Notes - Manner of Committing Crimes

CRIMINAL LAW NOTES:
MANNER OF COMMITTING CRIMES:

A. FORMAL CRIMES (Offenses under Special Laws) - relies on the law and official
government agencies to deter criminal actions and to respond to criminal activity. [vs
Informal crime control relies on moral and social institutions (e.g., family, peers, and
neighbors) to promote lawful behavior.];
B. CRIMES BY OMISSION (No attempted stage) - based on the theory that failure to
perform a legal duty when one has the capacity to do so is a substitute for the
commission of a defined offense when the harm done is the same. The causation
requirement is essential to proving criminal omission;
C. MATERIAL CRIMES – (3 stages of execution) – Attempted, Frustrated, consummated
Development of a crime:
I – Mental process/ internal acts – not punishable
- “no one can charge you for thinking of committing a crime
II – External / physical acts – General rule: not punishable, but with exception: unless
punishable under RPC i.e. fake keys/picklocks
a. preparatory acts –
b. acts of execution – implementation of plan
i. Attempted – offender commence the commission of the felony directly by

over acts, and does not perform all acts of the execution which should
produce the felony;
- there must be a direct relation between the overt act and the
elements of the felony for which he is charged [People vs
Lamahang]
 cause;
 accident;
 spontaneous desistance
Ex: I shot A, but the gun jammed. Rationale: the jamming of the gun is an
accident other than offender’s own desistance
ii. Frustrated – the offender has performed all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it
by any reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator [People vs
Borinaga] *must have sustained an injury
- impossible crime: Intod vs CA - Legal impossibility occurs

where the intended acts, even if completed, would not amount
to a crime.
iii. consummated – when all elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present
Three possibilities when not all elements of a crime are present:
a. the accused can be found guilty only for attempted or frustrated felony
b. the accused can be convicted of the felony charged in the consummated
stage but he can be found guilty of another felony also in the consummated
stage
c. the accused cannot be convicted of a crime which consists of two or more
elements , some elements are proven and other elements are not, the
accused should be acquitted because no crime was established;
SUBJECTIVE VS OBJECTIVE PHASE

The subjective phase is that portion of the acts constituting the crime included
between the act which begins the commission of the crime and the last act
performed by the offender which, with the prior acts, should result in the
consummated crime. From that time forward the phase is objective. It may also be
said to be that period occupied by the acts of the offender over which he has control
— that period between the point where he begins and the points where
he voluntarily desists. If between these two points the offender is stopped by reason
of any cause outside of his own voluntary desistance, the subjective phase has not
been passed and it is an attempt. If he is not so stopped but continues until he
performs the last act, it is frustrated. (US vs Eduave)
Subjective Phase Objective Phase

-portion of the execution of the crime -the result of the acts of execution, that
starting from the point where the is, the accomplishment of a crime;
offender still has control over his acts; - if subjective and objective phases are
- the offender reaches the point where present, there is consummated felony
he has no more control over his act, the
subjective phase is passed; • State wherein the offender
- if it is already passed but the felony is performed all the acts of
not produced, it is frustrated execution needed for the crime.
• No more control.
• Phase when the actor • Crime is either frustrated or
conceives the idea of consummated.
committing a crime.
• Internal Acts – not penalized
• Preparatory Acts to a particular
crime – not penalized for as
long as they, in themselves, do
not constitute an offense.
• Actor has control over his
actions.
• Spontaneous Desistance – no
liability provided no other crime
committed.
CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL
• When proposal is accepted, there is conspiracy.
• Act of one is act of all.
• CONSPIRACY - exists when 2 or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it (RPC, Article 8)
Kinds:
a. Conspiracy as a crime
b. Conspiracy as a crime
Conspiracy as a crime Similarity Conspiracy as a means to

commit a crime
Mere agreement is sufficient There is an agreement to It is necessary that overt acts

to be punishable commit crime to realize the crime purpose
must be performed by the
Ex: conspiracy to commit conspirators
treason (Art. 115), conspiracy
to commit coup d’etat, Ex:
rebellion, or insurrection (Art.
136), and conspiracy to
commit sedition (Art. 141)
• PROPOSAL – when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its
execution to some other person or persons
Necessary acts: (1) person decides to commit a crime; and (2) he proposes his decision
to commit a crime to anoter
Consummated: once the offender proposes it to another
PRINCIPLES:
• PEOPLE vs. ROEL PUNZALAN, ET. AL. (GR 78853; November 9, 1991) – A co-
conspirator is liable for such other crimes which could be foreseen and which are
the natural and logical consequences of the conspiracy
- While all these were going on accused Marieta did not do anything to help the
victim. She did not also prevent the killing of the victim. When the crime was
consummated, the accused Roel Punzalan and Jose Besida told accused Marieta
that they would meet at Del Remedio, changed their bloodied clothes at the
staircase and under the oliva (sic) tree on the ground of the Fule compound
- The general rule, however, is that where conspiracy or action in concert to achieve a
criminal design is shown, the act of one is the act of all and that the extent of the
specific participation of each individual conspirator becomes secondary, each being
held liable for the criminal deed(s) executed by another or others.
-
• PEOPLE vs. RICARDO LASCUNA, ET. AL. (GR 90626; August 18, 1993) – time of
commission; liable for graver offense unless he performed overt acts to prevent
the graver offense
- The general rule is that whenever a homicide is committed as a consequence, or on

occasion of a robbery, all those who took part therein are liable as principals of the
crime of robbery with homicide, although some did not actually take part in the
homicide
- conspiracy having been proven in this case, the act of one is the act of all
- He adds that the doctrine in this jurisdiction -- that when the homicide takes place as
a consequence of or on occasion of a robbery, all those who took part in the robbery are
guilty as principals of the crime of robbery with homicide, unless proof is presented that
the accused tried to prevent the killing -- should not be applied to him since he could not
have prevented someone from doing something which he (appellant) was not even
aware of in the first place.
- while it may be argued that the agreement was only to rob the victims, the
perpetrators' acts at the time of the incident show that the conspiracy not only
contemplated the commission of the robbery, but also the elimination of any witnesses to
the crime.
• PEOPLE vs. DE LA CERNA, ET. AL. (GR L-20911, October 30, 1967) – If the
conspirators select a particular individual or group of individuals to be their victim
and another person was killed by some, only those who actually participated in
the killing are liable
- However, appellant Sulpicio cannot be held liable for the killing of Casiano Cabizares,
notwithstanding a conspiracy between him and Serapio Maquiling. The conspiracy was to
kill Rafael only and no one else. Nothing was said or agreed upon about the members of
Rafael's family. In fact, in executing their plan appellants let the two women inside
Demetrio's house leave unhurt and they did no harm to the remaining companions of
Rafael in the house. Their target was solely Rafael Cabizares. And the rule has always
been that co-conspirators are liable only for acts done pursuant to the conspiracy.
For other acts done outside the contemplation of the co-conspirators or which are
not the necessary and logical consequence of the intended crime, only the actual
perpetrators are liable. 52 Here, only Serapio killed Casiano Cabizares. The latter was
not even going to the aid of his father Rafael but was fleeing away when shot.
- Although Serapio got the carbine from Sulpicio, the latter cannot be considered a principal
by indispensable cooperation or an accomplice. There is no evidence at all that Sulpicio
wa aware Serapio would use the rifle to kill Casiano. Presumably, he gave the carbine to
Serapio for him to shoot Rafael only as per their agreement.
-

Notes - Manner of Committing Crimes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Notes - Manner of Committing Crimes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Notes - Manner of Committing Crimes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRIMINAL LAW NOTES:

MANNER OF COMMITTING CRIMES:

- “no one can charge you for thinking of committing a crime

i. Attempted – offender commence the commission of the felony directly by

- impossible crime: Intod vs CA - Legal impossibility occurs

SUBJECTIVE VS OBJECTIVE PHASE

Subjective Phase Objective Phase

Conspiracy as a crime Similarity Conspiracy as a means to

Mere agreement is sufficient There is an agreement to It is necessary that overt acts

- The general rule is that whenever a homicide is committed as a consequence, or on

You might also like