Criminal Law Fundamentals
Criminal Law Fundamentals
Criminal Law Fundamentals
1. By direct participation
● Requisites: Accessories: having knowledge of the commission of
a. Participation in the criminal resolution; the crime, and without having participated therein,
and either as principals or accomplices, take part
b. Carrying out the plan and personally subsequent to its commission. [Art. 19]
taking part in its execution by acts which
directly tended to the same end.
2. By inducement CRIMINAL LIABILITIES AND FELONIES –
COMPLEX CRIMES AND COMPOSITE CRIMES
● Elements:
(Asked 14 times)
a. The inducement be made directly with the
intention of procuring the commission of Complex Crime:
the crime; and
1. Although 2 or more crimes are actually
b. Such inducement is the determining cause
committed, they constitute only one crime under
of the commission of the crime by the
the law as well as in the conscience of the offender.
material executor.
2. The offender has only one criminal intent, hence
● Ways of becoming a Principal by Induction:
there is only one penalty imposed for the
commission of a complex crime.
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION Page 4 of 25
Requisites: CRIMINAL LIABILITIES AND FELONIES –
ABBERATIO ICTUS, ERROR IN PERSONAE, AND
1. That at least two offenses are committed
PRAETER INTENTIONEM
2. That one or some of the offenses must be (Asked 12 times)
necessary to commit the other
3. That both or all the offenses must be punished Abberatio ictus – mistake in the blow; when offender
under the same statute. intending to do an injury to one person actually inflicts
General Rules in Complexing Crimes it on another; penalty for graver offense in its
maximum period [Art. 48 on complex crimes]
1. When two crimes produced by a single act are
● Elements:
respectively within the exclusive jurisdiction of
a. There is only one subject.
two courts of different jurisdiction, the court of
b. The intended subject is a different subject, but
higher jurisdiction shall try the complex crime.
the felony is still the same.
2. The penalty for complex crime is the penalty for
Error in personae – mistake in the identity of the
the most serious crime, to be applied in its
victim; injuring one person mistaken for another;
maximum period.
penalty for lesser crime in its maximum period [Art.
3. When two felonies constituting a complex crime
49];
are punishable by imprisonment and fine
respectively, only the penalty of imprisonment ● Elements:
should be imposed. a. At least two subjects
4. Art. 48 applies only to cases where the Code does b. A has intent to kill B, but kills C
not provide a definite specific penalty for a c. Under Art. 3, if A hits C, he should have no
complex crime. criminal liability. But because of Art. 4, his act
5. One information should be filed when a complex is a felony.
crime is committed. Praeter intentionem – injurious result is greater than
6. When a complex crime is charged and one offense that intended [Art. 13]
is not proven, the accused can be convicted of the
other.
Special Complex/Composite Crimes: the substance is TITLE VIII – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS –
made up of more than one crime but which in the eyes DEATH OR PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLICTED
of the law is only: UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES –
ARTICLE 247
1. a single indivisible offense; (Asked 12 times)
2. all those acts done in pursuance of the crime
Elements:
agreed upon are acts constituting a single crime.
Special Complex Crimes in RPC: 1. A legally married person or a parent surprises his
spouse or his daughter, the latter under 18 years of
1. Robbery with Homicide [Art. 294 (1)]
age and living with him, in the act of committing
2. Robbery with Rape [Art. 294 (2)]
sexual intercourse with another person
3. Robbery with Arson
2. He or she kills any or both of them or inflicts upon
4. Kidnapping with serious physical injuries [Art. 267
any or both of them any serious physical injury in
(3)]
5. Kidnapping with rape the act or immediately thereafter
6. Rape with Homicide [Art. 335] 3. That he has not promoted/facilitated prostitution
7. Arson with homicide of his wife or daughter, or that he or she had not
consented to the infidelity of the other spouse
Elements:
GENERAL PRINCIPLES – 1. Offender is a man.
MALA IN SE VS. MALA PROHIBITA
2. Offender had carnal knowledge of a woman.
(Asked 9 times)
3. Act accomplished under any of ff. circumstances:
Mala in se: ―evil in itself‖; a crime or an act that is a. by using force or intimidation; or
inherently immoral, such as murder, arson or rape. b. when the woman is deprived of reason or
[Black’s Law] otherwise unconscious; or
c. by means of fraudulent machination or grave
Mala prohibita: ―prohibited evil‖; an act that is a
crime merely because it is prohibited by statute, abuse of authority; or
although the act itself is not necessarily immoral. d. when the woman is under 12 years of age or
[Black’s Law] demented.
Exceptions [Art. 2]: Penal laws are enforceable even General Rule [Art. 100]: Every person criminally liable
outside Philippine territory. for a felony is also civilly liable.
What Civil Liability Includes [Art. 104]: TITLE IV: CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST –
FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC OFFICER,
1. Restitution [Art. 105] – return of the thing taken EMPLOYEE OR NOTARY – ARTICLE 171
2. Reparation of the damage caused [Art. 106]– (Asked 5 times)
applies when restitution is not possible;
● Considerations for Determination: Elements:
a. Actual value of lost item irrecoverable
b. Sentimental value to original owner 1. Offender is public officer, employee, notary
3. Indemnification for consequential damages [Art. public;
107] – include not only those caused the injured 2. He takes advantage of his official position;
party, but also those suffered by his family or by a 3. He falsifies by committing any of the acts:
third person by reason of the crime. a. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting,
signature or rubric;
Rules on Civil Liability b. Causing it to appear that persons have
participated in any act or proceeding when
1. Obligation to restoration, reparation,
they did not in fact so participate;
indemnification devolves upon heirs of person
liable [Art. 108] c. Attributing to persons who have participated
2. Action to demand civil liability descends to the in an act or proceeding statements other than
heirs of the injured person [Art. 108] those in fact made by them;
3. If two or more persons civilly liable for a felony, d. Making untruthful statements in a narration of
court to determine amount for which each must facts;
respond [Art. 109]
e. Altering true dates;
4. Principals, accomplices, and accessories shall be
liable severally (in solidum) among themselves for f. Making any alteration/intercalation in a
their quotas, and subsidiaries for those of the other genuine document changing its meaning;
persons liable [Art. 110] g. Issuing in authenticated form a document
purporting to be a copy of any original
TITLE XII: CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL STATUS a. Torture – an act by which:
OF PERSONS – PERFORMANCE OF ILLEGAL 1. Severe pain/suffering is intentionally inflicted
MARRIAGE CEREMONY – ARTICLE 352 on a person to obtain information/confession;
(Asked 5 times) 2. Punishing a person for an act he/she or a third
Persons Liable: Priests or ministers of any religious person has committed or is suspected of
denomination or sect, or civil authorities who having committed; or
performs the marriage ceremony with the knowledge 3. Intimidating/coercing a person/third person;
of its illegality or impediment or
4. For any reason based on discrimination, when
such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the
QUASI-OFFENSES (OR CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE) – instigation of or with the consent or
IMPRUDENCE AND NEGLIGENCE – ARTICLE 365 acquiescence of a person in authority or agent
(Asked 5 times) of a person in authority. It does not include
Quasi-offenses Punished: pain or Buffering arising only from, inherent
in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
1. Committing through reckless imprudence any act b. Other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment
which, had it been intentional, would constitute a or punishment
grave or less grave felony or light felony; 1. Deliberate and aggravated treatment or
2. Committing through simple imprudence or punishment, not considered an act of torture
negligence an act which would otherwise 2. Inflicted by a person in authority or his/her
constitute a grave or a less serious felony; agent against a person under his/her custody,
3. Causing damage to the property of another 3. Which attains a level of severity causing
through reckless imprudence or simple suffering, gross humiliation or debasement..
imprudence or negligence;
A person is deemed to be a habitual delinquent if, b. If you are the judge, will you grant the
within a period of ten years from the date of his last motion to transfer the trial of the cases from
release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or the civilian court to the court martial?
less serious physical injuries, robo (robbery), hurto
(theft), estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any No, I will not grant the motion to transfer the trial of
of said crimes a third time or oftener. [Revised Penal the cases from the civilian court to the court martial.
Code, art. 62(5)]
Murder is a crime punishable under Article 248 of the
e. Chain of custody in drug cases Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, and is within
the jurisdiction of the RTC. The crime committed is not
―Chain of Custody‖ means the duly recorded service-connected under Republic Act No. 7055. It is
authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or not the fact that the act was committed during the
controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous performance of the duties of the military personnel
drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the which makes it service-connected; rather, the relevant
time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic question is whether it is one of the violations of the
laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for Articles of War as enumerated in Section 1 of Republic
destruction. Such record of movements and custody of Act No. 7055 which classifies it service-connected.
seized item shall include the identity and signature of
the person who held temporary custody of the seized c. Are service-connected offenses absorbed in
item, the date and time when such transfer of custody the common crimes committed by military
were made in the course of safekeeping and use in personnel?
court as evidence, and the final disposition.
[Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of No, service-connected offenses are not absorbed in the
2002, sec. 1 (b)] common crimes committed by military personnel.
The Supreme Court has held that Rep. Act No. 7055
Ten (10) members of the Philippine Army received did not divest the military courts of jurisdiction to try
information about the presence of three (3) armed cases involving violations of Articles 54 to 70, Articles
persons in the vicinity, who were allegedly members 72 to 92, and Articles 95 to 97 of the Articles of War as
of the New Peoples Army. They reported that they these are considered "service-connected crimes or
had an encounter with the armed persons, all of offenses." In fact, it mandates that these shall be tried
whom were killed. The widows of the three slain by the court-martial.
persons filed separate complaints for murder and
three Informations for murder were subsequently Firstly, the doctrine of ―absorption of crimes‖ is
filed by the public prosecutor before the Regional peculiar to criminal law and generally applies to
Trial Court. The trial court issued arrest warrants for crimes punished by the same statute, unlike here
the accused military personnel but, before they could where different statutes are involved. Secondly, the
be arrested, the Judge Advocate General’s Office doctrine applies only if the trial court has jurisdiction
(“JAGO”) of the Armed Forces of the Philippines over both offenses. Here, Section 1 of R.A. 7055
filed a motion for the transfer of the three murder deprives civil courts of jurisdiction over service-
cases to a court martial as their acts allegedly
connected offenses, including Article 96 of the Articles
constitute service-connected offenses considering
of War. Thus, the doctrine of absorption of crimes is
that these were committed during a legitimate
not applicable to this case.
military operation.
(e) The void for vagueness doctrine In what instances may drug testing be allowed?
applies to penal statutes.
i. Ownership and possession of firearm
TRUE. requires that the applicant shall pass a
drug test [Rep. Act No. 9165, sec. 36(b)
The void for vagueness doctrine may be applied to and Rep. Act No. 10591, sec. 4(c)]
penal statutes but only on an as-applied challenge and ii. Students of secondary and tertiary schools
not through a facial challenge. [Estrada v. as long as it is random and suspicionless
Sandiganbayan, 421 SCRA 290 (2001) and Southern [Rep. Act No. 9165, sec. 36 (c)]
Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. v. Anti- iii. Officers and employees of public and
Terrorism Council, 632 SCRA 146 (2010)] private offices as long as it is random and
suspicionless [Rep. Act No. 9165, sec. 36
(d)]
What are the subjective test and objective test in iv. Officers and members of the military,
entrapment? police and other law enforcement agencies
[Rep. Act No. 9165, sec. 36 (e)]
When entrapment is raised as a defense, the v. Any person apprehended or arrested for
"subjective" or "origin of intent" test may be used to violating the provisions of Rep. Act No.
determine whether entrapment actually occurred. The 9165, meaning, a drug-related case [Rep.
focus of the inquiry is on the accused's predisposition Act No. 9165, sec. 38]
to commit the offense charged, his state of mind and vi. A driver of a motor vehicle involved in a
inclination before his initial exposure to government vehicular accident resulting in the loss of
agents. All relevant facts such as the accused's mental human life or physical injuries shall be
and character traits, his past offenses, activities, his subjected to chemical tests, including a
eagerness in committing the crime, his reputation, etc., drug screening test and, if necessary, a
are considered to assess his state of mind before the drug confirmatory test as mandated under
crime. Republic Act No. 9165, to determine the
presence and/or concentration of alcohol,
On the other hand, in the "objective" test, the court dangerous drugs and/or similar
considers the nature of the police activity involved and substances in the bloodstream or body
the propriety of police conduct. The inquiry is focused [Rep. Act No. 10586, sec. 7]
on the inducements used by government agents, on
police conduct, not on the accused and his
predisposition to commit the crime. The test of What is the multiple republication rule?
entrapment is whether the conduct of the law
enforcement agent was likely to induce a normally The "multiple publication rule" states that a single
law-abiding person, other than one who is ready and defamatory statement, if published several times, gives
willing, to commit the offense [People v. Doria, G.R. rise to as many offenses as there are publications.
No. 125299, 22 January 1999]. Every time the same written matter is communicated,
such communication is considered a distinct and
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION Page 22 of 25
separate publication of the libel. [Brillante v. Court of 2. In incomplete justifying or exempting
Appeals, 440 SCRA 541 (2004)] circumstances where majority of the elements
or conditions are present under Article 69 of
the Revised Penal Code, the penalty will be
May a person, who is not the original author of the one or two degrees lower than that prescribed
libelous article, be held criminally liable for by the law
republication thereof? 3. When there are two or more mitigating
circumstances and no aggravating
Yes, the maker of a libelous republication or repetition, circumstances under Article 64(5) of the
although not liable for the results of the primary Revised Penal Code, the penalty next lower to
publication, is liable for the consequences of a that prescribed by law shall be imposed
subsequent publication which he makes or participates 4. Concealment of dishonor of mother or
in making. It is no justification that the defamatory maternal grandparents in infanticide under
matter is previously published by a third person, Article 255 of the Revised Penal Code
provided malice is present. [Vicario v. Court of 5. Voluntary release of kidnapped victim within
Appeals, G.R. No. 124491, 1 June 1999] three days from the commencement of the
detention, without having attained the
purpose intended, and before institution of
Can one be held liable for libel and then for cyber criminal proceedings in Slight illegal detention
libel in case a libelous article was published in under Article 268 of the Revised Penal Code
writing and then subsequently published online? 6. Abandonment of guilty wife in adultery under
Article 333 of the Revised Penal Code
No.
Cyber libel as punished in Republic Act No. 10175 In what instances will the penalty be imposed
(2012) is constitutional. However, there will only be always in its maximum period, regardless of the
one prosecution for cyber libel and no prosecution existing of ordinary mitigating circumstances?
anymore for libel under the RPC. The penalty is one
degree higher than that imposed in the Revised Penal 1. In complex crimes under Article 48 of the
Code. [Jose Jesus M. Disini, Jr. v. Secretary of Justice, Revised Penal Code where the imposable
G.R. No. 203335, 11 February 2014] penalty shall be the penalty for the most
serious crime to be imposed in its maximum
period
Will a person who shares, likes or comments on a 2. In the penalty for mistake in identity or error
libelous article posted online be criminally liable for in personae as provided in Article 49 of the
cyber libel? Revised Penal Code, where the imposable
penalty is the penalty for the intended or
No. resulting crime, whichever is lower, to be
imposed in its maximum period
The provision punishing aiding or abetting online libel 3. When, in the commission of the crime,
in the Cybercrime Act was declared by the Supreme advantage was taken by the offender of his
Court as unconstitutional. public position under Article 62(1)(a) of the
Revised Penal Code
Thus, sharing, liking or commenting is not punishable 4. When the offense is committed by any person
and only the original author is liable. [Jose Jesus M. who belongs to an organized/syndicated
Disini, Jr. v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, 11 crime group under Article 62(1)(a) of the
February 2014] Revised Penal Code, with an
organized/syndicated crime group defined as
a group of two or more persons collaborating,
What are considered as privileged mitigating confederating or mutually helping one
circumstances? another for purposes of gain in the
commission of any crime
1. When the offender is a person over 15 years of 5. In quasi-recidivism under Article 160 of the
age and under 18 years of age who acted with Revised Penal Code
discernment under Article 68 of the Revised 6. In robbery with physical injuries, committed
Penal Code, the penalty will be one degree in an uninhabited place and by a band, or with
lower than that prescribed by the law the use of firearm on a street, road or alley
under Article 295 of the Revised Penal Code
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION Page 23 of 25
Antonio, a former mayor, was charged with seven (7) consented to the taking of the sex video, which they
counts of rape. He was convicted and sentenced to stored in Jose’s cellphone. However, when they
seven (7) reclusion perpetua. He questioned the graduated, they had a hard breakup. Maria found
imposition of the seven (7) reclusion perpetua as it another partner, which made Jose jealous. Jose
would be impossible for him to serve such period of circulated their sex video to his friends. Maria filed a
imprisonment. complaint for violation of Republic Act No. 9995 or
the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009. In
(a) What is the difference between defense, Jose argued that Maria consented to the
imposition and service of penalties? Can the court taking of the sex video and he is not criminally
impose seven (7) reclusion perpetua? liable. Rule on Jose’s defense.
. The imposition of the proper penalty or penalties is Jose’s defense is not tenable.
determined by the nature, gravity and number of
offenses charged and, proved, whereas service of Republic Act No. 9995 or the Anti-Photo and Video
sentence is determined by the severity and character of Voyeurism Act of 2009 punishes several acts including
the penalty or penalties imposed. the taking of the photo or video coverage without the
In the imposition of the proper penalty or penalties, consent of the persons involved, copying or
the court does not concern itself with the possibility or reproduction thereof, selling or distribution, and
practicality of the service of the sentence, since actual publication or broadcasting or showing or exhibition
service is a contingency subject to varied factors like of the photo or video.
successful escape of the convict, grant of executive
clemency or natural death of the prisoner. While the parties in this case consented to the taking
All that go into the imposition of the proper penalty or and recording of the sex video, they did not consent to
penalties, to reiterate, are the nature, gravity and the publication, showing or exhibition thereof. Section
number of the offenses charged and proved and the 4 of Rep. Act No. 9995 states that the prohibitions
corresponding penalties prescribed by law. [People v. pertaining to copying, reproduction, sale or
Peralta, 25 SCRA 759 (1968)] distribution or showing and exhibition apply
notwithstanding that consent to record or take photo
A court may impose three death sentences which can or video coverage of the same was given by the
be served simultaneously. So, it is legally possible to person/s involved.
impose seven (7) reclusion perpetua. [People v.
Peralta, 25 SCRA 759 (1968)]
AAA, 15 years old, was sexually molested by her
(b) How would Antonio serve the seven father, Noel, who was charged in the Information
(7) reclusion perpetua? with rape through sexual intercourse before the
Regional Trial Court (“RTC”). The Information
Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code governs the alleged that Noel had sexual intercourse with AA, a
service or execution of two or more penalties. First, the minor, fifteen (15) years old and his daughter,
convict shall serve them simultaneously if the nature through force, threat and intimidation against her
of the penalties will so permit; otherwise, the penalties will. During the trial, AAA testified that her father,
will be executed successively or as nearly as possible, Noel, sexually molested her at their house. Noel
based on the severity of the penalties. kissed her lips, touched and mashed her breast,
inserted the fourth finger of his left hand into her
Notwithstanding these rules, the maximum duration vagina, and made a push and pull movement into her
of the convict’s sentence shall not be more than vagina with such finger for 30 minutes.
threefold the length of time correspond ding to the
most severe of the penalties imposed on him. No other The RTC did not convict Noel of rape through sexual
penalty to which he may be liable shall be inflicted intercourse but rape through sexual assault.
after the sum total of those imposed equals the same
maximum period. This is called the three-fold rule. (a) Was the conviction for rape through
sexual assault proper when Noel was charged in the
Information for rape through sexual intercourse?
Finally, such maximum period shall in no case exceed
forty (40) years.
No.
Jose and Maria were long-term sweethearts in The prosecution was able to establish rape through
college. In one of their sexual acts, they decided to sexual assault but not rape through sexual
take a video thereof for posterity. They thus intercourse.The variance doctrine cannot be applied to