The Revised Penal Code

Book 1

● The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines was enacted into law on December 08, 1930 and took
effect on January 01, 1932. The said Penal Law codified all national penal laws of the Philippines
then existing and in effect for purposes of compilation and making it as the bulk of our criminal
law.
● The power to punish violators of criminal law comes within the police power of the state. The
police power is one of the inherent powers of the state. The exercise of which is primarily vested
in the Congress of the Philippines. Legislative power, which is the power to make, enact, amend,
repeal, or modify substantive law, is primarily vested in the Congress of the Philippines.
● Congress of the Philippines refers to the two chambers- the lower and the upper houses. Under
the law, the President can also exercise this power and issue Presidential and or Executive
Orders providing punishment thereof but only in times of emergency and when there is a law
authorizing the Chief Executive to exercise Legislative power. Hence, the sources of our Criminal
Law are the Revised Penal Code, Special Penal Law, Presidential Decrees, and Executive Orders
which are penal in character.
● It is the injury inflicted to the public which a criminal action seeks to redress, and not only the
injury to the individual. The objective of the punishment is two-fold: absolute and relative. The
absolute theory is to inflict punishment as a form of retributive justice. It is to destroy wrong in
its effort to annihilate right, to put an end to the criminal activity of the offender. On the other
hand, the relative theory purports to prevent the offender from further offending public right or
to the right to repel an imminent or actual aggression, exemplary or by way of example to
others not to follow the path taken by the offender and ultimately for reformation or to place
him under detention to teach him the obligations of a law-abiding citizens.

● Criminal law is that branch of law, which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for t
heir punishment.

● Acts or omissions punished under the Revised Penal Code is referred to as Felonies. Felonies are
committed by means of Dolo/ Intentional or Culpa/ by means of Fault.

● Offense is a legal term used to refer to violation of special penal laws.

● Crime is the umbrella term used to denote to either felony or offense.

● Infraction refers to violation of ordinance or local penal laws.

● Theories in criminal law:

⮚ Classical theory –
the basis of criminal liability is human free will and the purpose of the penalty is re
tribution. It is endeavored to establish a mechanical and direct proportion between cri
me and penalty, and there is scant regard to the human element. This philosophy

1
 provides that whenever individual commits crimes, he committed the same according to
his own volition or free will.
This revolves around the maxim “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. Our RPC is
generally governed by this theory.
Heinous crimes like Murder and Parricide are punished according to this classical theory.
The penalty for Murder and Parricide is Reclusion Perpetua which ranges from 20years
and 1 day to 40 years. This penalty is indivisible which means that it cannot be divided
into three equal degrees.

⮚ Positivist theory –
the basis of criminal liability is the sum of the social, natural and economic phenomen
a to which the actor is exposed. The purposes of penalty are prevention and correctio
n. This theory is exemplified in the provisions regarding impossible crimes and habit
ual delinquency. This Philosophy provides that individual commits crime not according
to his volition or own free will but is being influence by social and environmental factors.
Economic Crimes like Theft and Estafa are punished according to this theory.

⮚ Eclectic or Mixed theory -

It is a combination of positivist and classical thinking wherein crimes that are eco
nomic and social in nature should be dealt in a positive manner, thus, the law is more c
ompassionate. Ideally, the classical theory is applied to heinous crimes, whereas, the
positivist is made to work on economic and social crimes.
The underlying principles for the enactment of the Revised Penal Code is basically
according to this principle.

⮚ Utilitarian or Protective theory-

the primary purpose of the punishment under criminal law is the protection of society
from actual and potential wrongdoers. The courts, therefore, in exacting retributio
n for the wronged society, should direct the punishment to potential or actual wrong
doers, since criminal law is directed against acts or omissions which the society do
es not approve. Consistent with this theory is the mala prohibita principle which
punishes an offense regardless of malice or criminal intent.

● The government has the primarily duty of protecting and serving the people. Whenever crimes
are committed, there are usually two victims here, the actual individual or group victim and the
state. The state becomes a victim in the commission of crimes because of its duty to maintain
peace and order in the society, whenever a crime is committed, there is a breach or violation of
that condition of peace and order in the society which the state is primarily bound to maintain.

The following principles are the characteristics of our penal laws:

1. The Principle of Generality of criminal law means that the criminal law of the country governs
all persons within the country regardless of their race, belief, sex, or creed. However, it is subject to

2
certain exceptions brought about by international agreement. Ambassadors, chiefs of states and other
diplomatic officials are immune from the application of penal laws when they are in the country where
they are assigned. The President of the Republic of the Philippines are also immune from suit. Under the
provision of parliamentary immunity, members of congress are immune or exempted from arrest while
congress is in session and when the crime committed by them has an impossible penalty of not higher
than six (6) years imprisonment.

One should note that consuls are not diplomatic officers. This includes consul-general, vice-consul or
any consul in a foreign country, who are therefore, not immune to the operation or application of the
penal law of the country where they are assigned. Consuls are subject to the penal laws of the country
where they are assigned. It has no reference to territory. It refers to persons that may be governed by
the penal law.

2. The Principle of Territoriality means that the penal laws of the country have force and effect
only within its territory. It cannot penalize crimes committed outside the same. This is subject to
certain exceptions brought about by international agreements and practice. The territory of the country
is not limited to the land where its sovereignty resides but includes also its maritime and interior waters
as well as its atmosphere. Terrestrial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over land. Fluvial
jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over maritime and interior waters. Aerial jurisdiction is the
jurisdiction exercised over the atmosphere. One of the exceptions to this principle are the five (5)
paragraphs provided for under Article two (2) of the Revised Penal Code.

3. The Principle of Prospectivity means that penal law should be prospective in application and
shall not have any retroactive effect. Acts or omissions will only be subject to a penal law if they are
committed after a penal law had already taken effect. Vice-versa, this act or omission which has been
committed before the effectivity of a penal law could not be penalized by such penal law because penal
laws operate only prospectively. The exception to this principle is when a new law touching on the same
subject matter covered by the old law is being enacted and the latter law is favorable to the accused
who is not a habitual delinquent.

3
● When there is doubt as to the interpretation of the provisions of our penal laws, it should be
liberally construed in favor of the accused and against the state. The Revised Penal Code was
enacted originally in Spanish language so when there is conflict in translation to English
Language, the former shall prevail.

● Basic Maxims in Criminal Law:

❖ Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege (There is no crime when there is no law punis
hing the same) –
No matter how wrongful, evil or bad the act is, if there is no law defining the act, the
same is not considered a crime.

Common law crimes are wrongful acts which the community/society condemns as
contemptible, even though there is no law declaring the act criminal. However, this is
not applicable in the Philippines because this is a civil law country where Acts or
Omissions can only be punished when there is a law validly enacted/ created punishing
the same.

e.g. even if Mr. A lust day and night for his beautiful and sexy neighbor, without any
overt act/ without doing anything except for lusting, he cannot be prosecuted because
there is no law punishing the act done by him.

❖ Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea (The act cannot be criminal where the m
ind is not criminal) –
This is true to a felony characterized by dolo, but not a felony resulting from culpa.
This maxim is not an absolute one because it is not applied to culpable felonies, or t
hose that result from negligence.

E.g. Mistake of facts, defenses under Article 11 on justifying circumstances, minority,

imbecility.

❖ Doctrine of Pro Reo –

Whenever a penal law is to be construed or applied and the law admits of two interpre
tations, one lenient to the offender and one strict to the offender, that interpretation
which is lenient or favorable to the offender will be adopted.

This is in consonance with the fundamental rule that all doubts shall be construed in
favor of the accused and consistent with presumption of innocence of the accused. This
is peculiar only to criminal law.

4
 ❖ Actus me invito factus non est meus actus (An act done by me against my will is not my
act) Whenever a person is under a compulsion of irresistible force or uncontrollable
fear to do an act against his will, in which that act produces a crime or offense, su
ch person is exempted in any criminal liability arising from the said act.

e.g. Three Armed Men robbed a bank. Mr. A who was inside the bank was being
dragged by the robbers, pointed a gun on his head, and forced him to drive the getaway
vehicle. Because of fear, Mr. A obliged and drove the getaway vehicle causing the
escaped of the robbers. Can Mr. A be held liable as accessories to the crime of robbery?
No, It was not the act of Mr. A but rather it was the act of the robbers. Mr. A was
reduced to a mere instrumentality without a criminal mind of his own. The act was
against the will of Mr. A.

ACTIVITIES/ ASSIGNMENT!

1. What is mistake of facts?

2. What is the effect of successfully putting up the defenses of Justifying Circumstances?

3. What is the effect of successfully putting up the defense of Exempting circumstances?

4. What is the effect of successfully putting up the defense of Mitigating Circumstances?

5. Is human rights violation a crime?

5
● Enactment of Penal Laws- Only the legislative branch of the government can enact penal laws.
While the President may define and punish an act as a crime, such exercise of power is not
executive but legislative as he derives such power from the law‐ making body. It is in essence, an
exercise of legislative power by the Chief Executive.
● Constitutional Limitations on the power to enact penal laws
⮚ No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. (Sec. 22, Art. llI, 1987
Constitution). An ex post facto law is one wherein if given a retroactive application will
be prejudicial to the accused.
⮚ A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishments without trial. Its essence
is the substitution of a legislative act for a judicial determination of guilt.
⮚ Ex post facto law is one which:
(1) Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent
when done, and punishes such an act.
(2) Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed;
(3) Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to
the crime when committed;
(4) Alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or different
testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense;
(5) Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or
deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful; and
(6) Deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection to which he has
become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a
proclamation of amnesty. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code Citing In re: Kay Villegas Kami,
Inc.)
⮚ No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.
(Sec. 14, [1], Art. III, 1987 Constitution)
⮚ No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor
shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. (Sec. 1, Art. III, 1987
Constitution)
✔ Due Process is a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon
inquiry and render judgment only after trial. The essence of due process is the
sporting idea of fair play.
✔ Equal Protection means that persons similarly situated must be treated alike
under the law. Congress cannot enact penal laws applicable only to people of
Sulu and not applicable to all people. In other words, penal laws shall be
applicable to all otherwise none at all.
⮚ Art III, Sec. 19, 1987 Const. Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or
inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for
compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any
death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
✔ Death penalty is not yet abolished. What is being prohibited under Republic Act
9346 is its imposition.

6
 ✔ Under Book 2 of the RPC, Felonies are being specified/ provided together with
their Penalties. Death is one of the penalties provided thereunder. Any violation
made by the accused and the penalty provided under Book 2 is Death shall be
reduced to Reclusion perpetua and any violation of Special Penal laws with
death as penalty shall also be reduced to Life Imprisonment.
✔ Reclusion Perpetua has a ranged of 20 years 1 day to 40 years. This is indivisible
✔ Life Imprisonment has no fixed duration but it is peg at 30 years at least.
✔ Congress, when enacting penal laws, is given wide latitude and discretion as to
providing penalty thereof. This is a political question which is left to the sound
discretion and wisdom of the peoples’ representative and beyond the reach of
judicial scrutiny. Death as a penalty has been adjudged by the court a sound
political decision on imposition of penalty made by congress. The limitation
herein provided pertains to penalty that is cruel or degrading like the cutting of
hands for the felony of theft or the castration/ cutting of private part for the
penalty of rape.

ACTIVITIES/ ASSIGNMENT!

1. Mr. A did spit from a window of the tall building yesterday, today a law is enacted making the
act of spitting from the window of a tall building a crime. Mr. A is now being prosecuted based on his act
yesterday.

a. Is the law valid?

b. can we successfully prosecute Mr. A?

2. A law was enacted making the act of spitting from a tall window as a crime. Said law was kept
inside the drawer of the President and was not published. Mr. X is being prosecuted based on that law
but he argued that he cannot be prosecuted because he did not know of the existence of said law. The
government put up the defense of ignorance of the law excuses no one and pursue the case against Mr.
X.

a. Is the law valid?

b. Can Mr. X be successfully prosecuted based on the law?

3. The act of male individual urinating on the street is made criminal under Law 1. Is the law
valid?

7
● Crimes Mala Inse vs. Crimes Mala Prohibita

1. Mala Inse- Acts or omissions which are inherently evil. E.g. killing a person.

Mala Prohibita- Acts which are made evil because there is a law prohibiting it. E.g. Driving
without license

2. (MI)- Punished under the Revised Penal Code.

(MP)- Violations of special laws

Note: Not all violations of special laws are mala prohibita. Even if the crime is punished
under a special law, if the act punished is one which is inherently wrong, the same is
malum in se, and, therefore, good faith and the lack of criminal intent is a valid defense;
unless it is the product of criminal negligence or culpa. (UST Golden Notes Reviewer, P.
2)

3. (MI)- Good Faith is a valid defense.

(MP)- Good Faith is not a valid defense.

4. (MI)- Criminal intent is an element to be considered.

(MP)- Criminal intent is immaterial, BUT still requires intelligence & voluntariness.

Note; Intent is the use of a particular means to acquire a particular desired

result. E.g. the use of a bolo in hacking the victim at the vital parts of the body show
intent to kill.

5. (MI)- The degree of accomplishment is taken into consideration.

(MP)- The degree of accomplishment is not taken into consideration. What is being
considered here is if the commission of the crime is being consummated.

⮚ Degree of accomplishment refers to Attempted, Frustrated, and Consummated

Stages in the commission of crimes.

6. (MI)- Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances are taken into account in imposing penalty.

(MP)- Said modifying circumstances are not being considered here.

⮚ Mitigating circumstances are under Article 13 of the RPC while Aggravating

circumstances are under Article 14 of the RPC.

7. (MI)- When there is more than one offender, the degree of participation of each in the
commission is taken into account.

8
 (MP)- Degree of participation is generally not taken into account. All who participated in the
act are punished to the same extent.

⮚ Degree of participation refers to persons who participated in the commission of

the crime and they are the Principal, Accomplices, and Accessories. (UP Law
Bar Reviewer, Criminal Law, Page 14)

ACTIVITIES/ ASSIGNMENT!

1. Is the act of illegally possessing an unlicensed firearm mala inse or mala prohibita?

2. Presidential Decree 532 punishes the act of piracy on internal waters of the Philippines. Is this
in the nature of mala inse or mala prohibita crime?

3. Distinguish intent from motive.

4. What is culpa?

5. Who are Principals, Accomplices, and Accessories? Explain.

6. Explain the following stages in the commission of crimes;

a. Attempted stage

b. Frustrated stage

c. Consummated stage

9
 APPLICATIONS OF THE RPC:

● The two scopes in the application of the Revised Penal Code are the so-called Intraterritorial
and Extraterritorial applications. Meaning, the provisions of the RPC can be made applicable to
crimes committed within and outside of the Philippine territory.
● Intraterritorial refers to application of the provisions of the RPC within the Philippines Territory
while Extraterritorial refers to application of the provisions of the RPC on crimes committed
outside of Philippine Territory. (UST Golden Notes Reviewer, P. 3)
● “The penal law of the country is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in Philippine territory,
subject to the principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations” (Article 14, New
Civil Code of the Philippines). The limitations as to the Intraterritorial application of the
provisions of the RPC is being provided under Article 2 which provides in part that “Except as
provided in the treaties or laws of preferential application xxx”. (Article 2, RPC)

⮚ The following are the examples of persons who are exempt from prosecution or arrest
within Philippine Territory even though they have committed crimes:

1. The incumbent President of the Republic of the Philippines is immune from suit;

2. Members of Congress of the Philippines are not liable for libel or slander for any
speech in Congress or in any committee thereof. (Sec. 11, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)

3. Any ambassador or public minister of any foreign State, authorized and received as
such by the President, or any domestic or domestic servant of any such ambassador or
minister are exempt from arrest and imprisonment and whose properties are exempt
from distraint, seizure and attachment.3 (R.A. No. 75)

4. Heads of state of other countries who come to the Philippines;

5. Under the Visiting Forces Agreement, members of the United States Armed Forces
may be exempted from the criminal jurisdiction of the Philippines on crimes stipulated
under said treaty;

6. Warship Rule – A warship of another country, even though docked in the Philippines,
is considered an extension of the territory of its respective country. This also applies to
embassies. (UP Law Bar Reviewer, Criminal Law, Page 17)

● These are the cases in which the RPC has Extraterritorial applications;
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;

10
 2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands
or obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of
the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the
exercise of their functions; or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of
nations. (Art. 2, RPC)

1. “Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship”;

● Philippine Ship- One that is registered in accordance with Philippine laws. If the vessel is in the
high seas, it is considered as an extension of the Philippine territory and the Philippines still has
jurisdiction. But if the vessel is within the territory of another country, jurisdiction is generally
with the foreign State because penal laws are primarily territorial in application.

● These are the requirement of an “Offense Committed on a Philippine Ship or Airship”

1. The ship or airship must be registered with the Philippine Bureau of Customs/ the
Civil Aeronautics Board; and
2. The ship must be in the high seas or the airship must be in international space.

● Under International Law rule, a vessel which is not registered in accordance with the laws of any
country is considered a private vessel and whenever it commits any act of robbery on the high
seas, it is deemed to be involved in piracy which is a crime against humanity in general, such
that wherever pirates may go, they can be prosecuted.

“E.g. M/V Kc Beatriz, a Philippine Ship, is traversing the high seas from Philippines going to
Malaysia, a crime was committed on board said vessel. The crime referred to here was the act of
Mr. A in stabbing Mr. B causing the death of the later. Can Mr. A be prosecuted here in the
Philippines? The answer is yes; he is liable for either Murder or Homicide depending upon the
attendant circumstances present in the commission of the crime because the crime was
committed onboard a Philippine ship and said ship was on high seas or international body of
water when the crime was committed.”

“It could have been different when M/V Kc Beatriz was already inside the territory of another
country when the crime was committed. The rules applicable in this situation would either be
English Rule or French Rule. These rules refer to the jurisdiction of one country over its merchant
vessels situated in another country. These do not apply to war vessels over which a country
always has jurisdiction.”

11
 ● The French Rule recognizes the jurisdiction of the flag country over crimes committed on board
the vessel except if the crime disturbs the peace and order and security of the host country.
● The English Rule recognizes that the host country has jurisdiction over crimes committed on
board the vessel unless they involve the internal management of the vessel. The effect on
jurisdiction of both rules is almost the same because the general rule of one is the exception of
the other. (UST Golden Notes Reviewer, P. 3)

“Going back to the above situation, if M/V Kc Beatriz has already reached the territorial water of
Malaysia when the commission of the crime was started, the rule provides that Malaysian
Criminal Law would now be applicable following either the French or English Rule. “

“If what was committed on board that ship while the same is in territorial water of Malaysia was
only an infraction of Vessel Rules affecting only the internal management of the vessel and
without any harm or effect on the peace and security of Malaysian State, the offender is triable
in Philippine jurisdiction to the seclusion of Malaysian jurisdiction.”

Note; Jurisdiction refers to the power of the court to hear, try, and decide the case and
execute its judgment (People vs. Leo Echegaray). Along with the exercise of this power comes
the application of the penal laws of the country where jurisdiction sits.

2. “Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or
obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands”;
3. “Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the
obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number”;
● Forgery is committed by giving to a treasury or bank note or any instrument payable to bearer
or to order the appearance of a true genuine document or by erasing, substituting,
counterfeiting or altering, by any means, the figures, letters, words or sign contained therein.

Note: If forgery was committed abroad, it must refer only to Philippine coin, currency note, or
obligations and securities.

Obligations and securities of the GSIS, SSS, and Landbank are NOT of the government because
they have separate charters. Those who introduced the counterfeit items are criminally liable
even if they were not the ones who counterfeited the obligations and securities. On the other
hand, those who counterfeited the items are criminally liable even if they did not introduce the
counterfeit items. (UST Golden Notes Reviewer, P. 4)

● There are two situations completed here; the act of forging or counterfeiting any currency note,
bank securities, obligations, bonds or coins of the Philippines AND the other is the act of
Introducing into the Philippine islands of these forged or counterfeited notes of the
government.

12
 2.) “E.g. Mr. A is in Singapore, he forged or counterfeited any of the currency notes or obligations
of the Philippines, he will be held liable under Philippine Penal Laws even though he was in
Singapore when he committed the act of counterfeiting or forgery.

3.) If Mr. B, after the act of counterfeiting or forging done by Mr. A, would try or seek to
introduce or bring these counterfeited or forged currency notes into the Philippine Islands, he
shall also be held liable under Philippine Laws. So two different acts are punishable here; the act
of forging or counterfeiting and the act of seeking or introducing into the Philippines these fake
currency or notes.”

● ACTIVITIES/ ASSIGNMENT! Write your answer on yellow paper/ pad.

1. What is Parliamentary Immunity?

2. What is currency note? Give example of currency note
3. What legal action can you use to remove the incumbent president from his office?
4. If M/V SFerry, a Philippine ship, is docked in Japan and a crime of murder is
committed onboard that ship, what criminal law is applicable (Philippine or Japan
criminal law)? What rule (French or English) should be applied to arrive at correct
application of either Philippine/ Japan criminal law? Explain with reason.

13
4. “While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their
functions”;
● The crimes contemplated under this paragraph are crimes pertaining or relating to the
performance of official functions while the public officer is abroad.
● The crimes which may be committed are:

1. Direct bribery (Article 210, RPC)

2. Qualified Bribery (Article 211-A, RPC)
3. Indirect bribery (Article 211, RPC)
4. Corruption (Article 212, RPC)
5. Frauds against the public treasury (Article 213, RPC)
6. Possession of prohibited interest (Article 216, RPC)
7. Malversation of public funds or property (Article 217, RPC)
8. Failure to render accounts (Article 218, RPC)
9. Illegal use of public funds or property (Article 220, RPC)
10. Failure to make delivery of public funds or property (Article 221, RPC)
11. Falsification by a public officer or employee committed with abuse of his official
position (Article 171, RPC)
12. Those having to do with the discharge of their duties in a foreign country. (UP Law
Bar Reviewer, Criminal Law, Page 19)

● Whenever any public officers assigned in a foreign country commit any of the following crimes
provided above in relation to the performance of their official functions, they can be prosecuted
and be made liable here in the Philippines applying Philippine Criminal Law. This rule gives
emphasis on the connection of the performance of official functions and the crimes committed
so that even though committed abroad and outside Philippine Embassy, the public officers
concerned can be punished here in the Philippines.
● Distinguish this from ordinary crimes like Rape not falling under the enumeration above
committed inside Philippine Embassy, the accused can still be prosecuted here in the Philippines
because the crime was committed inside the Philippine Embassy. Philippine Embassy is
considered as an extension of Philippine Territory even though located abroad. Hence,
Philippine penal law is applicable.
● When Rape is committed by a Philippine Public Officer against anyone or against another
Philippine Public Officer outside of Philippine Embassy, Philippine criminal law will not anymore
be applicable because the crime was committed outside of the Philippine Embassy. The penal
law of the country where the Philippine Embassy is located will be the one to be applied in this
situation.

● ACTIVITIES/ ASSIGNMENT!

14
 ⮚ Look for the elements of the crimes enumerated above (1-11) and write the same on a
yellow paper.

5. Commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, (Title One, Book 2, RPC)

> This is the Fifth Paragraph of Article two of the Revised Penal Code on the application of the same
outside of the territory of the Philippines. The five paragraphs under Article 2 are exceptions to the
Territoriality Principle of the RPC.

The following are the Felonies under Title One of Book 2 of the Revised Penal Code wherein even if
these crimes are committed outside of the Philippine Territory can still be prosecuted and punished in
the Philippines.

Take note of the principles of conspiracy and proposal as a modality in the commission of the crimes/
felonies. Generally, they are not penalized as crimes/ felonies. However, under Title One of Book 2,
mere conspiracy or proposal to commit crimes/ felonies are penalized.

Crimes against national security:

1. Treason (A.114)

2. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason (A.115)

3. Misprision of treason (A.116)

4. Espionage (A.117)

Crimes against the law of nations:

1. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals (A.118)

2. Violation of neutrality (A.119)

3. Correspondence with hostile country (A.120)

4. Flight to enemy‘s country (A.121)

5. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine waters (A.122)

ACTIVITIES/ ASSIGNMENTS!

 Look for the elements of the crimes enumerated above (Crimes against national security
and Crimes against the law of nations), write the same, and submit to me via my email
address.
• Deadline for submission is on Wednesday (September 30, 2020)

15
 PROSPECTIVITY RULE OF THE PENAL LAWS

The general rule provides that acts or omissions will only be subject to a penal law if they are committed
AFTER a penal law has taken effect. Conversely, acts or omissions which have been committed before
the effectivity of a penal law could not be penalized by such penal law. The rationale for the
prospectivity rule of our penal law is that the punishability of an act or omission must be reasonably
known for the guidance of society (UP Law Bar Reviewer, Criminal Law, Page 20).

The exception to the prospectivity rule is provided for under Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code which
provides that “Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect, insofar as they favor the person guilty of a
felony who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although
at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is
serving the same”. Rule 5 of Article 62 of the Revised Code provides in part that “xxx for the purpose of
this article, a person shall be deemed to be a habitual delinquent, if within a period of 10 years from the
date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo
(robbery), hurto (theft), estafa, or falsification, he is found guilty of any crimes a third time or oftener”.

⮚ Habitual criminals refer to criminal persons who regularly commit crimes and has been in and
out of jail. Lighter penalties provided for under later laws will not be applicable and beneficial to
habitual criminals.
⮚ Habitual delinquency refers to an aggravating circumstance which increases the penalty to be
imposed upon the accused. Remember that this aggravating circumstance of habitual
delinquency is applicable only to the following crimes of Serious or less serious physical injuries,
robbery, theft, estafa, or falsification (FRETSEL) if the accused is found guilty of any of these
crimes within 10 years or oftener.

The exception to the exception of the prospectivity rule of the Revised Penal Code is; (1) If the new law
is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing cause of actions; or (2) If the offender is a
habitual criminal (UP Law Bar Reviewer, Criminal Law, Page 19).

ACTIVITIES/ ASSIGNMENTS! Deadline for submission is on Wednesday (September 30, 2020). Submit
the same via my email address.

1. Mr. A was accused of committing theft in 2010. A warrant for his arrest was issued by the
court causing his incarceration in the City jail of Zamboanga City. Mr. A filed a petition for bail,
was able to post the bond and eventually got out from jail in 2013. While outside, he committed
large scale estafa and was again imprisoned for such crime. In 2015, he got out again from penal
institution by virtue of bail posted by him. Trial ensued for the two cases against him and in
January of 2019 he was convicted for large scale estafa followed by his conviction in November

16
of 2019 of the felony of theft. While serving his sentence, he committed serious physical injuries
against fellow inmates causing his trial for the said act.

a. What is warrant of arrest?

b. What is bail?
c. What is the effect of bail upon the detained person?
d. Is Mr. A considered as Habitual Criminal?
e. is Mr. A considered as Habitual Delinquent?

2. Under the provision of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for homicide is from 12 years 1
day to 20 years. In 2015, Jose was accused of being responsible for the death of Mr. X. a case for
homicide was filed against the accused and while trial was pending, the provision of the Revised
Penal Code on homicide was amended/ revised making the range of penalty to 6 years 1 day to
12 years. Before judgment on Homicide case, Jose committed Serious Physical Injuries against
Mr. Y inside the penitentiary.

a. Explain the concepts of amendment and revision of law.

b. Will the lesser penalty for Homicide apply to the case of Mr. A?

c. is Jose considered as habitual delinquent?

17
 FELONIES

Felonies are acts or omissions punishable by the RPC. An Act refers to any kind of body movement that
produces change in the outside world. The act must be an external act which has a direct connection
with the felony intended to be committed. Omission means inaction, the failure to perform a positive
duty which one is bound to do. There must be a law requiring a certain act to be performed and the
person required to do the act fails to perform it. Punishable under the RPC means this element of a
felony is based upon the maxim, nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege, that is, there is no crime where
there is no law punishing it. (UST Golden Notes Reviewer, p. 17)

Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa).

The requisites of dolo are:

1. Criminal intent – the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result. Intent to commit
an act with malice being purely a mental process is presumed. Such presumption arises from the
proof of commission of an unlawful act. A mental state, hence, its existence is shown by overt
acts.

Note: If there is NO criminal intent, the act is justified. Offender incurs NO criminal liability. E.g.
The existence of a lawful or insuperable cause, commission by mere accident.

2. Freedom of action – voluntariness on the part of the person to commit the act or omission.
Note: If there is lack of freedom, the offender is exempt from liability. Example is the presence
of irresistible force or uncontrollable fear.

Note: The word voluntariness in criminal law does not mean acting in one's own volition. In
criminal law, voluntariness comprehends the concurrence of freedom of action, intelligence and
the fact that the act was intentional.

3. Intelligence – means the capacity to know and understand the consequences of one's act.

Note: If there is lack of intelligence, the offender is exempt from liability. E.g. is when the
offender is an imbecile, insane, or under 15 years of age.

Note: If any of these requisites is absent, there is no dolo. If there is no dolo, there could be no
intentional felony. (UST Golden Notes Reviewer, p. 17)

The requisites of culpa are:

1. Criminal negligence on the part of the offender, that is, the crime was the result of
negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill.

18
 Note: Negligence indicates deficiency of perception or failure to pay attention and to use
diligence in foreseeing the injury or damage impending to be caused. It usually involves lack of
foresight. Imprudence indicates deficiency of action or failure to take the necessary precaution
to avoid injury to person or damage to property. It usually involves lack of skill.

2. Freedom of action on the part of the offender, that is, he was not acting under duress.

3. Intelligence on the part of the offender in performing the negligent act.

Note: If any of these requisites is absent, there can be no culpa.

The following crimes cannot be committed through culpa:

1. Murder
2. Treason
3. Robbery
4. Malicious mischief

Mens rea is referred to as the gravamen of the offense. Mens rea of the crime depends upon the
elements of the crime. It can only be determined by knowing the particular crime committed.

Intent refers to the use of a particular means to effect the desired result. It is a mental state, the
existence of which is demonstrated by the overt acts of a person. It is the determination to do a certain
thing, an aim or purpose of the mind. It is the design to resolve or determination by which a person acts.

Discernment is the mental capacity to tell right from wrong. It relates to the moral significance that a
person ascribes to his act and relates to the intelligence as an element of dolo.

Categories of intent in criminal law:

1. General criminal intent – Is presumed from the mere doing of a wrong act. This does not
require proof. The burden is upon the wrongdoer to prove that he acted without such criminal
intent. In felonies by means of deceit, the third element of voluntariness is a general intent.

2. Specific criminal intent – Is not presumed because it is an ingredient or element of a crime,

like intent to kill in the crimes of attempted or frustrated homicide/parricide/murder. The
prosecution has the burden of proving the same.

Motive is the moving power or force which impels a person to a desired result. It is not determinant of
criminal liability. Motive alone will not bring about criminal liability because the RPC requires that there
must be an overt act or an omission. When there is motive in the commission of a crime, it always
comes before the intent.

Factors that affect intent:

19
1. Mistake of fact‐ That which had the facts been true to the belief of the offender, his act can
be justified. It is such mistake that will negate criminal liability because of the absence of the
element of intent.
Note: Mistake refers to the situation itself, not the identity of the persons involved. Mistake of
fact is only a defense in intentional felony but never in culpable felony.

e.g. US v. Ah Chong (1910): A houseboy who stabs his roommate in the dark, honestly
mistaking the latter to be a robber responsible for a series of break-ins in the area, and
after crying out sufficient warnings and believing himself to be under attack, cannot be
held criminally liable for homicide.

1) Would the stabbing be lawful if the facts were really what the houseboy believed?
Yes. If it was really the robber and not the roommate, then the houseboy was justified.

2) Was the houseboy’s intention lawful? Yes. He was acting out of self-preservation.

3) Was the houseboy without fault or negligence? Yes. His deliberate intent to defend
himself with the knife can be determined by the fact that he cried out sufficient
warnings prior to the act.

Stabbing the victim whom the accused believed to be an intruder showed a mistake of
fact on his part which led him to take the facts as they appear to him and was pressed to
take immediate action. (UP Law Bar Reviewer, Criminal Law, Page 29)

2. Aberratio ictus – Mistake in the blow. There are two actors in the crime scene: the accused
and the unintended victim.

e.g. Jun always wanted to kill Jose as they were enemies. At one night under the dark
alley of the street, Jun saw a man having strong resemblance to Jose. He immediately
shot the man and hit him hard on the vital portion of the body causing instantaneous
death. However, the man was not Jose but it was Pedro. Is Jun Liable? The answer is
yes.

3. Error in personae – Mistake in the identity. There are at least three actors in the crime scene:
the accused, the intended victim, and the unintended victim.

e.g. Mr. A, with intent to kill, fired at Mr. X but instead of hitting him, the bullet landed
and hit Mr. Y. This is due to poor aim. Will Mr. A be held liable for the death of Mr. Y
even though the later was not his intended victim? The answer is yes.

4. Praeter intentionem – Where the consequence exceeded the intention.

e.g. In the company of friends and other people, Jun slapped Jose as he wanted to
humiliate the victim. The consequence of the force applied by Jun in slapping Jose cause

20
 the later to fall down his head hitting a hard pavement causing instantaneous death.
Prosecuted for homicide, Jun argued that he cannot be held liable for homicide because
his intention was only to humiliate Jose and not to kill. Will Jun now be held liable for
the death of Jose? The answer is yes, however, Jun can benefit from this mitigating
circumstance of Praeter Intentionem.

5. Proximate cause – the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.

e.g. US v. Valdez (1921): The deceased is a member of the crew of a vessel. Accused is in
charge of the crew members engaged in the loading of cargo in the vessel. Because the
offended party was slow in his work, the accused shouted at him. The offended party
replied that they would be better if he would not insult them. The accused resented
this, and rising in rage, he moved towards the victim, with a big knife in hand
threatening to kill him. The victim believing himself to be in immediate peril threw
himself into the water. The victim died of drowning. The accused was prosecuted for
homicide. His contention that his liability should be only for grave threats since he did
not even stab the victim, that the victim died of drowning, and this can be considered as
a supervening cause.

Held/ Decision of the court: The deceased, in throwing himself into the river, acted
solely in obedience to the instinct of self-preservation, and was in no sense legally
responsible for his own death. As to him, it was but the exercise of a choice between
two evils, and any reasonable person under the same circumstance might have done the
same.

This case illustrates that proximate cause does not require that the offender needs to
actually touch the body of the offended party. It is enough that the offender generated
in the mind of the offended party an immediate sense of danger that made him place
his life at risk. In this case, the accused must, therefore, be considered the author of the
death of the victim. (UP Law Bar Reviewer, Criminal Law, Page 24)

ACTIVITIES/ ASSIGNMENTS!

1.

21
 IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
ARTICLE 4, RPC

1. How is criminal liability incurred?

Criminal liability is incurred by any person: 1. Committing a felony although the wrongful act done be
different from that which he intended. 2. Performing an act which would be an offense against persons
or property, were it not for the inherent possibility of its accomplishment or on account of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. (Art. 4)

2. What is a proximate cause?

Proximate cause is that cause which sets into motion other causes and which, unbroken by any efficient
supervening cause, produces a felony without which such felony could not have resulted. (He who is the
cause of the cause is the cause of the evil of the cause.)

3. What are the requisites of proximate cause?

1. The direct, natural, and logical cause

2. Produces the injury or damage
3. Unbroken by any sufficient intervening cause
4. Without which the result would not have occurred

4. Is proximate cause the same as immediate cause?

A proximate cause is not necessarily the immediate cause. Immediate cause may be a cause
which is far and remote from the consequence which sets into motion other causes which resulted in
the felony. As long as the act of the accused contributed to the death of the victim, even if the victim is
about to die, he will still be liable for the felonious act of putting to death that victim. Proximate cause
does not require that the offender needs to actually touch the body of the offended party. It is enough
that the offender generated in the mind of the offended party the belief that made him risk himself.

Illustration:

X and Y are crew members of cargo vessel. They had a heated argument. X with a big knife in hand
threatened to kill Y. The victim Y, believing himself to be in immediate peril, threw himself into the
water. X died of drowning. In this case, Y is liable for homicide for the death of Y. Even if other causes

22
cooperated in producing the fatal result as long as the wound inflicted is dangerous, that is, calculated
to destroy or endanger life, the actor is liable. It is important that there be no efficient intervening
cause.

5. How is proximate cause negated?

1. Active force, distinct act, or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused,
which serves as a sufficient intervening cause
2. Resulting injury or damage is due to the intentional act of the victim.

6. What circumstances are considered as inefficient intervening causes?

1. The weak physical condition of the victim

2. The nervousness or temperament of the victim
3. Causes which are inherent in the victim, such as the victim's inability to swim
4. Refusal of the injured party of medical attendance
5. Erroneous or unskillful medical treatment

Note: Although the following may have intervened in the commission of the crime, the offender
is still liable for the resulting crime because the proximate cause is caused by him.

7. What are the requisites of an impossible crime?

1. Act performed would be an offense against persons or property.

Note: Kidnapping is a crime against personal security and not against person or property

2. Act was done with evil intent

3. Accomplishment is inherently impossible or means employed is either inadequate or

ineffectual

4. Act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of RPC

Note: The offender must believe that he can consummate the intended crime. A man stabbing
another who he knew was already dead cannot be liable for an impossible crime

8. What is the essence of an impossible crime?

The essence of an impossible crime is the inherent impossibility of accomplishing the crime or
the inherent impossibility of the means employed to bring about the crime.

9. What is inherent impossibility?

23
 Inherent impossibility means that under any and all circumstances, the crime could not have
materialized.

10. What are the two kinds of inherent impossibility?

Legal impossibility – which occurs where the intended acts, even if completed would not
amount to a crime. E.g. killing a dead person.

Physical impossibility – where extraneous circumstances unknown to the accused prevent the
consummation of the intended crime. E.g. pick pocketing an empty wallet.

11. What is the reason for penalizing impossible crime?

To teach the offender a lesson because of his criminal perversity. Although objectively, no crime
is committed, but subjectively, he is a criminal.

Note: It is a principle of criminal law that the offender will only be penalized for an impossible
crime if he cannot be punished under some other provision of the RPC. An impossible crime is a crime of
last resort.

12. What are examples of impossible crimes?

1. In employment of inadequate means – small quantity of poison which is inadequate to kill a

person.
2. In employment of inefficient means – accused fired a gun, not knowing that it is empty.

Illustration:

Buddy always resented his classmate, Jun. One day, Buddy planned to kill Jun by mixing poison in his
lunch. Not knowing where he can get poison, he approached another classmate Jerry to whom he
disclosed his evil plan. Because he himself harbored resentment towards Jun, Jerry gave Buddy a poison,
which Buddy placed on Jun's food. However, Jun did not die because, unknown to both Buddy and Jerry,
the poison was actually powdered milk.

13. By its very nature, an impossible crime is a formal crime. It is either consummated or not
consummated at all. There is therefore no attempted or frustrated impossible crime.

14. "Criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act
done be different from that which he intended"- It presupposes that the act done is the proximate cause
of the resulting felony. It must be the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the felonious act.

24
Answer the following questions:

1. Mr. A, standing at a distance of 500 Feet, shot Mr. B. The weapon used was Magnum .22 caliber
with a range of 400 feet. The bullet was not able to reach the target because of distance. What
was the crime committed by Mr. A?

2. Mr. X, intending to poison Mr. Z, put a white powdery substance into the San Mig Light drink of
the victim. The victim was able to drink said San Mig Light. The victim went home thereafter.

a. If the victim did not suffer any injury because said white powdery substance turned out to
be sugar, is there any crime committed by Mr. X?
b. If the victim suffered from internal hemorrhage due to chemical reaction of Sugar (white
powdery substance) and San Mig Light, what crime was committed by Mr. X?
c. If there was no chemical reaction between sugar and san mig light, but the victim suffered
internal damage because he was allergic to sugar, what crime was committed by Mr. X?

3. Mr. A was the mortal enemy of Mr. X. one night, Mr. A went to a drinking spree with his friends
after work. Due to too much intake of alcohol (alcoholic drinks), Mr. A, on his way home fell on a
manhole. His head hit hard on said manhole causing his death. Mr. X chance upon Mr. A who
was lying on said manhole and out of rage shot the latter blasting the head of the victim.
Unknown to Mr. X, Mr. A was already dead before he arrived at the scene.

a. Was there any crime committed by Mr. X?

b. If Mr. X, before shooting the victim checked first on him and finding out that the victim was
already dead, but nevertheless shot and blasted the head of the victim, was there any crime
committed by Mr. X?

25
 1. What are the classifications of felonies according to the stage of execution?

Consummated,

frustrated and

Attempted

2. What is the purpose of classification?

To bring about a proportionate penalty and equitable punishment.

Note: The penalties are graduated according to their degree of severity. The stages may not apply to all
kinds of felonies. There are felonies which do not admit of division.

3. What are the crimes that do not admit of division? A: Formal crimes which are consumma
ted in one instance, do not admit of division. e.g. physical injuries and oral defamation.

4. What are the phases of felony?

a. Subjective phase –
that portion of execution of the crime starting from the point where theoffender begin
s up to that point where he still has control of his acts.

Note: If it reaches the point where he has no more control over his acts, the subjective phas
e has passed. If the subjective phase is not yet passed, the felony would be a mere attempt.
If it already passed, but the felony is not produced, as a rule, it is frustrated.

b. Objective phase –
results of the acts of execution, that is, the accomplishment of the crime. Note: If the s
ubjective and objective phases are present, there is consummated felony.

26
When is a felony consummated?

A felony is consummated when all the acts necessary for its accomplishment and execution
are present.

1. What are the elements of frustrated felony?

1. The offender performs all the acts of execution.
2. All the acts performed would produce the felony as a consequence.
3. But the felony is not produced.
4. By the reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.

What crimes do not admit of frustrated stage?

Rape –
the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge, hence, the slightest penetration to th
e female organ consummates the felony.

Arson –
the moment the burning property occurs, even if slight, the offense is consummated.

Corruption of public officers – mere acceptance of the offer consummates the crime.

Physical injury – consummated at the instance the injuries are inflicted.

Adultery – the essence of the crime is sexual congress.

Theft –
the essence of the crime is the possession of the thing, once the thing has been taken or in
the possession of the person, the crime is consummated.

What are the elements of attempted felony?

1. The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts

Note: Overt acts are external acts which if continued will logically result in a felony. It is the sta
rt of criminal liability because the offender has commenced the commission of an offense wi
th an overt act.

27
 2. He does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony
3. The nonperformance of all acts of execution was due to a cause or accident other than the
offender's own spontaneous desistance.

Note: The moment the execution of the crime has already gone to that point where the felony shou
ld follow as a consequence, it is either already frustrated or consummated. If the felony does not follow
as a consequence, it is already frustrated. If the felony follows as a consequence, it is consummate
d.

The word directly emphasizes the requirement that the attempted felony is that which is directly lin
ked to the overt act performed by the offender not the felony he has in his mind.

Illustration:

A person enters the dwelling of another. However, at the very moment of his entry and before
he could do anything, he is already apprehended by the household members, can he be charged wit
h attempted robbery? No. He can only be held liable for attempted robbery when he has already co
mpleted all acts performed by him directly leading to robbery. The act of entering alone is not yet indi
cative of robbery although that may be what he may have planned to commit. However, he may be
held liable for trespassing.

What are the instances wherein the stages of a crime will not apply?

1. Offenses punishable by Special Penal Laws, unless otherwise provided for.

2. Formal crimes (e.g., slander adultery, etc.)

3. Impossible crimes

4.Crimes consummated by mere attempt (e.g., attempt to flee to an enemy country, treason, c
orruption of minors)

5. Felonies by omission

6. Crimes committed by mere agreement (e.g., betting in sports, corruption of public officers)

28
Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. -- Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable
only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefore.

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it. There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony
proposes its execution to some other person or persons.

Conspiracy is punishable in the following cases: treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition, coup d’ etat,
arson (PD 1613) and monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade.

Conspiracy to commit a crime is not to be confused with conspiracy as a means of committing a crime.
In both cases there is an agreement but mere conspiracy to commit a crime is not punished EXCEPT in
treason, rebellion, or sedition. Even then, if the treason is actually committed, the conspiracy will be
considered as a means of committing it and the accused will all be charged for treason and not for
conspiracy to commit treason.

Conspiracy- Agreement among 2 or more persons to commit a crime. They decide to commit it.

Proposal- A person has decided to commit a crime. He proposes its commission to another. In proposal,
only the person proposing or the proponent is criminally liable

Two kinds of conspiracy:

(1) Conspiracy as a crime; and

(2) Conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability

When conspiracy itself is a crime, no overt act is necessary to bring about the criminal liability. The
mere conspiracy is the crime itself. This is only true when the law expressly punishes the mere
conspiracy; otherwise, the conspiracy does not bring about the commission of the crime because
conspiracy is not an overt act but a mere preparatory act. Treason, rebellion, sedition, and coup d’etat
are the only crimes where the conspiracy and proposal to commit to them are punishable.

When the conspiracy is only a basis of incurring criminal liability, there must be an overt act done before
the co-conspirators become criminally liable. When the conspiracy itself is a crime, this cannot be
inferred or deduced because there is no overt act. All that there is the agreement. On the other hand, if
the co-conspirator or any of them would execute an overt act, the crime would no longer be the
conspiracy but the overt act itself. If the conspiracy is only a basis of criminal liability, none of the co-
conspirators would be liable, unless there is an overt act. So, for as long as anyone shall desist before an
overt act in furtherance of the crime committed, such a desistance would negate criminal liability. For as
long as none of the conspirators has committed an overt act, there is no crime yet. But when one of
them commits any overt act, all of them shall be held liable, unless 1) a co-conspirator was absent from
the scene of the crime or 2) he showed up, but he tried to prevent the commission of the crime. As a
general rule, if there has been a conspiracy to commit a crime in a particular place, anyone who did not
appear shall be presumed to have desisted. The exception to this is if such person who did not appear
was the mastermind. conspiracy as a crime, must have a clear and convincing evidence of its existence.

29
Every crime must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. When the conspiracy is just a basis of incurring
criminal liability, however, the same may be deduced or inferred from the acts of several offenders in
carrying out the commission of the crime. The existence of a conspiracy may be reasonably inferred
from the acts of the offenders when such acts disclose or show a common pursuit of the criminal
objective.

Conspiracy is a matter of substance which must be alleged in the information, otherwise, the court will
not consider the same.

In People v. Laurio, 200 SCRA 489, it was held that it must be established by positive and conclusive
evidence, not by conjectures or speculations.

In Taer v. CA, 186 SCRA 5980, it was held that mere knowledge, acquiescence to, or approval of the act,
without cooperation or at least, agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute a conspiracy.
There must be an intentional participation in the crime with a view to further the common felonious
objective.

A conspiracy is possible even when participants are not known to each other. Proposal is true only up to
the point where the party to whom the proposal was made has not yet accepted the proposal. Once the
proposal was accepted, a conspiracy arises. Proposal is unilateral, one party makes a proposition to the
other; conspiracy is bilateral, it requires two parties.

There is conspiracy when the offenders acted simultaneously pursuing a common criminal design; thus,
acting out a common criminal intent. Even though there was conspiracy, if a co-conspirator merely
cooperated in the commission of the crime with insignificant or minimal acts, such that even without his
cooperation, the crime could be carried out as well, such co-conspirator should be punished as an
accomplice only.

Composite crimes are crimes which, in substance, consist of more than one crime but in the eyes of the
law, there is only one crime. For example, the crimes of robbery with homicide, robbery with rape,
robbery with physical injuries.

In case the crime committed is a composite crime, the conspirator will be liable for all the acts
committed during the commission of the crime agreed upon. This is because, in the eyes of the law, all
those acts done in pursuance of the crime agreed upon are acts which constitute a single crime. As a
general rule, when there is conspiracy, the rule is that the act of one is the act of all. This principle
applies only to the crime agreed upon.

The exception is if any of the co-conspirator would commit a crime not agreed upon. This happens
when the crime agreed upon and the crime committed by one of the co-conspirators are distinct crimes.

Exception to the exception: In acts constituting a single indivisible offense, even though the co-
conspirator performed different acts bringing about the composite crime, all will be liable for such
crime.

30
They can only evade responsibility for any other crime outside of that agreed upon if it is proved that
the particular conspirator had tried to prevent the commission of such other act. The rule would be
different if the crime committed was not a composite crime.

Circumstances affecting criminal liability:

JEMAA

1. Justifying circumstances (Article 11)

2. Exempting circumstances (Article 12)
3. Mitigating circumstances (Article 13)
4. Aggravating circumstances (Article 14)
5. Alternative circumstances (Article 15)

The other two circumstances found in the RPC affecting criminal liability are:

1. Absolutory cause – has the effect of an exempting circumstance and it is predicated on lack of
voluntariness such as instigation; and
2. Extenuating circumstances – the effect of extenuating circumstances is to mitigate the
criminal liability of the offender.

Examples of absolutory causes:

1. Accessory is a relative of the principal. (Art. 20)

2. Crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief committed against a relative. (Art. 332)
3. Marriage of the offender with the offended party when the crime committed is rape,
abduction, seduction, or acts of lasciviousness. (Art. 344)
4. Instigation
5. Trespass to dwelling when the purpose of entering another’s dwelling against the
latter’s will is to prevent some serious harm to himself, the occupants of the dwelling or a
third person, or for the purposes of rendering some services to humanity or justice, or when
entering cafes, taverns, inns and other public houses, while the same are open. (Art. 280
par. 2)
6. Adultery and concubinage if the offended party shall have consented or pardoned the
offenders. (Art. 344)

Mistake of fact an absolutory cause- The offender is acting without criminal intent. So in mistake of
fact, it is necessary that had the facts been true as the accused believed them to be, the act is justified. If
not, there is criminal liability, because there is no more mistake of fact anymore. The offender must
believe he is performing a lawful act.

31
Instigation absolve the offender from criminal liability- In instigation, the offender simply acts as a tool
of the law enforcers and, therefore, he is acting without criminal intent because without the instigation,
he would not have done the criminal act which he did upon instigation of the law enforcers.

If the person instigated does not know that the person instigating him is a law enforcer or he knows him
to be not a law enforcer, this is not a case of instigation. This is a case of inducement, both will be
criminally liable.
Entrapment is not an absolutory cause. Entrapment does not exempt the offender or mitigate his
criminal liability.

In the case of People v. Dorian the SC held that the conduct of the apprehending officers and the
predisposition of the accused to commit the crime must be examined: In buy‐bust operations demands
that the details of the purported transaction must be clearly and adequately shown. This must start
from the initial contact between the poseur‐buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or
payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug
subject of the sale. The manner by which the initial contact was made, whether or not through an
informant, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the "buy‐bust" money, and the delivery of the
illegal drug, whether to the informant alone or the police officer, must be the subject of strict scrutiny
by courts to insure that law‐abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense. Criminals
must be caught but not at all cost. At the same time, however, examining the conduct of the police
should not disable courts into ignoring the accused's predisposition to commit the crime. If there is
overwhelming evidence of habitual delinquency, recidivism or plain criminal proclivity, then this must
also be considered. Courts should look at all factors to determine the predisposition of an accused to
commit an offense in so far as they are relevant to determine the validity of the defense of inducement.

Distinctions between instigation and entrapment:

INSTIGATION- A law enforcement agent induces an innocent person to commit a crime and
would arrest him upon or after the commission of the crime. The law enforcement agent conceives the
commission of the crime and suggests it to the accused. This is considered an absolutory cause.

ENTRAPMENT- A person has planned, or is about to commit a crime and ways are resorted to by
a public officer to trap and catch the criminal. The idea to commit the crime comes from the offender.
This is not considered an absolutory cause.

Example of Extenuating Circumstances;

In cases of infanticide and abortion, concealment of dishonor is an extenuating circumstance
insofar as the unwed mother and the maternal grandparents are concerned.

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES. (Art. 11)

Justifying circumstances- They are those acts of a person said to be in accordance with law, such that a
person is deemed not to have transgressed the law and is free from both criminal and civil liability.

32
These are the Justifying Circumstances under Article 11 of the RPC:
1. Self‐defense
2. Defense of relatives
3. Defense of stranger
4. Avoidance of greater evil or injury
5. Fulfillment of duty or exercise of right or office
6. Obedience to an order of a superior

Self‐defense includes not only the defense of the person or body of the one assaulted but also that of
his rights, the enjoyment of which is protected by law. Thus, it includes:
1. Defense of the person
2. Defense of rights protected by law
3. The right to honor.

Requisites of self‐defense:
1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself

Unlawful aggression- It is an attack or a threatened attack which produces an imminent danger to the
life and limb of the one resorting to self‐defense.

Types of unlawful aggression:

1. Actual – the danger must be present, that is, actually in existence.
2. Imminent – the danger is on the point of happening. It is not required that the attack has
already begun, for it may be too late.

What justifies the killing of a supposed unlawful aggressor is that if the offender did not kill the
aggressor, it will be his own life that will be lost. No unlawful aggression when there was an agreement
to fight and the challenge to fight has been accepted. But aggression which is ahead of a stipulated time
and place is unlawful.

What is the test in order to know if self‐defense exists?

One must ask: At the time the accused killed the supposed unlawful aggressor, was his or her
life in danger?

What factors are taken into consideration in determining whether or not the means employed by the
person defending himself are reasonable?
1. Nature and quality of the weapon used by the aggression.
2. Physical condition, character, size and other circumstances of both the offender and
defender. 3. Place and occasion of the assault.

33
Note: Perfect equality between the weapons used by the one defending himself and that of the
aggressor is not required or material commensurability between the means of attack and defense.

Reason: The person assaulted does not have sufficient tranquility of mind to think and to calculate and
to choose the weapon used. What the law requires is rational equivalence.

The requisites which must be present to satisfy the “reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it” are:
1. Means were used to prevent or repel
2. Means must be necessary and there is no other way to prevent or repel it
3. Means must be reasonable—depending on the circumstances, but generally proportionate to
the force of the aggressor

SELF‐DEFENSE- In self‐defense, the unlawful aggression was still existing when the aggressor was injured
or disabled by the person making the defense.

RETALIATION- In retaliation, the inceptual unlawful aggression had already ceased when the accused
attacked him.
____________________________

Example:

A slap on the face is considered as unlawful aggression since the face represents a person and his
dignity. It is a serious, personal attack (Rugas v. People, G.R. No. 147789, Jan.14, 2004)

The defense of property rights can be invoked if there is an attack upon the property although it is not
coupled with an attack upon the person of the owner of the premises. All the elements for justification
must however be present. (People v. Narvaez, G.R. Nos. L‐33466‐67, Apr. 20, 1983)

Self‐defense in libel. Physical assault may be justified when the libel is aimed at the person’s good name,
and while the libel is in progress, one libel deserves another.
__________________

Activities/Assignment: to be submitted on or before December 07, 2020 via my email address.

1. What is the reason for the lawfulness of self‐ defense?

2. One night, Rose, a young married woman, was sound asleep in her bedroom when she felt a
man on top of her. Thinking it was her husband Pedro, who came home a day early from his
business trip, Rose let him have sex with her. After the act, the man said, "I hope you enjoyed it
as much as I did." Not recognizing the voice, it dawned upon Rose that the man was not Pedro,
her husband. Furious, Rose took out Pedro's gun and shot the man. Charged with homicide,
Rose denies culpability on the ground of defense of honor. Is her claim correct?

34
35