, Constitution, it provides that:
from “Arrest in Hot Pursuit”. “No person shall be held to answer for criminal Offense without due process of law”
The Aerial Domain refers to Philippines Atmosphere or Air-Space above its Territory which This refers to the procedural due process of law;
Philippines exercises full sovereignty or jurisdiction. There is no right of “Innocent Passage” So that, after arraignment when the court acquired jurisdiction over the case and over the
in aerial domain since this right can only be invoked within Territorial Sea; person of the accused, and he failed to appear despite notice, the court can try the case in
Beyond Aerial Domain is what we call “Outer Space” which is considered as “Res absencia;
Communis” or belonging to anyone, not susceptible of appropriation by any single State to Once convicted, he cannot complain that he was denied procedural due process because
deprive other States of its enjoyment. It also forms part of the “Common Heritage of All the essence of it, is giving one’s opportunity to be heard. He was notified yet he failed to
Mankind”; appear to present his own evidence in chief during trial. In this case, there is substantial
Outer Space is beyond aerial domain which includes celestial bodies: the stars, the moon, compliance of due process of law.
and the planets. Outer Space should only be used for peaceful purposes. Sending weapons 2. Equal Protection of the Law:
in the outer space for mass destruction is prohibited, under International Law; The right to “Equal Protection of the Law” can be invoked when acts appear to be
In the International Law (Convention on Civil Aviation), there is provision mandating that all discriminatory;
states shall render assistance to the Astronauts because they are the “Ambassadors” of all In essence, all things or persons similarly situated, as to the rights conferred and the
mankind. obligations imposed, shall be treated equally;
VI. Constitutional Limitations on the Power of the Congress to enact Penal Laws: Conversely, those who are not similarly situated shall not be treated equally. This means
1. Due Process of Law: that the “Equal Protection Clause” does not guarantee absolute equality. It only guarantees
Right To Due Process can be invoked when the acts of the government appear to be equality among equals;
arbitrary, whimsical, capricious, oppressive, unreasonable, or confiscatory; Hence, it admits classification and not all classifications are invalid. Classification may be
In such a case, you can assail it by invoking violation of due process; valid if it meets the following requisites:
There are two aspects of Due Process: a. Classification must be based on substantial distinction;
a) Substantive Due Process.It requires that the law itself must be fair, reasonable and just; b. It must be germane to the purposes of the law;
The law must not suffer the vices of vagueness under the “Vague for Vagueness Doctrine” c. It must apply not only to present conditions but also to the future;
or overbroad under the “Overbreadth Doctrine” d. It must apply equally to all members belonging to the same class;
Example, In view of heavy traffic in Edsa, Congress passed a law that violation of the color If those conditions above are met, then, there is valid classification and there is no violation
code scheme shall be punishable by Reclusion Temporal. of “Equal Protection of the Law”;
This law appears to be very unreasonable and unjust that such simple violation of color Example, the Law of Senior Citizens, R.A. No. 9994, that provides benefits of twenty (20)
code scheme, offender may be imprisoned or deprived of his liberty ranging from twelve percent discount to the purchase of medicines, etc., Supreme Court held that there is a
(12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. It may be assailed or questioned based on valid classification meeting all the requisites above stated:
the ground of violation of “Due Process” because under Section 1, Article III, Bill of Rights, That classification is based on substantial distinction. Sixty (60) years of age, person is
Constitution, it provides: weak, no longer productive and experiencing various pains and ailments. The entitlement of
“No person shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law x x x” discount is germane to the purpose of the law because of the conditions of the elderly, the
b) Procedural Due Process. It is a method or manner by which the law is enforced; fact that they are earning less or not earning anymore;

13
It applies not only to present Senior Citizens but to those in the future who will be turning The case of Leo Echegaray which is Death by Lethal Injection. It was questioned before the
sixty (60) years old. Then, the law or the 20 percent discount is being enjoyed by all Senior Supreme Court by Leo Echegaray himself as cruel, unusual, inhuman and degrading
Citizens who belong to the same class of persons; penalty and so it must be declared unconstitutional;
Another example is Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code that provides appointive But Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality, declaring that execution by Lethal Injection is
officials are ipso facto resigned the moment they file their certificate of candidacy as not cruel, unusual, inhuman and degrading penalty. Thus, it is now settled that Lethal
compared to those elective officials that they are not considered resigned when they filed Injection is valid and constitutional;
their candidacy; There is a constitutional bases for imposition or re-imposition of death penalty. It can be
Controversy reached the Supreme Court, and it was finally ruled in the Motion for imposed, where in fact it was imposed pursuant to R.A. No. 7659 defining heinous crimes
Reconsideration, that there is a valid classification based on substantial distinction; with attached penalty of death due to compelling reasons that the Congress had found or
According to the Supreme Court, Appointive Officials have a longer term of office, infact had provided. Constitution requires as a bases, the compelling reasons and also the act be
until they reached their retirement age which is generally 65 years of age. In our case, PNP must heinous in order that death penalty may be imposed;
is 56 years, the retirement age, and in judges their term is 70 years of age; The first victim of R.A. No. 7659 was Leo Echegaray when he was executed by lethal
Unlike the Elected Officials that they have a shorter term: Mayor is 3 years, congressman is Injection which was declared by the Supreme Court, not a cruel, inhuman and degrading
3 years, Senators and President, Vice President, their term is 6 years. To consider them mode of execution; Thereafter, Congress passed R.A. No. 9346 suspending or prohibiting
resigned upon filing of COC would make their term even further shorter; the imposition of death penalty
Appointive Officials have no mandate from the people; they got their mandate from the Nowadays, death penalty is no longer imposed but was not abolished because it still
Appointing Authority; While Elective Officials have mandate from the people, since they are remains in the scale of penalty under Article 71, Book 1, RPC. It is still found in the statute
elected; but its imposition is prohibited because of R.A. 9346 that suspended the penal provision of
Hence, classification is valid without violating the Equal Protection Clause” of the R.A. No. 7659.
Constitution that provides, under same Section 1, Article III, Bill of Rights, Constitution: After his death, it created public outcry as to the issue of propriety or morality of death
“x x x Nor shall any person be denied of the Equal Protection of the Laws” penalty considering that up to his death, Leo Echegaray did not admit that he raped his
3. Non imposition of cruel, unusual, inhumane, and degrading penalty or excessive fine: daughter;
Section 19, paragraph 1, Article III, Bill of Rights, Constitution provides: Death penalty can be re-imposed when there are compelling reasons involving heinous
“Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishment crimes that the Congress may hereafter provide, under Section 19, para 1, Article III, Bill of
inflicted. Neithershall death penalty be imposed, unless for compelling reasons involving Rights, 1987 Constitution. That is why there is a continuing debate, and in fact, no less than
heinous crime, the Congresshereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed the President himself wanted the re-imposition of Death penalty;
shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua” 4. Bill of Attainder:
Cruel, unusual, inhumane and degrading penalty does not only involve extinguishment of A legislation that immediately inflicts punishment even without judicial trial. This is prohibited
life; but the manner on how it is carried out that produces prolong pain and suffering as well by the Constitution because it violates the doctrine of separation of powers among three (3)
as humiliation; branches of the government;
Like for example, death penalty by hanging in the plaza miranda; death penalty by firing Congress appeared to have encroached judicial functions of conducting trial or hearing
squad in public plaza; death penalty by electric chair. Clearly, these modes of executions belonging to the judiciary, by enacting a law finding a person immediately guilty and
are cruel, unusual, and degrading since it would produce pain and suffering or humiliation; immediately imposing penalty, dispensing the required trial as part of due process of law;
therefor these could not pass the constitutional requirements against imposition of cruel, 5. Expost Facto Law:
unusual and degrading penalty; Its simple application is giving retroactive effect of the law, notwithstanding the fact, that
such law is not favorable;
14
It is a law which retroactively affects the right or condition of an accused who committed a Felony and Offense. The essential differences between crime under special law, and a
crime prior to its effectivity. felony are as follows:
Both Bill of Attainder and Expost Facto Law are absolutely prohibited by the Constitution, 1) In addition to the specific elements of a felony, this crime (intentional felony) must be
under Section 22, Article III, Bill of Rights, 1987 Constitution which provides: committed by means of dolo, which is its general element;
“No Expost Facto Law and Bill of Attainder shall be enacted” Whereas in crime under special law, dolo or malice is not an element unless it expressly
says so such as planting of evidence;
END OF THE MANUSCRIPT FOR WEEK 3, CRIM LAW 1, BOOK 1, RPC 2) The provisions in Book I of the RPC are applicable to felonies defined in Book II and not
. Criminal Liabilities and Felonies: to crimes under special law;
1. Acts or Omissions punishable by law are called “Crimes”; However, these provisions may apply to crimes under special law in a supplemental
2. If it is punishable by the Revised Penal Code (RPC), it is called “Felony”; character;
3. If it is punishable by the Special Law (Republic Act No., P.D, etc.), it is called Voluntariness as an element of Felony. The word “voluntary” found in the Old Penal Code in
“Offense”; defining felony was eliminated in Article 3, RPC;
4) If it is punishable or in violation by an Ordinance, it is called “Infraction of the However, although it was eliminated, voluntariness remains as essential element of crime.
Law” or “Infraction of Ordinance. But Ordinance passed by the local legislative (People vs. Opuran, G.R. Nos. 147674-75, March 17, 2004);
body in the city or municipality, is still within the meaning of the Special Law; Voluntariness is still an essential element of crimes whether committed by means of dolo or
hence, it can likewise within the contemplation of an Offense; culpa, or classified as mala in se or mala prohibita. To be considered a crime, the act must
However, now adays, “Offenses” are being used also to refer to “Crimes” in general. Thus, be committed with: Freedom and Intelligence, which means committed with “voluntariness”;
“Crimes” and “Offenses” may be used interchangeably in their generic sense; In addition to voluntariness:
Crimes may either be “Intentional” or “Culpable”: --Intentional Felony must be committed with dolo (malice);
a. If it is intentionally committed, it is called “Intentional crime”, which may be --Culpable Felony must be committed with culpa;
classified either as “mala in se” or “mala prohibita”; --Mala Prohibita under special law, must be committed with:
b. If it is committed through imprudence or negligence, then it is called “Culpable Intent to perpetrate the act;
crime”; Or with specific intent like intent to possess(such as animus possidendi in
Under Article 3, Book 1, RPC, it provides that: illegal possession of firearm);
“Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos).” Following the newly approved syllabus of year 2021, in our SLP, let us discuss first the
As to the General Element. “Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but “Mistake of Fact” Doctrine.:
also by means of fault(culpa) when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, a. Mistake of Fact may negate specific element of a crime, or may negatedolo; or
lack of foresight, or lack of skill.” may be a source of mitigating circumstance.
However, according to Luis B. Reyes, the word deceit in Article 3, RPC, is not the proper Here, it mentions specific element of crime; and alsodolo which has been negated. Hence, it
translation of the word “dolo”. He said that “Dolus” is equivalent to malice, which is intent to is necessary for us to first to understand the concept of “dolo” in relation with the elements
inflict injury to another. That is why what is being punished is the malicious act in intentional of Intentional Felony;
Felony; There are two (2) elements of Intentional Felony, which are:
There is deceit or malice when the act is performed with deliberate intent; and 1. Criminal Act;
There is fault or culpa when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of 2. Criminal Intent;
foresight or lack of skill; The “Criminal Act” could be found in the provisions of Book II of the Revised Penal Code
that provide for the specific elements of Felonies and the corresponding penalties;
15
But with respect to the“Criminal Intent”, as one of the important elements of Intentional another from which he has the right to take possession of it for himself or for another, for the
Felony, there is a “General Criminal Intent (dolo)”, and the other one is the Specific Criminal protection of the latter;
Intent”; In this instant, for the taker to be free from any criminal liability, his belief of ownership to the
Furthermore, the “Specific Criminal Intent” is either Express or Implied: thing taken must be honest and in full good faith, and not a mere sham or pretense;
1. Express Specific Criminal Intent, which is stated in Book II, RPC. Example in the If the claim is not honest and therefore a mere pretense, taking the personal property of
crime of “Theft”under Article 308 of the RPC, the express specific criminal intent is “Intent to another will not protect him from incurring criminal liability;
gain” because it is expressly stated in Book 2, RPC, under the said Article 308, that Such honest belief of him on good faith of his ownership of the thing is a valid defense in
provides: the crime of Theft in accordance with the “Mistake of Fact” Doctrine;
“Theft is committed by any person who, WITH INTENT TO GAIN, but without Another example is Mr. A hired five laborers to harvest coconuts from a plantation which Mr.
violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal A told them that said plantation belonged to him. However, unknown to the laborers,
property of another without the latter’s consent” ownership of the land is under dispute or litigation;
2. Implied Specific Criminal Intent, which is not expressly stated but can be In this case, the five (5) laborers are not liable for theft because the mistake of fact negates
INFERRED FROM THE CRIMINAL ACT described in Book II.Example in the case of intent to gain, which is an element of theft;
Homicide, the “Criminal Act” is killing. Even though the “Intent to kill” is not expressly b. Negating “dolo”. This is a complete valid defense provided the following
mentioned in Article 249 of the RPC, this intent is an element of Homicide. Here, the “Intent requisites are present:
to Kill” is the “Implied Specific Criminal Intent” in Homicide; 1) That the acts done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused
On the other hand, the “General Criminal Intent” is the “Dolo”, which is found in Article 3, believed them to be;
Book 1, RPC, considered as an essential element of every “Intentional Felony”. Likewise in 2) That the Mistake of Facts is not due to negligence;
Article 4, RPC, without “dolo”,one will not incur criminal liability in the “Intentional Felony”; 3) That the Mistake is not accompanied with the criminal intent of the offender;
“Dolo” as we earlier mentioned, is interpreted by Justice Luis Reyes as Malice, an essential The Doctrine of the Mistake of Facts is founded on “good faith” or “honest mistaken belief”
element of “malum in se”. In “Intentional Felony”, the concurrence of freedom, intelligence, of the Offender in committing the crime with all of the above-requisites present;
and intent, make up the “criminal mind” behind the “criminal act”; The Supreme Court held in several cases that allowed the accused, who committed a crime
Thus, to constitute a crime, the act is generally, and in most cases, be accompanied by a on a mistaken belief, to enjoy the benefit of the justifying circumstance of self-defense (US
“Criminal Intent”; vs. Ah Chong); defense of person and right; defense of honor; performance of duty;
“Actus Non FacitReum, Nisi Mens Sit Rea”, No crime is committed if the mind of a person obedience to an order of superior officer; and Death under exceptional circumstance;
performing an act complained of, is innocent; In sum, the Mistake of Fact Doctrine, as you can discern, is a valid and complete defense
We can now apply the concept of negating specific element; and also negating dolo, in the for as long as you can link all the requisites of justifying circumstance or the exempting
application of “Mistake of Fact” Doctrine: circumstance, based on his honest mistaken belief, or honest misapprehension of facts in
a. Negating Specific Elements of Felony. The Specific Elements of Theft are: “shall the given situations conformablywith the afore-mentioned principles in negating “dolo”;
Take” and with “Intent to Gain” personal property belonging to another without the latter’s If not all of the requisites of justifying or exempting circumstance are present, but at least
consent.Here, the jest of theft is the intent to deprive another of his personal property either: majority of the requisites are attendant, then the Doctrine of Mistake of Fact becomes the
1) For gain; or source of “privilege mitigating’ circumstance that would lower the imposition of penalty by
2) For wantonness or malice to deprive another of his right in the thing taken; one or two degrees than that prescribed by law at the discretion of the court, or the source
The above situations, cannot be obtaining if the taker honestly believes that he owns the of generic mitigating circumstance;
said personal property or that personal property is not belonging to the possessor but to Following are examples:

16
1) Self-defense (U.S. vs. Ah Chong, G.R. No. L-5272, March 19, 1910). Accused believed If there was really an intruder inside the toilet, the invasion would be considered as unlawful
that the victim was a robber and that his life was in danger because of the commencement aggression against his property, which would allow him to use reasonable means to repel it
of unlawful aggression against him, was acquitted due to the mistake of fact doctrine in in accordance with the self-help doctrine under Article 429 of the civil code and Article 11,
relation to the rule on justifying circumstance of self-defense under Article 11, Book 1, RPC; Book 1, RPC. But as explained above, firring a shot is notreasonable means in the given
In this case, applying the requisites of the Mistake of Fact Doctrine: situation;
--the act would have been justified or lawful had the facts been (and that is the 3) Irresistible Force. Mistake of Fact principle can also be applied in relations to
existence of unlawful aggression) as the accused believed it to be; circumstance of lack of voluntariness such as irresistible force or uncontrollable fear;
--the mistake is not due to negligence since he tried to validate the identity of the Accused will not be held criminally liable for the result not intended when there is mistake of
victim; fact constituting an involuntary act. Example, Mr. A poked something at Mr. B and
--His intent is not unlawful because he was just honestly exercising his right to self- threatened to shoot him if he will not shoot the dog;
defense; Honestly believing that his life is in danger, B shot the dog, not knowingly that Mr. A is just
2) Performance of Duty (Yapyuco vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 120744-46. June 25, merely poking a stick at his back. In this case, B is not liable for malicious mischief because
2012). Police authorities put up check points because of the information received that there of the mistake of fact doctrine applying the principle that B would have been exempt from
were armed rebels onboard a vehicle. criminal liability had the existence of irresistible force been as the accused believed it to be;
When they flagged down, the vehicle did not stop and so they open-fired the vehicle which 4) Death under exceptional circumstance (People vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 46310, October
resulted to the death of the occupants who tuned out to be unarmed civilians. Police 31, 1939). Death under exceptional circumstance is similar to the mitigating circumstance of
Officers were liable for multiple Homicide because there was negligence or bad faith on passion considering that a person, who killed his wife under exceptional circumstance,
their part; hence the Doctrine of Mistake of Fact is not applicable; Article 247, RPC, is acting in a justified burst of passion;
In the case of People vs. Oanis and Galanta, G.R. No. 47722, July 27, 1943, accused both Supreme Court, in several cases, appreciated mitigating circumstance of passion even if
Police Officers, shot the sleeping victim facing at their back whom they believed a notorious the acts causing the obfuscation was not true or not established, as long as it was honestly
criminal subject of their manhunt and arrest; and reasonably believed by the accused to be true. (U.S. vs. Malintal, G.R. No. 1331,
Both were guilty of Murder, since the second requisite is not present because they did not August 25,1903; People vs. Muit, G.R. No. L-48875, October 21, 1982);
first ascertain the identity in spite of the opportunity to do so. The first requisite is also If the principle of “mistake of fact” had been applied to justify the acts of the accused, to
lacking since the killing of the victim believed to be criminal was not the necessary exempt him from liability or mitigate his liability, there is no reason why it should not be
consequence of the due performance of duty; made applicable to a case involving “ABSOLUTORY CAUSE” under Article 247 in the light
But in this case, accused Police Officers were given the “privilege mitigating” circumstance of the time-honored principle of “pro reo”.
of “Incomplete Performance of Duty”; Dolo and its Requisites:
3) Defenseof Property (People vs. Narvaez, G.R. Nos. L-33466-67, April 20, 1983). The Malice or Dolo is an essential element of malum in se. But in malum prohibitum, malice is
accused killed his girlfriend whom he mistakenly believed to be thief inside the toilet. He not material;
was convicted because of the means employed, by firing shots through the toilet door, is not As earlier discussed, in Intentional Felony, the concurrence of freedom, intelligence and
reasonable; Thus, accused was only entitled to a “privilege mitigating” circumstance, under intent make the “criminal mind” behind the “criminal act”; Thus, to constitute a crime/felony,
the principle that the Doctrine of Mistake of Fact can be a source of privilege mitigating that act, generally and in most cases, be accompanied by criminal intent;
circumstance, if not justifying or exempting; Actus non facitreum, nisi mens sit rea, no crime is committed if the mind of the person
It should be emphasized that in the Mistake of Fact which negates “dolo”, it is important performing the act complained of, is innocent. (People vs. Ojeda, G.R. Nos. 04238-58, June
requisite that the act done would have been lawful had the fact been as the accused 3, 2004);
believed them to be.
17
Example in Usurpation of Function punishable under the RPC for being a malum in se, Felony Classified as Malum Prohibitum. Intentional Felony under RPC is committed by
criminal intent or dolo is an element of such crime; means of dolo which is an essential element of the said crime. Since dolo or malice is an
This crime is being punished because it is wrong in nature. In sum, the law concerned about element of Intentional Felony, they are mala in se;
the penalization of an evil or malicious act. Thus, lack of malice or lack of criminal intent is a However, there is an exception like the case of “Technical Malversation”. It is an Intentional
defense in the prosecution of mala in se; Felony, and yet, the Supreme Court declared it as “Malum Prohibitum”;
In the case of Ruzol vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 186739-960, April 17, 2013, the Mayor When the Mayor applied 10 boxes of food appropriated for feeding program, but he applied
was found not having possessed “criminal mind” when he issued permit to transport it to the beneficiaries of shelter assistance program, Mayor is liable for Technical
salvaged forest products in order to avert the occurrence of illegal logging in the area. He Malversation(Ysidoro vs. People, G.R. No. 192330, November 14, 2012);
issued it in good faith and so he was not liable for Usurpation of Functions of the DENR; Mayor’s act, no matter how noble or miniscule the amount diverted, constitutes the crime of
In the Illegal possession of loose firearms, criminal intent or dolo is not an element, being Technical Malversation;
punishable by special law and considered malum prohibitum. This crime is punished not Criminal Intent is not an element of Technical Malversation. The law punishes an act of
because it is wrong in nature but simply because it prohibited by law; diverting public property earmarked by law or ordinance for a particular purpose to another
What the law concerns is to penalize the act of defiance and not the evil or malicious act. public purpose;
Thus, lack of malice or good faith is not a defense in the prosecution of mala prohibita; The offense, in this sense, is malum prohibitum, meaning that the prohibited act is not
In another case, Good faith or belief that the security agency secured license to possess inherently immoral but becomes a criminal offense because positive law forbids its
firearm is not a defense in illegal possession of loose firearm filed against security guard; commission based on consideration of public policy, order, and convenience;
Presumption of Malice. The general criminal intent (malice/dolo) is presumed from the It is the commission of an act as defined by the law and not the character or effect thereof
criminal act; that determines whether or not the provision has been violated. Hence, malice or criminal
The absence of any general intent must be proven by the accused because it is already intent is completely irrelevant;
presumed in the Intentional Felony. In Ah Chong case, G.R. No. L-5272, March 19, 1910,
the accused was able to rebut the presumption of general criminal intent or malice; Culpa and Its Requisites:
On the contrary, a Specific Intent is generally not presumed. Its existence as a matter of If the crime is a culpable felony, there are also two (2) elements, which are:
fact, must be proven by the State just as any other essential element; 1. Criminal Act, which as mentioned above, could be found in the provisions of
However, this must be shown by the nature of the act, the circumstances under which it was Book II, RPC;
committed, the means employed and the motive of the accused. (Recuerdo vs. Peple, G.R. 2. Culpa, when the wrongful acts result from imprudence, negligence, lack of
No. 168217, June 27, 2006); foresight, and lack of skills;
But as an exception, there are other specific intents that are presumed: When we say Imprudence, this indicates deficiency in action and usually involves lack of
--If a person died due to violence, “Intent To Kill” is conclusively presumed; skills. If a person fails to take the necessary precaution to avoid injury to person or damage
--“Intent To Gain” is presumed from taking property without consent of the owner; to property, then there is imprudence;
Mallum Prohibitum Committed with Malice (Dolo). An Act may be mala in se and be at the Like for example, driving in the zigzag highway going to Baguio City, along Canon Road, at
same time mala prohibita if it is punishable by Special Law, and yet, malice or dolo is an 100 km per hour without reducing speed turning in the zigzag curve, then there is
element thereof; imprudence indicating deficiency in action involving his lack of skills;
Example is the “planting of evidence” is malum prohibitum since it is punishable by R.A. No. Unlike in Negligence that indicates deficiency of perception and usually involves lack of
9165; but yet in the same law, Section 28 thereof requires malice as an element of a crime. foresight. If a person fails to pay proper attention and to use due diligence in foreseeing the
Since good faith or lack of malice is a defense in this crime, it partakes of the character of injury or damage impending to be caused, then there is Negligence;
malum in se;
18
In the same example above, before going to Baguio City, person should have been Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injury”it will not be a bar for further prosecution of
reminded/inspected or checked the “BLOWBAGETS”(Break, Light, Oil, Water, Battery, Air, “Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property”;
Gas, Engine, Tires, and Self); He cannot invoke the rule on double jeopardy. The principle of “Double Jeopardy” does not
Failing to pay attention to such reminders indicates deficiency of perception involving lack of attach or will not lie in this case because thosefelonies are considered separate and distinct;
foresight; 2) Culpa as a crime by itself. Under Article 365, Book 2, RPC, on “Imprudence and
Culpa has two (2) concepts or Views, to wit: Negligence”, the Reckless Imprudence is considered as a single quasi-offense of criminal
1) Culpa as a means of committing felony. Under Article 3, Book I, RPC, it negligence which is a crime by itself and not a mere mode or means of committing other
provides how felony is to be committed: crimes;
“Felony is committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault Under this second view, the homicide, the damage to property, and slight physical injury,
(culpa) when the wrongful acts result from imprudence, negligence, lack of are not felonies but just consequences or results of one single quasi offense of “Reckless
foresight, lack of skill” Imprudence”. The said consequences or results shall only be considered with respect to the
Here, we could see that Culpa (Fault) is a means, other than Deceit (Dolo), of committing determination of gravity in the imposition of penalty;
felony which is culpable felony; The law penalizes the negligent or careless act not the result thereof. As the careless act is
For example, in the case of “Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide, Damage to single, whether the injurious result should affect one person or several persons, the offense
Property, and Slight Physical Injury, there are three (3) resulting felonies committed, which criminal negligence remains one and the same, and cannot be split into different crimes and
are: prosecutions. (Ivler vs. Modesto San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716, November 17, 2010);
a) Homicide; Hence, conviction or acquittal of such quasi-offense bars subsequent prosecution for the
b) Damage to Property; same quasi-offense, regardless of its various consequences;
c) Slight Physical Injury; The essence of the quasi-offense of criminal negligence under Article 365 of the RPC lies in
The Reckless Imprudence or the Culpa is just a means or modality in committing the three the execution of an imprudent act or negligent act that if intentionally done, would be
(3) felonies; when we reach Article 48, Book I, RPC, regarding compound crime which we punishable as felony;
will discuss on some later weeks, a single act constituting two(2) or more grave or less Motive versus Intent:
grave felonies can be merged in one Information as a compound crime under the concept of First, let us have a clear understanding of what is the meaning and concept of motive before
Complex Crime in the said Article 48, RPC; we will distinguish motive as against Intent;
Out of the three (3) felonies committed, the Homicide and Damage to Property can be Motive is not an element of the crime and need not be proved. In criminal case, prosecution
merged in one Information of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicidebeing compound must prove the elements of a crime and the identity of the person who committed it, and not
crimes, and Damage to Property, because Article 48, RPC, speaks only of single act motive;
constituting two or more GRAVE and LESS GRAVE FELONIES (Angeles vs. Nose, G.R. Proof of motive will not establish the elements, but it will help the prosecution in showing
No. L-6494, November 24, 1954); that the accused committed the crime;
The Slight Physical Injury cannot be made a component of Compound Crime because it is The identity of the culprit, which is essential requisite to convict the accused, is usually
not considered as Grave or Less Grave Felony. Thus, a separate Information should also established through positive identification of the witnesses;
be filed for “Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injury” as a separate crime However, if there is doubt as to the identity of the culprit, then showing motive of the
(Gonzaga vs. People, G.R. No. 195671, January 21, 2015); accused for committing the crime will help establish his direct link to the commission of
Under the first concept or view of Culpa which is a means of committing three (3) felonies, crime;
these are separate and distinct crimes. So that, when accused pleaded guilty to Reckless

19
The lack or absence of motive for committing a crime does not preclude conviction if there while Criminal Intent renders an act a felony. It is the general element of all intentional
are reliable witnesses who fully and satisfactorily identified the accused as the perpetrator felony;
of the felony. (Kummer vs. People, G.R. No. 174461, September 11, 2013); 3) Presence of motive indicates criminal intent. Example, the accused had been conducting
their business at a loss for nearly 18 months. Here, there is strong motive to burn their
So, when is Proof of Motive Required? properties to make an insurance claim;
Proof of Motive becomes crucial consideration in a criminal prosecution in the following The success of their crime of arson would mean that they would receive about twice the
cases: value of their stock of goods and thus convert a losing investment into a profitable one. In
a) There is doubt as to the identity of the culprit. (People vs. Ferrera, G.R. No. L-66965, this case, motive is indicative of their criminal intent;
June 18, 1987); Furthermore, Lack of Motive is not indicative of innocence. Lack of motive for committing a
b) The evidence is circumstantial or inconclusive where there is doubt on whether a crime criminal act does not necessarily mean or is not conclusive that there is really no motive at
has been committed or whether the accused has committed it. (Trinidad vs. People, G.R. all. Motive is unknown because it is found in one’s conscience, not accessible to human
No. 192241, June 13, 2012); observation;
Proof of Motive and circumstantial evidence on hand may establish the guilt of the accused Moreover, an extreme moral perversion may lead a man to commit a crime without a real
beyond reasonable doubt. (People vs. Obosa, G.R. No. 129688, Aril 2, 2002); motive but just for the sake of committing it. (People vs. Paguntalan, G.R. No. 116272,
c) Where the act committed gives rise to variant crimes and there is the need to determine March 27, 1995);
the proper crime to be imputed to the offender; Thus, lack of motive can result to conviction where the crime and the participation of the
If the accused committed variant crimes, the identification of motive is important to accused are shown;
determine the crime of which the accused can be held liable; While in criminal intent, the motive may or may not be concurring;
For example, if a person burned a building and as a consequence the owner thereof died,
his motive will determine whether the crime committed is murder or arson with homicide; Next topic is the Classification of Felonies. Following are the three (3) classifications of
d) Where it forms an essential element of the offense such as in cases of libel or slander, or felonies:
malicious mischief. (Diva vs. Diva, G.R. No. L-22946, April 29, 1968); 1) Grave Felonies. Those attached penalties are:
On the contrary, when is Proof of Motive Not Required? a) Capital Punishment – means death;
Proof of Motive is not required in criminal prosecution in the following cases: b) Penalties which in any of their periods are Afflictive;
a) When the accused has been positively identified as the assailant. (People vs. Ferrera, 2) Less Grave Felonies. Those attached penalties, the maximum period iscorreccional
G.R. No. L-66965, June 18, 1987); or his participation is shown; which means up to the maximum range of six (6) years because correccional penalty is 6
b) Where the criminal act did not give rise to variant crimes; months and 1 day to 6 years;
c) Where the crime involved is culpable felony or offense or malum prohibitum; 3) Light Felonies. Those infractions of laws, the attached penalties are:
a) ArrestoMemor (1 day to 30 days);
Let us now distinguish Motive from Criminal Intent, as follows: b) Fine not exceeding 200 pesos; or
1) Motive is the moving power which impels a person to do an act for a definite result; c) Both ArrestoMenor and Fine not exceeding 200 pesos;
while intent is the purpose for using a particular means to bring about the desired result; Under Article 7, Book 1, RPC, Light Felony to be punishable requires that it must be in
2) Motive is not an essential element of a crime; hence, it need not to be proven for consummated stage with the exceptions of: crimes against persons or properties and also
purposes of conviction. Motive is essential only when there is doubt as to the identity of the when committed by Accesory (Article 16, Book 1, RPC). Examples, in the crimes of Theft,
culprit or when the evidence is circumstantial or inconclusive; Robbery, Physical Injuries, etc.;

20
A person can be charged of light felony of Attempted Theft of 200 pesos because Theft is a When quack doctor treating his patient resulted to the death of the latter, such crime is not
crime against person which is punishable even though not in consummated stage punishable under Article 4, RPC, since it is not an Intentional Felony. Article 4, RPC, as we
Be it known that under Article 27, Book 1, RPC: stressed, is only applicable to Intentional Felony defined by the RPC;
Reclusion Perpetua has the duration of 20 years and 1 day to 40 years; In this case, the Quack Doctor, a person who practiced medicine without license, is not
Reclusion Temporal has the duration of 12 years and 1 day to 20 years; liable for Homicide since it is not within the contemplation of felony Article 4, RPC;
Prision Mayor has the duration of 6 years and 1 day to 12 years; But he is liable for his Imprudent or Negligent Act which resulted in Homicide; hence, he is
Prision Correctional has duration of 6 months and 1 day to 6 years; and liable for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide under Article 365, Book 2, RPC, the
Arresto Mayor has the duration of 1 month and 1 day to 6 months; act being considered as as single quasi-offenseof criminal negligence (People vs. Carmen,
ArrestoMenor has the duration of 1 day to 30 days or 1 month; G.R. No. 137268, March 26, 2001);
In summary, we can discern the following: But in the case of Carnapping, although it is an offense punishable by special law, and as a
a) Grave Felonies are those in which the law attaches the penalties from Prision Mayor to general rule, it is not within the meaning of Intentional Felony under Article 4, RPC, yet it is
Reclusion Perpetua, the range covered is 6 years and 1 day to 40 years; considered as an exception;
b) Less Grave Felonies are those in which the law attaches the penalties from Arresto The concept of Carnapping, under Section 3 of R.A. No. 10883, it provides that it is the
Mayor to PriscionCorreccional, the range covered is 1 month and 1 day to 6 years; same as that of Theft and Robbery;
Less Grave Felonies cover the penalties from Arresto Mayor to PriscionCorreccional which Having the same concept of Theft or Robbery, the crime of Carnapping can be treated as
is 1 month and 1 day to 6 years. an Intentional Felony within the meaning of Article 4, Book 1, RPC;
c) Light Felonies are those in which the law attaches the penalties of ArrestoMenor or Fine Example, after taking the motor vehicle, carnapper accidentally bumped and killed a
not exceeding 200 pesos or both which is 1 day to 30 days and/or a Fine of not exceeding bystander, the crime committed is Carnapping and Homicide since Carnapping is the
200 pesos; proximate cause of the death of a bystander;
This is so because what are provided by law under Article 9, Book 1, RPC, are the The accused shall incur criminal liability for Homicide in addition to Carnapping although his
limitations in every kind of felony classified as Grave, Less Grave, and Light Felonies; intention is merely to commit carnapping;
Next Topic is the Elements of Criminal Liability:
The rationale behind Article 4, Book 1, RPC, which provides: Error In Personae:
“Criminal liability shall be incurred (1) by any person committing a felony (delito) although It is a Mistake of Identity. In Error in Personae, a person is criminally responsible for
the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.” committing an intentional felony although the actual victim is different from the intended
The rationale behind Article 4, Book 1, RPC, is based on the time-honored and respected victim due to mistake of identity;
doctrine that “he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused”. (People vs. Error in personae carries the same gravity as when the accused zeroes in on his intended
Ulep, G.R. No. L-36858, June 20, 1988); victim. (People vs. Pinto, G.R. No. 39591, November 21, 19910. For example, A waited to
Article 4, Book 1, RPC is only applicable if the committed crime is Intentional Felony. These ambush B. He saw C a few meters away and believing C to be B, he fired upon and killed C
are crimes punishable by RPC, so that Suicide and Practicing Medicine Without License are whom he had no intention of hurting;
not defined and not punishable by RPC and therefore not within the meaning of Intentional A shall incur criminal liability for killing C because of the Error in personae principle;
Felonies in Article 4, RPC; To fully understand the concept, we shall differentiate Error in Personae (Mistake of
Example, Suicide is not an intentional felony. When pregnant woman who attempted to Identity) from Mistake of Fact Doctrine:
commit suicide is not liable for abortion when it resulted to the death of the fetus. But a a) In Error in Personae, the mistake merely pertains to the identity of the victim;
person killing his girlfriend in the agreed “suicide pact” constitutes a crime of “Assistance to While in Mistake of Fact, the mistake pertains to the elements of justifying circumstance,
Suicide” under Article 253, RPC; exempting circumstance, or absolutory cause such as the existence of unlawful aggression;
21
b) In Error in Personae, the accused acted with dolo; hence, he shall incur criminal liability In sum, he shall incur criminal liability for the death of or injuries sustained by the victim
for killing or injuring a victim although this victim is different from the intended victim; although this consequent crime is different from Threat, Murder of Another Victim, or Rape
While in the Mistake of Fact, the accused committed act without dolo; hence he is not which he intended to commit;
criminally liable because such mistake, the justifying circumstance, exempting circumstance If the accused committed a crime and as a consequence another crime is committed, these
or absolutory cause shall be resolved in his favor; two crimes can be merged into a special complex crime, or compound crime, or may be
PraeterIntentionem: treated as separate or as a single crime;
It means unintentional. In PraeterIntentionem, a person shall incur criminal liability for If in the course of Robbery, the victim jumped out of fear from the boat and died as a
committing an intentional felony although its wrongful consequence is graver (unintentional) consequence, the crime committed is a special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide.
than that intended; (People vs. Arpa);
Example is in Act of an Accessory when after the victim was stabbed, the accused assisted If after consummation of Rape, the victim jumped out of fear from the building and suffered
the chief actor in throwing the dead body into the well not knowing that the victim is still Serious Physical Injuries as a consequence, the crime committed is a compound crime of
alive; Rape with Serious Physical Injuries. (People vs. Castromero);
Thereafter, the victim died due to drowning. Concealing the body of the crime to prevent its If in the course of committing Murders, the victims without knowledge of the accused
discovery is an intentional felony committed by an accessory; jumped from the train and as a consequence died, the accused may be held liable for
Since, the death is the direct, natural and logical consequence of such felonious act of separate crimes of murders. (People vs. Toling);
hiding the body, the accused is responsible as principal in the crime of homicide; If the accused threatened to kill the victim, and by reason hereof, the latter jumped from the
He shall incur criminal liability for homicide committed by a principal although this criminal boat and died, the former is liable for homicide. (U.S. vs. Valdez);
participation as principal is different from his intended participation as an accessory. The crime of “Unjust Vexation” in relation with the application of PraeterIntentionem:
(People vs. Ortega, Jr., G.R. No. 116736, July 24, 1997); The Supreme Court, in the case of People vs. Pugay, G.R. No. 74324, November 17, 1988,
In the crime of Physical Injury, the accused punched his pregnant wife. If as a did not apply Article 4, RPC, for death resulting from the act of “POURING GASOLINE”,
consequence, she and her unborn baby died, the accused shall incur criminal liability for which is part of their fun making, the victim being his friend;
compound crime of parricide with unintentional abortion (People vs. Salufrania, G.R. No. In sum, the act of pouring gasoline was not treated as an Intentional Felony; hence, he is
L050884, March 30, 1988) with the mitigating circumstance of PraeterIntentionem (People not liable for the direct, natural and logical consequence thereof; Accused was convicted of
vs. Rabao, G.R. No. 46530, April 10, 1939), although this crime is different from Physical Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide;
Injuries which he intended to commit; But the Court applied Article 4 of RPC, for death resulting from the act of burning the
Another example is a Felony that produces fear in the mind of the victim or created an clothes. In sum, the act of burning the clothes was considered as an intentional felony;
immediate sense of danger which causes such victim to try to escape, and in so doing he Hence, he is liable for the direct, natural and logical consequence thereof. The accused
injures himself or he dies, the person who creates such a state of mind is responsible for shall incur criminal liability for homicide although this is different from Physical Injuries which
the resulting injuries or death; he intended to commit;
Such intentional felony that creates a sense of danger can be: The legal insights to be considered and remembered here, are as follows:
a) Threat (U.S. vs Valdez, G.R. No. 16486, March 2, 1921); a) Pouring gasoline over the victim as part of fun making would vex or annoy the victim. But
b) Murder (People vs. Toling, G.R. No. L-27097, January 17, 1975); since the mind of the accused is not criminal, such act is not unjust vexation.
c) Rape (People vs. Castromero, G.R. No. 118992, October 9, 1977); Hence, the SC in the Pugay case applied Article 365 and not Article 4 because accused in
d) Robbery (People vs. Arpa, G.R. No. L-26789, Apil 25, 1969); pouring gasoline is not committing an Intentional Felony;
b) But if the act is committed with malice and not just for a friendly fun making, it will
constitute “Unjust Vexation”;
22
Malice can be established by showing that the accused is angry at the victim or motivated In the same token, Mr. X, a land owner, surprised a youngster in the act of stealing some
by revenge or spite. The accused in this case is liable for the direct, natural and logical fruits in his orchard. To scare the intruder, he fired a shot-gun aiming at the foliage of a
consequence of Unjust Vexation from which Article 4, Book 1, RPC, is now applicable; cherry tree. The shot scattered and a pellet injured the boy, who was standing under the
Further example is when accused, because of jealousy, made plans to get even with the tree;
victim, his rival in courting a lady, by scaring him off somehow. The accused place a rubber Accused is not liable for Physical Injuries because he is merely exercising his right of self-
snake which appeared to be real in the backpack of the victim with intent to annoy or vex help. But he is liable for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Physical Injuries. That was
the latter; Reckless Negligence, the Spanish Supreme Cour decided. (People vs. Nucum, G.R. NO.
This act constitutes “Unjust Vexation”. Since the victim died after suffering heart attack L-482, February 25, 1947);
when the backpack was opened, the accused is liable for homicide which is the direct,
natural and logical consequence of “Unjust Vexation”; Let us go now to Aberratio Ictus:
He shall incur criminal liability for homicide, although this crime is different from unjust It means “Mistake of Blow”. In Aberratio Ictus, a person is criminally responsible for
vexation which he intended to commit; committing an intentional felony although the actual victim is different from the intended
Likewise, as another example, the accused was angered by the imputation of Theft made victim due to “Mistake of Bow”.
by the victim, said accused tried to scare her by trying to make it appear that he was about In Non-felonious act, if the act which caused injuries or death of a third person by reason of
to run her over but he applied the brakes; “Mistake of Blow”, is not an intentional felony,Article 4 on “Aberratio Ictus” shall not apply;
This act constitutes “Unjust Vexation”. Since the vehicle skidded because the road was Committing an act in self-defense, or in the exercise of right to defend possession of
slippery and the victim was hit and died as a consequence, the accused is liable for property (People vs. Bindoy, G.R. No. 34665, August 28, 1931), or causing death or injuries
homicide, which is the direct, natural, and logical consequence of “Unjust Vexation”; under exceptional Circumstance (People vs. Araquel, G.R. No. L-12629, December 9,
He shall incur criminal liability for homicide, although this crime is different from “Unjust 1959), all of them are not Intentional Felony;
Vexation” which he intended to commit; In committing such non-felonious act, the perpetrator is not liable for the injuries or death of
Another situation to consider is when out of spite and simply intending to put his ex- the third person, who was hit by reason of “Mistake of Blow”;
girlfriend to shame for breaking off with him, accused emptied a gallon of motor oil on the Article 4, Book 1, RPC, is not applicable because the perpetrator is not committing an
school’s stairway where his ex-girlfriend usually passed; “Intentional Felony”. He Is exempt from criminal liability because of the circumstance of
Since his ex-girlfriend died from brain hemorrhage, the accused is liable for homicide, which accident;
is the direct, natural, and logical consequence of “Unjust Vexation”; But if the perpetrator is reckless in committing the non-felonious act, he can be held liable
He shall incur criminal liability for homicide, although this crime is different from “Unjust for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide or physical injuries. (People vs. Abarca, G.R.
Vexation” which he intended to commit; No. 74433, September 14, 1987);
Correlating “Self Help” doctrine with PraeterIntentionem. Mr. X, a landowner, surprised a X prevented A from having a bloody encounter with his father. B tried to remove the hands
youngster in the act of stealing some fruits in his orchard. He threatened to spank them if of X, who was holding A. X pulled the hands of B causing her to fall over C, her baby;
they would not come down; Preventing A from having a bloody encounter with his father and pulling the hands of B are
Out of fear, all of them jumped from the tree. As a result thereof, they suffered Serious not Intentional Felonies. X is just exercising his right to defend his father;
Physical Injuries. Mr. X is not criminally liable in this case. Threat to spank them is not a Hence, X is not criminally liable for the death of the baby. Article 4 on Aberratio Ictus is not
felony; applicable. (People vs. Salina, CA O.G. 3186);
Mr. X was just exercising his right of self-help under Article 429 of the Civil Code. Threat to Another example, X attacked A. While the assault was in progress, B grabbed the weapon
spank is a reasonable and necessary means to repel invasion of his property. Hence, he is from X. As a consequence, C, a passerby, was accidentally hit by the weapon;
not responsible for any direct, natural and logical consequence thereof;
23
X is responsible for the injuries sustained by A and C. The act of X in attacking A is an The crime committed against C is Less Serious Physical Injuries. There is no showing that
Intentional Felony. Hence, X is responsible for the injuries sustained by C which are the X is aware as to the presence of C when he shot A. Hence, intent to kill was not
direct, natural, and logical consequence of the felony committed against A; established;
The act of B in grabbing the weapon from X is not an intentional felony. It is a justified act X is liable for a compound crime of Homicide with Frustrated Homicide, and Less Serious
due to the circumstance of defense of stranger; Physical Injuries since crimes were produced by single act;
Hence, B is not responsible for the injuries sustained by C. Article 4 on Aberration Ictus Aberratio Ictus causing Compound Crime:
shall not apply since B is not committing an Intentional Felony. B is exempt from criminal The circumstance of Aberratio Ictus (Mistake of Blow) can neither exempt the accused from
liability for injuries of C due to the circumstance of accident; criminal responsibility nor mitigate his criminal liability. (Matic vs. People, G.R. No. 180219,
With respect to the “Intent to Kill”, in Aberratio Ictus, there are at least two victims, the November 23, 2011);
intended victim and the third person who was hit by reason of “Mistake of Blow”; However, if crimes committed against the target victim and third person, who was hit by
Even though there is intent to kill the target victim, the court should still make an reason of Aberratio Ictus, were produced by a single act, the accused is liable for a
assessment if there is intent to kill the third person, who was hit by reason of Aberratio compound crime. (People vs. Talampas);
Ictus; Hence, the accused is entitled to the benefit of Article 48 of the RPC. (People vs. Julio
If the third person died, intent to kill is conclusively presumed. Hence, the crime committed Guillen, G.R. No. L-4477, January 18, 1950);
against the third person, is homicide or murder. (People vs Adriano, G.R. No. 205228, July However, the accused is liable for separate crimes despite the application of Aberration
15, 2015); Ictus rule, and not a compound crime if the bullet that killed the target victim is different from
If the third person merely suffered injuries, and there is intent to kill, the crime committed is the bullet that killed the third person, who was hit by reason of Aberratio Ictus (People vs.
attempted or frustrated homicide or murder; Flora, G.R. No. 125909, June 23, 2000);
Intent to kill the third person can be established if the accused is aware of the possibility of Or the crime committed against third person is merely light felony such as Slight Physical
hitting others in the process of killing the target victim; Injuries (People vs. Violin; or the components of the compound crime are alleged in two
Such awareness is circumstantial evidence of intent to kill the third person. (People vs. different information (People vs. Umawid);
Talampas, G.R. No. 180219, November 23, 2011); In People vs. Adriano, accused treacherously fired his gun several times at his target victim.
If the third person merely suffered injuries, and there is no intent to kill, the crime committed A bystander was also hit by reason of mistake of blow and both victims died;
against him is merely Physical Injuries. The following circumstances negate intent to kill: Accused is responsible not only for the death of the target victim but also for the death of
1) The accused is not aware of the presence of the third person or there is no the third person, who was hit by a stray bullet;
showing of such awareness; He is liable for two separate crimes of murder. Treachery will be appreciated even though
2) The victim is hiding (People vs. Violin, G.R. Nos. 114003-06, January 14, 1997); one was killed because of Aberratio Ictus;
3) The accused did not kill the third person despite opportunity to do so. (People But this is not a compound crime since there is no showing that the victims were killed by
vs. Anquillano, G.R. No. 72318, April 30, 1987); single act but several acts. When various victims expire from separate shots, such acts
X with intent to kill shot A, who sustained mortal wounds. B was hit by reason of Aberratio constitute separate and distinct crimes;
Ictus and died as a consequence. C was also hit by reason of Aberration Ictus and suffered
injuries, which healed after two weeks; Application of Error in Personae and Aberratio Ictus:
The crime committed against A is frustrated homicide since he committed the act with intent X treacherously shot and killed A, who was mistaken by the former as his wife. B who was
to kill; hit by Mistake of Blow, suffered Slight Physical Injuries;
The crime committed against B is consummated homicide since B died and so intent to kill X is liable for Murder killing A because of Error in Personae rule and Slight Physical Injuries
is conclusively presumed; for wounding B because of the Aberratio Ictus rule;
24
This is not a compound crime because a Slight Physical Injuries being a light felony cannot If the accused premeditated the assault of the victim, but not the killing, and implemented
be made a component thereof; his criminal resolution by boxing him causing his death, both Evident Premeditation and
But if B was hit in his left eye causing blindness, the crime committed is a compound crime PraeterIntionem shall be appreciated;
of murder and Serious Physical Injuries; With respect to Treachery, if the Accused employed means to render the victim
Both in Aberration Ictus and Error in Personae, the victim, who is killed or injured by the defenseless, Treachery shall be appreciated even if the killing is due to “Error in Personae
accused, is different from that intended victim; (People vs. Del Castillo, Sr., G.R. No. L-32995, April 30, 1984); or Aberratio Ictus (People
In Aberratio Ictus, the unintended victim was hit due to Mistake of Blow; while in Error in vs. Mabug-at, G.R. No. 25459, August 10, 1926); or PraeterIntenionem (People vs. Cagoco,
Personae, the unintended victim was hit due to Mistake of Identity; G.R. No. 38511, October 6, 1933);
In Error in Personae, there is only one victim; while in Aberraio Ictus, there are atl east two In People vs. Flora, G.R. No. 125909, June 23, 2000, the accused was convicted of two
victims; separate counts of murder for the killing of the intended victim, and the victim hit by a stray
The imposition of penalty in Error in Personae is generally subject to Article 49, of the RPC; bullet. The Court due to the presence of the aggravating circumstance of Treachery,
while Aberratio Ictus is subject to Article 48, of the RPC; qualified both killings to Murder. (People vs. Adriano, G.R. No. 205228, July 15, 2015);
As to the Effects on the Penalty: In Conspiracy, the conspirators are equally liable for the killing of another person due to
Under Article 49 of the Revised Penal Code, if the penalty for the intended crime is different Error in Personae (people vs. Pinto, Jr., G.R. No. 39519, November 29, 1991); or despite
from that of the committed, the court shall impose the penalty for the intended crime or the circumstance of PaeterIntentionem;
crime actually committed, whichever is lesser, to be applied in the maximum period; However, the rule is different in Aberration Ictus, wherein Conspirators who fired at the
Article 49, RPC, applies only to Error in Personae. If the crime committed is parricide but intended victim are liable for the injuries inflicted upon a third person, who was hit by reason
the crime intended is Homicide, the penalty for the lesser crime of Homicide, which of Aberratio Ictus;
Reclusion Temporal shall be applied in its maximum period; But a co-conspirator, say for example a “look out”, who never even fired a single shot, is not
Article 49, RPC, is not applicable if the penalty for the intended crime is not different from liable for the injuries inflicted upon such third person;
that of the committed crime. If the crime committed is Parricide, but the crime intended is The infliction of injury upon third person is outside the contemplation of the conspirators.
Murder, Article 49, which requires the application of penalty in its maximum period, is not Hence, only the actual perpetrators who fired at the intended victim are liable for the injuries
applicable because both crimes are punished by Reclusion Perpetua to Death; sustained by the third person. (People vs. Herbias, G.R. Nos. 112716-17, December 16,
Article 49, RPC, is neither applicable to Aberratio Ictus (People vs. Guillen); nor to 1996);
PraeterIntentionem (Wacoy vs. People, G.R No. 213792, June 22, 2015); Let us go the concept and application of “Proximate Cause”.
In Aberratio Ictus, Article 48, RPC, where crimes committed against the intended victim and Proximate Cause has been defined as “that cause, which, in the natural and continuous
third person, who was hit by reason of Aberratio Ictus, were produced by single act; sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without
PraeterIntentionem may be appreciated as mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to which the result would not have occurred”. (Belbis Jr., vs. People, G.R. No. 181052,
commit so grave a wrong than that committed under Article 13, Book1, RPC; November 4, 2012);
The circumstance of “Evident Premeditation in the case of Aberratio Ictus and Error in Example, even if the victim is suffering from an internal ailment, liver or heart disease, or
Personae, the Supreme Court did not appreciate it since the accused did not premeditate tuberculosis, if the blow delivered by the accused is:
the killing of the actual victim. (People vs. Trinidad, G.R. No. L-38930, June 28, 1988); a) The efficient cause of death;
However, in “PraeterIntentionem, evident premeditation can be considered. They shall be b) Has accelerated the death; or
independently appreciated (RPC by Luis Reyes); c) The Proximate Cause of Death;
Then, he is criminally liable for the death of the victim. (People vs. Ulep, G.R. No. L-36858,
June 20, 1988);
25
If the victim suffered heart attack because of the infliction of injuries upon her and as a The infection of victim’s stab wound by tetanus was an efficient intervening cause because
consequence she died, the accused is liable for the death of the victim because the such infection is absolutely foreign from the stabbing. The accused was held liable for
Physical Injuries committed by him is the Proximate Cause of her death. (People vs. Ulep, Physical Injuries. (People vs. Tadeo, G.R. No. 127660 and 144044-12, September 17,
Supra); 2002);
Although there was no direct injury on the vital organs of the victim, his wounds affected his d) The delay in giving medical treatment, or failure to receive proper medical attendance
kidneys, causing multiple organ failure and eventually dis death, the accused is liable for (People va.Acuram, G.R. No. 117954, April 7, 2000), or refusal to undergo treatment for his
homicide; injuries does not break at all the causal connection between the wrongful infliction of injuries
Without stab wounds, the victim could not have been afflicted with an infection which later by the accused and the death of the victim;
on caused multiple organ failure that caused his death., (Belbis, Jr., vs. People, supra); It does not constitute efficient intervening cause because it is not absolutely foreign from the
As to the Concept of Efficient Intervening Cause: infliction of injuries. The proximate cause of the death of the victim is still the infliction of
The direct relation between the Intentional Felony and the Death may be broken by the injuries;
Efficient Intervening Cause or active force which is either:
a) A distinct Act; or Impossible Crime:
b) Fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the offender; Impossible crime is an act which would have been an offense against person or property,
Following are examples: were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the
a) X and Y had a heated altercation and then exchanged blows. X pulled out a knife and employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. (Article 4,2nd paragraph, RPC);
stabbed Y in the abdomen. Y ran away but before he could reach his house, he was struck The offender shall incur criminal liability for committing an impossible crime because of his
by lightning and died; criminal tendency;
X should not be made liable for homicide since the lightning is an efficient intervening cause Impossible crime is not a real crime since the accused did not commit the crime against
that broke the relation between the felonious act and death; person or property for it is impossible to do so. The law punishes the accused not because
However, A is liable for Physical Injuries for the stab wound suffered by Y; of the commission of the crime but on the basis of his tendency to do so;
b) If the victim died due to tetanus of which he was infected at the precise moment when the Offender shall be held liable for Impossible Crime if the following requisites are present:
accused inflicted injuries upon him or immediately thereafter, the crime committed is 1) Offender performed an act which would have been an offense against person or
homicide. The infliction of injuries is the proximate cause of his death. (People vs. Cornel, property;
G.R. No. L-204, May 16, 1947); 2) Offender performed an act with evil intent;
c) If the victim died due to tetanus of which he was infected several days after the accused 3) Offender did not commit the offense because of the impossibility of its
inflicted injuries upon him, the crime committed is Physical Injuries. The accused is not accomplishment or employment of an inadequate or ineffectual means;
liable for Homicide because tetanus is an efficient intervening cause. Thus, the proximate 4) Offender in performing an act is not violating another provision of the law;
cause of death of the victim is not the infliction injuries; Not all impossible crimes prescribed and punished by the RPC are punishable. Only
In Villacorte vs. People, G.R. No. 186412, September 7, 2011, there jad been an interval of impossible crimes against person and property are punishable;
22 days between the date of stabbing and the date when victim, who exhibited symptoms of Following are examples:
severe tetanus infection, was rushed to the hospital; a) Prior to R.A. No. 8353, Rape is a crime against chastity. Thus, if a person raped a dead
Since the victim was infected of severe tetanus, he died the next day. The incubation period person believing that she was just sleeping, Offender could not be held liable for Impossible
of tetanus is less then 14 days. Hence, he could not have been infected at the time of the Crime because Rape, on that time, still a crime against chastity and not a crime against
stabbing since that incident occurred 22 days before the victim was rushed to the hospital; person;

26
But after the passage of R.A. No. 8353, Rape is now reclassified from crime against chastity The person committing preparatory act, his criminal intent remains equivocal or unclear.
into a crime against person. So, in the example, raping a dead woman without knowing that Thus, buying poison, conspiring and going to the place where the crime agreed upon will be
she was already dead constitutes Impossible Crime; committed are not constitutive of attempted felony because intent to kill is not clear;
b) Stabbing a dead person with knowledge of his dead condition is not impossible crime Proposal and conspiracy to commit felony are both considered preparatory acts and
since it was not committed with evil intent to kill. The act does not show criminal tendency, generally not punishable;
which is the basis of penalizing impossible crime, since he is aware that he is not killing Example, if conspirators while on their way to the house of the complainant for the purpose
someone at time of stabbing; of killing him were arrested by policemen on the basis of information of one who heard the
c) Where the offender unlawfully entered the house through the window and took a watch conspiracy, they are not criminally liable for conspiracy to commit murder since the RPC
that turned out to be his own, he is liable for trespass to dwelling and not for Impossible has not prescribed a penalty for it;
Crime of Robbery; Neither are they liable for murder at the attempted stage since going to the place where
d) Accused put substance to the food of the victim with intent to kill him not knowing that the they intend to commit a crime is preparatory act, not punishable since criminal intent to kill
substance is not poison or arsenic but powdered milk or non-toxic powder. This is as an element of the crime is not yet clear;
impossible crime; To commit indeterminate crime where the criminal intent is not clear or susceptible to
Accused shall incur criminal liability for performing an act which would have been Murder by various interpretations for possible crimes that may be committed, is not punishable and not
means of poison were it not for the employment of ineffectual means. (People vs. Balmores, a crime. (People vs. Lamahang, G.R. No. 43530, August 3, 1935);
G.R. No. L-1896, February 16, 1950); Example, a person destroyed the door and entered the dwelling was timely arrested when
e) But in the above example, the victim was hospitalized due to severe allergy to powdered police authorities arrived; he is not liable for Attempted Robbery because criminal intent is
milk or non-toxic powder, for 10 days, the accused will be held liable for Less Serious still indeterminate and not yet clear. It is susceptible to various interpretations; he may
Physical Injury and not Impossible Crime. commit Robbery; he may inflict Physical Injuries or may commit Rape;
But the criminal intent of committing “Trespass to Dwelling” is manifest and evident, being
END OF THE MANUSCRIPT FOR WEEK 4, CRIM LAW 1, BOOK 1, RPC inside the house against the owner’s consent; hence, he is liable for “Trespass to Dwelling”;
LESSON MANUSCRIPT (5th Week, Crim Law 1, Book I, RPC) But if the law provides penalty for preparatory acts like proposal or conspiracy to commit
PROFESSOR: J/DIR. ROMEO L. OGOY, TLPE (Ret.) treason, Rebellion or possession of picklock, then those preparatory acts
Lesson Topic: Stages of Execution: the internal, external and preparatory acts; the Stages becomepunishable crimes;
of Felony: Consummated, Frustrated, and Attempted; the two (2) Concepts of Conspiracy:
as a crime, and as a mode of committing a crime; the different Kinds of Conspiracy; the The Internal and External Acts can be best illustrated in the Stages of Executions which
Proposal and its requisites. would give rise to the Stages of Felony: Attempted, Frustrated and Consummated Felony;
I. Prayer then Recapitulation of the previous topic of week 4 and entertain some clarificatory a) Attempted Felony – Offender commences the commission of a felony directly by
questions. overt acts but does not perform all the acts of executionwhich would produce a felony as a
II. Internal, External, and Preparatory Acts: consequence by reason of some cause or accident other than his own “spontaneous
Preparatory Acts are generally not punishable unless the law specifically provides desistence”;
punishment or penalty for their commission; b) Frustrated Felony – Offender performs all the acts of execution which would
In an attempted felony, the Offender’s preparatory act requires another act to result in produce a felony as consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of
felony. One perpetrating preparatory act is not guilty of an attempt to commit a felony. some causes independent of the will of the perpetrator;
(People vs. Lizada, G.R. Nos. 143468-71, January 24, 2003); c) Consummated Felony – When all the elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present. (Article 6, Book 1, RPC);
27
 It must be stressed that “Spontaneous desistance” is not a defense in the Frustrated stage
External Acts may refer to directlyovert acts of execution by the Offender from which, in because accused already performed all the acts of execution that would produce felony as
Attempted Felony, he did not perform all the acts of execution; while in Frustrated Felony, a consequence. It has nothing to desist anymore;
he performed all the acts of execution; but both did not produce a Felony; That is why in Frustrated stage, the defense is the cause “dependent on the accused or
To determine whether the felony is at the attempted or frustrated stage, the acts of perpetrator’s exclusive will”. A mere desistance, no matter how spontaneous, is not enough
execution of the felony, which the accused intended to commit, must be identified; because of the mortal wounds inflicted and without intervention by the medical expert would
Example the act of execution to produce Homicide is infliction of mortal wound. If what is result to death of the victim;
inflicted is non mortal wound with intent to kill, the crime committed is attempted homicide In this situation, the Offender must do something, a cause which is dependent on his
(Colinares vs. People, G.R. No. 182748, December 13, 2011); exclusive will in order to save the life of the victim and likewise not to incur criminal liability
On the other hand, if wounds are mortal, the crime committed is frustrated homicide (People of frustrated homicide;
vs. Serrano, G.R. No. 175023, July 5, 2010); In Frustrated and consummated Felony, the accused in both casesperformed all the acts of
Furthermore, in Homicide, whether attempted or frustrated felony, “intent to kill” is execution that would produce a felony as a matter of consequence. However, due to
indispensable element. Without “intent to kill”, the crime committed is only Physical Injuries; external cause independent of the will of the perpetrator, the felony is not produced, in
In Attempted Felony, the spontaneous desistance of the Offender is his internal act flowing frustrated stage;
or proceeding from his own natural feeling,or native tendency without external constraint, If felony is produced, then the committed crime is in consummated stage. If the felony is
synonymous with impulsive, automatic and mechanical which would constitute as a valid consummated, the Offender cannot undo what was done. He would not be absolved from
defense and would free Offender from criminal liability (People vs. Lizada, G.R. No.s. criminal liability even if he had done something to mitigate the effect of his felonious act;
143468-71, January 24, 2003, Enc Banc); For example, Restitution of funds malversed immediately and voluntarily made before the
Treacherously, Mr. X suddenly stabbed Y inflicting non-mortal wound. In spite the case was instituted will not absolve him from his criminal liability. Such act of Restitution is
opportunity of stabbing more to kill Y, Mr. X spontaneously desisted; not an absolutory cause. (Navarro vs. Meneses III, CBD Admin Case No. 313, January 30,
Mr. X is not liable for Attempted Murder due to his spontaneous desistance being a valid 1998);
defense. But he shall be liable for Physical Injuries, the crime that he already committed; Another example, A stole chicken under the house of B. Realizing that what he did was
In Attempted Felony, desistance to be a valid defense must be spontaneous desistance wrong, A returned the chicken to the same place where he took it. Since the crime of theft
which means a desistance without external cause or constraint, and not just as a mere was already consummated, the return of the stolen property does not relieve him from
voluntary desistance; criminal responsibility;
In Frustrated Felony, it is a cause “dependent of the exclusive will” of the Offender as his “A” had already performed all the acts of execution, which produced the crime of theft
internal act that would absolve him from incurring criminal liability. before he returned the chicken. (RPC by Luis Reyes);
Example, Mr. A, a doctor, shot his friend, Mr. B, after their heated altercation, inflicting
mortal wounds. Realizing that he was only carried by his burst of emotion, he administered There areFelonies without “Frustrated Stage’, since performance of all acts of execution
medical treatment to Mr. B that saved the latter’s life; immediately consummates the crimes, such as:
In this case, Mr. A is not liable for frustrated homicide because of the medical treatment 1) Rape. In rape case, touching the labia majora or labia menora known as
administered by him negates intent to kill and considered as a cause “dependent on his “slightest penetration” consummates rape; Deep penetration is not required, the mere
exclusive will” which is a defense for frustrated Homicide; touching or kissing of the erected penis to the lips (labia majora or menora) of the victim’s
However,Mr. A is liable for the crime that he already committed which is consummated pudendum immediately consummatesthe crime. (People vs. Campuhan, G.R. No. 129433,
Physical Injuries which may either be Serious or Less Serious depending on the number of March 30, 2000; People vs. Butiong, G.R. No.168932, October 19, 2011);
days of medical attention or healing period;
28
That is why there is no Frustrated Stage in the crime of Rape. If the erected penis capable In Valenzuela case, if the properties are taken by the accused inside a compound, Theft is
of penetration did not touch the labia majora or menora of the pudendum but it is in the consummated even if the accused failed to bring out the stolen goods from the compound,
position to penetrate (Cruz vs. People, G.R. No. 166441, October 8, 2014); or Offender which makes him unable to freely dispose it;
actually commenced to force his penis into the victim’s sexual organ, then the crime Unlawful taking is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the
committed is Attempted Rape; thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same. Inability to dispose the stolen
Even Rape through Sexual Assault, in the case of People vs. Bonaagua, G.R. No. 188897, property is not an element of theft;
June 6, 2001, Supreme Court ruled that the touching of the labia of the victim’s vagina by Unlawful taking is the element which produces the felony in its consummated stage. Without
an instrument or object (including tongue or finger) consummates the crime of Rape through unlawful taking, the Offense could only be Attempted Theft, if at all. Thus, Theft cannot have
Sexual Assault. (People vs. Ricalde, G.R. No. 211002, January 21, 2015); a Frustrated Stage;
In sum, the crime of Rape, has no Frustrated Stage, but only Attempted and Consummated The crime of theft is consummated even though the offender after unlawfully taking the
Stages of Felony; property failed to bring it out from a department store, or dwelling, or the parking area of
2) Thief. The mere taking or gaining possession of the personal thing belonging to SM. (People vs. Valenzuela, supra);
another, with intent to gain, and without consent from the owner thereof consummates the If the accused is charged with frustrated Theft, he could not be convicted of the crime
crime of Thief; charged because Theft has no Frustrated Stage; Neither could he be convicted of
Taking is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains possession over the thing, consummated Theft since it was not alleged in the Information;
even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same. (People vs. Bustinera, G.R. No. But he could be convicted of Attempted Theft because this crime is necessarily included in
148233, June 8, 2004); the charge of Frustrated Theft. (Canceran vs. People, G.R. No. 206442, July 1, 2015);
Furthermore, it now settled by jurisprudence that “Asportation” or carrying away of the thing The Valenzuela principle can also be applied in Robbery as held by the Supreme Court in
taken is not required in the crime of Theft under our RPC. (Medina vs. People, G.R. No. the case of People vs. Salvilla, G.R. No. 86163, April 26, 1990;
182648, June 17, 2015); Another principle to remember in the crime of Theft, is when an employee misappropriates
Asportation is not indispensable requisite of Theft that a pickpocket should carry, more or the property or money in his possession belonging to his employer, then crime committed is
less far away, a wallet taken from its owner. (People vs. Mercado, G.R. Nos. L-45471 and Theft and not Estafa.
L-45471, June 15, 1938); His possession of money like in the case of “Collector” who collects installment payments to
This rule is also applicable to Robbery. Even though the stolen property was immediately be remitted to his employer, is only physical possession, and if he misappropriates it, such
recovered from the robbers, the crime of robbery is consummated since they gained act is considered “taking” within the meaning of “unlawful taking” under the crime of Theft.
possession over the property momentarily; (People vs. Locson, G.R. No. L-35681, October 18, 1932; Balerta vs. People, G.R. No.
Offenders are liable for consummated robbery by means of violence or intimidation though 205144, November 26, 2014);
they failed to bring out the property from the building. Ability to freely dispose the property is In U.S. vs. Adiao, G.R. No. 113785, October 8, 1918, a customs inspector took a leather
not an element of Robbery. (People vs. Salvilla, G.R. No. 86163, April 26, 1990); belt from the baggage of a passenger, He kept it in his office desk, here the other
In Robbery by using force upon thing where thesubject property is inside the receptacle or employees found it afterwards;
furniture, the crime is attempted if the property is still inside the receptacle or furniture in the The crime committed is consummated Theft. Taking or gaining possession over the
building because the owner still has constructive possession over the property; property with intent to appropriate consummates the crime of Theft;
In Valenzuela vs. People, G.R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007, the Supreme Court abandoned But if the possession is juridical like the case of Accountable Officers such as Treasurer or
“Dino case, that considered Theft as frustrated because of the inability of the accused to Disbursing Officer, if they misappropriate the funds for their own benefits, then the crime
freely dispose the bulky goods for failure to bring them out from the compound; committed is Estafa;

29
 3) Corruption of Public Officer. A person who gives the bribe, is liable for Or rubbing his penis on the mons pubis of her pudendum (People vs. Abanilla, G.R. Nos.
Corruption of Public Official. It is either Attempted or Consummated; there is no Frustrated 148673-75, October 17, 2003) is merely acts of lasciviousness because intent to have
Stage; sexual intercourse is not clearly shown;
When a person offers bribe (money, present, gift, promise) to public officer in exchange of Accused hugged the victim and tried to touch her breast. In the process, her dress from the
the performance or non-performance of an act in relation to the functions of his public office, collar to the waistline on the front part was torn. However, she was able to get free and to
and such offer is rejected, then such person who made an offer, shall be liable for move away. The accused desisted from following her;
Attempted Corruption of Public Officials. (Pozart vs. CA, G.R. No. L-62439, October 23, The crime committed is not Frustrated Acts of Lasciviousness. Acts of Lasciviousness are
2984); always Consummated. (People vs. Famularcano, C.A. 43 O.G. 1721). Hugging the victim
But when the said offer of bribe is accepted by Public Officer, the person who made an offer with lewd design constitutes Consummated Acts of Lasciviousnness;
shall be liable for Consummated Corruption of Public Officials; and the Public Officer who 3) Coup d’etat. It has no Attempted or Frustrated Stage. Once the Military, Police,
accepted the bribe in exchange for an act in connection with his office shall be liable for or Public Officer made a swift attack against facilities needed for the exercise and continued
Direct Bribery; possession of power for the purpose of seizing or diminishing state power, the crime is
That is the reason why there is no Frustrated Stage in the crime of Corruption of Public consummated;
Official; only Attempted and Consummated Stage. (People vs. Ng Pek, G.R. No. L-1895, Actual seizure or diminution of state power is not necessary for the consummation of the
October 2, 1948); crime. But prior to a swift attack, the plotters of Coup d’etat can be held liable for
Conspiracy to Commit Coup d’etat;
Let us go now to Felonies which are only in Consummated Stage and without Attempted or 4) Direct Bribery. This crime is consummated by the time a public officer agreed to
Frustrated Stage. These are called a “FORMAL CRIMES”, or those which are do or not to do an act in relation to his office in consideration of the gift, present, promise,
consummated in one instant or by performance of a single act of execution, such as: reward, or money offered to him as a bribe; Once public officer agreed and accepted the
1) Physical Injuries. According to Justice Regalado, the crime of Physical Injuries bribe, then Direct bribery is immediately consummated;
is a formal crime since a single act consummates it as matter of law; hence, it has no If the offer or bribe is rejected by the Public Officer. He is not liable for Attempted Direct
Attempted or Frustrated Stage; Bribery because there is no such a crime of Attempted Direct Bribery being not defined by
Example, accused deliberately throws acid to the face of another with intent to blind him. In law particularly by the RPC, or Special Penal Law;
other words, his intention is to commit Serious Physical Injuries. However, injuries caused in But the person who made the offer of bribe, if rejected, will be liable for Attempted
the eyes of the victim were completely healed in 25 days; Corruption of Public Officer/Official;
Accused is not liable for Consummated Serious Physical Injuries because it did not cause Direct Bribery is always in Consummated Stage incurring criminal liability or no liability at
blindness to the victim. Neither he is liable for Frustrated Serious Physical Injuries, though all;
the clear criminal intent is to commit Serious Physical Injuries, since it is a Formal Crime;
The crime committed is Less Serious Physical Injuries since the same requires medical Other Crimes having no Attempted or Frustrated Stage but only Consummated include:
attendance for 25 days, which is within the range of 10 days to 30 days for Less Serious a) Slander;
Physical Injuries; b) Perjury;
2) Acts of Lasciviousness. Supreme Court decided in several cases that: c) False Testimony;
Kissing and undressing the victim (People vs. Sanico, G.R. No. 208469, August 13, 2014); d) Illegal possession of Picklock;
Or touching her vagina by Offender’s hand (People vs. Banzuela, G.R. No. 202060, Felonies with stages whether Attempted or Frustrated, the offender had performed acts to
December 11, 2013); execute his criminal design. Performance of acts to execute criminal design is not

30
compatible with the concept of Culpa, Hence, a person cannot be convicted of Attempted or Accused manifested before his intention to burn the house of the victim to his friends. He
Frustrated Homicide through Imprudence. then performed the act of pouring gasoline around the walls of the house to execute his
Culpable Felony, while it has no Attempted or Frustrated Stage, it is not a Formal Crime criminal design to commit Arson;
considering that the latter applies to Intentional Felony and it is incompatible with the This is not just a preparatory act because it already revealed a clear intention to burn the
concept of Culpa. Culpable Felony is rather called a Crime with no Stages; house. He even manifested his intention prior to the commission of the crime. In this case,
he already commenced the commission of the crime of arson directly by over act;
Very important concept to understand is also the crime of Arson with Attempted, Frustrated But he did not perform all the acts to execute his criminal design to commit Arson by setting
and Consummated Stage: the house on fire due to cause other than his spontaneous desistance, and that is, having
1) Consummated Arson. Setting the building on fire constitutes consummated been caught by the police;
Arson if portion of the building was destroyed (People vs. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 100699, July
5, 1996); Next Topic is Conspiracy and Proposal:
Or the building was partially burned or has been charred (People vs. Hernandez, There is Proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes it
G.R. No. 31770, December 5, 1929; execution to some other person or persons;
Or small portion of the house was burned; There exists Conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
Setting the contents of a building on fire with intent to burn the building consummates the commission of a felony and decide to commit. (Article 8, RPC);
crime of Arson of building. (US vs. Go Foo Suy, G.R. No. 8217, September 5, 1913). This As a rule, Proposal or Conspiracy is not punishable unless there is a law that defines
can also be considered as Arson of Personal Properties under P.D. No. 1613; Proposal and Conspiracy as a crime with attached penalty and therefore punishable;
Setting the contents of a building on fire without intent to burn the building consummates the besides being a Preparatory Act;
crime of Arson of Personal Properties; Like Proposal or Conspiracy to commit Murder, is not punishable because it is not defined
2) Frustrated Arson. In U.S. vs. Valdes, G.R. No. 14128, December 10, 1918, by law as a crime and no penalty is specifically provided by law. The same as Proposal or
accused soaked a jute sack and a rag with kerosene oil, set them on fire and placed them Conspiracy to commit Robbery, it is not a crime since it is not defined by the RPC as a
beside an upright of the house; Felony;
However, the fire had been put out on time. The offense committed is not consummated Likewise, Proposal or Conspiracy to commit Suicide because it is not defined as punishable
Arson because no part of the building had been burned. He is liable for Frustrated Arson; and no law that provides specifically for its penalty. Committing Suicide is not even
The accused performed all the acts to execute his criminal design to burn the house. But punishable and not defined as felony under our RPC; so much more of the Proposal or
the house was not burned due to the timely intervention of others, who put out the fire on Conspiracy to commit Suicide, same is not a felony;
time; There are exceptions to the general rule, that makes Proposal or Conspiracy punishable. As
3) Attempted Arson. When a person had poured gasoline under the house of provided for by the RPC, the following Proposal and Conspiracy are considered
another and was about to strike the match to set the house on fire when he was felony/crime being defined by RPC with prescribed penalty thereof, to wit:
apprehended, he is guilty of Attempted Arson;
The acts performed by him are directly connected with the crime of Arson, the offense he Proposal and Conspiracy as a Crime:
intended to commit. The pouring of gasoline under the house and striking of the match 1) Under the RPC, just remember the acronyms for TRCS for conspiracy; and
could not be for any purpose other than to burn it. (People vs. Go Kay, CA, O.G. 2225); TRC for Proposal.
Carrying gasoline to the place where a house is to be burned is not Attempted Arson. Such It stands for Conspiracy to commit Treason (Article 114, Book 2, RPC); Rebellion, Coup d’
act is considered as preparatory to Arson. It is not punishable as Attempted Arson because etat, (Article 136, RPC) and Sedition (Article 141, RPC). (TRCS);
the intent to burn is not yet clear;
31
In Proposal and Conspiracy, there is a “Doctrine of Absorption” in their applications. However, even though Conspiracy is not a crime, but if the conspirators committed the
Example, Mr. X decided to commit Treason, when Philippines is in the state of war against crime agreed upon, Conspiracy shall be considered as a means or manner of incurring
China; Mr. X proposes his decision to Mr. Yto commit Treason; criminal liability;
If Y did not agree to the Proposal of Mr. X to commit Treason, then Mr. X is liable for On the other hand, even though Conspiracy is a crime, but the Conspirators committed the
Proposal to commit Treason; and Y is not liable since he did not agree; crime agreed upon, Conspirators shall be liable for the crime committed and not for
If Y agreed to the Proposal to commit Treason, then there exists Conspiracy because as Conspiracy to commit it. Conspiracy will be considered not as a crime but as a mode of
defined, there is Conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning committing a crime;
the commission of the crime and they decide to commit it. In this case, Conspiracy In the imposition of liabilities and penalties with respect to Conspiracy as a Mode of
absorbed Proposal. Mr. X and Y are liable for Conspiracy to commit Treason and no longer committing a crime, there are rules and principles being applied:
Proposal to commit Treason; 1) Collective Responsibility Rule. The legal effect once an express or implied
If either Mr. X or Y, committed Treason by his directly over act of giving information to the conspiracy is proved, is that all of the conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of
enemy country the whereabouts of the Armory of the Philippines Military Forces, then Mr. X the extent and character of their respective active participation in the commission of the
or Y is liable for Treason and no longer Conspiracy to commit Treason; crime that they agreed to commit;
In other words, Treason absorbs Conspiracy; Conspiracy absorbs Proposal; They are also liable for other crimes perpetrated in furtherance of Conspiracy. In
While in Proposal, it only applies to Proposal to commit Treason, Rebellion and Coup d’ etat contemplation of law, the act of one is the act of all. (People vs. Peralta, G.R. No. L-19069,
(TRC); There is no Proposal to commit Sedition; October 29, 1968);
2) Under the Special Law, the following Conspiracies are punishable, to wit: Accused are liable for two counts of rape on account of a clear conspiracy between them,
a) Conspiracy to commit Arson (Section 7, P.D. 1613); shown by their obvious concerted efforts to perpetrate, one after the other, the rapes. Each
b) Conspiracy to commit crime involving trafficking of dangerous drug of them is responsible not only for the rape committed personally by him but also for the
(Section 26, R.A. No. 9165; rape committed by the other as well. (People vs. Lascano, G.R. No. 192180, March 21,
c) Conspiracy to commit Terrorism (Section 4, R.A. 9372 now repealed by 2012);
R.A. No. 11479); a) Act in Furtherance of Conspiracy. To make a Conspirator collectively
d)Conspiracy to commit Child Pornography (Section 4, R.A. No. 9775); responsible, it must also be established that he performed an act in furtherance of
Conspiracy to commit Money Laundering (Section 4, R.A. No. 9160, as Conspiracy;
amended by R.A. No. 10365); A Conspirator who did not perform an act in furtherance of Conspiracy to Kidnap the Victim
Under Special Law, there is no Proposal considered as crime. It is only in Conspiracy that for Ransom since there is no law prescribing a penalty for it;
the Special Law provides for their punishment and therefore considered as criminal acts; Neither is he liable for Kidnapping on the basis of collective responsibility rule because he
Bear in mind that E.O. 183 has repealed P.D. 1110-A, which punished an Attempt or did not perform an act in furtherance of Conspiracy. (People vs. Supt. Berroya, G.R. No.
Conspiracy against the life of the President, on June 5, 1987. Hence, conspiracy to 122487, December 12, 1997);
assassinate the President is no longer punishable; If Conspirator failed to perform an act in furtherance of Conspiracy because he was
apprehended prior to the killing of the victim by Co-conspirator, the former is not liable for
Let us proceed to Conspiracy as a Mode of committing a Crime or Felony: the killing since he did not perform an act in furtherance of Conspiracy;
Again, as a rule, Conspiracy does not constitute a crime if the law has not specifically b) Mastermind. To be held liable as Conspirator based on the collective
provided a penalty therefor; responsibility rule, it must also be shown that the accused performed an overt act in
furtherance of Conspiracy except in the case of “Mastermind” of the crime. (People vs.
Vera, G.R. No. 128966, August 18, 1999);
32
One who plans the commission of a crime is liable as Conspirator and Principal by By fleeing, his co-conspirator detached or disassociated himself from conspiracy. Moreover,
Inducement. (People vs. Comiling, G.R. No. 140405, March 4, 2004, En Banc); he did not perform any act in furtherance of conspiracy. However, he is liable for Trespass
Evidence proved that he was the Mastermind of the criminal act or the Principal by to Dwelling;
Inducement, notwithstanding the fact that one was not at the crime scene; Another example, if a conspirator, who supposed to act as a guard outside the house, left
What is important is that inducement was the determining cause of the commission of the the scene without knowledge of the other conspirators before the killer could enter the
crime. The command or advice made by the Principal by Inducement was of such nature house to execute their plan to kill the victim, he is not liable for the injuries suffered by the
that, without it, the crime would not have materialized. (People vs. Janjalani, G.R. No. victim;
188314, January 10, 2011); By leaving the scene of the crime, he detached or disassociated himself from conspiracy.
A Commander of a Vigilante Group came to Ricky and showed him a list of five policemen Moreover, he did not perform any act in furtherance of conspiracy;
to be liquidated by them for graft and corruption. He was further asked if any of them is b) The commission of the crime is in progress:
innocent. Ricky pointed to two of the policemen as honest; If a conspirator left the scene of the crime while its commission is in progress and reported
Later, the Vigilante Group liquidated the three other policemen in the list. The Commander the incident to the police authorities, he is not criminally liable because he detached himself
of the Vigilante Group reported the liquidation to Ricky; from the conspiracy. (People vs. Nunez, G.R. Nos. 112429-30, July 23, 1997);
Circumstances show that Ricky is the Mastermind in the killing of policemen. The But a conspirator left the scene of the crime while commission of robbery with homicide is in
executioners before the killing consulted him; they did not kill those pointed by him as progress without reporting the incident to the police authorities, he is not exempt from
innocent and they reported to him the completion of the task; criminal liability;
Hence, Ricky is liable as Principal by Inducement even though he did not perform an act in Conspiracy has already materialized; hence, there is nothing to repudiate. (People vs. De
furtherance of Conspiracy; Los Reyes, G.R. No. 44112, October 22, 1992);
2) Detaching from Conspiracy. To exempt himself from criminal liability, a c) After the commission of the crime:
conspirator must have performed an overt act to dissociate or detach himself from the If the accused reported the shooting incident after it has already taken place, he is criminally
conspiracy to commit the felony and prevent the commission thereof. (Quintos vs. People, liable. In legal contemplation, there was no longer a conspiracy to be repudiated since it had
G.R. No. 205298, September 10, 2014); already materialized. (People vs. Bacbac, G.R. No. 149372, September 11, 2007);
a) Before the commission of the crime: 3) Imputability Doctrine:
If a conspirator dissuaded his co-conspirator from committing the crime agreed upon Under the Doctrine of Imputability, the act of an offender is imputable to his co-conspirator,
(People vs. Nunez, G.R. Nos. 112429-30, July 23, 1997); or although they are not similarly situated in relation to the object of the crime;
Made an effort to prevent the commission of the crime (People vs. Anticamaray, G.R. No. a) Case of Malversation: Only an accountable officer can commit malversation. But
178771, June 8, 2011); if there is conspiracy, the act of an accountable officer in committing malversation is
He is exempt from criminal liability because he detached himself from the conspiracy; imputable to non-accountable officers or private individual, although the latter was not
A induced B to kill the victim for a valuable consideration. But A tried to stop the killing by similarly situated with the former in relation to the object of the crime committed. (U.S. vs
calling the police authorities before the actual execution of the crime. A is not liable because Ponte, G.R. No. L-5952, October 24, 1911);
he detached himself from the conspiracy to commit murder; b) Rape Through Sexual Intercourse: Only a man can commit Rape through
Before the actual commission of Robbery with Homicide by the Chief Actor in the dwelling Sexual Intercourse against a woman. But if there is conspiracy, the act of a man in
of the victim, the co-conspirator fled for being scared when police car with sirens blaring committing Rape is imputable to a woman, although the latter was not similarly situated with
passed by. The latter is not liable for Robbery with homicide committed by the former; the former in relation to the object of the crime committed. (People vs. Dela Torre, G.R. No.
121213, January 13, 2004);

33
 c) Violation of B.P. Blg. 22: Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 does not expressly The private individual who was overpaid, is also liable on the basis of conspiracy. (Go vs.
proscribe the supplementary application of the provisions of the Revised Penal Code Fifth Division of Sandiganbayan, supra; Uyboco vs. People, G.R. No. 211703, December
including the rule on conspiracy; 10, 2014);
Hence, such rule may be applied in supplemental manner. (Ladonga vs. People, G.R. No. EXCEPTIONS TO RULE ON IMPUTABILITY:
141066, February 15, 2005); a) Parricide:
Thus, if there is conspiracy, the act of issuing bouncing check by the drawer is imputable to Even though there is conspiracy, the act of the wife in committing Parricide is not imputable
the non-issuer, although the latter was not similarly situated with the former in relation to the to the stranger. For example, a wife with the help of another killed her husband by means of
object of the crime committed; poison;
d) Violence Against Women: The principle of conspiracy may be applied to R.A. Since relationship is personal to the wife, it can only be appreciated against her in
No. 9262. Thus, the act of violence of man, having marital relationship with a woman, is accordance with Article 62, Book 1, RPC, and Article 246, Book II, RPC. Hence, the wife is
imputable to a person (example, Mother-In-Lawof the victim), who has no marital, sexual, or liable for Parricide, qualified by the circumstance of relationship and aggravated by the
dating relationship with the victim although both accused were not similarly situated in circumstance of by means of poison;
relation to the object of the crime committed. (Go-Tan vs. Go, G.R. No. 168852, September While the stranger is liable for Murder qualified by the circumstance of, by means of poison.
30, 2008); (People vs. Buscit, G.R. No. 17865, March 15, 1922);
e) Corruption: Only Public Officer can be held criminally liable for violation of R.A. b) Qualified Theft:
No. 3019. However, if there is conspiracy, the act of the public officer in violating R.A. No. Even though there is conspiracy, the act of the employee in committing theft qualified by the
3019, is imputable to the private individual although they are not similarly situated in relation circumstances of abuse of confidence is not imputable to a non-employee;
to the object of the crime; The servant and the neighbor of complainant conspired and committed the crime of Theft.
Moreover, it is the same law, Section 9, R.A. No. 3019, provides penalty for public officer or The qualifying aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence can only be appreciated
private person for crime under Section 3 thereof. Hence, private individual can be against the servant to whom the complainant reposed confidence, but not to his neighbor;
prosecuted for violation of R.A. No. 3019. (Henry Go vs. Fifth Division of Sandiganbayan, The circumstance of abuse of confidence is personal to the servant. The crime committed
G.R. No. 172602, April 13, 2007); by the servant is Qualified Theft while that of the neighbor is Simple Theft. (People vs.
Even though the Public Officer died, his alleged co-conspirator the private individual can still Puno, G.R. No. 97471, February 17, 1993);
be prosecuted for violation of R.A. No. 3019. Death extinguishes criminal liability but not the 4) Commission of other crimes:
crime; a) Killing of a Third Person:
Hence, if there is proof of the crime and conspiracy between the private individual and the A conspirator is liable for a crime, which they agreed to commit, and other crimes, which
Public Officer, who the latter subsequently died, the former can still be convicted for could be forseen and are the natural and logical consequences of the conspiracy;
violation of R.A. No. 3019. (People vs Henry Go, G.R. No. 168539, March 25, 2014); Conspirators agreed to kill the husband but not the wife in their house. They could have
However, if the Public Officer is acquitted, the private individual, his alleged co-conspirator, foreseen the violent resistance from the wife since they committed the crime in their house;
must also be acquitted. (Marcos vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 126995, October 6, 1998); Hence, the killing of the wife by one conspirator because of her resistance would make the
Mayor, Treasurer and Planning Coordinator approved the overpayments in favor of a other conspirators liable for her death although the conspiracy merely pertained to the killing
private individual for the construction of public market. The Public Officers cause undue of the husband;
injury to the government through manifest partiality and evident bad faith in violation of The killing of the wife was the natural and logical consequence of conspiracy to kill the
Section3(e) of R.A. No. 3019; husband. (People vs. Ventura, G.R. Nos. 148145-46, July 5, 2004);
But if the killing of a third person is unexpected or unforeseeable, the conspirator who has
no fore-knowledge of such killing, are only liable for the crime they agreed to commit and
34
not for the unforeseeable killing of the third person by their co-conspirator. (People vs. Unless anyone of them proves that he endeavored to prevent the others form committing
Caballero, G.R. Nos. 149028, April 2, 2003); Rape. (People vs. Orosco, G.R. No. 209227, March 25, 2015);
If by reason of conspiracy, conspirators beat their employer at the first floor of the building, However, if there is no evidence that the accused is aware of the commission of Rape, it is
but one of the conspirators chanced upon a maid at the second -floor shouting for help and in no way that he could have prevented the Rape; hence, the accused is only liable for
killed her, the other conspirators, who did not foresee the killing of the maid, are only liable Robbery and not Robbery with Rape. (People vs. Canturia, G.R. No. 108490, June 22,
for the killing of the employer; 1995);
They are not liable for the killing of the maid, which is substantially or radically different from Canturia principle where lack of awareness as a defense, is also applicable to:
the crime they intended to commit. The killing of the maid is not the natural and logical i. Kidnapping with Rape (People vs. Anticamaray, G.R. No. 178771, June 8, 2011);
consequence of the conspiracy to beat the employer; ii. Kidnapping with Homicide;
Conspirator killed a visitor of the target victim without knowledge of his co-conspirators. The iii. Robbery with Homicide (People vs. Corbes, G.R. No. 113470, March 26, 1997);
killing of such visitor is neither foreseeable nor the natural and logical consequence of the iv. Robbery with Arson;
conspiracy to kill the target victim; 5). Multiple conspiracies:
Hence, conspirators, who had not participated in the killing of the visitor, are not criminally There are two structures of multiple conspiracies, namely: Wheel or Circle Conspiracy; and
liable; Chain Conspiracy;
b) Committing Homicide or Rape in the course of Robbery by Band: Under the Wheel or Circle Conspiracy, there is a single person or group (the hub) dealing
Any member of the band who is present at the commission of Robbery by Band shall be individually with two or more persons or groups (the spokes);
punished as Principal of any assaults committed by the band, unless it be shown that he Illustration of Wheel Conspiracy was the conspiracy alleged in the Information for Plunder
attempted to prevent the same. (Article 296, Book 2, RPC); filed against for President Estrada and his co-conspirators;
The word “assaults” in Article 296 includes Sexual Assault constituting Rape. (People vs. Former President Estrada was the Hub while the spokes were all the other accused
Hamiana, G.R. Nos. L-3491-94, May 30, 1951); individuals. The rim that enclosed the Spokes, was the common goal in the overall
In such a case, the Members of the Band are liable for Robbery with Homicide or with conspiracy, example: the amassing, accumulation and acquisition of ill-gotten wealth. (GMA
Rape, with the ordinary aggravating circumstance of Band; vs. People, G.R. No. 220598, July 19, 2016);
However, a Member of the Band is not liable for Robbery with Homicide or with Rape, if he On the other hand, under the Chain Conspiracy, usually involving the distribution of
is not present when the victim was killed or raped. (People vs. Canturia, G.R. No. 108490, narcotics or other contraband, in which there is successive communications and
June 22, 1995); cooperation in much the same way as with the legitimate business operations between:
c) Committing Homicide or Rape in the course of Robbery: Manufacturer and Wholesaler;
Case law establishes that whenever Homicide has been committed by reason of or on the then Wholesaler and Retailer;
occasion of the Robbery, all those who took part as Principals in the Robbery will also be and then Retailer and Consumer. (Fernan Jr. vs. People, G.R. No. 145927, August 24,
held guilty as Principals of Robbery with Homicide although they did not take part in the 2007);
Homicide. The Concept of Express and Implied Conspiracy:
Unless it appears that they sought to prevent the killing. (People vs. Castro, G.R. No. Most of the time, Conspiracy is hatched and carried out in a secret transaction because of
187073, March 14, 2012); some elements of criminal or malicious intent. That is why it is seldom known in an open;
Once conspiracy is established between several accused in the commission of the crime of But if somebody heard two or more persons of their conspiracy regarding the commission of
Robbery, they would all be equally liable for the Rape committed by anyone of them on the crime like to commit Child Pornography under R.A. No. 9775, then there is Express
occasion of the Robbery; Conspiracy;

35
But Conspiracy, in most of the cases, is being inferred from the commission of directly overt
acts in the execution of the crime. If the execution of an acts by the participants appears to
have as if there was prior conspiracy like their concerted efforts perpetrating the crime or in
killing the victim, then Implied Conspiracy can be established;
Like for example, in killing the target victim, one acted as a “look out” outside the house,
and the other persons entered the house to carry out their criminal design to kill the victim,
then there exists Implied Conspiracy, that the act of one is the act of all and therefore they
are all equally liable;
Going back to Proposal and its Requisites as the last topic in week 5 based on the new
syllabus, as earlier mentioned, there is Proposal when a person who decided to commit a
crime proposes the execution with some other person or persons;
Hence its requisites are:
a) Person decided to commit a crime;
b) He proposes the execution of his plan/decision to commit a felony with some
other person or persons;
c) That some other person or persons did not agree with the proposal;
If the latter agreed with the proposal, then there exist Conspiracy. In this case, such
Proposal is now being absorbed by Conspiracy (see example of Proposal and Conspiracy
to Commit Treason).
END OF THE MANUSCRIPT, WEEK 5, CRIMINAL LAW 1, BOOK 1, RPC

36