Atty. Maximo Amurao's Notes

January 27, 2018 | Author: Maicah Marie Pamfilo | Category: Crime & Justice, Crimes, Criminal Law, Jurisdiction, Sovereign Immunity
Share Embed Donate


Short Description

A reviewer created by past students of San Beda College of Law who took Criminal Law 1 under Professor Maximo Amurao. De...

Description

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 1 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

CRIMINAL  LAW  1     June  17,  2011    

Introduction  to  Criminal  Law     Q:  What  is  criminal  law?   CRIMINAL  LAW  –  branch  of  law  which  defines  crimes,  treats  of  their  nature  and  provides  for   their  punishment     Q:   Suppose   Congress   enacted   a   piece   of   legislation,   and   any   violation   of   that   law,   penalty   will   be   payment  of  damages,  is  that  criminal  law?       Q:  Suppose  the  form  of  penalty  will  be  confiscation  of  license,  is  that  criminal  law?     Q:  How  will  you  define  a  crime?     *what  particular  act  constitutes  the  crime     *what  are  the  elements  of  the  acts     Q:  What  is  criminal  procedure?     CRIMINAL  PROCEDURE  –  body  of  rules  that  enforces  or  regulates  criminal  law,  provides  for  the     steps  in  the  prosecution  and/or  conviction  of  an  accused.       Q:  Is  there  any  difference  between  criminal  law  and  criminal  procedure?     Yes.     Q:  What  are  the  differences?     CRIMINAL  LAW         CRIMINAL  PROCEDURE     *substantive         *procedural/remedial     *GENERALLY  prospective,     *prospective,  BUT  CAN  BE  applied  RETROACTIVE       unless  favorable  to  the  accused,     provided  accused  is  not  a  habitual     delinquent       *only  comes  from  the  legislative   *can  be  promulgated  by  the  judiciary     or  law-­‐making  body;  never  from     the  executive  or  judiciary                 *in  favor  of  the  ends  of  substantial  justice     Q:  who  is  a  habitual  delinquent?   A  person  who  within  a  period  of  10  years  from  the  date  of  his  last  release  or  conviction  of  the   crimes  of  1)  serious  or  less  serious  physical  injuries,  2)  robo,  3)hurto  4)estafa  or  5)  falsification,   he  is  found  guilty  of  any  of  said  crimes  a  third  time  or  oftener  (Art  62,  rpc)     Q:  Suppose  accused  is  a  HD,  will  there  be  prospective  or  retroactive  application  of  criminal  law?    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 2 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

Q:  Is  criminal  law  the  same  as  the  RPC?     Yes     Q:  What  is  a  crime?     Generic  term  used  to  refer  to  a  wrongdoing  punished  either  in  RPC  or  under  a  special    law   Q:  Who  has  the  power  to  enact  laws?     Congress  (Legislative)     Q:  Is  the  power  of  Congress  absolute?     No.  There  are  limitations.  It  should  not  violate  the  constitution     Q:  We  call  our  penal  code,  the  REVISED  PENAL  CODE,  why,  which  penal  code  was  revised?     The  Spanish  Penal  Code     Q:  How  was  it  revised?   *A   committee   was   formed   pursuant   to   Administrative   Order   No.   94   by   the   Department   of   Justice.     *The  committee  was  formed  on  Oct  18,  1827   *The   committee   was   composed   of   Anacleto   Diaz   (head);   Quintin   Paredes;   Alex   Reyes   and   Mariano  De  Joya     Q:  How  did  the  revision  come  about?   *the  RPC    contains  provisions  of  the  Spanish  penal  code,  US  Penal  Code  and  SC  decisions  of  the   Philippines  before  the  creation  of  the  RPC     Q:  What  are  the  sources  of  criminal  law?     *Revised  Penal  Code     *Special   Penal   Laws   enacted   or   passed   by   the   Philippine   Commission,   Philippine   Assembly,   Philippine  Legislature,  National     Assembly,  Batasang  Pambansa,  Congress  of  the  Philippines   *Penal  Presidential  Decrees  issued  during  Martial  Law    (only  because  the  President  at  that  time   had  legislative  power,  but  generally,  the  Executive  branch  cannot  issue  EO  or  PP  that  are  penal   in  nature)   *Spanish  Penal  Code   *US  Penal  Code  (we  copied  the  ff  crimes  from  the  US  Penal  Code:  estafa,  malversation,  etc)     Q:  Who  has  the  power  to  define  crimes?     The  State     Q:  Why  does  the  State  has  the  power  to  define  crimes?   Because   of   its   police   power.   The   right   to   prosecute   and   punish   crimes   is   vested   in   the   sovereign   power,  which  is  the  Filipino  people.       Q:  When  did  the  RPC  took  effect?     Jan  1,  1932     Q:  Why  is  there  a  long  lapse  of  time  in  the  effectivity  and  approval  of  the  RPC?  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 3 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

  So  that  PH  will  be  familiarized  with  the  new    provisions  of  the  RPC     Q:  Who  approved  the  RPC?     US  President       Q:  What  are  the  theories  in  criminal  law?     Classical,  Positivist,  Mixed       CLASSICAL       -­‐the  objective  is  retribution       -­‐  the  emphasis  is  on  the  crime       -­‐consistent  with  the  saying  “an  eye  for  an  eye,  a  tooth  for  a  tooth”       -­‐  man  has  free  will  to  do  or  not  to    do       -­‐  the  criminal  liability  arises  from  knowledge  and  freedom       -­‐man  is  a  rational  being       -­‐example:  RA  9372  (Human  Security  Act  of  2007)       POSITIVIST       -­‐the  objective  is  reformation       -­‐the  emphasis  is  on  the  criminal       -­‐believes  that  crime  is  a  social  phenomenon       -­‐sees  man  as  a  moral/human  being       -­‐man  by  nature  is  good       -­‐man  is  exposed  to  environment  where  man  is  compelled  to  do  a  crime       -­‐example:     RA  9344  (Juvenile  Justice  and  Welfare  Act  of  2006)           Probation  Law  of  1976           Indeterminate  Sentence  Law       MIXED       -­‐combines  the  classical  and  the  positivist       -­‐applied  classical  theory  for  heinous  crimes       -­‐applies  the  positivist  for  economic  and  social  crimes     Q:  What  do  we  apply  in  the  Philippines?   Mixed.  Our  system  is  a  little  bit  of  classical  and  a  little  bit  of  positivist.  The  RPC  is  classical  and   recent  laws  enacted  by  the  legislature  are  positivist  in  nature.       Q:  What  is  the  degree  of  proof  needed  to  convict  an  accused  of  a  criminal  charge?     Proof  beyond  reasonable  doubt     Q:  Is  this  absolute?     No.     In   the   crime   of   treason,   PBRD   is   not   the   only   requirement.   There   is   a   requirement   of   the   2   witness  rule     Q:  May  a  person  be  convicted  by  reason  of  the  spirit  of  the  law?  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 4 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

No.   Only   by   the   language   of   the   law.   It   should   be   clear   and   in   case   of   doubt,   it   should   be   favorable  to  the  accused.       June  21,  2011     Q:  What  are  the  kinds  of  repeals?   1. Absolute  or  Express   -­‐the  effect  is  decriminalization   -­‐the  obliteration  of  a  crime   -­‐for  pending  cases,  the  case  shall  be  dismissed   -­‐for  those  serving  sentence,  they  shall  be  released  because  there  is  no  more  reason  for  the   accused  to  serve  sentence     2. Partial  or  Implied   -­‐the  crime  is  still  punishable,  but  modified  (in  terms  of    penalty)   -­‐example:     the   case   of   Robin   Padilla,   PD   1866   was   partially   repealed   by   RA   8294,   which   reduced   the   sentence   for   illegal   possession   of   firearms,   thus   qualifying   Robin   Padilla   for   parole       3. Self-­‐repealing   -­‐deemed  repealed  upon  the  expiration  of  the  date  specified  by  the  law   -­‐the  law  dies  a  natural  death   -­‐example:  RA  1700  (Anti-­‐Subversion    Law)  and  Rent  Control  Law       Q:  What  is  the  general  characteristic  of  criminal  law?   Criminal  Law  is  binding  on  all  persons  who  live  or  sojourn  in  the  Philippine  territory,  regardless   of  race,  nationality,  political  affiliation.       Q:  Is  this  rule  absolute?     No.  The  exceptions  are:  1.  Treaties            2.  Laws  of  preferential  application     Q:  What  is  the  territorial  characteristic  of  criminal  law?     Only  crimes  committed  within  the  Philippine  territory  may  be  prosecuted  before  Ph  court     Q:  What  is  the  rationale  behind  this?   A   crime   is   an  offense  against  the  dignity,  authority  and  sovereignty  of  the  Ph  territory;  and  only   the   state   in   which   the   dignity,   authority   and   sovereignty   has   been   offended   has   the   right   to   punish  the  offender.       Q:  Is  the  territoriality  absolute?     No.  The  exceptions  are:  1.  Treaties            2.  Laws  of  preferential  application     Q:  Other  characteristic  of  criminal  law?     Prospective  (non  retroactivity)  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 5 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

  Exception:  favorable  to  the  accused     Exception  to  the  exception:  accused  is  a  habitual  delinquent     Q:  Can  you  give  an  example  of  a  treaty  that  is  an  exception  to  the  generality  &  territoriality  principles  of   criminal  law?     VFA     Q:  Why  is  VFA  an  exception?   Generality   –   because   even   if   the   accused   sojourn   in   the   Philippines,   the   accused   will   not   be   prosecuted  in  ph  courts   Territoriality  –   because   even   if   the   accused   committed   the   crime   in   the   Philippines,   the   accused   will  not  be  prosecuted  in  ph  courts     Q:  Who  are  the  parties  to  VFA?     US  and  PH     Q:  who  are  covered  by  the  VFA?     US  military  personnel     US  civilian  personnel  connected  to  the  US  military  operations  in  the  Philippines     Q:  Who  is  a  US  military  personnel?   military  members  of  the  United  States  Army,  Navy,  Marine  Corps,  Air  Force,  and  Coast  Guard     Q:    Is  the  American  Red  Cross  personnel  covered  by  the  VFA?     Yes.  Is  he  is  part  of  the  US  personnel     Q:  What  are  the  types  of  jurisdiction  in  VFA?     Exclusive  and  Concurrent     Q:  What  do  you  mean  by  exclusive  &  concurrent  jurisdiction?     Exclusive  –  exclusive  of  other  courts;  vests  jurisdiction  on  one  court     Concurrent  –  both  countries  have  jurisdiction     Q:  When  is  it  exclusive?   PH  have  exclusive  jurisdiction  –  crimes  punishable  under  PH  laws  but  not  punishable  under  US   laws.   US  have  exclusive  jurisdiction  -­‐  crimes  punishable  under  US  laws  but  not  punishable  under  PH   laws.     Q:  When  is  it  concurrent?   Crimes  punishable  both  under  PH  and  US  laws.     Q:  But,  even  if  jurisdiction  is  concurrent,  when  will  PH  have  primary  jurisdiction?     *Philippine  authorities  shall  have  the  primary  right  to  exercise  jurisdiction  over  all  offenses     *Especially,  when  it  is  a  threat  to  the  security  of  the  Philippines,         a)  treason   b)espionage   c)sabotage  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes    

Page 6 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

EXCEPT:   *crime   committed   by   a   US   personnel   against   the   property   and   security   of   the   US   –   Ph   has   no   jurisdiction,  these  includes:     1.  against  the  property  of  the  US     2.  against  the  security  of  the  US     3.  against  the  property  of  another  military  personnel     4.  against  the  security  of  another  military  personnel     5.  committed  in  the  performance  of  official  duties    

  Q:   Suppose   US   military   personnel   was   driving   at   Roxas   Blvd   to   deliver   a   confidential   letter   to   the   US   embassy,  while  driving,  he  run  over  a  pedestrian,  which  court  has  jurisdiction?     US.  Committed  in  the  performance  of  official  duties.     Q:  Suppose  one  night  US  military  personnel  went  to  the  bar,  after  drinking  and  being  so  tipsy,  raped  a   woman,  which  court  has  jurisdiction?     PH.  Not  in  the  performance  of  official  duties     Q:   Suppose   2   Filipino   citizens   working   as   US   military   personnel   in   the   PH   had   a   quarrel.   Filipino   1   shoots   Filipino  2.  Who  has  jurisdiction?     US.  Citizenship  is  immaterial.  What  is  important  is  attachment  to  the  US  military     Q:  Suppose  the  one  who  was  injured  filed  a  civil  case  for  damages,  will  it  prosper?     No.  VFA  covers  only  criminal  aspect     Q:  1  US  marine  stole  the  wallet  of  another  US  marine,  who  has  jurisdiction?     US.  Property  of  another  military  personnel     Q:  Suppose  you  are  a  judge,  the  US  wrote  a  letter  for  you  to  waive  jurisdiction,  what  will  you  do?   Generally,  the  PH  has  to  waive  jurisdiction  upon  request  of  US.  The  request  for  waiver  cannot  be   rejected.       Q:  Is  this  rule  absolute?     No.  The  request  for  waiver  may  be  rejected  if  the  crime  is  of  particular  importance     RA  9659    (heinous  crime)     RA  7610  (child  abuse  cases)     RA  9165  (dangerous  drugs)     Q:  Suppose  US  military  personnel  committed  kidnapping,  who  has  jurisdiction?     PH  courts.  This  is  a  crime  against  personal  security       Q:  Give  an  example  of  Laws  of  Preferential  Application  that  is  local  in  nature?     Constitution     *immunity  suit  of  president     *absolute  immunity  of  Congress  for  privilege  speeches     *Congress  immune  from  libel  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 7 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

  NOTE:  Art  6,  Sec  11,  1987  Consti  is  not  an  exception.  BECAUSE  Congress  is  only  immune  from   arrest  not  from  prosecution     Q:    What  else?     RA  75  –  Public  International  Law   Diplomatic  immunity  and  cannot  be  sued,   arrested  or  punished  by  the  law  of  the  country  where   they  are  officially  assigned:     Ambassadors     Sovereign  or  other  chief  of  State       Ministers  plenipotentiary  or  minister  residents       Charge  d’affairs       Domestic  Servants  of  persons  mentioned       NOTE:  Consuls  and  other  consular  officials  are  not  exempt  from  criminal  liability  because  they   represent   the   business,   commercial   mercantile   of   their   country;   while,   ambassadors,   chiefs   of   State,  etc.  represent  the  political  interests  of  their  country  of  origin.           WARSHIP  RULE   -­‐warship   of   another   country,   even   though   docked   in   the   PH   is   considered   an   extension   of   the   territory  of  that  country     Q:  suppose  the  warship  of  US  is  docked  at  Subic,  one  day,  you  went  to  Subic  with  your  gf,  brought  her  to   the  ship,  and  then  raped  her.  Will  you  be  prosecuted?     No.  Warship  is  an  extension  US  territory     Q:  suppose  after  raping  her,  you  brought  your  gf  to  her  parents,  will  you  be  prosecuted?     No.  Warship  rule     Embassy  Rule  –  same  as  warship  rule     Q:  Suppose  one  day,  you  shut  a  person  at  Roxas  Blvd,  when  the  police  officers  were  running  after  you,   you   jumped   over   the   fence   of   US   embassy.   May   the   officers   arrest   you,   while   you   are   inside   the   US   embassy?     No.     Q:  What  is  then  the  remedy  of  the  officers  (Ph  government)?       Extradition     Q:   suppose   a   Filipina   legally   married   had   sexual   intercourse   with   an   American   at   the   Ph   embassy.   Is   there  any  crime  committed?   Yes.   The   crime   of   adultery,   but   she   cannot   be   prosecuted   under   Ph   courts   because   of   the   embassy  rule.       Q:  who  else  is  exempt/immune  from  criminal  prosecution?     Executive  directors  of  WHO  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 8 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

  Members  of  the  Constitutional  Commission     Justices  of  Supreme  Court     Q:  How  about  consular  officials?   They   are   not   covered.   They   are   not   exempt   from   criminal   liability   because   they   represent   the   business,  commercial  mercantile  interests  of  their  country  of  origin.     Q:   Suppose   Ambassador   of   Japan   to   the   US   committed   a   crime   in   the   Philippines,   may   he   be   prosecuted?     Yes,  because  he  is  not  a  recognized  diplomatic  representative  of  his  country  to  the  Philippines.      

Article  2     ^par  1-­‐5  of  Art  2  is  not  an  exemption  to  the  territoriality  principle,  it  is  EXTRATERRITORIALITY!     Q:  The  first  instance  in  Art  2?     Should  commit  an  offense  while  on  Ph  ship  or  airship     Q:  What  is  Ph  ship  or  airship?     Ship  registered  with  MARINA     Airship  registered  with  Civil  Aeronautics  Board     Q:    What  are  the  requirements  in  order  a  ship/airship  be  a  Ph  ship?     It  must  be  registered  in  accordance  with  Ph  laws     Q:  Why  not  register  in  Bureau  of  Customs?     The  law  requiring  registration  in  Bureau  of  Customs  had  been  repealed.  Now  its  Marina  and  CAB     Q:    Does  PH  include  warship?     No.  Warship  has  different  rule     Q:    Suppose  a  cargo  ship  in  Quezon  going  to  Malaysia,  within  Ph  territory,  1  crew  committed  homicide   against  another  crew,  who  has  jurisdiction?     PH.  The  crime  is  committed  in  PH  territory   It  is  not  important  whether  cargo  ship  is  registered  or  not,  because  crime  committed  in  Ph   territory.    (Territoriality  principle)     Q:  Suppose  that  cargo  ship  traversed  through  international  waters  then  reached  the  waters  of  Malaysia,   1  crew  member  committed  homicide  against  another.  Which  court?     Malaysia.    Because  the  crime  is  committed  in  Malaysian  waters       ^Art  2,  par  1  ceases  to  apply  if  the  ship  is  in  the  territory  of  foreign  country   ^Art  2,  par  1  applies  only  if  the  ship  is  in  international  waters    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 9 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

Q:   Suppose   you   live   in   a   coastal   town,   then   you   hired   an   unregistered   motorboat,   then   you   went   to   int’l   waters,   then   you   shoot   your   gf   because   you   are   so   depressed   because   of   recitations   in   criminal   law   review,  will  you  be  liable?     No.  unregistered  motorboat     Q:   suppose   in   the   same   motorboat,   a   married   man   with   his   new   gf   went   on   high   seas,   and   there   got   married.  Is  the  man  liable  for  any  crime?     Yes.  He  is  liable  for  bigamy.  (because  he  contracted  a  second  marriage)   BUT  he  cannot  be  prosecuted  because  of  the  territoriality  principle.  The  crime  was  committed   outside  Ph  territory.     Q:  suppose  after  the  wedding  ceremony,  you  went  to  a  resort,  where  there  is  a  big  reception.  In  that   resort,  you  had  your  honeymoon;  will  you  (married  man)  be  liable  for  any  crime?   No.   Not   concubinage   because   mere     sexual   intercourse   not   punishable,   it   must   be   under   scandalous  manner     Q:  suppose  after  your  honeymoon,  you  live  together  in  a  condo  in  Manila,  will  you  be  liable?     Yes.  Concubinage       Cohabitation;  living  in  a  separate  home  as  husband  and  wife     Q:  What  are  the  2  rules?   English   Rule   –   vessel   is   in   the   territory   of   another   country,   crimes   committed   in   that   area   are   triable  in  that  other  country,  unless  the  crimes  committed  involve  purely  internal  matters  within   the  vessel;  the  emphasis  is  on  the  territoriality  of  the  vessel;  where  the  vessel  is  found     French  Rule  –  vessel  is  in  the  territory  of  another  country,  crimes  committed  in  that  area  are  not   triable   in   that   country,   unless   the   crimes   committed   have   endangered   the   peace   and   security   of   that   country;   the   emphasis   is   on   the   nationality   of   the   vessel;   jurisdiction   lies   where   the   merchant  vessel  is  registered.         ^The  PH  adheres  to  the  English  rule     Q:  Cargo  ship,  registered  in  Panama  while  in  Manila,  1  crew  member  shoot  the  other  crew  member,   who  has  jurisdiction?     Ph  courts.  Crime  committed  in  manila     Q:  Cargo    ship,  registered  in  Panama,  carried  shabu,  which  court  has  jurisdiction?     Ph  courts.       Q:  Second  instance  in  Art  2?   Art  2  par  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     Q:  what  may  be  the  subject  of  forgery?  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 10 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

Any  coin,  Currency  Note,  obligations  and  securities  issued  by  the  Government  of  the  Philippine   Islands     Q:  Suppose  you  have  a  printing  press  in  Taiwan,  and  you  printed  Bagong  Lipunan  notes  (martial  law),   liable?     No.  Because  Bagong  Lipunan  notes  are  not  legal  tender     Q:  Suppose  coins  withdrawn  from  circulation,  liable?     Yes.  The  law  does  not  distinguish.  It  says  ANY  COIN     Q:  Suppose  in  you  tampered  a  lotto  ticket,  liable?     Yes.  Lotto  ticket  is  obligations  and  securities  issued  by  the  GPI     Q:  give  examples  of  obligations  and  securities  of  GPI     Treasury  bills,  lotto  tickets,  bonds  of  the  BSP   ^Obligations  and  Securities  of  GSIS,  SSS,  Landbank  are  not  of  the  GPI  because  they  have  their   own  charter       Q:  any  other  instance?     Art  2,  par  3   Should  be  liable  for  acts  connected  with  the  introduction  into  these  islands  of  the  obligations  and   securities  mentioned  in  the  presiding  number     ^those  who  introduced  the  counterfeited  items  are  criminally  liable,  even  if  they  were  not  the   ones  who  counterfeited  the  obligations  &  securities   ^on  the  other  hand,  those  who  counterfeited  the  items  are  criminally  liable  even  if  they  did  not   introduce  the  counterfeit  items     Q:  any  other  instance?     Art  2,  par.  4   While  being  public  officers  or  employees,  should  commit  an  offense  in  the  exercise  of  their   functions     Q:    who  is  a  public  officer?  (see  Art  203)   *taking   part   in   the   performance   of   public   functions   in   the   government,   or   performing   in   said   government  or  in  any  of  its  branches  public  duties  as  an  employee,  agent  or  subordinate  official,   of  any  rank  or  class;  and     *that   his   authority   to   take   part   in   the   performance   of   public   functions   or   to   perform   public   duties  must  be  –   a. by  direct  provision  of  the  law,  or   b. by  popular  election,  or   c. by  appointment  by  competent  authority    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 11 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

Q:    Suppose  PH  ambassador  to  Germany  was  given  USD  200,000  as  a  fund  to  renovate  the  PH  embassy   building   in   Germany.   He   used   only   USD   50,000   for   the   renovation,   and   gave   the   USG   150,000   to   his   number  2  in  Germany.  Is  he  (ambassador)  liable?     Yes.  He  is  liable  for  malversation  of  public  funds.  He  may  be  prosecuted  in  Ph  courts.       He  was  in  custody  of  the  money  by  reason  of  his  official  functions   Q:   Suppose   our   AFP   high   officials   were   tasked   to   scout   for   firearms   abroad,   and   while   they   are   negotiating  with  foreign  companies  abroad,  these  companies  inserted  USD1000  in  the  proposal  folder  in   anticipation  that  their  company  will  be  chosen  by  AFP  to  be  the  supplier  of  our  firearms.  May  these  AFP   officials  be  liable?     Yes.  They  are  liable  for  bribery.     Q:  (follow-­‐up)  Even  if  the  act  of  accepting  the  bribe  was  committed  abroad,  will  they  still  be  liable?   Yes,   because   the   act   was   committed   in   relation   or   while   the   AFP   are   in   discharge   of   their   official   functions.       Q:   Suppose   Chairman   Abalos   (comelec)   while   playing   golf   in   Shanghai,   China   received   USD50,000   in   relation  to  the  ZTE?  Is  there  a  crime  committed?  May  he  be  liable?     Crime  –  anti  graft  &  corrupt  practices    act   BUT,   he   cannot   be   liable/prosecuted   before   Ph   courts   because   Abalos   has   nothing   to   do   with   ZTE   (paki   alamera   lang   siya).   Therefore,   he   received   the   money   not   in   connection   with   his   official  function.       Q:  Suppose  the  PH  ambassador  to  Australia  is  legally  married.  Can  he  be  prosecuted  for  concubinage?     No.  Crime  was  committed  outside  PH     Crime  was  not  in  relation  to  official  functions     Elements  of  concubinage:   1. That  the  man  must  be  married.   2. That  he  committed  any  of  the  following  acts:   a. Keeping  a  mistress  in  the  conjugal  dwelling.   b. Having  sexual  intercourse  under  scandalous  circumstances  with  a  woman  who  is   not  his  wife.   c. Cohabiting  with  her  in  any  other  place.   3. That  as  regards  the  woman  she  must  know  him  to  be  married     Q:  Can  the  PH  ambassador  use  immunity  from  suit  as  a  defense  against  PH  courts?     No     Q:  PH  ambassador,  married,  had  sexual  intercourse  with  her  American  boyfriend  in  the  comfort  room  of     PH  embassy.  May  he  be  prosecuted?     Yes.  Ph  embassy  is  an  extension  of  Ph  territory     For  what  crime  –  adultery     Q:  may  the  American  citizen  bf  be  liable  for  any  crime?     Yes.  Adultery     Elements:     *That  the  woman  is  married  (even  if  marriage  subsequently  declared  void)  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 12 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

*That  she  has  sexual  intercourse  with  a  man  not  her  husband.   *That  as  regards  the  man  with  whom  she  has  sexual  intercourses,  he  must  know  her  to   be  married.     Q:  Last  instance?     Art  2,  par  5   Should  commit  any  of  the  crimes  against  national  security  and  the  law  of  nations,  defined  in  Title   One  of  Book  Two  of  this  Code.     Q:  Give  example  of  crimes    against  national  security?     Treason,  espionage,  conspiracy  to  commit  treason     Q:  How  about  rebellion?     No.  rebellion  is  crimes  against  public  order     Q:  crimes  committed  by  the  MILF?     No.  Crime  against  public  order     Q:  example  of    violation  of  the  law  of  nations?     Anti  –  terror  law     Crimes  against  humanity     Genocide     Q:  what  are  the  2  kinds  of  piracy?     Piracy  under  the  RPC     Piracy  under  PD  532     Q:  what  does  Art  2  covers?     Piracy  under  RPC  only.  Because  piracy  under  PD532  is  committed  within  PH  waters    

Article  3     Q:  What  are  felonies?     Acts  and  omissions  punishable  by  law  are  felonies  (delitos).     Q:  What  do  you  mean  by  “punishable  by  law”     Punishable  by  the  RPC     Q:  how  felonies  are  committed?   Felonies  are  committed  not  only  be  means  of  deceit  (dolo)  but  also  by  means  of  fault  (culpa).       Q:  What  is  dolo?  What  is  culpa?   There   is   deceit   when   the   act   is   performed   with   deliberate   intent   and   there   is   fault   when   the   wrongful  act  results  from  imprudence,  negligence,  lack  of  foresight,  or  lack  of  skill.      

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 13 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

  ^Violations  of  RPC  –  felony     ^Violations  of  special  penal  law  –  offenses     ^violations  of  ordinance  –  misdemeanor  (minor  infraction    of  the  law)     Q:  What  are  the  requisites  of  felony?   1. Act  or  omission   2. RPC   3. Voluntary   a. Freedom   b. Intelligence   c. Intent   ^ALL  MUST  BE  PRESENT  IN  ORDER  TO  INCUR  CRIMINAL  LIABILITY     Q:  Is  illegal  possession  of  bladed  weapon  a  felony?   No.  It  is  not  under  the  Revised  Penal  Code     Atty.  Amurao  Lecture  Highlights:   *To  be  considered  as  a  felony  there  must  be  an  act  or  omission;  a  mere  imagination  no  matter   how  wrong  does  not  amount  to  a  felony.       *An  act  refers  to  any  kind  of  body  movement  that  produces  change  in  the  outside  world.  For   example,  if  you  have  in  your  mind  that  you  will  rape  this  beautiful  lady,  but  you  did  not  rape  her,   you  will  not  be  liable.       *Actus  non  facit  reum,  nisi  mens  sit  rea  (an  act  of  a  criminal  should  be  coupled  by  a  criminal   mind)     *It  does  not  mean  that  if  an  act  or  omission  is  punished  under  the  Revised  Penal  Code,  a  felony  is   already  committed.  To  be  considered  a  felony,  it  must  also  be  done  with  dolo  or  culpa.       *If  you  do  not  have  freedom,  the  act  is  not  voluntary;  the  act  is  not  a  felony     *These  are  amplified  in  the  some  provisions  of  the  RPC,  like…     Intelligence  –  art  12  –  insanity,  imbecility,  minority     Freedom  –  art  12  –  under  compulsion  of  some  irresistible  force;  fear  of  greater  injury     Intent  –  art  12  –  by  mere    accident  w/out  fault  or  intent  to  cause  harm     *Mistake  of  fact  is  a  valid  defense     Q:  What  are  the  differences  between  MALA  IN  SE  and  MALA  PROHIBITA       MALA  IN  SE   MALA  PROHIBITA   *intent  is  essential   *intent  is  not  essential   *good  faith  is  a  valid  defense   *good  faith  is  not  a  valid   defense  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes *honest  mistake  of  fact  is  a   defense   *punishable  under  RPC   *condemned  by  society   *act  done  must  be  criminal   intent  

Page 14 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao *honest  mistake  of  fact  is  not  a   defense   *punishable  under  special  laws   *injurious  to  public  welfare   *it  is  sufficient  that  the   prohibited  act  was  done  

  Q:  give  examples  of  Mala  In  se?     RPC  –  homicide,  murder,  parricide,  arson  …  and  so  on…     Q:  give  examples  of  Mala  prohibita     Anti  Fencing  Law     Bouncing  Check  Law     Illegal  Possession  of  Firearms     Anti  Human  Trafficking  Law     Anti  Hijacking  Lack     Q:  Suppose  your  bf  is  a  police  officer,  1  day  while  you  were  having  your  date  in  Luneta  Park,  your  bf  had   to   answer   the   call   of   nature,   so   he   handed   to   you   his   pistol,   while   you   were   holding   it,   the   officers   arrested  you,  may  you  be  liable  for  illegal  possession  of  firearms?     No.  Transient  Possession  not  liable   Although  I  was  in  possession,  although  I  have  no  license  to  posses,  Still  not  liable  because  I  have   no  intent,  and  this  is  an  exception  to  mala  prohibita     Q:  Suppose  the  police  officers  are  running  after  a  man,  then  the  man  throw  his  .45  caliber,  you  were   around  the  corner  and  you  extended  your  arms,  then  the  firearm  fell  on  your  hands,  may  you  be  liable   for  illegal  possession?     No.  Transient  possession     Q:  Suppose  I  (atty.  Amurao)  mortaged  my  firearm  to  you  for  30  days,  and  on  the  20th  day,  there  was  a   raid  in  your  house,  may  you  be  liable  for  illegal    possession?     Yes.  There  is  animus  possendi       an  act  or  omission     Act  –  any  physical  movement  of  the  body  (Amurao);  any  bodily  movement   tending  to  produce  some  effect  in  the  external  world  (Reyes)     Omission  –  means  inaction;  the  failure  to  perform  a  positive  duty  which  one  is   bound  to  do;  there  must  be  a  law  requiring  the  performance  of  an  act  and   punishing  the  omission;  eg.  arbitrary  detention;  misprision  of  treason      punishable  by  the  Revised  Penal  Code   ^When  there  is  a  conflict  between  special  penal  laws  and  the  Revised  Penal  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 15 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

Code,  in  terms  of  the  application  of  penalties,  what  to  follow?     ^What  is  important  is  the  definition  and  the  classification  of  the  act  (whether  it   is  an  offense  or  a  felony)     Special  Penal  Laws  =  penalties  are  stated  in  terms  of  years,  months,  days     Revised  Penal  Code  =  penalties  are  stated  in  terms  of  degrees,  with  death  as  the   highest  penalty;  classified  as  indivisible  or  divisible       a.  indivisible  =  death  and  public  censure    b.  divisible  (has  3  periods;  what  period  to  apply  is  dependent  on  the   aggravating  and  mitigating  circumstances  present  in  the  case)     Penalties  under  the  RPC  (in  descending  order  in  terms  of  degree)        Death  or  Capital  Punishment  -­‐  indivisible        Reclusion  Perpetua  (20yrs  &  1day  –  40yrs)        Reclusion  Temporal  (12yrs  &  1day  –  20yrs)        Prision  Mayor  (6yrs  &  1day  –  12yrs)        Prision  Correccional            divisible   or  Destierro  (6mos&1day  –  6yrs)        Arresto  Mayor  (1mo  &  1day  –  6mos)        Arresto  Menor  (1day  –  30days)        Fine        Public  Censure  –  indivisible     the  acts  done  should  be  voluntary  (Amurao)     voluntary  -­‐  the  concurrence  of  intelligence,  freedom,  intent  (Ortega)   ^all  should  be  present  in  order  to  incur  criminal  liability     (a)  intelligence  –  no  intelligence,  no  criminal  liability;  eg.  children  15  yrs   old  &  below  are  exempt  from  criminal  liability  (RA  9344)   (b)  freedom  –  no  freedom,  act  is  not  voluntary,  no  criminal  liability   (c)  intent  –  essential  to  a  felony;  prosecution  has  to  prove  intent;  good   faith  is  a  defense     Article  12  of  the  RPC  (Exempting  Circumstances)  is  amplified  by  the  importance   of  the  element  of  voluntariness:     (a)  intelligence  –  insanity/imbecility  [Art.12(1)];  minority  [Art.12(2&3)]     (b)  freedom  –  under  the  compulsion  of  some  irresistible  force  [Art.12(5)];  fear  of   greater  injury  [Art.12(6)];  failure  to  perform  an  act  required  by  law  when   prevented  by  some  lawful  or  insuperable  cause  [Art.12(7)]    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 16 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

(c)  intent  –  by  mere  accident  w/o  fault  or  intent  to  cause  harm  [Art.12(4)]     Alibi  –  used  in  defense  saying  that  the  act  or  omission  was  not  done  at  all;  intends  to   disprove  the  existence  of  an  act  or  omission;  weakest  defense;  can  easily  be  fabricated;   eg.  Vizconde  case  –  Webb’s  alibi  =  he  argued  that  he  was  in  the  US  when  the  crime   happened,  therefore,  he  could  not  have  killed  the  victims,  claiming  that  he  is  innocent      Actus  non  facit  reum,  nisi  mens  sit  rea  –  an  act  of  a  criminal  should  be  coupled  by  a   criminal  mind     the  defense  of  honest  mistake  of  fact   -­‐  the  act  done  by  the  accused  would  have  constituted:   (a)  a  justifying  circumstance  (Art.11,  RPC)            -­‐  in  all  instances  =  no  criminal  liability;  no  civil  liability     (b)  an  absolutory  cause  [Art.247(2)]                                   (c)  an  involuntary  act     Requisites  for  honest  mistake  of  fact  as  a  defense:   1.  that  the  act  done  would  have  been  lawful  had  the  facts  been  as  the  accused   believed  them  to  be   2.  that  the  intention  of  the  accused  in  performing  the  act  should  be  lawful   3.  that  the  mistake  must  be  without  fault  or  negligence/carelessness  on  the  part   of  the  accused     Cases  on  honest  mistake  of  fact:   1.  US  v.  Ah  Chong  (landmark  case)   -­‐  Ah  Chong  killed  friend  Pascual  thinking  he  was  a  thief/ladron   -­‐  there  was  sufficient  warning  on  the  part  of  accused;  accused  was  acquitted   2.  US  v.  Apego   -­‐  accused  killed  her  brother-­‐in-­‐law  in  fear  of  being  raped;  guilty  of  homicide   3.  People  v.  Oanis   -­‐  policemen  killed  the  wrong  person  w/o  warning;  guilty  of  murder   4.  People  v.  Bayambao   -­‐  accused  killed  his  brother-­‐in-­‐law  thinking  he  was  an  outlaw   -­‐  brother-­‐in-­‐law  acted  as  if  he  going  to  attack;  accused  was  acquitted     Motive     -­‐  special  reasons  that  impel  the  accused  to  act  (Amurao)   -­‐  the  moving  power  which  impels  one  to  action  for  a  definite  result  (Reyes)   -­‐  not  an  essential  element  of  a  felony   -­‐  evidence  of  motive  is  necessary  only  in  case  of:  (1)  doubt  in  the  identity  of  the  accused   (Amurao),  (2)  two  conflicting  versions  of  the  crime   -­‐  motive  is  established  by  the  testimony  of  the  witness   -­‐  lack  of  motive  may  be  an  aid  in  showing  innocence    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 17 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

  Discernment  –  ability  of  the  accused  to  determine  right  from  wrong         Exceptions  to  the  general  rule  on  malum  prohibitum  crimes  (PLEASE  REFER  TO  REYES  BOOK)     1.  Cuenca  v.  People   -­‐  Cuenca  was  acquitted  by  the  SC  from  the  crime  of  illegal  possession  of  an  unlicensed  firearm;  it  is  said   that  the  SC  erred  in  its  decision  (Amurao)     2.  People  v.  Landicho   -­‐  convicted  by  the  trial  court;  decision  reversed  by  the  Court  of  Appeals   -­‐  the  CA  held  that  convicting  the  accused  would  be  sacrificing  substantial  justice  for  mere  technicality     3.  People  v.  Mallare   -­‐  case  was  about  the  delay  of  the  issuance  of  the  license   -­‐  the  accused  convicted  by  the  trial  court;  decision  reversed  by  the  CA   -­‐  the  CA  held  that  the  blame  should  be  put  on  the  government  not  on  the  applicant  of  the  license   4.  mere  transient  possession  of  unlicensed  firearm   -­‐  not  criminally  liable   -­‐  in  the  crime  of  illegal  possession  of  unlicensed  firearm,  for  an  accused  to  be  criminally  liable,  there   should  be  animus  posidendi  or  “intent  to  possess”        

Article  4     Concept  of  proximate  cause  –  injury  inflicted     Q:  What  is  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     As  a  general  rule,  the  offender  is  criminally  liable  for  all  the  consequences  of  his  felonious  act,   although   not   intended,   if   the   felonious   act   is   the   proximate   cause   of   the   felony   or   resulting   felony.       A  proximate  cause  is  not  necessarily  the  immediate  cause.  This  may  be  a  cause  which  is  far  and   remote  from  the  consequence  which  sets  into  motion  other  causes  which  resulted  in   the  felony.     Immediate  cause  –  infection    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 18 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

Q:  What  is  efficient  intervening  cause?   Efficient  Intervening  Cause  –  interrupted  the  natural  flow  of  events  leading  to  one’s  death     *Victim  is  under  no  obligation  to  submit  to  medical  treatment  to  reduce  or  mitigate  the  liability  of  the   accused.         Q:  A,  B,  C  hold  up  a  bus,  a  passenger  ran  away,  hit    by  the  car,  passenger  died.  Who  is  liable?     ABC     Q:  Hold  up  in  a  nearby  grocery  store,  old  man  suddenly  collapsed  seeing  the  commotion,  old  man   eventually  died,  who  is  liable?       Robbers     Immediate  cause  –  heart  failure     Q:    Suppose  Atty  Amurao  during  recit,  you  collapsed,  hit  the  table  and  massive  bleeding,  dead  on  arrival,   is  amurao  liable?     No.  Recit  is  not  a  crime     Q:  suppose  because  of  your  wrong  answers,  amurao  shouted  defamatory  words,  liable?     Yes.  Amurao  committed  slander     Q:  Is  it  wrong  to  love  a  married  person?     No.  As  long  as  it  does  not  go  beyond  that  point     Q:    Sexual  intercourse  with  a  married  woman,  while  doing  the  act,  the  woman  had  heart  attack,  will  you   be  liable?     Yes.  You  committed  adultery     Q:  Man  married,  had  a  sexual  intercourse  with  a  single  woman,  the  woman  had  heart  attack,  died.  Will   you  be  liable?     No.  Concubinage  is  not  committed     Q:  If  under  a  tree  in  Luneta?     Yes.  Liable  for  concubinage,  under  a  scandalous  manner     Q:  both  single,  man  is  a  teacher,  woman  is  a  student,  liable?     No.  There  is  no  crime     Q:  If  the  student  is  under  18  years  old,  will  your  answer  be  the  same?     No.  This  time  there  is  a  crime.  Qualified  seduction  or  rape  by  grave  abuse  of  authority     Q:  What  is  an  impossible  crime?       Q:  Give  the  case  of  Intod    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 19 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

Q:  Give  the  elements  of  impossible  crime  vis-­‐à-­‐vis  facts  of  Intod     Q:  Give  the  case  of    PP  v  Jacinto?     Q:  do  you  agree  with  the  decision?     Q:  How  is  theft  committed?       Q:  Is  it  an  element  that  the  accused  should  make  or  actually  profit?     No     Q:  May  a  person  be  liable  if  he  did  not  commit  a  crime?     Yes.  Impossible  crime.  Technically  no  crime,  subjectively  –  there  is  a  crime     Q:  What  is  the  penalty?     Arresto  Mayor  or  a  fine  ranging  from  200  to    500         ^Urbano  case     Q:  what  is  the  negligence  committed  by  Javier?     Causes  which  may  produce  a  result  different  from  that  which  the  offender  intended,  as  contemplated   in  Art.  4  (1)     1.  there  is  a  mistake  in  the  identity  of  the  victim   -­‐  also  known  as  error  in  personae;  or  napagkamalan     -­‐  not  a  defense  in  a  criminal  case;  not  even  a  mitigating  circumstance   2.  there  is  a  mistake  in  the  blow   -­‐  also  known  as  aberration  ictus   -­‐  not  a  defense  in  a  criminal  case;  not  even  a  mitigating  circumstance   3.  the  injurious  result  is  greater  than  that  intended   -­‐  also  known  as  praeter  intentionem     Article  4(1)  contemplates  that  there  should  be  a  felony  being  committed   -­‐  emphasis  is  not  on  the  mere  wrongful  act;  it  should  constitute  a  felony   -­‐  eg.  the  act  of  committing  suicide  results  to  others  being  injured  =  punishable  under  Art.4(1)  because   although  not  intended,  the  injury  was  caused  by  means  of  culpa,  which  can  constitute  a  felony     Article  4(1)  does  not  apply  if  the  act  committed  constitutes  a  crime  punishable  by  special  law       • Concubinage  -­‐  instances   -­‐  a  husband  bringing  home  a  woman,  that  is  not  his  wife,  to  the  conjugal  dwelling   -­‐  having  sexual  intercourse  under  scandalous  circumstances   -­‐  cohabitation;  living  in  a  separate  home  as  husband  and  wife   Proximate  Cause  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 20 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

-­‐  there  is  a  chain  of  causes  from  an  original  act  that  results  to  an  injury   -­‐  if  the  result  can  be  traced  back  to  the  original  act,  then  the  doer  of  the  original  act  can  be  held  liable   Efficient  Intervening  Cause  –  interrupted  the  natural  flow  of  events  leading  to  one’s  death     Q:  What  is  impossible  crime?  What  is  the  reason  for  punishing?     Suppress  criminal  propensity     Q:  Suppose  son  forged  signature  of  his  father  in  a  check,  the  deposited  the  check,  but  was  dishonored,  is   this  impossible  crime?     No.  Falsification  of  commercial  document.  Forgery  is  a  crime  against  public  interest         Give  the  elements  of  forgery     Q:  Your  room  mate  kukunin  yung  jewelry  na  nasa  cabinet  na  naka-­‐lock,  tapos  wala  pala  yung  jewelry   dun  sa  cabinet,  impossible  crime?     No.  Theft  of  key  ung  tamang  sagot       ^woman  lang    ang  pwede  for  forcible  abduction         Instances  when  there  is  a  proximate  cause  and  when  there  is  none      When  there  is  an  intervening  disease  and  the  disease  is:          

 (a)  closely  related  to  the  wound(s)  =  accused  is  criminally  liable  

       

           

 (b)  unrelated  to  the  wound(s)  =  accused  is  not  criminally  liable,   because  the  disease  not  associated  with  the  wound(s),  eg.  brain   tumor          (c)  a  combined  force  with  the  wound(s)  =  accused  is  criminally  liable,     because  the  mortal  wound  is  a  contributing  factor  to   the  victim’s  death     A  mortal  wound  is  a  contributing  factor  when:  

       

 

   i.  the  wound(s)  is/are  sufficient  to  cause  victim’s  death  along  with  the  disease  

     

 

   ii.  the  mortal  wound  was  caused  by  actions  committed  by  the  accused  

   

  2.  When  the  death  was  caused  by  an  infection  of  the  wound  due  to  the    unskilled  medical  treatment   from  the  doctors:   (a)  if  the  wound  is  mortal  =  accused  is  criminally  liable,  because  the  unskilled  treatment   +  infection  are  not  efficient  intervening    causes  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 21 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

mortal  wound  +  unskilled  medical  treatment  only  =  accused  is  criminally  liable  because   the  mortal  wound  naturally  led  to  the  death  of  the  victim   (b)  if  the  wound  is  slight  =  accused  is  not  criminally  liable,  because  the    unskilled   treatment  +  infection  are  efficient  intervening  causes   *In   Urbano   v.   IAC,   the   wound   caused   by   accused   Urbano   was   already   treated   and   was   in   the   normal   process  of  healing  which  is  in  approximately  4weeks;  but  because  deceased  Javier  did  not  wait  for  the   wound  to  heal  and  still  worked  by  fishing,  his  wound  got  infected  with  tetanus  which  caused  his  death.   The   actions   of   the   deceased   when   he   still   worked   without   waiting   for   his   wound   to   heal   was   an   efficient   intervening  cause,  thus  the  accused  is  not  liable  for  his  death  anymore.     Q:  What  is  the  purpose  for  punishing  an  impossible  crime?     The  purpose  of  punishing  an  impossible  crime  is  to  prevent  or  suppress  the  criminal  tendency  of   the  accused     • Persons  found  guilty  of  impossible  crimes  are  sentenced  to  arrestor  mayor  (1mo.1day  to  6mos.)   pursuant  to  Article  59  of  the  Revised  Penal  Code     • Objectively,  there  is  no  crime   Subjectively,  the  crime  is  present     • Should  there  be  a  crime  committed,  in  order  to  be  held  liable  for  an  impossible  crime?  YES;  the  act(s)   should  constitute  a  crime  against  persons  or  property     Requisites  for  an  impossible  crime  under  Article  4(2)   1.  that  the  act  performed  would  be  an  offense  against  persons  or  property   2.  that  the  act  was  done  with  evil  intent   3.  that  its  accomplishment  is  inherently  impossible  or  that  the  means  employed  is  either   inadequate  or  ineffectual   4.  that  the  act  performed  should  not  constitute  a  violation  of  another  provision  of  the  Revised   Penal  Code       • Rape   used   to   be   a   crime   against   chastity;   but   because   of   RA   8353,   rape   was   reclassified   as   a   crime   against   persons,   therefore,   one   can   now   be   held   liable   for   the   impossible   crime   of   rape      In  People  v.  Intod,  the  Court  erred  in  its  decision  of  considering  the  acts  of  the  accused  as  an  impossible   crime   under   Art.4(2)   of   the   RPC   because   the   4th   element/requisite   was   not   satisfied.   The   acts   of   the   accused   of   shooting   at   the   house   and   damaging   the   same,   can   constitute   as   malicious   mischief,   which   is   a   crime   against   property.   Therefore,   the   accused   should   have   been   charged   with   the   latter   instead   of   finding  them  guilty  only  of  the  impossible  crime  of  murder.   July  4,  2011   Q:  Who  incurs  criminal  liability?  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 22 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

Q:  What  is  a  proximate  cause?   Q:  if  there  is  a  crime  intended  and  a  crime  committed  is  different,  what  is  the  extent  of  criminal  liability?       The  lesser  penalty  will  be  imposed.       If  the  crime  intended  has  a  lesser  penalty,  then  that  will  be  charged       If  the  crime  committed  has  a  lesser  penalty,  then  that  will  be  charged     Q:  Suppose  you  will  rob  a  jeepney,  because  of  fear,  the  passenger  jumped  of  and  died,  will  be  liable?       Yes.  Because  I  am  committing  a  felony,  and  I  am  liable  for  its  effects.     Q:  Suppose  Amurao  during  your  recit,  pointed  a  gun  at  you  because  of  your  wrong  answers,  then  you   collapsed  and  died.  is  amurao  liable?       Yes.  There  is  grave  threat     Q:  Suppose  the  gun  was  a  toy  gun,  liable?       Yes,  still  liable.  There  is  still  threat     Q:  Suppose  because  of  your  low  grade  in  criminal  law  review,  you  break  up  with  your  boyfriend  being  so   sad,  your  bf  collapsed  and  died,  liable?     No.  Breaking  up  is  not  a  felony     Q:  Suppose  while  you  and  your  boyfriend  is  doing  the  act  itself  (do  I  need  to  elaborate—alam  mo  na   yan),  your  bf  collapsed  and  died,  will  you  be  liable?     No.  The  act  of  having  sex  is  not  a  felony.     Q:  even  if  you  are  not  married  to  each  other?     Yes  sir     Q:  suppose  your  bf  is  married,  are  you  liable?     Yes.  Concubinage     Q:  Suppose  man  had  sexual  intercourse  with  married  woman,  but  the  woman  consented,  crime?     Adultery    

Article  5     Article  5(1)  Requirements:   1.  the  act  committed  by  the  accused  appears  to  be  not  punishable  by  law   2.  but  the  court  deems  it  proper  to  repress  such  act   3.  in  that  case,  the  court  must  render  the  proper  decision  by  dismissing  the  case  and  acquitting   the  accused    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 23 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

4.  the  judge  must  then  make  a  report  to  the  Chief  Executive  through  the  Secretary  of  Justice   stating  the  reasons  which  induce  him  to  believe  that  the  said  act  should  be  made  the  subject  of   penal  legislation       Basis  for  Article  5(1):   “Nullem  crimen,  nulla  poena  sine  lege.”-­‐  There  is  no  crime  if  there  is  no  law  that  punishes  the  act   Why  dismiss?  In  the  absence  of  a  law  that  will  punish  the  accused,  the  judge  cannot  impose  a  penalty   because  the  duty  of  the  judge  is  only  to  interpret  or  apply  the  law;  the  judge  cannot  reprimand  or  curse   the  accused  because  it  would  equate  to  public  censure;  the  reprimand  would  be  inconsistent  with  the   acquittal     Article  5(2)  –  Excessive  Penalties       Q:  What  are  the  requirements?  

       

1.  the  court  after  trial  finds  the  accused  guilty   2.  the  penalty  provided  by  law  and  which  the  court  imposes  for  the  crime  committed  appears  to   be  clearly  excessive  because:     (a)  the  accused  acted  with  lesser  degree  of  malice  and/or     (b)  there  is  no  injury  or  the  injury  caused  is  of  lesser  gravity   3.  the  court  should  not  suspend  the  execution  of  the  sentence   4.  the  judge  should  submit  a  statement  to  the  Chief  Executive  through  the  Secretary  of  Justice,   recommending  executive  clemency  

  • The  President  has  the  power  to  grant  executive  clemency,  through  pardon,  parole,  commutation   (reduction  of  sentence),  reprieve  or  amnesty     • Article  5(2)  may  not  be  invoked  in  cases  involving  acts  mala  prohibita  because  said  article  only   applies  to  acts  mala  in  se  because  the  ruling  is  based  on  the  phrase  in  the  provision,  takes  into   consideration  the  degree  of  malice      

Article  6       Q:  What  are  the  stages  in  the  commission  of  a  felony?   Consummated  –  a  felony  is  consummated  when  all  the  elements  necessary  for  its  execution  and   accomplishment  are  present     Frustrated  -­‐  it  is  frustrated  when  the  offender  performs  all  the  acts  for  execution  which  would   produce  the  felony  as  a  consequence  but,  nevertheless,  do  not  produce  it  by  reason  of  causes   independent  of  the  will  of  the  perpetrator  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 24 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

Attempted  –  there  is  an  attempt  when  the  offender  commences  the  commission  of  the  felony   directly  by  overt  acts  and  does  not  perform  all  the  acts  for  execution  which  should  produce  the   felony  by  reason  of  some  cause  or  accident  other  than  his  own  spontaneous  desistance     NOTE:  Available  only  in  RPC.     Q:  Give  example  of  each  (consummated,  frustrated,  attempted)     Q:  What  are  the  phases?   Subjective  phase  –  from  the  time  the  offender  commences  the  commission  up  to  the   performance  of  the  last  act  where  he  still  has  control;  an  attempted  felony  is  committed  within   the  subjective  phase  and  does  not  go  beyond  this  phase     Objective  phase  –  frustrated  and  consummated  felonies  are  within  the  objective  phase     (a)  frustrated  –  the  felony  is  complete  but  still  is  still  not  produced  as  far  as  the  offender  is   concerned   (b)  consummated  –  when  all  the  elements  under  the  Revised  Penal  Code  are  present       REMEMBER:  in  Arson     (a)  consummated  =  so  long  as  a  part  of  the  building  is  burned,  no  matter  how  small   (b)  frustrated    =  if  only  the  contents  of  the  building  (eg.  chairs  and  tables)  are  burned   (c)  attempted  =  contents  haven’t  been  burned   ^Intent  is  always  established.  Kahit  pa  apprehended  at  the  time  ot  in  the  act  of  bringing/getting   gasoline  –  attempted  pa  din     ^Indeterminate  stage  –  intent  is  not  yet  established   Q:  Suppose  built  in  cabinets,  burned  the  clothes  in  the  cabinet,  including  the  cabinet?     Consummated  arson,  deemed  part  of  the  bldg     Q:  Supposing,  the  accused  brought  gasoline  into  a  building,  with  the  intent  to  burn  the  building,  but   was  apprehended  by  the  security  guard;  did  the  crime  of  arson  commence?    YES,  thus  the  accused  is  liable  for  attempted  arson,  because  the  bringing  of  gasoline  was   already  an  overt  act  while  the  apprehension  was  the  reason  other  than  his  own  spontaneous   desistance.     Q:  Supposing,  using  the  same  set  of  facts  above,  but  without  the  intent  to  burn  the  building,  is  there   criminal  liability?     NO,  in  fact  there  is  no  crime,  because  the  acts  were  only  in  an  indeterminate  stage.     Q:  Suppose  the  white  board  was  burned?     White  board  not  an  integral  part  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 25 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

  Q:  when  is  the  crime  in  the  attempted  stage?     • Indeterminate  Stage  –  we  do  not  know  what  crime  is  in  the  mind  of  the  offender;  the  crime  has  not   yet  been  determined;  there  are  still  two  possibilities  when  the  accused  was  caught     • According  to  Prof.  Amurao,  when  a  person  is  accused  of  committing  a  felony,  we  have  to  first  establish   the  crime  in  the  mind  of  the  offender  to  establish  the  commencement  of  the  commission  of  the  felony;   otherwise,  the  situation  when  he  was  caught  would  be  in  an  indeterminate  stage,  wherein  the  crime   that  the  accused  intended  to  do  could  not  be  determined     Theft/Robbery   -­‐    both  these  crimes  are  committed  by  taking  the  personal  property  of  another  and,  with  the   intent  to  gain   -­‐  the  difference  is  that  in  robbery,  there  is  the  use  of  force  or  violence   -­‐  so  long  as  the  act  stated  in  the  RPC  is  done,  the  crime  is  consummated   -­‐  it  does  not  matter  how  long  the  property  was  in  the  possession  of  the  accused;  it  does  not   matter  whether  the  property  was  disposed  or  not;  what  matters  is  whether  or  not  there  was   “asportacion”  =  unlawful  taking   -­‐  momentary  possession  consummates  the  crime  of  theft  or  robbery   -­‐  returning  the  item  to  the  owner  is  immaterial;  has  no  effect  to  the  crime   -­‐  upon  consummation  of  the  crime,  criminal  liability  automatically  attaches   Q:  you  are  walking  in  recto,  cellphone  was  snatched,  but  it  was  return  to  you.  What  stage?    

Consummated  

Q:  suppose  in  a  private  subdivision,  with  intent  to  commit  robbery,  you  are  tinkering  with  the  lock  of  a   gate,  the  security  guard  apprehended  you.  Liable?     Yes.  Attempted  robbery     Q:  suppose  you  intent  to  commit  robbery,  then  you  place  a  ladder  at  the  wall  of  the  house,  when  you   place  the  ladder,  you  were  apprehended.  Liable?     Yes.  Attempted  robbery     Q:  if  no  intent?     Not  liable     Q:  accused  trying  to  open  your  car,  problem  is  silent  with  the  intent,  may  you  be  liable  for  attempted   theft?  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 26 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

  No.     Opening  the  door  of  the  car  –  only  indeterminate  stage     Q:  Supposing,  the  accused  was  tinkering  with  the  lock  of  the  gate  of  a  neighbor’s  house,  without  the   intent  to  commit  a  felony;  is  he  liable  for  anything?    NO,  because  the  situation  was  in  an  indeterminate  stage  wherein  it  could  not  be  determined   what  the  accused  intended  to  do     Q:  Supposing,  the  accused  jumped  over  the  fence  into  another  person’s  house  without  the  intent  to   commit  robbery,  is  he  liable  for  attempted  robbery?     NO,  but  he  is  liable  for  the  crime  of  trespassing     ^Same  with  arson,  when  a  person  is  accused  of  committing  a  felony,  we  have  to  first  establish   the   crime   in   the   mind   of   the   offender   to   establish   the   commencement   of   the   commission   of   the   felony;   otherwise,   the   situation   when   he   was   caught   would   be   in   an   indeterminate   stage,   wherein  the  crime  that  the  accused  intended  to  do  could  not  be  determined     • In  People  v.  Lamahang,  the  accused  was  able  to  open  one  board  of  the  door  to  private  respondent   Tan  Yu’s  store,  when  the  police  caught  him.  The  SC  ruled  that  the  accused  is  not  liable  for  attempted   robbery  because  the  intent  to  rob  Tan  Yu’s  store  was  not  established,  thus  when  accused  was  caught,   it  was  in  an  indeterminate  stage.  But  the  Court  held  him  liable  for  attempted  trespass  to  dwelling     • In  People  v.  Salvilla,  the  accused  were  held  liable  for  the  crime  of  robbery  with  serious  illegal  detention   and   serious   physical   injuries,   and   not   frustrated   robbery,   even   without   physical   taking   or   possession   of   the   money   they   demanded   because   the   money   was   within   the   dominion,   which   the   accused   had   control  over  and  it  was  where  the  crime  was  being  committed.  During  whole  time  when  negotiations   went  on  between  the  accused  and  the  police,  the  crime  of  robbery  was  deemed  consummated       Q:  suppose  hold  up  in  a  grocery  store,  hold  uppers  asked  the  cashier  to  place  the  money  inside  a  bag,  no   one  hold  the  money.  Is  the  crime  consummated?     Yes.  There  is  constructive  control     July  5,  2011     Crimes  involving  the  taking  of  human  life/  Crimes  against  persons   -­‐  these  crimes  are  committed  by  killing  a  person  (MHPI):   i.  Murder  –  killing  a  person  with  attending  or  aggravating  circumstances     ii.  Homicide  –  killing  a  person  without  attending  circumstances   iii.  Parricide  –  killing  a  relative,  i.e.  spouse,  parent,  child,  sibling,  etc.   iv.  Infanticide  –  killing  a  child  less  than  three  (3)  days  old  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 27 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

-­‐  even  without  intent,  the  moment  the  victim  dies,  intent  is  presumed  by  operation  of  law  and   the  crime  is  consummated   -­‐  if  the  victim  doesn’t  die  but  the  wound  inflicted  is  mortal,  it  is  frustrated   -­‐  if  the  there  is  no  intent  to  kill,  but  the  wound  inflicted  is  mortal  or  fatal,  the  crime  is  not  either   MHPI  but  serious  physical  injuries     Mortal  –  when  the  wound  inflicted  can  cause  the  death  of  the  victim;  when  death  will  follow   -­‐  for  frustrated  &  attempted  cases,  it  is  important  to  determine  intent  to  kill     Q:  Supposing,  in  a  car  accident,  the  accused  hits  a  person  causing  mortal  wounds,  but  the  victim  does   not  die,  is  the  driver-­‐accused  liable  for  frustrated  homicide?   NO,  he  is  only  liable  for  serious  physical  injuries     Rules  on  crimes  against  persons  (MHPI)  and  the  stages  of  execution     1.  victim  dies,  with  or  without  the  intention  to  kill,  intent  is  conclusively  presumed  by  operation   of  law,  the  crime  is  consummated  MHPI   2.  victim  does  not  die,  with  the  intent  to  kill,  mortal  wounds  were  inflicted,  the  crime  is   frustrated  MHPI   3.  victim  does  not  die,  with  the  intent  to  kill,  non-­‐mortal  wounds  were  inflicted,  the  crime  is   attempted  MHPI   4.  victim  does  not  die  because  there  was  only  an  overt  act  and  no  wound  was  inflicted,  but  there   was  intent  to  kill,  the  crime  is  attempted  MHPI   5.  victim  does  not  die,  without  the  intent  to  kill,  mortal  wounds  were  inflicted,  the  crime  is   serious  physical  injuries   6.  victim  does  not  die,  without  the  intent  to  kill,  non-­‐mortal  wounds  were  inflicted,  the  crime  is   less  serious  or  slight  physical  injuries   Illustration:              Death    

   Intent            

   Gravity  of  the  wound          

     Crime  

(1)    YES            

presumed      

 of  course  mortal!  

 

   Consummated  MHPI  

(2)    NO              

   YES              

       mortal  wounds  

 

   Frustrated  MHPI    

(3)    NO          

       YES          

     non-­‐mortal  wounds    

   Attempted  MHPI  

(4)    NO      

         YES                

   overt  act  only,  no  wound          

Attempted  MHPI  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 28 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

(5)    NO            

     NO                        

mortal  wounds    

 

   Serious  physical  injuries  

(6)    NO                  

NO                        

non-­‐mortal  wounds  

 

   Less  serious/Slight    physical  injuries  

  In   People   v.   Trinidad,   the   trial   court   held   the   accused   criminally   liable   of   two   counts   of   murder   (for   killing  Soriano  and  Laroa)  and  frustrated  murder  (for  shooting  at  Tan).  The  SC  modified  the  decision  by   ruling   that   the   accused   was   liable   for   two   counts   of   murder   and   attempted   murder,   not   frustrated,   because  the  wound  inflicted  on  Tan  was  not  mortal  or  fatal     In   People   v.   Lim   San,   the   trial   court   held   the   accused   criminally   liable   of   attempted   murder   for   stabbing   Keng   Kin   in   the   left   eye.   The   SC   modified   the   decision   by   ruling   that   the   accused   should   be   liable   of   frustrated  murder  because  not  only  was  it  established  that  there  was  intent  to  kill,  but  also  the  wound   inflicted   was   mortal.   It   just   so   happened   that   the   victim   did   not   die   because   of   the   prompt   and   efficient   medical   assistance   given   to   the   victim.   The   treatment   was   the   cause   independent   of   the   will   of   the   accused.     In   Mondragon   v.   People,   the   SC   held   that   the   accused   was   only   guilty   of   less   serious   physical   injuries   because  when  the  accused  and  the  victim  were  hacking  each  other  with  their  bolos,  there  was  no  intent   to  kill  on  neither  party;  and  also  because  the  victim  did  not  die  since  the  wounds  were  not  mortal     RAPE   -­‐  the  crime  of  rape  is  consummated  by  mere  penetration  of  the  male  organ,  no  matter  how  slight   Q:  Supposing,  the  penetration  was  only  2  millimeters  deep,  consummated?     YES,  no  matter  how  slight  the  penetration  is,  it  is  still  consummated     Q:  Supposing,  the  rape  was  consummated  because  there  was  penetration,  but  according  to  the  medical   examination,  the  victim  was  still  a  virgin,  can  the  accused  still  be  held  liable  for  consummated  rape?     YES,  as  long  as  there  is  penetration,  the  rape  is  consummated.     In  People  v.  Orita,  the  medical  examiner  testified  that  the  victim  was  still  a  virgin  therefore  the  rape  may   not  have  been  consummated.  But  the  SC  ruled  that  the  testimony  of  the  victim  herself  should  be  given   greater  weight  because  she  herself  can  feel  whether  or  not  there  was  penetration.     Instances  of  attempted  rape:   -­‐  when  the  skirt  of  the  victim  has  been  lifted,  no  matter  what  position   -­‐  when  the  accused  mounted  on  the  body  of  the  victim   -­‐  when  there  is  epidermal  touching  of  the  genital  organs  of  the  accused  and  the  victim     The   difference   between   attempted   rape   and   acts   of   lasciviousness   is   that   with   the   former,   there   is   carnal  knowledge  or  the  intent  to  have  sexual  intercourse  is  established    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 29 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

There  is  no  such  thing  as  frustrated  rape;  the  only  exception  was  when  the  SC  ruled  in  People  v.  Eriña   that   the   accused   was   guilty   of   frustrated   rape.   Thereafter,   no   one   has   since   been   held   guilty   of   frustrated  rape.     ESTAFA   -­‐  the  elements  for  the  crime  of  estafa  are  (1)  deceit,  and  (2)  damage   -­‐  without  one  of  the  two  elements,  estafa  would  not  be  consummated     In   US   v.   Dominguez,   the   SC   ruled   that   the   accused   was   guilty   of   frustrated   estafa   because   before   accused  could  cause  damage  by  disposing  of  the  money  that  he  deceitfully  took,  he  was  apprehended   by  their  store’s  supervisor,  which  was  the  cause  independent  of  the  will  of  the  accused.     OTHER  INSTANCES  FOR  HOMICIDE  AND  OTHER  CRIMES   Q:  Supposing,  with  intent  to  kill,  the  accused  pulls  out  a  gun  then  points  it  at  someone,  what  crime  is   the  accused  liable  for?       Attempted  homicide     Q:  Supposing,  with  intent  to  kill,  the  accused  fires  a  gun  at  someone  but  misses,  what  crime  is  the   accused  liable  for?  Attempted  homicide     Q:  Supposing,  using  the  same  set  of  facts,  but  without  the  intent  to  kill,  what  crime  is  the  accused   liable  for?   -­‐  for  pulling  out  the  gun  and  pointing  it  =  grave  threat   -­‐  for  firing  the  gun  =  illegal  discharge  of  firearm  (obsolete;  must  be  deleted)     Q:   Supposing,   with   intent   to   kill,   the   accused   fires   a   gun   at   someone,   then   accused   leaves   thinking   that   the   victim   is   already   dead.   The   accused   did   not   know   that   he   missed   because   the   victim   played   dead.   What  crime  is  the  accused  liable  for?  Attempted  homicide,  attempted  because  there  was  no  wound,  but   there  was  still  intent  to  kill.  What  is  important  is  that  there  was  no  wound     Q:   Supposing,   with   intent   to   kill,   the   accused   fires   a   gun   at   someone,   then   accused   leaves   thinking   that   the  victim  is  already  dead.  The  victim  is  hit  but  it  is  not  fatal  or  mortal.  What  crime  is  the  accused  liable   for?  Still  Attempted  homicide,  because  what  is  important  is  the  extent  or  gravity  of  the  wound.  (People   v.  Orinaga)     Q:    suppose  a  sales  lady  in  the  department  store,  place  the  jewelry  inside  her  bag,  but  the  jewelry  was   recovered  by  the  security  guard,  crime?     Consummated  qualified  theft     Q:  will  recovery  affect  the  stage  of  the  commission?     No     Q:  Suppose  the  sales  lady,  voluntarily  returned,  crime?     Still  qualified  theft.  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 30 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

  Taking  consummates  the  crime     Q:  suppose  the  sales  lady,  sold  the  jewelry  and  used  the  money,  crime?     Estafa     Q:  suppose  the  sales  lady,  sold  the  jewelry  and  returned  the  money  at  6pm?     Frustrated  Estafa     Q:   suppose   2   crew   members   discovered   the   presence   of   a   stow   away   and   they   want   to   eliminate   the   stow  away,  so  they  decided  throw  the  stow  away  in  the  sea,  where  there  is  sharp  object,  but  after  you   leave,  a  fishing  vessel  was  there  to  help  the  stow  away,  there  was  no  wound,  crime?     Frustrated  murder       INTENT  TO  KILL     Q:  3  armarlite  shots  neighbor  but  did  not  hit?     Attempted     Q:  distinguish  from  illegal  discharge  of  firearm     No  intent  to  kill     Q:  distinguish  from  grave  threat?     There  is  intent  to  kill     Q:  suppose  there  are  99  wounds,  but  none  was  mortal?     Attempted     Q:  what  is  an  overt  act?     Something  you  see,  feel,  touch  (do  not  relate  to  criminal  offense  at  first)    

Article  7     Q:  What  are  light  felonies?   Light  felonies  are  infractions  of  law  which  have  the  punishment  of  arresto  menor  or  a  fine  not   exceeding  200  pesos     • General  Rule:  Light  felonies  are  punishable  only  when  they  have  been  consummated   Reason:  involves  insignificant  moral  and  material  injuries;  if  not  consummated,  the  wrong  done  is  so   slight  that  a  penalty  is  unnecessary   • Exception:  Light  felonies  committed  against  persons  or  property  are  punishable  even  if  in  the   attempted  or  frustrated  stage   Reason:  presupposes  moral  depravity   • For  light  felonies,  the  only  ones  who  can  be  held  liable  are  the  principals  and  accomplices.    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 31 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

• For  grave  or  less  grave  felonies,  those  who  can  be  held  liable  are  principals,  accomplices  and  even   accessories,  because  the  degree  of  the  penalty  to  be  imposed  depends  on  3  factors:   (1)  stages  of  execution   (2)  the  degree  of  participation   (3)  the  presence  of  attending  circumstances   Q:  When  punishable?     Only  when  consummated     Q:  Is  this  absolute?       No.  If  against  persons  or  property     Q:  Reason….     Q:  Who  shall  be  criminally    liable?     Principals     Accomplices     NOT  ACCESSORIES       ^Penalty  for  accomplices      -­‐-­‐  one  degree  lower  (censure)   ^Penalty  for  accessories  –  two  degrees  lower  (WALA  NANG  LOWE  PA.  KAYA  NGA  HINDI  LIABLE   ANG  ACCESSORIES)     Q:  Who  is  a  principal?  An  Accomplices?  An  Accessories?    

Article  8     Q:  what  is  conspiracy?     -­‐  Conspiracy  exists  when  two  or  more  persons  come  to  an  agreement  concerning  the   commission  of  a  felony  and  decide  to  commit  it   -­‐  Proposal  exists  when  the  person  who  has  decided  to  commit  a  felony  proposes  its  execution  to   some  other  person  or  persons   General  rule:  Conspiracy  and  proposal  to  commit  a  felony  are  not  punishable     Reason:  because  they  are  mere  preparatory  acts  (Reyes)   Exception:  Conspiracy  and  proposal  are  punishable  only  in  the  cases  in  which  the  law  specially   provides  a  penalty  thereof     Q:    give  an  example  of  conspiracy  &  proposal     Q:  the  effects  of  conspiracy  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 32 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

  There  will  be  collective  responsibility     Q:  effect  of  non-­‐establishment  of  conspiracy?     Accused  will  be  liable  only  to  the  extent  of  participation     Q:  if  established?     Collective  responsibility  –  act  of  one,  act  of  all     Q:  degree  of  evidence  needed  to  prove  conspiracy?     NOT  beyond  reasonable  doubt     Sufficient  that  the  act  is  closely  related  to  the  crime/felony  intended  to  commit     Q:  is  it  necessary  that  each  participate?     No.  They  must  have  common  criminal  design     Q:  what  do  you  mean  by  common  criminal  design?     Q:  what  is  implied  conspiracy?     Q:  from  what  factors  may  you  imply  conspiracy?     Acts  and  words  before  and  after  the  commission  of  the  felony   Q:  is  it  enough  that  there  is  an  agreement  to  commit  felony?       No.  they  must  execute  the  overt  act     Q:  how  would  you  know  if  community  of  purpose  exists?       From  the  acts  and  remarks  of  the  accused       There  must  be  unity  of  criminal  though     BEFORE,  DURING,  AFTER  -­‐-­‐    acts  of  each  of  the  accused  may  be  separate,  independent  of  each   other  but  must  show  close  personal  association;  closely  related  to  each  other,  there  is   coordination.     Q:    A  B  C  D  E  (robbers)  agreed  and  decided  to  commit  bank    robbery.  A  stayed  in  the  getaway  car  100   meters  from  the  bank;  B  look-­‐out  C  disarm  the  security  guard  D  &  E  commit  robbery.  E  shot  to  death  the   bank  manager.  Will  A  be  liable    for  the  death?       YES.  There  is  conspiracy.  Act  of  1,  act  of  all     Q:  1,  2,  3,  4,  5  met  in  safe  house  discussed,  agreed  and  decided  to  commit  robbery.  When  they  were   about  to  rob  the  bank,  they  saw  the  police  around  the  bank.  Liable?       No.  Mere  conspiracy  not  punishable     Q:  5  members  of  army  decided  to  commit  coup  d  etat,  met  in  safe  house  to  discuss  plan,  liable?       Yes.  Conspiracy  to  commit  coup  d  etat  is  punishable     Q:  distinguish    conspiracy  as  a  felony  and  as  manner  of  incurring  criminal  liability.       FELONY  –  RPC  punishes  mere  conspiracy  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 33 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

    LIABILITY  –  There  must  be  over  act     Q:  1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  agreed  to  commit  a  felony  when  about  to    meet  the  next  morning.  5  did  not  arrive  for   emergency  purposes.  1,  2,  3,  4  commit  the  felony  and  was  caught.  Is  number  5  liable?     No.  He  is  not  a  conspirator.     A  conspirator  must  agree,  decide  and  execute  the  over  act     5  was  not  present     Q:  suppose  5  drove  for  1,  2,  3,  4  but  went  home  early.  Liable?     Yes.  Driving  already  an  overt  act     Q:  suppose  5  was  not  the  driver,  but  he  was  sittig  in  front  of  the  van,  then  after  alighting  went  home,   liable?       No.  There  is  no  overt  act  (pasahero  lang  siya  sa  van)       ^General  Rule  –  if  not  present  in  the  scene  of  the  crime  –  NO  liability     ^Exceptions  –  presence  is  to  provide  for  moral  support  or  to  ensure  commission  of  the  felony     Cases  of  conspiracy  punishable  by  law   (i)  Article  115  of  the  RPC  –  Conspiracy  to  commit  treason   (ii)  Article  136  –  Conspiracy  to  commit  coup  d’etat,  rebellion  or  insurrection   (iii)  Article  141  –  Conspiracy  to  commit  sedition     (iv)  Article  186  –  Monopolies  and  combinations  in  restraint  of  trade   (v)  Conspiracy  to  commit  terrorism  -­‐  under  the  Human  Security  Act  (RA9372)   (vi)  Conspiracy  to  commit  crimes  under  the  Comprehensive  Dangerous  Drugs  Act  (RA  9165)   Cases  of  proposal  punishable  by  law   (i)  Proposal  to  commit  treason   (ii)  Proposal  to  commit  coup  d’etat,  rebellion  or  insurrection   -­‐  there  is  no  crime  of  proposal  to  commit  sedition   Q:  What  is  the  legal  effect  of  the  presence  of  conspiracy?     -­‐  “the  act  of  one  is  the  act  of  all”,  meaning  everyone  who  participated  is  equally  liable;  there  is   collective  responsibility   • For  conspiracy,  take  note  of  the  word  agreement   • Agreement  may  be  oral  or  written,  express  or  implied  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 34 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

• It  is  the  burden  of  the  prosecution  to  prove  the  existence  of  conspiracy  through  circumstantial  evidence   unless  there  is  a  confession  or  written  agreement,  which  is  seldom  because  criminals  will  usually  deny   their  participation  or  the  commission  of  the  crime     Q:  What  is  Implied  Conspiracy?   -­‐  Implied  conspiracy  can  be  inferred  from  the  acts  of  the  perpetrators/accused  before,  during   or  after  the  commission  of  the  crime   Q:  How  about  the  use  of  words,  remarks  or  language  of  the  perpetrators,  can  conspiracy  still  be   ascertained  or  established?  YES     Q:  May  there  be  conspiracy  when  the  perpetrators  perform  separate,  distinct  and  independent  acts  in   the  commission  of  a  crime?  YES     Q:May  there  be  conspiracy  even  if  other  conspirators  do  not  know  who  the  other  conspirators  are?  YES     *In  People  v.  Manlolo,  it  was  held  that  there  was  implied  conspiracy  on  the  part  of  the  accused  because   they  were  acting  in  concert,  one  performing  an  act,  the  other  doing  another  act,  all  aimed  at  the  same   object     Rule  on  determining  whether  there  is  conspiracy   -­‐  based  on  the  (1)  acts  done  before,  during  or  after  the  commission  of  the  crime,  or,  based  on   the  (2)  words,  remarks  or  language  used  before,  during  or  after  the  commission  of  the  crime,  it   is  necessary  to  determine  after  these  acts  were  done  whether  the  conspirators  had  the   following:         1.  concerted  action     3.  community  of  purpose      

 

2.  common  criminal  design  

4.  joint  criminal  objective  

-­‐  all  of  which  are  geared  towards  the  attainment  of  the  felony  or  crime   Suggested  cases  for  conspiracy  on  this  rule   -­‐  People  v.  Salcedo;  People  v.  Briones;  Medija,  Jr.  v.  Sandiganbayan   Q:  Supposing,  only  minor  acts  were  done,  will  the  actor  still  be  liable?  YES   Q:  Supposing,  there  was  no  conspiracy,  what  will  happen?  The  perpetrators  of  the  crime  will  be   individually  liable  depending  the  extent  of  the  degree  of  each  one’s  participation     In  People  v.  Agapinay,  the  SC  ruled  that  there  was  no  conspiracy  in  commission  of  the  murder  because   the   incident   was   only   a   spur   of   the   moment   or   in   this   case,   a   “chance   stabbing”,   which   cannot   be   considered   conspiracy,   thus   they   were   held   individually   liable,   some   as   principals   and   some   as   accomplices  only    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 35 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

Q:  Supposing,  there  was  only  mere  presence  of  a  person  when  the  crime  was  being  committed,  will  he   be  liable?     NO,  that  person  not  participating  shall  not  be  liable  because  he  did  not  perform  any  overt  act;   there  should  be  an  overt  act  to  establish  the  participation  and  liability  of  a  person     Q:   Supposing,   the   person’s   presence   when   the   crime   was   being   committed   was   to   provide   was   to   provide   moral   support,   or   to   persuade   the   participants   from   performing   the   acts   constituting   the   crime,  will  he  be  liable?     YES,  in  both  cases  the  person  shall  be  held  criminally  liable     In   order   to   hold   someone   criminally   liable,   in   addition   to   mere   presence,   there   should   be   overt   acts   that   are   closely-­‐related   and   coordinated   to   establish   the   presence   of     common   criminal   design   and   community  of  purpose  in  the  commission  of  the  crime.     In   People   v.   Taaca,   the   SC   ruled   to   acquit   Regalado   because   there   was   no   evidence   to   prove   that   Regalado  assisted  his  brother  Herminio  in  the  killing  of  Alfredo  Gabuat;  there  was  no  proof  to  show  that   Regalado’s  presence  was  accompanied  by  overt  acts  for  the  commission  of  the  crime  and  that  there  was   no  proof  of  conspiracy  between  the  Taaca  brothers.     In  People  v.  De  La  Cruz,  the  SC  also  ruled  that  the  mere  presence  of  the  Galaw-­‐eys  were  not  enough  to   prove   that   they   conspired   to   the   commission   of   the   crime   despite   the   fact   Galaw-­‐ey   had   a   grudge   against  one  of  the  victims;  his  participation  in  a  conspiracy  cannot  be  assumed  especially  when  no  acts   by  the  Galaw-­‐eys  proved  to  be  connected  with  the  crime.     In  People  v.  Manero,  however,  the  SC  ruled  that  even  though  the  accused-­‐appellants  were  not  present   in  the  actual  commission  of  the  crimes,  it  was  established  that  they  met  in  an  eatery  and  conspired  to   liquidate  communist  sympathizers;  therefore  they  were  still  held  criminally  liable.     Q:  Supposing,  one  person  desisted  from  participating  in  the  actual  crime  and  instead  decided  to  stay   inside  the  get-­‐away  car  to  wait  for  the  others,  is  he  liable?     YES,  he  is  still  liable  despite  desistance  to  participate  in  the  actual  crime  because  he  can  still   assist  the  others  with  the  escape  using  the  get-­‐away  car     Q:  Supposing,  while  committing  the  crime  of  robbery,  an  additional  crime  was  committed  that  was  not   part  of  the  original  plan,  eg.  homicide;  can  all  the  participants  be  convicted  of  the  crime  of  robbery  with   homicide,  even  though  some  of  them  performed  very  minor  acts  (i.e.  look-­‐outs  or  drivers,  etc)?       YES,  they  can  all  be  held  liable  for  that  same  crime,  because  it  is  not  required  that  all  the   participants  perform  each  and  every  detail  in  the  commission  of  the  crime;  as  long  as  the  acts   performed  are  closely  coordinated  and  that  they  have  the  same  criminal  purpose.     Q:  mere  presence  will  one  be  a  co-­‐conspirator?       No     Q:  presence  to  give  moral  support?     Liable  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes               Implied  conspiracy              

Page 36 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

Acts   before         during       words,     after   remarks  

   separate  and  distinct          closeness  association,        Coordination,  personal      association  with  each  other          

concerted  action   common  criminal  design   community  of  crimes     joint  criminal  objective  

 

Article  9     Q:  How  do  you  classify  felonies?       According  to  Penalty     1.  Grave  Felonies  –  those  that  the  law  attaches  the  capital  punishment  or  penalties  that  are   afflictive  based  on  Article  25  of  the  RPC   2.  Less  Grave  Felonies  –  those  that  the  law  punishes  with  penalties  whose  maximum  periods  are   correctional   3.  Light  felonies  –  infractions  of  law  that  are  punishable  by  arresto  menor  or  fines     • Illustration:            Grave  felonies  

Death   Reclusion  Perpetua  

afflictive  penalties  

Reclusion  Temporal  

 

Prision  Mayor   Prision  Correccional  

Less  grave  felonies    

Arresto  Mayor  

 

correctional  penalties  

 

light  penalties  

Suspension   Destierro   Arresto  Menor                Light  felonies  

Fines  

 

Public  Censure  

• The  classification  in  Article  25  of  the  RPC  assumes  significance  on  Article  91  of  the  RPC  on  Prescription:  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 37 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

  (i)  Prescription  of  a  crime  –  refers  to  the  expiration  of  a  certain  period,  after  which  a  person  cannot  be   prosecuted  for  the  crime  anymore;  contemplates  that  there  has  been  no  judgment  of  conviction  yet   (ii)  Prescription  of  penalty  –  refers  to  the  expiration  of  a  period  of  time  after  which  the  penalty  imposed   by  the  courts  cannot  be  enforced  anymore;  contemplates  that  there  has  been  a  final  judgment  by  the   courts   Q:  Does  classification  applies  to  special  laws?       No    

Article  10     -­‐  provisions  of  the  Revised  Penal  Code  shall  not  be  applied  with  of  violations  of  special  laws,  but   if  a  special  law  is  silent  in  terms  of  a  penalty  for  example,  the  absence  shall  be  provided  by  the   Revised  Penal  Code.   ü But  generally:   -­‐  for  violations  of  the  RPC  =  what  law  governs?  the  Revised  Penal  Code   -­‐  for  violations  of  special  law  =  what  law  governs?  Special  penal  laws     Examples  of  provisions  in  the  RPC  that  have  suppletory  application  pursuant  to  Article  10  of  the  RPC   1.  Article  100  –  Civil  Liability;  there  are  two  sides  of  crime,  the  criminal  liability  and  the  civil  liability,  the   former  imposes  the  penalty  prescribed  for  the  crime,  the  latter  is  for  the  payment  of  damages     2.  Article  22  –  Retroactive  Application;  the  law  becomes  favorable  to  the  accused  as  long  as  he  is  not  a   habitual  criminal  and  is  convicted  by  final  judgment   3.  Article  17  –  Principals;  are  classified  into  three:  (1)  by  direct  participation,  (2)  by  inducement,  (3)  by   indispensable  cooperation   4.  Article  45  –  Forfeiture  of  instruments  or  tools  used  in  the  commission  of  the  crime   5.  Article  39  –  Subsidiary  imprisonment  for  failure  to  pay  fines   6.  Article  8  –  Conspiracy;  in  violation  of  the  Human  Security  Act(RA9372),  Dangerous  Drugs  Act,  sec  26   only  (RA9165),  Bouncing  Checks  Law  (BP22)    

*If  the  Death  Penalty  was  not  abolished,  it  will  also  be  given  suppletory  application     allowed.

Q:  Circumstances  affecting  criminal  liability?   There  are  five  circumstances  affecting  criminal  liability:   (1)  Justifying  circumstances;   (2)  Exempting  circumstances;   (3)  Mitigating  circumstances;   (4)  Aggravating  circumstances;  and   (5)  Alternative  circumstances.  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 38 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

There  are  two  others  which  are  found  elsewhere  in  the  provisions  of  the  Revised   Penal  Code:   (1)  Absolutory  cause;  and   (2)  Extenuating  circumstances.     In  justifying  and  exempting  circumstances,  there  is  no  criminal  liability.  When  an  accused  invokes  them,   he  in  effect  admits  the  commission  of  a  crime  but  tries  to  avoid  the  liability  thereof.  The  burden  is  upon   him   to   establish   beyond   reasonable   doubt   the   required   conditions   to   justify   or   exempt   his   acts   from   criminal  liability.  What  is  shifted  is  only  the  burden  of  evidence,  not  the  burden  of  proof.

Article 11

  Q:  What  is  a  justifying  circumstances?   Justifying  Circumstances  are  those  where  the  act  of  a  person  is  said  to  be  in  accordance  with   law  so  that  such  person  is  deemed  not  to  have  transgressed  the  law  and  is  free  from  criminal   and  civil  liability     Q:  Is  there  civil  liability?    Generally  no,  except  in  Article  11  (4)     Q:  What  element  of  voluntariness  is  lacking?     Intent;  without  intent,  there  is  no  voluntariness;  without  voluntariness,  there  is  no  felony;   without  a  felony,  there  is  no  criminal  liability  because  there  is  no  crime     Article  11,  par  1  –  Self-­‐Defense     Q:  What  are  the  Elements  of  Self-­‐defense?     1.  Unlawful  Aggression  on  the  part  of  the  offended  party   2.  Reasonable  Necessity  of  the  Means  Employed  by  the  person  defending   3.  Lack  of  Sufficient  Provocation  on  the  part  of  the  person  defending     Q:  What  may  be  the  subject  of  self-­‐defense?     Person,  right,  property,  honor  or  home   (i)  defense  of  person  –  there  is  danger  to  the  life  or  limb  of  the  person   (ii)  defense  of  rights   (iii)  defense  of  property  –  should  be  coupled  with  danger  to  the  person   (iv)  defense  of  honor     Q:  Burden  of  proof  in  self-­‐defense?    burden  lies  with  the  defense     Q:  How  is  self-­‐defense  established?     through  clear  and  convincing  evidence     Q:  Is  the  accused  required  to  admit  having  killed  the  victim?    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 39 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

YES;  the  accused  has  to  admit  having  killed  the  victim  before  self-­‐defense  can  be  invoked  by  the   accused     *  It  is  the  obligation  of  the  accused  to  prove  self-­‐defense  through  clear  and  convincing   evidence;  if  the  evidence  is  not  clear,  there  will  be  a  conviction     • When  all  the  elements  of  self-­‐defense  are  present  =  the  person  defending  himself  is  free  from  criminal   liability  and  civil  liability     • When  only  a  majority  of  the  elements  are  present  =  privileged  mitigating  circumstance,  provided   there  is  unlawful  aggression     • When  only  a  majority  of  the  elements  are  present,  there  is  an  incomplete  self-­‐defense,  but  it  is  still   necessary  to  have  the  element  of  unlawful  aggression,  because  it  is  the  most  important  element       Unlawful  Aggression   -­‐  an  indispensable  element   -­‐  a  sudden  unprovoked  unlawful  attack  that  exposes  a  person’s  life  or  limb  to  actual,  real,   imminent  danger;  mere  threatening,  imagined  or  speculative  danger  is  not  enough     • When  there  is  no  unlawful  aggression,  there  is  no  need  to  defend  oneself;  when  there  is  no  need  to   defend  oneself,  there  is  no  need  for  a  reasonable  defensive  act;  when  there  is  no  need  for  a  reasonable   defensive  act,  there  is  no  need  for  reasonable  means  to  prevent  or  repel  something;  therefore,  without   unlawful  aggression,  everything  else  will  be  erased     • Because   unlawful   aggression   produced   a   danger,   there   comes   a   need   to   eliminate   that   danger;   that   need   is   a   response   impelled   by   self-­‐preservation;   the   means   used   to   eliminate   the   danger   should   be   reasonable   and   the   means   needed   to   be   employed   can   be   determined   based   on   the   extent   of   the   unlawful  aggression     Q:  Supposing,  you  wrested  the  knife  from  a  robber.  If  he  is  still  trying  to  get  back  the  knife,  there  is   unlawful  aggression,  because  unlawful  aggression  is  continuing  if  the  attacker  is  trying  to  regain  control   over  the  situation     ^The  first  principle  in  all  criminal  cases  is  that:  “the  accused  will  always  be  presumed  innocent”     • In  the  constitutional  provision  on  presumption  of  innocence,  it  can  easily  be  overthrown  by  contrary   evidence,  but  it  is  different  in  criminal  cases     • The  presumption  of  innocence  principle,  of  all  disputable  presumptions,  is  the  strongest  because  to   overthrow  it,  the  Court  requires  that  the  law  proves  the  guilt  of  an  accused  beyond  reasonable  doubt     • The  burden  or  duty  to  prove  guilt  lies  with  the  prosecution  or  the  government  and  they  should   introduce  evidence  beyond  reasonable  doubt;  the  prosecution  should  rely  on  the  strength  of  its  own   evidence  and  should  not  depend  on  the  evidence  of  the  defense;  these  principles,  however,  will  change  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 40 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

when  the  defense  invokes,  self-­‐defense,  defense  of  a  relative,  or  defense  of  a  stranger,  because  the   accused  must  always  admit  first  the  fact  of  killing  the  victim,  thus  the  burden  is  lifted  from  the   prosecution  and  shifts  to  the  defense     • If  the  evidence  for  both  sides  is  weak,  the  accused  will  be  acquitted     • The  prosecution’s  weakness  is  cured  when  the  defense  invokes,  self-­‐defense,  defense  of  a  relative,  or   defense  of  a  stranger  because  there  is  an  admission  of  the  killing     • If  the  evidence  of  the  defense  is  not  clear  and  convincing,  conviction  will  be  sure,  as  sure  the  sun  rises   at  the  East     • The  admission  involved  is  only  an  admission  of  facts,  backed  up  by  clear  and  convincing  evidence;  it   not  an  admission  of  guilt,  because  if  so,  the  Court  can  stop  the  prosecution  and  render  judgment     • The  Court  should  put  itself  in  the  shoes  of  the  accused  during  the  time  when  the  accused  allegedly   defended  himself     Q:  Supposing,  after  you  wrested  the  knife  from  the  robber  (who  is  the  obvious  aggressor  in  this  case),   the  robber/aggressor  runs  away,  is  there  still  unlawful  aggression?     NO,  when  the  aggressor  flees  unlawful  aggression  no  longer  exists;  and  if  you  still  kill  the   aggressor  in  this  situation,  self-­‐defense  cannot  be  invoked  anymore     Q:  Supposing,  using  the  same  facts  mentioned  earlier,  but  the  retreat  of  the  aggressor  was  with  the   purpose  to  take  a  more  advantageous  position  or  to  get  a  more  effective  weapon,  to  insure  the  success   of  his  attack,  is  there  still  unlawful  aggression?     YES,  when  the  purpose  of  retreating  is  to  take  a  more  advantageous  position  or  to  do  something   to  insure  the  success  of  his  attack,  unlawful  aggression  is  continuing,  therefore  the  danger  is   still  continuing;  in  this  case,  the  accused  or  the  person  defending  himself,  does  not  have  to  wait   for  the  aggressor  to  get  another  weapon     Q:  Supposing,  there  is  an  agreement  to  fight  or  a  challenge  to  fight  was  accepted,  is  there  unlawful   aggression  on  one  of  the  parties?   NO,  there  is  no  unlawful  aggression  in  agreements  to  fight  because  self-­‐defense  cannot  invoked   since  both  parties  are  assailant  and  assaulted     Q:  Supposing,  using  the  same  facts  above,  there  is  agreement,  but  one  of  the  parties  attacks  the  other   even  before  the  agreed  time  arrives,  is  there  unlawful  aggression?     YES,  when  the  attack  is  made  ahead  of  the  time  agreed  upon,  there  is  unlawful  aggression     Q:  Supposing,  the  aggressor  used  a  toy  gun  and  the  person  defending  himself  killed  the  aggressor,   believing  that  the  gun  was  real,  is  he  still  criminally  liable?     NO,  assuming  clear  and  convincing  evidence  is  provided,  and  that  the  accused  believed  the   weapon/gun  to  be  real,  then  honest  mistake  of  fact  while  in  self-­‐defense  can  be  invoke    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 41 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

• Reasonable  Necessity  of  the  Means  Employed   -­‐  there  is  a  continuing  necessity  to  eliminate  the  danger   -­‐  involves  two  elements:   1.  necessity  for  the  course  of  action,  necessity  to  eliminate  danger   2.  necessity  of  the  means  employed  to  prevent  or  repel  that  danger   • Both  should  be  reasonable   • It  is  not  necessary  to  have  material  equality  or  material  commensurability  between  the  danger  and   the  means  employed  to  prevent  or  repel  that  danger     • In  determining  reasonable  means,  the  some  facts  and  circumstances  can  be  considered  as  factors,   such  as:   1.  emergency  to  which  the  person  defending  himself  has  been  exposed  to   2.  presence  of  imminent  danger   3.  impelled  by  the  instinct  of  self-­‐preservation   4.  nature  of  the  weapon  used  by  the  accused  compared  to  the  weapon  of  the  aggressor   5.  size  and/or  physical  character  of  the  aggressor  compared  to  the  accused  and  other   circumstances  that  can  be  considered  showing  disparity  between  aggressor  and  accused     Factors:   age,   size,   location,   other   circumstances,   character   or   nature   of   weapon,   physical   character,   reputation   Q:  What  is  Lack  of  Sufficient  Provocation?   -­‐  sufficient  provocation  should  come  from  the  person  defending  himself/accused     -­‐  sufficient  provocation  should  immediately  precede  the  aggression   -­‐  Insulting  another  or  committing  oral  defamation  is  considered  sufficient  provocation   -­‐  a  challenge  to  fight  is  considered  sufficient  provocation     Q:  When  is  provocation  sufficient?     -­‐proportionate  to  the  act  of  aggression  and  adequate  to  stir  the  aggressor  to  its  commission       Q:  Who  has  the  duty  to  prove  elements  of  self-­‐defense?     Accused     Q:  What  is  the  effect  of  claim  of  self-­‐defenses  on  burden  of  the  prosecution?     Shifting  the  burden  of  proof     Prosecution  is  relieved  of  its  duty  to  prove  guilt  of  accused       Q:  May  accused  be  convicted  even  if  evidence  of  prosecution  is  weak?     Yes,  if  the  self-­‐defense  not  established  by    clear  and  convincing  evidence     Q:  does  admission  of  guilt  amounts  to  confession  of  guilt?     No.  Only  an  admission  of  fact     Accused  must  establish  the  element  which  is  missing  to  prove  that  he  is  not  guilty     Q:  What  are  the  legal  effects    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 42 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

Confession  of  guilt  –  no  necessity  for  trial,  except  to  prove  mitigating  &  aggravating   circumstances   Admission  of  fact  –  necessity  for  trial     Q:  May  there  be  self  defense  even  without  unlawful  aggression?     No.  UA  is  the  foundation     Q:  how  about  in  incomplete  self-­‐defense?     No.  UA  is  always  an  indispensable  element  of  self-­‐defense,  whether  complete  or  incomplete           Through  reasonable  means               Reasonable  (needs  to  eliminate  the  danger)         Under  instinct  of  self-­‐preservation             (Life  &  Limb)  There  is  danger  (actual,  real,  imminent  )     –  not  merely  imaginary,  fanciful,  false       Unlawful  Aggression,-­‐  sudden,  unprovoked,  illegal  attack       Defending  Property       • Defense  of  property  should  be  coupled  with  danger  to  the  person  defending  oneself;  if  there  is  no   danger  to  the  person  or  the  person's  life  or  limb,  defense  of  property  cannot  be  invoked.     Q:    In  defending  property,  when  is  killing  the  aggressor  justified?     *Necessity  of  unlawful  aggression  (upon  the  person  defending  his  property)     *Must  be  coupled  with  an  attack  on  your  own  person       *Such  a  case,  you  are  not  defending  your  own  property,  but  your  own    person?       Defense  of  OWN  property  not  OF  property     Q:  Suppose  hitting  only  the  lower  portion  of  the  body,  not  killing  the  aggressor,  defense  of  property,   may  be  claimed?       YES.  As  long  as  not  to  the  extent  of  killing   ^pag  napatay  mo,  dapat  may  assault  on  your  own  person,  right  to  life  is  superior  to  right  to   property     Q:  Supposing,  using  a  knife,  someone  slashed  your  bag  to  get  its  contents,  after  which  you  were  able  to   wrest  the  knife  from  him,  and  you  stabbed  him,  causing  him  to  die,  can  you  invoke  defense  of  property?     NO,  because  there  was  no  imminent  danger  to  your  life  or  limb  since  you  already  have  control  of   the  knife  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 43 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

  Q:  Supposing,  you  caught  some  people  inside  your  house  in  the  act  of  stealing  your  household  items,   assuming  you  have  a  gun,  can  you  use  the  gun  and  shoot  at  them  or  even  kill  them?   ü YES  (according  to  Prof.  Amurao,  you  can  even  stage  the  crime  scene  to  your  favor)  because  if   you  do  not  shoot  them,  they  will  surely  use  their  weapons  against  you  and  even  try  to  kill  you   anyway.  It’s  better  to  hit  them  first.  (Defense  of  home,  check  Reyes)     Q:  Supposing,  a  prostitute  disagrees  to  have  sexual  intercourse  with  someone,  but  the  latter  still  forces   his  way  with  the  prostitute  with  carnal  knowledge,  tries  to  rape  her,  then  the  prostitute  takes  out  a  knife   in  her  bag  and  stabs  the  guy,  can  she  invoke  defense  of  honor  despite  being  a  prostitute?     YES,  a  prostitute  is  still  entitled  to  the  right  of  defense  of  honor  and  the  knife  was  a  reasonable   means  used.     Defense  of  home     Without  assault  of  person,  justified?  NO.     Q:  In  defending  your  car  being  stolen,  fired  at  the  tires,  which  hit  a  by-­‐stander,  liable?       No.  Justified  for  all  consequences  of  the  act  –  relate  to  art  4  (par1)  not  committing  a  felony     Q:  example  of  unlawful  aggression  against  honor       -­‐slap  on  the  face       -­‐repelled  by  revolver,  reasonable  means?  No  (no  rational  equivalence)     *Use  of  the  bolo  against  an  unarmed  aggressor?       Depends  on  the  circumstances       Such  as  the  size  of  the  aggressor,  built,  reputation  or  accessibility  of  other  means     Factor  of  time  interval       Must  be  simultaneous  with  the  attack  or  with  appreciable  interval  of  time     Q:  what  is  continuing  danger?     Q:  what  is  continuing  aggression?     Q:  example  of  defense  of  honor?     Q:  example  of  agreement  to  fight?     Q:  libel  against  libel,  justified?       Yes.       Q:  A  and  B  are  long  standing  enemies.  Because  of  their  continuous  quarrel  over  the  boundaries  of  their   adjoining  properties,  when  A  saw  B  one  afternoon,  he  approached  the  latter  in  a  menacing  manner  with   a   bolo   in   his   hand.   When   he   was   about   five   feet   away   from   B,   B   pulled   out   a   revolver   and   shot   A   on   the   chest,killing  him.  Is  B  criminally  liable?  What  crime  was  committed,  if  any?     NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 44 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

The  act  of  A  is  nothing  but  a  provocation.  It  cannot  be  characterized  as  an  unlawful  aggression   because  in  criminal  law,  an  unlawful  aggression  is  an  attack  or  a  threatened  attack  which  produces  an   imminent  danger  to  the  life  and  limb  of  the  one  resorting  to  self-­‐defense.   In  the  facts  of  the  problem   given   above,   what   was   said   was   that   A   was   holding   a   bolo.   That   bolo   does   not   produce   any   real   or   imminent  danger  unless  a  raises  his  arm  with  the  bolo.  As  long  as  that  arm  of  A  was  down  holding  the   bolo,   there   is   no   imminent   danger   to   the   life   or   limb   of   B.   Therefore,   the   act   of   B   in   shooting   A   is   no   justified.     Article  11(2)  –  Defense  of  Relatives     Q:  Who  are  the  relatives  contemplated?(in  the  following  order)   -­‐  spouse   -­‐  ascendants   -­‐  descendants   -­‐  brothers  or  sisters  (legitimate,  natural  or  adopted)   -­‐  relatives  by  affinity  in  the  same  degrees  (mentioned  above)   -­‐  relatives  by  consanguinity  within  the  fourth  (4th)  civil  degree   ü applies  the  same  concept  of  unlawful  aggression  and  reasonable  necessity  of  means   employed,  as  contemplated  in  Art.  11(1)  on  self-­‐defense   ü   • Spouse  –  should  be  the  legitimate  husband  or  wife   • common  law  marriages  are  not  included;  the  common  law  spouse  is  considered  a  stranger   • Who  can  determine  being  legitimate?  the  Court;  the  validity,  legality,  illegality  of  the  parties  cannot  be   determined  by  themselves     Q:  Supposing  a  husband  defends  a  common  law  wife  by  killing  an  attacker,  can  he  invoke  defense  of   relative?    NO,  but  he  may  invoke  defense  of  a  stranger     Q:  Supposing  a  husband  defends  a  second  wife  by  killing  an  attacker;  considering  that  the  marriage   between  him  and  his  first  wife  is  not  null  and  void,  thus  making  his  second  marriage  bigamous,  can  he   still  invoke  defense  of  relative?     YES,  the  presumption  is  that  all  marriages  are  legal  and  valid.  Even  in  the  absence  of  a  judicial   declaration  of  nullity  (JDN)  of  the  first  marriage,  the  second  marriage  is  considered  valid,  thus   defense  of  relative  can  be  invoked.     Q:  Supposing  the  husband  and  his  first  wife  are  on  legal  separation,  then  he  defends  her  from  an   attacker,  can  he  invoke  defense  of  relative?     YES,  because  there  is  no  JDN  to  say  that  their  marriage  is  null  and  void.     Q:  Supposing,  husband  and  wife  successfully  annuls  their  marriage  and  they  have  secured  a  JDN  on  the   grounds  of  psychological  incapacity,  then  incidentally,  he  defends  her  from  an  attacker,  can  he  invoke   defense  of  relative?    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 45 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

NO,  because  there  is  no  marriage  anymore  between  them;  the  JDN,  once  it  is  approved  by  the   RTC  and  is  final  and  executory,  it  will  have  an  effect  wherein  as  if  no  marriage  existed  between   the  defender  and  the  one  defended;  therefore,  what  can  be  invoked  is  defense  of  a  stranger.     Q:  Supposing  husband  and  wife  has  a  pending  case  for  annulment  due  to  psychological  incapacity  of  one   of  the  parties,  then  incidentally,  he  defends  her  from  an  attacker,  can  he  invoke  defense  of  relative?    YES,  because  there  is  no  JDN  that  has  nullified  the  marriage     • Ascendants  –  includes  parents,  grandparents,  great  grandparents,  even  great(4x)  grandparents   • Descendants  –  includes  children,  grandchildren,  great  grandchildren,  even  great(4x)  grandchildren   • What  do  ascendants  and  descendants  have  in  common?  They  are  blood  relatives     Q:  Supposing,  a  great,  great,  great,  great  grandfather  is  attacked  and  is  defended  by  his  illegitimate   grandchild,  can  the  grandchild  invoke  defense  of  relative?     YES,  because  the  no  distinction  in  the  Revised  Penal  Code  whether  the  descendant  should  be   legitimate  or  illegitimate;  when  the  law  does  not  distinguish,  the  courts  cannot  distinguish     Q:  Supposing,  a  father  defends  his  adopted  daughter  from  an  attacker,  can  he  invoke  defense  of   relative?     NO,  defense  of  relative  cannot  be  invoked  because  the  law  does  not  contemplate  adopted   children  as  descendants  and  also  does  not  contemplate  adoptive  parents  as  ascendants,  to   qualify  as  relatives  contemplated  under  Art.  11(2)  RPC     Brothers  and  Sisters  or  siblings   1.  legitimate  –  siblings  of  the  same  parents  who  are  married   2.  natural  –  siblings,  who  at  the  time  of  their  conception  with  the  same  parents,  the  parents  are   not  married  but  are  not  disqualified  by  any  legal  impediment  to  marry  each  other;  if  parents  are   disqualified  to  marry  by  any  impediment,  the  child  is  illegitimate   3.  adopted  –  there  should  be  a  judicial  proceeding  in  court  validating  the  adoption  in  order  to  be   considered  under  defense  of  relative  as  contemplated;  an  extrajudicial  proceeding  on  the   adoption  is  not  enough     • Relatives  by  affinity  in  same  degrees  -­‐  relatives  by  marriage   • In  same  degrees  –  applicable  to  ascendants,  descendants,  siblings,  even  grandparents  of  one’s  spouse,   i.e.  mother-­‐in-­‐law,  father-­‐in-­‐law,  brother-­‐in-­‐law,  sister-­‐in-­‐law,  etc.   • Relatives  by  consanguinity  within  the  fourth  (4th)  civil  degree   -­‐  relatives  by  blood   • • • • •  

Each  generation  is  one  degree   One’s  parents  are  in  the  first  (1st)  degree   One’s  grandparents  are  in  the  second(2nd)  degree   One’s  uncles  and  aunts  are  in  the  third  (3rd)  degree   One’s  first  cousins  are  in  the  fourth  (4th)  degree  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes • Illustration:        

Page 46 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

 

       parent  (2nd  degree)  

 

 

     

(1st  degree)  

 

             (3rd  degree)    

daughter-­‐in-­‐law-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐son                              daughter-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐son-­‐in-­‐law        

 

           child  

 

 

               child  (4th  degree)  

                 (starting  point,  eg.  this  is  you)   • Requisites  for  Defense  of  Relatives   -­‐  aside  from     (1)  unlawful  aggression  and    (2)  reasonable  necessity  of  the  means  employed  to  prevent  or  repel  the  aggression,   there  is   3rd  requisite:  if  there  was  provocation  arose  from  the  relative  being  defended,  the   person  defending  should  have  had  no  part  in  that  provocation     Q:  Supposing,  your  brother  provoked  someone  and  started  a  fight,  when  you  came  to  his  aid,  you  did   not  know  that  it  was  your  brother  who  started  the  fight,  but  when  you  saw  him,  his  enemy  was  on  the   verge   of   stabbing   your   brother,   so   you   shot   his   enemy,   can   you   effectively   and   validly   invoke   defense   of   a  relative?     YES,  because  at  that  very  moment  the  life  and  limb  of  your  brother  was  in  actual,  imminent  and   real  danger;  there  was  no  time  for  you  to  investigate  what  really  happened.  The  person   defending  has  the  right  to  act  on  mere  appearance  (Amurao)     Q:  Suppose  man  and  woman  living  together  without  benefit  of  marriage,  can  claim  self-­‐defense?     No.     Common  law  spouse  not  contemplated     They  are  entitled  to  claim  defense  of  stranger     Q:  Husband  and  wife,  Ph  citizens  married  in  hongkong.  After  marriage,  discovered  they  were  1st  cousins,   solemnizing  officer  in  hongkong  not  authorized,  can  they  claim  defense  of  relative?     Yes.  Absent  a  judicial  declaration,  marriage  presumed  existing     Q:    Suppose  the  action  for  judicial  declaration  is  pending,  can  they  claim  defense  of  relative?     Yes.  There  is  no  judicial  declaration  yet.      

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 47 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

Q:  suppose  the  lower  court  issued  a  decision?     Not  anymore.  As  if  no  marriage.  Can  claim  defense  of  stranger     Q:  suppose  what  was  filed  was  legal  separation,  and  there  is  a  decree  of  legal  separation,  can  claim   defense  of  relative?     Yes.  Legal  separation  doe  not  terminate  marriage.       Q:  who  are  the  descendants  covered?     Q:  A  killed  a  person  to  defend  the  honor  of  B,  and  illegitimate,  defense  of  relative?     Yes.  The  law  does  not  distinguish     Q:  Who  are  the  other  relatives  covered?     Q:  half  blood  brothers  and  sisters?     Yes     Q:  Adoptive  father  defended  the  adopted  daughter?     No.  (not  contemplated  by  law)   Q:  stepbrother  killed  accused  to  defend  life  and  honor  of  a  stepsister?     Yes.  Relationship  by  affinity  (brother  or  sister  by  reason  of  marriage)     Q:  relative  by    consanguinity,  up  to  what  extent?     4th  degree     Q:  last  element  in  defense  of  relative?     Defense  of  stranger     What  are  the  elements?     Give  an  example     Who  are  strangers?     -­‐  Anyone  not  enumerated  and  those  not  contemplated  under  Article  11(2)     • Requisites:   -­‐  same  concept  of  unlawful  aggression  and  reasonable  necessity  of  the  means  employed  to  prevent  or   repel  the  aggression;  aside  from  those  two  there  is  a  3rd  requisite:  the  person  defending  should  not  be   induced  by  revenge,  resentment,  or  other  evil  motive     Article  11(4)  –  Avoidance  of  greater  evil  or  injury     -­‐  Requisites:   1.  the  evil  actually  exists   2.  the  injury  feared  be  greater  than  that  done  to  avoid  it   3.  there  be  no  other  practical  and  less  harmful  means  of  prevention   ü The  damage  to  another  contemplated  are:  (Reyes)  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 48 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

-­‐injury  to  persons   -­‐  damage  to  property   • One’s  own  life  is  more  important  than  anyone  else  (Amurao)   • The  greater  evil  should  not  be  brought  about  by  the  negligence  or  imprudence  of  the  person  who   committed  the  offense     Q:  criminal  liability?  No     Q:  Civil  liability?  Yes,  should  be  borne  by  the  persons  benefited   Example  :  Sinking  ship  -­‐-­‐  jettison     Article  11(5)  –  Fulfillment  of  Duty/Lawful  Exercise  of  Right  or  Office   -­‐  Requisites:   1.  that  the  accused  acted  in  the  performance  of  a  duty  or  in  the  lawful  exercise  of  a  right  or   office     2.  that  the  injury  caused  or  the  offense  committed  be  the  necessary  consequence  of  the  due   performance  of  duty  or  lawful  exercise  of  such  right  or  office     • The  fulfillment  of  duty  must  be  done  carefully,  with  due  performance;  no  carelessness,  no   negligence/imprudence,  no  abuse   • The  exercise  of  public  office  was  committed  with  negligence  and  abuse  of  authority  =  are  not   applicable,  the  exercise  must  be  lawful!     Q:  Supposing,  a  raiding  team  tasked  to  confiscate  drugs  broke  the  class  cabinets  in  search  of  the  drugs,   was  there  abuse  of  authority?  YES,  because  due  performance  of  duty  should  have  been  employed     Q:  Can  this  be  invoked  if  there  was  negligence?     No.     Q:  if  there  is  abuse  of  authority?     No     Q:  Prison  guards  escorting  prisoners  on  the  way  to  the  court,  one  prisoner  escaped,  despite  warning   shots,  prisoner  still  ran  away,  guard  shot  the  prisoner  at  the  back  who  died,  liable?     No     Q:  warrant  of  arrest,  NBI  to  arrest  criminal  and  bring  before  the  RTC  of  Manila.  When  the  officers  are  at   the  house  of  the  accused,  the  accused  refuse  to  open  the  door,  NBI  forcibly    open  and  destroyed  the   doors,  liable?     No.       Q:  proceeded  directly  without  announcing  their  authority,  liable?     Yes.  There  is  abuse,  exceeding  authority,  did  not  follow  procedure    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 49 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

Q:  example  of  lawful  exercise  of  a  right     Doctrine  of  self  help     Article  11(6)  –  Obedience  to  a  lawful  order  by  a  superior  officer   -­‐Requisites   1.  that  an  order  has  been  issued  by  a  superior   2.  that  such  order  must  be  for  some  lawful  purpose   3.  that  the  means  used  by  the  subordinate  to  carry  out  said  order  is  lawful     • When  the  order  is  not  for  a  lawful  purpose,  the  subordinate  who  obeyed  it  is  criminally  liable   • The  subordinate  is  not  liable  for  carrying  out  an  illegal  order  of  his  superior  if  he  is  not  aware  of  the   illegality  of  the  order  and  he  is  not  negligent     • Battered  Woman  Syndrome  (BWS)   -­‐  refers  to  a  scientifically  defined  pattern  of  psychological  and  behavioral  symptoms  found  in   women  living  in  battering  relationships  as  a  result  of  cumulative  abuse  (Republic  Act  9262:  Anti-­‐ Violence  Against  Women  and  Children  Act)   • Battery  –  refers  to  an  act  of  inflicting  physical  harm  upon  a  woman  or  child  resulting  to  the  physical,   psychological  or  emotional  distress  (RA  9262)     Q:  Who  can  verify  or  confirm  whether  a  woman  suffers  from  Battered  Woman  Syndrome?     Only  a  certified  psychologist  or  psychiatrist  can  prove  the  existence  of  Battered  Woman   Syndrome  in  a  woman     Q:  What  is  the  legal  effect  of  the  proof  of  existence  of  BWS  in  a  woman?     Those  found  by  the  courts  to  be  suffering  from  BWS  do  not  incur  criminal  and  civil  liability   notwithstanding  the  absence  of  any  of  the  elements  of  the  justifying  circumstance  of  self-­‐ defense  under  the  Revised  Penal  Code  (Section  26,  Republic  Act  9262)     • The  legal  effect  of  BWS  is  of  the  same  level  with  the  justifying  circumstances  in  Art.11  of  the  RPC,   except  par.  4.   • Even  without  unlawful  aggression  on  the  part  of  the  deceased  husband  or  male  partner,  the  act  of  the   woman  shall  still  not  incur  criminal  and  civil  liability     Q:  Who  are  the  women  who  can  invoke  Battered  Woman  Syndrome?   -­‐  wife   -­‐  any  woman  having  a  sexual  relationship  with  a  man   -­‐  girlfriend  -­‐  including  dating  women,  if  relationship  is  intimate   -­‐  former  wife  

-­‐  common  law  wife  

-­‐  former  wife  whose  marriage  with  her  has  been  annulled  by  a  judicial  declaration  of   nullity  (JDN)  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 50 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

-­‐children   • It  not  necessary  that  the  woman  suffering  from  BWS  is  still  in  a  relationship  with  the  man  that  she   killed  or  harmed.     Doctrine  of  Stand  your  ground  when  in  the  right   -­‐  The  law  does  not  expect  you  to  run  away   -­‐  When  in  the  right,  defend  your  right  or  position,  defend  yourself   -­‐  A  total  opposite  of  the  old  doctrine  of  retreating  to  the  wall,  where  the  law  expects  you  to  run   away  and  avoid  defending  yourself   Q:  What  is  the  legal  effect  of  BWS?     No  criminal  liability       No  civil  liability     Q:  May  a  battered  husband  claim  it  as  a  defense?     No.  The  law  says  only  woman     Q:  What  is  a  dating  relationship?     Q:  You  break  up  with  your  gf,  she  was  emotionally  &  psychologically  wrecked,  is  this  battery?     Yes.  (hayden  kho  case)     Q:  Protection  Order  under  RA  9262?     -­‐prevented  from  living  in  same  community  or  house  with  the  battered  woman     -­‐it  must  be  issued  by  court  or  baranggay     Q:  Can  you  file  violation  of  RA  9262  together  with  parricide  or  physical  injuries?     Yes.  RA  9262  without  prejudice  to  the  filing  of  any  other  civil  or  criminal    action     Q:  woman  suffering  from  BWS,  killed  husband,  liable  for  parricide?     No.  it  is  not  necessary  that  UA  exist     Q:  how  will  court  determine  BWS?     Certified  psychiatrist  or  psychologist      

Article  12       Q:  What  is  an  exempting  circumstance?   -­‐  a  circumstance  if  present  during  the  commission  of  the  crime  will  free  the  accused  from   criminal  liability   -­‐  there  is  a  crime,  but  there  is  no  criminal  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 51 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

-­‐  burden  of  proof  to  prove  the  existence  of  an  exempting  circumstance:  lies  with  the  defense     Q:  Distinguish  justifying  from  exempting   Justifying  

 

-­‐  there  is  neither  a  crime            nor  a  criminal  

 

     -­‐  the  act  is  justified  and  the  

 

Exempting  

         -­‐  there  is  a  crime  but  there  is                  no  criminal            -­‐  the  act  is  not  justified  but  the  

         actor  is  not  criminally  liable                actor  is  not  criminally  liable        -­‐  there  is  no  civil  liability  

         -­‐  there  is  civil  liability  except  in  

         except  in  paragraph  4  

             paragraphs  4  and  7  

    Article  12(1)  –  Imbecility  and  Insanity   -­‐  an  imbecile  or  an  insane  is  entitled  to  be  exempted,  unless  the  latter  acted  during  a  lucid   interval   • Imbecile  –  one  who  is  deprived  completely  of  reason  or  discernment  and  freedom  of  will  when   committing  a  crime;  exempted  in  all  cases;  mentality  is  comparable  to  a  child  2-­‐7  years  old   • Insanity  –  not  so  exempt  because  during  a  lucid  interval,  the  person  can  act  with  intelligence     Q:  what  is  permanent  sickness?     Imbecility     Q:  Which  is  not  permanent?     Insanity     Q:  Insanity  before  the  commission  of  the  crime,  legal  effect?     Not  exempt     During  –  exempt     After  –  not  exempt,  but  proceeding  will  be  suspended   *insanity  must  be  at  the  time  of  the  commission  of  the  offense  unless  is  proven  to  subsist  until   commission     Q:  What  is  the  test  for  the  degree  of  insanity  for  it  to  count  as  an  exempting  circumstance?     The  tests  of  the  degree  of  insanity  are  the  existence  of:   1.  complete  deprivation  of  intelligence   2.  total  deprivation  of  freedom  of  will  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 52 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

  • Mere  abnormalities  of  the  mental  facilities  are  not  enough     Q:  Supposing,  a  man  suddenly  just  stabs  another  person,  he  then  began  to  run  away  because  he  knew   he  committed  a  crime,  then  as  the  authorities  tried  to  catch  him,  as  they  got  closer  to  him,  he  ran  even   faster,  can  he  invoke  insanity  as  an  exempting  circumstance?    NO,  the  fact  that  he  was  running  away  was  an  indication  that  he  was  not  deprived  of   intelligence  because  he  knew  he  did,  and  by  running  faster  to  avoid  the  authorities  was  an   indication  of  not  being  totally  deprived  of  his  freedom  of  will  because  of  his  intention  to  escape     Q:  Who  has  the  Burden  to  prove  insanity:     lies  with  the  defense,  (According  to  Reyes,  through  circumstantial  evidence  if  clear  and   convincing)   ü Evidence  of  insanity  must  refer  to  the  time  preceding  the  act  or  at  the  very  moment  of   execution     Q:  Supposing,  the  offender  becomes  insane  only  after  the  commission  of  the  crime  or  during  trial,  can   he  still  invoke  the  exempting  circumstance  of  insanity?     NO,  because  what  is  counted  and  considered  in  determining  whether  there  was  insanity,  is  the   time  preceding  the  act  or  the  moment  of  execution     • Feeblemindedness  –  not  exempting  because  s/he  can  still  distinguish  right  from  wrong;  not  equivalent   to  insanity   • Somnambulism  or  sleepwalking  –  must  be  clearly  proven  to  be  considered  an  exempting   circumstance  under  this  Article;  acts  of  the  sleepwalker  should  not  be  voluntary   • Malignant  malaria  –  can  cause  insanity,  therefore,  can  be  considered  as  an  exempting  circumstance   under  this  Article     • Basis  for  exemption  –  complete  absence  of  intelligence     Temporary  Insanity  –  yes,  exempting     Article  12(2  &  3)  –  Minority  (repealed  by  Republic  Act  9344  or  the  Juvenile  Justice  and  Welfare  Act)     • RA   9344,   Section   6   –   a   child   15   years   of   age   or   below   at   the   time   of   the   commission   of   the   crime   shall   be  exempt  from  criminal  liability  but  will  undergo  an  intervention  program;  a  child  above  15  years  of   age   or   below   18   years   of   age   shall   be   exempt   and   be   subjected   to   an   intervention   program   unless   s/he  acted  with  discernment  in  which  case  such  child  will  be  subject  to  the  appropriate  proceedings  in   accordance  with  this  Act     • Children   falling   under   this   Act   are   referred   to   as   a   child   in   conflict   with   the   law;   normally   minor   offenders   are   referred   to   as   the   accused,   juvenile   delinquent,   prisoner,   respondent,   etc.   but   it   is   contemplated  that  these  terms  refer  to  persons  who  have  committed  crimes;  RA  9344  prohibits  the   use  of  these  terms  to  refer  to  minor  offenders,  only  the  abovementioned  term  can  be  used     • For  a  child  in  conflict  with  the  law  –  there  is  a  presumption  of  the  absence  or  lack  of  intelligence  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 53 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

• Offenders  are  free  from  criminal  liability  but  are  still  civilly  liable     • The  legal  effect  of  the  exemption:  the  child  shall  be  given  to  the  custody  of  the  parent  or  guardian;  in   their  absence,  the  custody  is  given  to  the  following,  according  to  their  order  of  availability:   (a)  registered  non-­‐governmental  organization   (b)  registered  religious  organization   (c)  member  of  the  Barangay  Council  for  the  Protection  of  Children  (BCPC)   (d)  local  office  of  the  Dept.  of  Social  Welfare  &  Development  (DSWD)   (e)  national  office  of  the  Dept.  of  Social  Welfare  &  Development  (DSWD)     • Another  effect  is  that  the  minor  is  subjected  to  an  intervention  or  diversion  program  which  involves:   seminars  and  classes  on  family  and  mediation,  skills  improvement,  emotional  management,  etc.;  other   diversion  programs  are  for  reformation  and  rehabilitation,  in  which  the  public  prosecutor  usually   initiates  the  recommendation  for  the  minor  to  be  subjected  under  the  program     Q:  What  is  a  child  at  risk?     • General  Rule  for  minors  above  15  or  below  18  years  of  age:  exempted,  because  the  presumption  is   that  they  acted  without  intelligence     • Exception:  the  minor  acted  with  discernment     • How  is  discernment  determined?  (Reyes)   (1)  manner  of  committing  the  crime   (2)  conduct  of  the  offender   • Discernment  can  also  be  determined  by  the  words  uttered  by  the  minor  attendant  to  the  commission   of  the  act,  eg.  the  words,  “Buti  nga  sa’yo!”,  which  indicates  an  expression  of  accomplishment,  victory   or  satisfaction     When  the  case  has  been  decided  by  the  court…   • If  the  judgment  is  an  acquittal,  the  decision  shall  immediately  take  effect  without  suspension,  and  the   decision  shall  be  promulgated  and  pronounced   • What  is  the  significance  of  promulgation?   -­‐  it  is  full  of  significance;  the  decision  is  read  in  open  court   -­‐  immediately  after  the  reading  the  judgment  of  acquittal  becomes  immediately  final  and  executory,   which  cannot  be  subject  for  any  motion  of  reconsideration,  hence  the  decision  cannot  be  either   reversed  or  modified   • If  the  judgment  is  conviction,  the  promulgation  of  the  decision  and  the  sentence  shall  be  suspended  by   the  court;  the  minor  shall  be  ordered  to  undergo  intervention,  which  shall  have  the  following  effects:  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 54 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

(a)  If  after  the  intervention,  there  is  reform  on  the  part  of  the  minor,  the  minor  shall  be  returned  to   the  court  to  dismiss  the  criminal  case  and  dismiss  the  charges  against  the  minor   (b)  If  after  the  intervention,  there  is  no  reform,  the  minor  shall  be  returned  to  the  court  for  the   promulgation  of  the  decision  against  the  minor;  then,  the  court  shall  either  decide  on  the  sentence   or  extend  the  intervention   • Only  when  there  is  refusal  to  be  subjected  to  reformation  or  when  there  is  failure  to  reform  can  the   child  be  subjected  to  criminal  prosecution  and  the  judicial  system     • Other  effects  of  Republic  Act  9344   (i)  decriminalizes  the  sniffing  of  rugby  by  a  minor   (ii)  decriminalizes  the  violation  of  a  minor  of  the  Anti-­‐Mendicancy  Law,  which  prohibits  begging  or   beggars   (iii)  decriminalizes  vagrancy  and  prostitution,  punished  under  the  RPC,  when  committed  by  a  minor   15  years  old  or  below;  the  minor  will  not  be  criminally  liable   (iv)  criminal  records  of  minors  above  15  or  below  18  years  of  age  are  kept  confidential  in  order  to   protect  the  honor  and  reputation  of  the  minor   (v)  exempts  minors  from  the  offense  of  refusing  to  acknowledge  the  fact  that  s/he  had  been  involved   or  convicted  in  a  criminal  case  before   (vi)  minors  can  deny  under  oath  their  criminal  involvement  or  conviction;  cannot  be  charged  with   perjury  or  falsification  or  misrepresentation,  for  concealing  the  criminal  involvement  or  conviction;   purpose:  to  give  the  minor  a  new  lease  in  life  and  to  prevent  the  stigma  of  conviction  which  extends   in  a  long-­‐term  basis,  i.e.  in  looking  for  job  or  protecting  the  families’  reputation   (vii)  retroactive  application  of  RA  9344  on  persons  who  were  convicted  and  are  currently  serving  time   for  crimes  they  committed  when  they  were  minors  above  9  or  below  15  years  of  age  when  they   committed  the  offense,  because  minors  who  acted  with  discernment  under  this  age  bracket,  were   not  exempted  from  criminal  liability  before  under  the  RPC,  but  has  already  been  repealed  by  RA   9344;  their  criminal  liability  is  erased  therefore  they  shall  be  released   Q:  Supposing,  a  10-­‐year  old,  who  is  apparently  very  intelligent,  commits  a  crime,  will  he  be  exempted   from  criminal  liability  considering  the  high  level  of  intelligence  of  the  child?     YES,  he  is  still  exempted;  what  is  important  is  the  age  of  the  child  at  the  time  of  the  commission   of  the  crime;  it  doesn’t  matter  whether  the  child  was  extremely  intelligent     • Status  Offenses  (under  RA  9344)  –  refers  to  offenses  which  discriminate  only  against  a  child,  while  an   adult  does  not  suffer  any  penalty  for  committing  similar  acts;  these  shall  include  curfew  violations,   truancy,  parental  disobedience  and  the  like  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 55 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

  • Status  offenses  when  committed  by  a  minor  are  punishable,  but  are  not  punishable  anymore  under  RA   9344       • Status  offenses  when  committed  by  an  adult  are  not  punishable       • The  Dangers  of  Republic  Act  9344  (Amurao)   -­‐  can  be  abused  or  taken  advantage  of  by  crime  syndicates  that  use  minors  as  instruments  for   the  commission  of  crimes   -­‐  The  effect  of  the  liberal  exemptions  of  RA  9344  –  what  will  happen  to  the  victims  if  the   offenders,  who  are  minors,  will  be  exempted  all  the  time?  Victims  will  take  the  Filipino  way  =   taking  the  law  into  their  own  hands   • With  reference  to  RA  9344,  the  Philippines  is  not  yet  ready  for  that  kind  of  law.  (Amurao)   • Basis  for  the  exemption  of  a  minor:  absence  or  lack  of  intelligence     Article  12(4)  -­‐  Accident   -­‐  Elements:   1.  a  person  is  performing  a  lawful  act   2.  the  act  is  done  with  due  care   3.  causes  an  injury  to  another  by  mere  accident   4.  injury  was  done  without  fault  or  intention  of  causing  it     Q:  What  is  an  Accident?   Q:  What  are  the  Requisites?   Q:  What  are  the  Legal  Effects  of  Accident?   No  civil  liability   No  criminal  liability     Examples  of  exceptions     Q:  Driver  with  an  expired  license?  NOT  exempt     Q:Not  registered  1  year  delinquent?  NOT  exempt-­‐  not  lawful  act      With  defective  breaks,  w/n    Speed  limits  proper  lane?     Not  exempt-­‐fault  or  negligence     Tires  of  car  already  worn  out?  Not  exempt   In  tiptop  condition,  brand  new  tires?  Not  exempt   Of  7  passengers  in  the  car-­‐  overloading    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 56 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

Right  lane  empty,  overtook  the  car?  Not  exempt   Left  lane  is  for  overtaking     Overtaking  on  the  left  lane,  hit  a  child  who  suddenly  crossed  the  road?  Yes,  exempt.     Absolutory  cause  (Art.247)   Par.1  not  exempt  from  criminal  liability.  There  is  a  penalty-­‐destierro.  It  is  still  an  unlawful  act.     • If  all  the  elements  are  present,  the  legal  effect  is  that  the  accused  shall  incur  no  criminal  liability  and   no  civil  liability   • If  not  all  the  elements  are  present,  Article  67  of  the  RPC  will  apply  and  the  penalty  prescribed  is   arresto  mayor  to  prision  mayor  for  grave  felonies   • There  is  negligence  when  =  the  accused  tried  to  overtake  another  vehicle  on  the  right  side  of  the  road   because  this  is  a  violation  of  traffic  laws   • Speeding  along  the  road  is  an  example  of  an  act  done  without  due  care   • Basis  for  exemption  –  absence  of  intent     Article  12(5)  –  Compulsion  of  Irresistible  Force   -­‐Elements:   1.  compulsion  to  commit  the  crime  is  by  means  of  physical  force  or  violence   2.  physical  force  or  violence  is  irresistible   3.  the  physical  force  or  violence  must  come  from  a  3rd  person     Presupposes  that  a  person  is  compelled  by  means  of  force  or  violence   • Irresistible  Force  –  degree  of  force  which  is  external  or  physical  force  which  reduces  the  person  to  a   mere  instrument  and  the  acts  produced  are  done  without  his  will  and  against  his  will  (Amurao)   • Basis  for  exemption  –  absence  of  freedom     Article  12(6)  –  Impulse  of  an  Uncontrollable  Fear   -­‐  Requisites:  (Reyes)   1.  that  the  threat  which  causes  the  fear  is  of  an  evil  greater  than  or  at  least  equal  to  that  which   he  is  required  to  commit   2.  that  it  promises  an  evil  of  such  gravity  and  imminence  that  the  ordinary  man  would  have   succumbed  to  it   ü Presupposes  intimidation  or  threat,  not  force  or  violence     -­‐  Elements:   1.  the  existence  of  an  uncontrollable  fear   2.  the  fear  must  real  and  imminent   3.  the  fear  of  an  injury  is  greater  than  or  equal  to  that  committed   • All  the  elements  must  concur   NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 57 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

• Basis  for  exemption  -­‐  absence  of  freedom     Q:  What  element  of  voluntariness  is  absent?     Intent,  Freedom     Q;  Par.6  Distinguish  6  and  5.   Nature  of  threat  –greater  or  equal?     Difference  between  irresistible  force  and  uncontrollable  fear:   Irresistible  Force  –  involves  the  use  of  violence  or  physical  force  to  compel   Uncontrollable  Fear  –  involves  the  use  of  threat  or  intimidation  to  compel   Article  12(7)  –  Failure  to  Perform  a  Lawful  Act  Due  to  Lawful  or  Insuperable  Cause   -­‐  Elements:     1.  an  act  is  required  by  law  to  be  done   2.  that  a  person  fails  to  perform  such  act   3.  that  the  failure  to  perform  such  act  was  due  to  some  lawful  or  insuperable  cause   • Failure  to  deliver  arrested  persons  to  the  proper  authorities  due  to  problems  regarding  distance  and   transportation  is  a  lawful  or  insuperable  cause     • A  typhoon  causes  the  failure  to  perform  the  lawful  act  is  an  insuperable  cause     • Basis  for  exemption  –  absence  of  intent     • Absolutory  Causes  –  those  where  the  act  committed  is  a  crime  but  for  reasons  of  public  policy  and   sentiment,  there  is  no  penalty  imposed     • Instigation  –  is  an  illegal  act  because  the  public  officer  plants  the  seed  of  criminality  in  the  mind  of  the   person  or  offender  (Amurao);  the  public  officer  induces  an  innocent  person  to  commit  the  crime  which   the  public  officer  conceived  (Reyes)   • Entrapment  –  is  a  legal  act  because  the  purpose  is  to  capture  or  trap  the  lawbreaker   • Buy-­‐bust  operations  are  forms  of  entrapment,  hence  they  are  legal     Arbitrary  Detention  with  warrant   Art.  125  (Warrantless  arrest)     Instigation  vs.  Entrapment-­‐  e.g.  buy  bust  operation   Give  examples   Private  individual  both   Effects  of  criminal  liability  of:   Instigator-­‐liable  as  principal  by  inducement  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 58 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

Instigated-­‐  principal  by  direct  participation   Put  absolutory  as  to  direct  participation    

Article  13   Q:  what  is  mitigating  circumstance?   -­‐  those  which,  if  present  in  the  commission  of  the  crime,  do  not  entirely  free  the  actor  from   criminal  liability  but  serve  only  to  reduce  the  penalty     Q:  What  are  the  Kinds?   Ordinary   Privileged     Par.1  of  Art.  13  becomes  a  privileged  mitigating  circumstance  because  of  Art.69  (Amurao)   Art.69  makes  par.1  of  Art.13  a  priv.  mit.  Circumstance.      Classification:   ORDINARY         PRIVILEGED   -­‐  offset  by  a  generic  aggravating    

-­‐  cannot  be  offset  by  a  generic  

   circumstance    

   aggravating  circumstance  

 

 

-­‐  penalty  lowered  to  minimum    

-­‐  penalty  lowered  by  degree  

• Mitigating  and  aggravating  circumstances  are  not  applied  to  special  penal  laws  because  the  penalties   in  special  penal  laws  cannot  be  divided  into  three  periods     Article  13(1)  –  Incomplete  Justifying  or  Exempting  Circumstances   -­‐  is  considered  a  privileged  mitigating  circumstance,  provided,  majority  of  the  elements  required  to   justify  or  exempt  are  present   -­‐  for  the  justifying  circumstances  of  self-­‐defense,  defense  of  relative  and  defense  of  stranger  =  the   element  of  unlawful  aggression  should  always  be  present   *All  elements  of  JC  or  EC  present  –  exempt  or  justified   *IE  elements  but  not  majority  –ordinary  mit.  Circ.   *Majority  of  the  elements  are  present-­‐  priv.  mit.  Circ.   Provided  that  in  self  defense,  defense  of  relative  or  defense  of  stranger,  Unlawful  aggression  is   present.     Q:  Give  an  example.    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 59 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

Example  of  mitigating  circumstance  of  incomplete  accident   (see  page  259  of  book)  There  was  fault.     Q:  Woman  sleeping  in  her  room.  Janitor  happened  to  enter  the  room  to  clean.  He  accidentally  touched   the  hand  of  the  woman.  Believing  her  honor  was  in  danger,  shot  the  janitor  using  a  gun  under  her   pillow?  (US  vs.  Apego)   Mit.  Circ.-­‐  Mistake  of  fact  of  the  woman.     Priv.  Mit.  Circ.  Of  self-­‐defense   (N.B.  Unlawful  Agression  +  either  of  requisites  2  or  3)     Q:  50  meters  away-­‐  privileged?     No,  considering  the  distance  UA  not  present     Article  13(2)  –  Minority   -­‐  covers  minors  above  15  years  but  below  18  years  of  age  (16-­‐17  years  old),  who  acted  with   discernment   -­‐  shall  be  entitled  to  the  benefits  of  a  privileged  mitigating  circumstance   • Basis  for  mitigation:  diminution  of  intelligence     Bet.  15  or  18  with  discernment-­‐  mit  (reduced  by  one  degree)       Without  discernment-­‐  exempting     RA  9344  did  not  amend  Art.  68     Refuse  to  submit       Diversion  program   Violation  of  conditions   Not  for  best  interest   Diversion  program-­‐  commencement  of  criminal  action-­‐  if  eventually  sentenced  to  conviction  Art.   68  will  apply.     Article  13(3)  –  Praeter  Intentionem   -­‐  offender  did  not  intend  to  commit  so  grave  a  wrong   -­‐  disproportion  of  the  means  employed  to  execute  the  crime  and  the  consequences  produced;  there   should  have  been  an  intent  at  the  moment   • Basis  for  mitigation:  lack  or  diminution  of  intent     Factor  to  determine  existence  of  praeter  intentionem,  intent  being  a  state  of  mind.   1)  weapon  used   2)  nature  of  injury;  number  of  injury  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 60 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

3)  part  of  the  body  injured  (location  of  injury)   4)  manner  of  inflicting  injury     Treachery  -­‐  External   Yes.  Qualifying  aggravating  if  external  in  nature  can  co-­‐exist  with  praeter  intentionem  which  is   internal.  CLEAR?     Q:  A  intend  to  injure  AMurao  hit  in  the  right  shoulder  Did  not  submit  to  medical  treatment.  Amurao   died.     1st  question:  Is  A  liable?  Yes,  par.  1  Art.4   Was  there  treachery?  Yes—hence  murder  (qualified  by  treachery)   Because  Amurao  died,  intent  to  kill  is  by  law  conclusive.     Q:  People  v.  Enriquez  (Abuse  of  superior  strength)   Intent  to  threaten  only   How  would  you  classify?  Ordinary.   Legal  effect?  Minimum   Except-­‐  if  cancelled  by  generic  aggaravating  circ.     Q:  Claim  par.  3  in  violation  of  special  penal  laws?     No,  intent  is  immaterial  in  offenses.     Q:  True  or  false:  All  mitigating  circ.  Can  be  appreciated  in  special  penal  laws?   No,  penalties  not  graduated  and  divisible  into  min,  med,  max  periods,  In  general)   Except:  Age     Article  13(4)  –  Presence  of  Sufficient  Provocation  or  Threat     Q:  What  are  the  requisites?   1.  provocation  must  be  sufficient   2.  must  originate  from  the  offended  party   3.  that  the  provocation  must  be  immediate  to  the  act  or  crime  committed  by  the  person  who  is   provoked     Q:  What  is  provocation?   Provocation  –  any  unjust  or  improper  conduct  or  act  of  the  offended  party  capable  of  exciting,   inciting  or  initiating  anyone     Q:  When  is  provocation  Sufficient     –  adequate  to  excite  a  person  to  commit  the  wrong  and  must  accordingly  be  proportionate  to  its   gravity  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 61 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

-­‐  depends  on:    (1)  the  act  constituting  the  provocation                                    (2)  the  social  standing  of  the  person  provoked                                        (3)  the  place  and  time  when  the  provocation  was  made     • Threats  should  immediately  precede  the  act   • Basis  of  the  mitigation:  diminution  of  intelligence  and  intent       Q:  Elements:  (SOI)     Q:  Test  to  determine  whether  provocation  can  be  considered  mitigating.    What  kind  of  provocation?     Sufficient.     Q:  When  is  provocation  sufficient?    P.  273     Q:  How  soon  must  the  crime  be  committed?     No  time  to  regain  his  reason  and  to  exercise  self-­‐control     -­‐meaning  of  immediately  is  not  with  reference  to  the  lapse  of  time  per  se     *Relate  to  RATIO  OF  THE  LAW   But  lapse  of  time  to  regain  self-­‐control     -­‐personal  to  you  (the  provocation)     Q:    What  is  the  determining  factor?   Influence  or  effect  of  the  provocation     (w/c    means  that  lapse  or  interval  of  time  is  allowed  depending  on  gravity  of  offense)     Q:  Acts  of  lasciviousness  committed  against  you  (2pm);  Borrowed  knife  (230  pm)   Mitigating  under  par.  4?     Yes.   Q:  Under  par.  6?     Yes.   Q:  May  you  consider  both  together?    No,  alternatively  arising  from  the  same  facts.     Q:  Is  acts  lasciviousness  a  grave  offense?     Yes.      

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 62 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

Article  13(5)  Immediate  Vindication  of  Relatives/Himself   -­‐  Requisites:   1.  that  a  grave  offense  has  been  done  on  the  one  committing  the  felony  or  on  his  relatives   2.  felony  committed  in  vindication  of  such  grave  offense;  a  lapse  of  time  is  allowed  between  the   vindication  and  the  doing  of  the  grave  offense       • Difference  between  PROVOCATION  and  VINDICATION   Provocation         Vindication   -­‐  it  is  made  directly  only  to  the  person   -­‐  the  grave  offense  may  be      committing  the  felony          committed  also  against  the                                                                                                                                               offender’s  relatives   -­‐  the  cause  that  brought  about  the   -­‐  offended  party  must  have  done        provocation  need  not  be  a  grave        a  grave  offense  to  offender  or      offense              his  relatives   -­‐  it  is  necessary  that  the  provocation  or   -­‐  vindication  of  the  grave  offense      threat  immediately  precedes  the  act        may  be  proximate  which  allows  an      without  interval  of  time          interval  of  time     • Reason  for  the  difference:  vindication  concerns  the  honor  of  a  person   • To  determine  whether  the  personal  offense  is  grave,  the  ff.  are  considered:   -­‐  social  standing  of  the  person   -­‐  time  when  the  insult  was  made   -­‐  place  where  the  insult  was  made   -­‐  sometimes,  even  the  age  may  be  considered   • Basis  for  the  mitigation:  diminution  of  the  conditions  of  voluntariness     Q:  There  are  3  mit.  Circ.  Present.  Will  you  be  entitled  to  the  benefits  of  these  MC?   No.  Arose  only  out  of  1  fact/  set  of  facts.     Q:  9:30  mother  informed  you  that  your  sister  was  raped.  You  searched  for  him  with  a  revolver.  Did  not   find  him.  Found  him  after  3  days.   Passion  or  obfuscation?  No.   Provocation?  No.   Vindication?  Yes.     Q:  What  is  required  in  vindication?     Lapse  of  time   Q:  What  if  after  one  week,  vindication?   Law  says  immediate    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 63 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

Q:  Difference  of  meaning  of  immediate  in  par.  4  and  5?     Yes.     8  months,  vindicating?     Q:  Chinaman  eloped  with  sweetheart.  Parent  of  sweetheart  considered  it  an  offense  against  family.   Father  looked  ofr  daughter.  Found  her  in  the  house  of  the  chinaman.  Then  father  knocked,  Chinaman   ran  and  refused  to  talk  with  father.  Father  enraged  shot  chinaman.      1)  How  many  mit.  Circ.?         Vindication  of  grave  offense       Passion  or  obfuscation   2)  Must  grave  offense  constitute  a  crime?     No.     Q:  Supposing  you  have  a  first  cousin,  girl,  so  close  to  you,  who  was  raped  by  neighbor.  You  looked  for   neighbour  and  shot  him  dead.   What  mit.  Circ?  Vindication?   No,  first  cousin  not  contemplated  under  vindication  (relatives)     Q:  Requirements  of  passion  or  obfuscation?     Q:  Common  law  husband  ask  common  law  wife  to  return  home.  Wife  refused.  Husband  was  humiliated   by  reason  of  which  he  stabbed  common  law  wife.   May  claim  passion  or  obfuscation?  No.   Vindication  of  grave  offense?  No,  not  enumerated  by  law.     Q:  Humiliation,  slandered  in  public,  is  it  a  crime?     Yes.   Q:  It  is  a  grave  offense  against  you?   Q:  What  is  the  crime  committed?  Slander,   Q:  May  be  committed  by  a  common  law  wife  against  a  common  law  husband?  Yes.     Q:  Presence  of  P&O,  V,  and  SP-­‐  Yes   Q:  Can  you  consider  all  of  these  in  your  favour?   P&O-­‐  No,  not  lawful  sentiment;  not  lawful  legitimate  relation   SP-­‐  Yes   V-­‐  Yes    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 64 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

Q:   Old   man   has   his   own   family   already   but   not   contented   with   wife   went   out   every   night   .   Met   an   attractive  woman  in  a  prostitution  house,  he  convinced  woman  to  leave  the  prostitution  house  and  they   lived  together  as  husband  and  wife.  Wife  left.       After  several  days,  she  was  found  in  another  prostitution  house,  convinced  her  to  to  go  back.   Woman  adamant  in  her  refusal.  Woman  said  Ayoko  na  sayo,  Matanda  ka  na.  Mahina  na  tuhod   mo.  Old  man  was  enraged,  stabbed  her.     Q:  May  old  man  claim  P&O?     No.  People  v.  Bello  is  an  exception  (p.  290-­‐291)     4,5,6  are  interrelated  because  they  can  exist  in  a  single  act  but  not  necessarily  appreciated  separately.     Article  13(6)  –  Passion  or  Obfuscation   -­‐  Elements:   1.  the  accused  acted  upon  impulse   2.  the  impulse  must  be  so  powerful  that  it  naturally  produced  passion  or  obfuscation  in  the  accused   ü Reason:  these  are  causes  naturally  producing  in  a  person  powerful  excitement  that  he   loses  reason  and  self-­‐control  thereby  diminishing  the  exercise  of  willpower   ü Rule:  the  passion  or  obfuscation  should  arise  from  lawful  sentiments  in  order  to  be   mitigating       -­‐  Requisites:   1.  that  there  be  an  act,  both  unlawful  and  sufficient  to  produce  such  a  condition  of  mind   2.  that  said  act  which  produced  the  obfuscation  was  not  far  removed  from  the  commission  of  the   crime  by  a  considerable  length  of  time,  during  which  the  perpetrator  might  recover  his  natural   equanimity     Difference  between  PASSION  or  OBFUSCATION  and  IRRESISTIBLE  FORCE   Passion  or  Obfuscation       Irresistible  Force   -­‐  a  mitigating  circumstance     -­‐  an  exempting  circumstance   -­‐  cannot  give  rise  to  irresistible  force   -­‐  requires  physical  force      because  passion  or  obfuscation  has  no        physical  force                                                                                                                                       -­‐  the  passion  or  obfuscation  is  in  the     -­‐  must  come  from  a  third  person        offender  himself               -­‐  must  arise  from  lawful  sentiments   -­‐  is  unlawful     Difference  between  PASSION  or  OBFUSCATION  and  PROVOCATION   Passion  or  Obfuscation         Provocation   -­‐  produced  by  an  impulse  which  may     -­‐  must  come  from  the  injured  party      be  caused  by  provocation             -­‐  the  offense  which  engenders         -­‐  must  immediately  precede  the        perturbation  of  mind  need  not  be          commission  of  the  crime    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 65 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

   immediate;  it  is  only  required  that  the      influence  thereof  lasts  until  the      moment  the  crime  is  committed                 -­‐  the  effect  is  loss  of  reason  and       -­‐  the  effect  is  also  loss  of  reason          self-­‐control  on  the  part  of  the                and  self-­‐control  on  the  part  of  the      offender              offender     • Article  13(7)  –  Voluntary  Surrender/Voluntary  Confession  of  Guilt     Voluntary  Surrender   -­‐  Requisites:     1.  that  the  offender  had  not  been  actually  arrested   2.  that  the  offender  surrendered  himself  to  a  person  in  authority  or  to  the  latter’s  agent   3.  that  the  surrender  was  voluntary   • “Voluntary”  –  to  be  appreciated,  voluntary  surrender  must  be  spontaneous  in  such  a  manner  that  it   shows  the  interest  of  the  accused  to  surrender  unconditionally  to  the  authorities,  either  because  (1)   he  acknowledged  his  guilt  or  (2)  because  he  wishes  to  save  them  the  trouble  and  expense  necessarily   incurred  in  his  search  and  capture     • Intention  to  surrender  without  actually  surrendering  is  NOT  mitigating     • Voluntary  Confession  of  Guilt   -­‐  Requisites:   1.  that  the  offender  spontaneously  confessed  his  guilt     2.  that  the  confession  of  guilt  was  made  in  open  court  that  is  before  the  competent  court  that  is  to  try   the  case   3.  that  the  confession  of  guilt  was  made  prior  to  the  presentation  of  evidence  for  the  prosecution     • Even  after  arraignment,  voluntary  confession  can  still  be  mitigating,  when  with  the  consent  of  the   public  prosecutor,  there  is  an  amendment  in  the  information  =  still  voluntary  confession  (as  was  held   in  the  midterms)   • Voluntary  confession  is  usually  done  during  arraignment   • What  has  been  admitted  need  not  be  proven  by  evidence;  judgment  can  already  be  rendered  but  both   sides  can  still  present  evidence  to  prove  aggravating  or  mitigating  circumstances     • Arraignment  –  charges  are  being  read  to  the  accused  in  open  court  in  a  language  known  to  him;  if  the   charges  are  read  in  a  language  not  known  to  him,  the  arraignment  or  plea  is  void.       • It  is  the  duty  of  courts  to  read  charges  in  a  language  known  to  him       • Promulgation  –  physical  and  actual  reading  of  the  sentence  to  the  accused   -­‐  can  be  limited  to  just  the  dispositive  portion  (the  “wherefore”  clause)   -­‐  if  there  is  an  acquittal,  the  decision  is  final  and  executory  and  not  appeallable  because  of  the  risk  of   double  jeopardy  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 66 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

-­‐  if  there  is  a  conviction,  the  accused  has  15  days  to  avail  of  legal  remedies,  if  not  availed  after,  the   conviction  becomes  final  and  executory   • Basis  for  mitigation:  lesser  perversity  of  the  offender     Q:    How  many  MC?  two   1)  Voluntary  surrender-­‐  Ordinary  (not  generic)   2)  Voluntary  confession  of  guilt     Paragraphs  3  to  10  are  all  ordinary  mitigating     Reason  for  considering  voluntary  surrender  mitigating?     1.  Act  of  repentance  and     2  respect  for  law,  and   3.  saves  time,  resources  and  energy  for  his  search  and  capture     To  whom  must  VS  be  done?   Person-­‐in-­‐authority,  Define  (p.305)   Agent     e.g.  of  P-­‐I-­‐A   Brgy.  Chairman   City  Mayor   Judge,  Governor   Prosecutor,  Congressman   President,  Professors,  Teachers   Agents   Police  officers   Members  of  AFP   Brgy.  Tanods   NBI  agents   Sheriffs     Killd  neighbor,  surrender  to  Amurao,  voluntary  surrender?  Yes.     Board  members  of  GSIS?  Yes.   Of  Landbank?  Yes.   DBP?  Yes.   SSS?  Yes.   PAGCOR?  Yes.  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 67 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

  Q:  Supposing  accused  after  killing  neighbour  just  stayed  in  his  house.  When  police  officers  arrived,  went   with  them  voluntarily-­‐  mit?  No.     Voluntary  surrender  not  synonymous  with  non-­‐flight.     Direct,  positive,  unequivocal  act  showing  an  intention  to  submit  himself  voluntarily  either  save  the  govt   from  the  time  and  expenses  or  as  a  sign  of  acknowledgment  of  guilt  or  repentance  (Amurao)     Offender  on  radio  that  he  was  #1  suspect  in  slaying  of  politician,  he  came  to  the  police  to  clear  his  name,   he  has  a  pending  case  for  rape.  Voluntary  surrender?  No.     Will  surrender  only  if   1)  He  is  given  special  treatment   2)  ref   3)  aircon   Voluntary  surrender?  No.     After  committing  crime,  accused  went  into  hiding.  He  was  found  after  several  months.  Hiding  place   surrounded  by  authorities.     He  came  out  saying  I  surrender.  VS?     No  (  Internal)  Meaning  of  spontaneous.     Voluntary  Confession  –Par.  10  of  Art.14.     A  case  for  homicide  filed  against  accused  in  Batanes.  Upon  learning,  the  accused  hiding  in  Tawi-­‐tawi   surrendered  to  Brgy.  Chairman  of  Tawi-­‐tawi?   Yes.  Place  of  surrender  not  significant.  It  need  not  be  the  place  where  the  case  is  filed.     Q:  Phil.  Ambassador  to  Australia,  if  accused  is  in  Australia  upon  learning  of  the  case  filed?  Yes.     Q:  If  surrendered  to  Australian  Prime  Minister?  No,  not  a  P-­‐I-­‐A  or  agent  under  the  Phil  laws     Q:  On  the  way  to  the  police  precinct,  was  apprehended?  Yes.     Q:  Did  not  offer  resistance?  No.     Q:  Issued  warrant,  surrendered  to  Brgy.  Tanod?  Yes.   Even  if  warrant  is  already  issued?  Yes,  as  long  as  not  served.  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 68 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

  10  months  after  issuance,  surrendered?  No.  No  longer  spontaneous.     Surrender  to  mother-­‐in-­‐law?  No.     Q:  Requisites  of  VCG:     Competent  court-­‐  meaning?     Court  trying  the  case   Open  court-­‐  meaning?  Even  if  doors  are  closed?   Yes.     Reason  behind  VCG?  Act  of  repentance,  Acknowledgment  of  guilt       Accused  willing  to  plead  guilty  with  condition   Ref,  aircon,  computer  set?  No.     When  to  plead?  Arraignment.     Pre-­‐trial?  (There  is  presentation  of  witnesses,  documents,  and  gist  of  testimony)   After  inspection  of  evidence  and  conclusion,  the  evidence  against  him  is  strong.     Stages   Arraignment   Pre-­‐trial   Trial     ONLY  SUBMISSION,  NOT  PRESENTATION     Prosec  presented  1st  eyewitness,  clear  &  convicning  testimony   After  1st  witness,  concluding  that  he  would  be  convicted  ,  withdrew  guilty  plea.  Mitigating?  No.     N.B.  NOT  prior  to  “termination”   Witness  only  sworn-­‐in,  no  testimony  yet  mitigating?  Yes.     Amend  info  to  a  lesser  offense  w/o  protest  willing  to  plea  guilty,  mitigating?  Yes.     Article  13(8)  –  Deafness  and  Dumbness   -­‐  must  restrict  the  means  of  action,  defense  or  communication  with  others  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 69 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

• Basis  for  mitigation:  offender  does  not  have  complete  freedom  of  action;  diminution  of  freedom  and   voluntariness     Bald?  No.   Blind?  Yes.   Partial  blindness?  Yes.   Deaf  by  one  ear?  Yes.   Crippled?  Yes.   Toothless?  Yes!     When  must  the  physical  defect  be  present?  At  the  time  of  the  commission  of  the  crime.   ORDINARY  MIT.   Legal  effects.     Article  13(9)  –  Illness   -­‐  the  offender  has  diminished  exercise  of  willpower;  loss  of  willpower  may  even  be  exempting   -­‐  deprivation  of  consciousness     • Basis  for  mitigation:  diminution  of  intelligence  and  intent     • Accused  prosecuted  for  simple  theft  (shoplifting  in  a  mall)   • During  trial,  it  was  proved  that  he  was  a  kleptomaniac.  Mitigating?  Yes.       • If  prosecuted  for  frustrated  homicide?   • No,  not  related  to  the  offense  committed.     • Accused  prosecuted  for  rape.  During  trial  proved  to  be  sex  maniac,  Mitigating?  Yes.     • NO  CONTROL  OF  THEIR  OWN  WILL  AS  FAR  AS  THE  OFFENSE  IS  CONCERNED     • Same  fact-­‐sex  maniac.  Prosecuted  for  Robbery?  No.     Article  13(10)  –  Other  Analogous  Circumstances   Example?   Blind,  60  years  old-­‐70  years  of  age   Restitution-­‐  voluntary  surrender.   Creditor,  debtor.   Running  away  and  refuses  to  pay.   Victim  brought  to  the  hospital  for  treatment-­‐  voluntary  surrender.   Giving  victim  a  certain  amount  for…-­‐  voluntary  confession.  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 70 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

  Jealousy.  You  saw  your  girlfriend  walking  hand-­‐in-­‐hand  with  another  man,  you  inflicted  physical  injuries?   Passion  or  obfuscation.     Other  mit.  Circ.  In  the  RPC?   Infanticide  or  abortion  to  conceal  disgrace  or  dishonor.   Adultery-­‐  there  is  abandonment  by  the  offended  party.  (Unjustified)      

Article  14  

Q:  What  are  aggravating  circumstances?   -­‐  those  if  present,  are  not  automatically  offset  by  mitigating  circumstances   -­‐  may  increase  the  penalty  provided  by  the  law  without  exceeding  the  maximum  penalty  or  it  changes   the  nature  of  the  crime     -­‐  Classification:   1.  Generic  –  those  that  generally  apply  to  all  crimes,  eg.  Recidivism,  Aid  of  Minors,  Advantage  taken  by   Public  Position,  etc   2.  Specific  –  those  that  apply  to  particular  crimes,  eg.  Ignominy,  Treachery   3.  Qualifying  –  Those  that  change  the  nature  of  the  crime,  eg.  Treachery,  Evident  Premeditation,   Cruelty,  etc.   4.  Inherent  –  necessity  accompanies  the  commission  of  the  crime,  eg.  sex  is  inherent  in  crimes  against   chastity   • Difference  between  Generic  and  Qualifying   GENERIC       QUALIFYING   -­‐  can  be  offset  by  an  ordinary   -­‐  cannot  be  offset  by  an  ordinary      mitigating  circumstance  

   mitigating  circumstance  

-­‐  the  legal  effect  is  to  increase   -­‐  it  changes  the  nature  of  the  crime      the  penalty  to  the  maximum   -­‐  give  the  crime  its  proper  and  exclusive      without  exceeding  the  limit  

     name  

• Both  qualifying  and  generic  circumstances  must  be  alleged  in  the  information;  the  prosecution  can’t   prove  an  aggravating  circumstance  during  trial  (p.326  #3  in  the  comparison  part  in  the  Reyes  book  is   wrong)    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 71 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

• Article  14(1)  –  Advantage  Taken  of  Public  Position   -­‐  a  generic  aggravating  circumstance   -­‐  based  on  Republic  Act  7659,  in  crimes  committed  by  a  public  officer,  the  penalty  prescribed  by  law  is   always  at  the  maximum,  regardless  of  the  mitigating  circumstances  presented  and  regardless  of  the   nature  of  these  mitigating  circumstances   • Public  Officer  –  for  advantage  taken  to  be  appreciated,  s/he  must  use  the  influence,  prestige  or   ascendancy  which  his  office  gives  him  as  the  means  by  which  s/he  realizes  his  purpose.   • There  should  be  a  deliberate  intent  to  use  the  influence,  prestige  or  ascendancy     ü Is  it  enough  that  the  offender  is  a  public  officer?  NO,  he  has  to  use  the  influence,  prestige  or   ascendancy  given  to  him  by  his  office   ü Supposing,  a  police  officer  enters  the  house  then  ties  up  the  residents  and  robs  them,  can  the   aggravating  circumstance  of  advantage  taken  of  public  position  be  appreciated?  YES   ü Supposing,  a  traffic  enforcer  take  over  the  car  of  a  driver  and  speeds  away,  he  is  convicted  of  robbery,   can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  advantage  taken  of  public  position  be  appreciated?  YES   ü Supposing  some  members  of  the  barangay  council  asked  for  financial  sponsorship  for  the  education   of  the  community,  then  the  project  turned  out  to  be  false,  can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of   advantage  taken  of  public  position  be  appreciated?  YES   ü Supposing,  if  these  crimes  were  attendant  of  negligence,  passion  or  obfuscation,  vindication,  or   sufficient  provocation,  can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  advantage  taken  of  public  position  be   appreciated?  NO,  because  these  circumstances  are  incompatible  with  advantage  taken  of  public   position  since  deliberate  intent  is  absent  in  these  instances.     ü Supposing,  a  police  investigator  asked  a  rape  victim  to  enter  a  room  where  he  committed  acts  of   lasciviousness  on  the  rape  victim,  can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  advantage  taken  of  public   position  be  appreciated?  YES     • The  aggravating  circumstance  of  advantage  taken  of  public  position  is  NOT  appreciated  when  the   public  position  is  an  integral  element  or  inherent  in  the  offense;  In  the  ff  crimes,  public  position  is   inherent:   -­‐  bribery     -­‐  malversation  of  public  funds   -­‐  indirect  bribery  

-­‐  falsification  of  public  documents  

-­‐  RA  3019  

-­‐  other  crimes  against  public  officers  under  the  RPC  

 

• Basis  for  the  aggravation:  the  greater  perversity  of  (1)  personal  circumstances  of  the  offender,  and  (2)   means  used  to  secure  commission  of  the  crime     • Article  14(2)  –  Contempt  or  Insult  to  Public  Authorities   -­‐  Requisites:  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 72 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

1.  the  public  authority  is  engaged  in  the  exercise  of  his  official  functions   2.  the  public  authority  is  not  the  victim  of  the  crime   3.  offender  knows  him  to  be  a  public  authority   4.  his  presence  has  not  prevented  the  offender  from  committing  the  crime   ü Supposing,  one  Sunday,  the  mayor  just  finished  mass,  he  saw  two  people  fighting,  he  mediated  upon   introducing  himself,  can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  contempt  or  insult  of  public  authorities  be   appreciated?  YES,  because  regardless  of  the  day,  even  if  Sunday  is  not  a  working  day,  the  official   function  of  the  mayor,  in  this  case  to  maintain  peace  and  order,  does  not  stop  as  long  as  he  is  within   his  jurisdiction   ü Supposing,  using  the  same  facts  above,  the  two  people  attacked  the  mayor,  can  the  aggravating   circumstance  of  contempt  or  insult  of  public  authorities  be  appreciated?  NO,  because  the  public   authority  should  not  be  the  offended  party     ü Supposing,  using  the  same  facts,  but  the  mayor  attended  the  mass  in  another  town,  can  the   aggravating  circumstance  of  contempt  or  insult  of  public  authorities  be  appreciated?  NO,  because   mediating  would  not  be  part  of  his  official  functions  in  that  other  town.   ü Supposing,  using  the  same  facts  above,  but  the  two  people  did  not  know  that  the  one  mediating  was   in  fact  the  mayor,  can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  contempt  or  insult  of  public  authorities  be   appreciated?  NO,  the  offenders  have  to  know  that  he  is  the  mayor  or  a  public  authority     Q:  Supposing  mayor  of  town  X  attending  wedding  in  town  Y.  A  crime  was  committed.  Aggravating?     No.  Must  be  within  his  jurisdiction.    Not  engaged  in  official  duties.     • Article  14(3)  –  Disregard  of  Rank,  Age,  Sex  or  Dwelling  of  the  Offended  Party   -­‐  there  are  FOUR  circumstances  in  this  paragraph   -­‐  rank,  age,  sex  have  a  common  denominator  =  respect  due  to  offended  party   • Disregard  of  rank  of  the  offended  party   -­‐  a  generic  aggravating  circumstance  =  can  be  offset  by  an  ordinary  mitigating  circumstance   -­‐  not  applicable  to  cases  attendant  of  negligence  or  carelessness   -­‐  not  applicable  to  cases  attendant  of  passion  or  obfuscation,  vindication  or  those  with  sufficient   provocation  =  because  of  the  lack  of  intent   -­‐  this  can  be  done  to  a  person  in  authority  or  his  agent   -­‐  there  should  be  deliberate  intent  to  disregard  or  insult  =  accompanied  with  the  difference  in  rank,  and   manifested  by  deliberate  acts   -­‐  inherent  in  the  crime  of  direct  assault  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 73 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

ü Supposing,  a  sergeant  was  driving  a  jeep  in  a  careless  manner,  then  he  hit  a  general,  can  the   aggravating  circumstance  of  disregard  of  rank  be  appreciated?  NO,  there  was  no  deliberate  intent  to   disregard  the  rank  of  the  general   ü Supposing,  physical  injuries  were  made  against  Prof.  Amurao  by  his  student,  can  the  aggravating   circumstance  of  disregard  of  rank  be  appreciated?  YES,  because  Prof.  Amurao  is  a  person  in  authority   and  ranks  higher  than  the  student.   ü Supposing,  a  sergeant  sees  his  wife  embracing  a  general,  then  he  ran  over  them,  can  the  aggravating   circumstance  of  disregard  of  rank  be  appreciated?  NO,  because  this  circumstance  was  attendant  of   passion  or  obfuscation     • Disregard  of  age  of  the  offended  party     -­‐  a  generic  aggravating  circumstance  =  can  be  offset  by  an  ordinary  mitigating  circumstance   -­‐  not  applicable  to  cases  attendant  of  negligence  or  carelessness   -­‐  not  applicable  to  cases  attendant  of  passion  or  obfuscation,  vindication  or  those  with  sufficient   provocation  =  because  of  the  lack  of  intent   -­‐  for  this  circumstance  to  be  appreciated,  the  disparity  of  age  between  offender  and  victim  can  be   determined  if  the  victim  can  be  the  father  of  the  accused;  a  disparity  of  15  years  or  more   -­‐  tender  age  =  for  children;  old  age  =  for  old  people   ü Supposing,  the  offender  was  90  years  old  when  he  stabbed  the  105-­‐year  old  victim,  can  the   aggravating  circumstance  of  disregard  of  age  be  appreciated?  YES,  even  if  the  offender  was  also  very   old,  the  disparity  of  their  ages  still  matters     • Disregard  of  sex  of  the  offended  party   -­‐  a  generic  aggravating  circumstance  =  can  be  offset  by  an  ordinary  mitigating  circumstance   -­‐  not  applicable  to  cases  attendant  of  negligence  or  carelessness   -­‐  not  applicable  to  cases  attendant  of  passion  or  obfuscation,  vindication  or  those  with  sufficient   provocation  =  because  of  the  lack  of  intent   -­‐  the  victim  contemplated  in  this  paragraph  should  be  a  woman     -­‐  the  offender  should  act  with  deliberate  intent  to  disrespect  the  woman   -­‐  disregard  of  sex  is  absorbed  in  treachery     -­‐  dwelling  may  mean  temporary  dwelling   • Dwelling   -­‐  a  place  or  structure  that  satisfies  the  requirements  of  domestic  life  of  a  person  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 74 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

-­‐  a  generic  aggravating  circumstance  =  can  be  offset  by  an  ordinary  mitigating  circumstance   -­‐  there  no  provocation  on  the  part  of  the  offended  party   -­‐  all  the  ingredients  of  the  crime  should  be  done  in  the  dwelling   -­‐  if  the  offender  and  offended  are  both  occupants  of  the  same  house,  dwelling  cannot  be  appreciated   ü Supposing,  the  crime  was  committed  in  the  garage  of  the  house,  can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of   dwelling  be  appreciated?  YES,  because  the  garage  is  part  of  the  dwelling   ü Supposing  the  crime  was  done  in  the  roof?  YES   ü Supposing,  a  child  was  kidnapped  while  at  the  stairs  of  the  dwelling,  there  was  no  ransom  but  the   child  was  killed  in  Cavite,  can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  dwelling  be  appreciated?  YES,  because   the  stairs  is  still  part  of  the  dwelling   ü Supposing,  a  husband  kills  his  wife  in  their  conjugal  dwelling,  can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of   dwelling  be  appreciated?  NO   ü Supposing,  the  housemaid  killed  the  employer’s  child,  can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  dwelling   be  appreciated?  NO   ü Supposing,  the  accused  was  on  the  road  when  he  shot  the  victim  who  was  at  the  stairs,  can  dwelling   be  appreciated?  YES   ü Supposing,  if  the  victim  was  in  the  yard  going  to  the  direction  of  the  stairs,  can  the  aggravating   circumstance  of  dwelling  be  appreciated?  NO   ü Supposing,  the  victim  was  about  to  step  on  the  stairs?  can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  dwelling   be  appreciated?  YES   ü Supposing,  the  employer  raped  their  maid,  can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  dwelling  be   appreciated?  NO   ü Supposing,  the  houseboy  killed  the  housemaid,  can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  dwelling  be   appreciated?  NO   ü Supposing,  the  wife  killed  her  husband  in  the  conjugal  house,  can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of   dwelling  be  appreciated?  NO   ü Supposing  the  wife  commits  adultery,  can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  dwelling  be  appreciated?   YES   ü Supposing,  the  owner  of  the  house  and  the  dwelling  of  the  victim,  where  the  victim  was  a  tenant,  can   the  aggravating  circumstance  of  dwelling  be  appreciated?  YES,  because  dwelling  may  mean   temporary  dwelling   ü Supposing,  the  owner  was  killed  in  the  toilet,  can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  dwelling  be   appreciated?  YES,  because  the  toilet  is  part  of  the  dwelling   ü Supposing,  the  owner  of  the  house  was  killed  500  meters  from  the  toilet  which  was  situated  outside   the  house,  can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  dwelling  be  appreciated?  NO,  because  if  you  destroy   the  toilet,  the  house  remains  intact     Basis  of  the  aggravation:  Place  of  the  commission  of  the  crime;  the  sanctity  of  privacy  that  the  law   provides  the  human  abode     Q:  How  many  AC’s?  4  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes 1.) 2.) 3.) 4.)

Page 75 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

Rank   Sex   Age   Dwelling  

  Q:  Rank  and  abuse  of  public  functions  can  co-­‐exist?    Yes   w/    SP?  No,  incompatible   w/  P/O?  No     Q:  Is  it  enough  that  the  offended  oarty  be  of  higher  rank?     No.  Deliberate  intent  and  with  disregard   - Same  with  age   - Same  with  sex  (not  enough  that  offended  party  is  a  woman)     Q:  Disregard  of  rank.  Felony  committed  with  negligence?   No.  Deliberate  intent  and  negligence  are  incompatible   - With  P/O?  No.   - Provocation?  No   - Vindication?  Yes     Q:  General  has  illicit  relations  with  a  wife  of  a  Sergeant.  Sergeant  saw  them  in  tight  embrace,  shoots  the   General.  Aggravating?     No.  with  passion  and  obfuscation  (p/o)   Vindication  of  grave  offense  with  disregard  of  rank?  Yes  they  are  not  inconsistent.   Age   Q:  Accidental  meeting  between  offender  and  offended?     No.  must  have  deliberate  intent   Q:  Spur  of  the  moment?     No.  same  reason.  Applies  also  to  Rank   By  accident?  No.   Rank  is  a  generic   Q:  what  is  the  Legal  effect?     –  Not  offset  by  any  ordinary  mitigating  circumstance.  Raises  the  penalty  to  the  maximum   - Can  be  offset  by  mit  circumstance     Q:  When  there  are  2  or  more  generic  agg,  not  offset  by  ordinary  mit,  can  the  penalty  go  beyond  the  max   prescribed  by  law?  No.   When  there  are  10?  No.    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 76 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

Must  not  exceed  the  penalty  prescribed  by  law  for  the  offense   What  is  the  required  age  difference?  15  years  at  least  (could  be  the  father)   Legal  effect?  –  Not  offset  by  any  ordinary  mitigating  circumstance.  Raises  the  penalty  to  the  maximum   -

Can  be  offset  by  mit  circumstance  

  When  there  are  2  or  more  generic  agg,  not  offset  by  ordinary  mit,  can  the  penalty  go  beyond  the  max   prescribed  by  law?  No.   When  there  are  10?  No.     Must  not  exceed  the  penalty  prescribed  by  law  for  the  offense     What  is  the  required  age  difference?  15  years  at  least  (could  be  the  father)   Age  is  generic   95-­‐  offended;  90-­‐  offender  –  age  aggravating?  No.   Old  man  humiliated  you  in  public.  You  stabbed  him.  Aggravating?  No.  Sufficient  provocation  is   incompatible.   You  attacked  a  60  yo  man  who  filed  a  criminal  case  against  you.  Aggravating?  Yes.  No  passion  or   obfuscationg.   -­‐Passion  or  obfuscation  must  arise  from  unlawful  action.   You  stabbed  an  old  man  who  aimed  a  revolver  at  you.  Not  aggravating.  No  sufficient  provocation.   Age  is  generic   95-­‐  offended;  90-­‐  offender  –  age  aggravating?  No.   Old  man  humiliated  you  in  public.  You  stabbed  him.  Aggravating?  No.  Sufficient  provocation  is   incompatible.   You  attacked  a  60  yo  man  who  filed  a  criminal  case  against  you.  Aggravating?  Yes.  No  passion  or   obfuscationg.   -­‐Passion  or  obfuscation  must  arise  from  unlawful  action.   You  stabbed  an  old  man  who  aimed  a  revolver  at  you.  Not  aggravating.  No  sufficient  provocation.  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 77 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

Sex   Q:  Considered  in  rape  as  aggravating?     No.  inherent   Generic   Can  be  appreciated  in  crimes  against  person?  Yes  but  not  in  rape  (inherent)   Accused  intended  to  kill  husband.Saw  husband  and  wife  walking.  Fired  at  the  husband  but  hit  the  wife.   Not  aggravating.  No  deliberate  intent.   Why  is  sex  aggravating?  Wemen  belong  to  the  weaker  sex.   If  the  woman  is  a  black  belter?    No  longer  aggravating.  Reason  for  law  don’t  exist  anymore.   Rank,  Age,  Sex  and  Dwelling  –  common  element?  RESPECT  (deliberate  disregard  of  the  respect)   Dwelling   What  is  dwelling?  (*Lloyd  used  the  definition  in  the  book.  MALI)   Generic     Comfor  room  a  dwelling?  No.     Dwelling  –  a  place  of  structure  which  satisfies  the  requirements  of  domestic  life  of  a  person   Is  it  enough  that  the  crime  be  committed  in  the  dwelling?  No.  deliberate  disregard  of  the  respect  due  to   the  offended  party  in  the  dwelling.   - Incomapatible  with  negligence   - Incompatible  with  p/o   - Incompatible  with  sufficient  provocation   -­‐Vindication  can  co-­‐exist  with  dwelling?  Yes.  They  are  not  incompatible.   Accused  shot  the  victim  while  on  the  roof.  Dwelling  is  aggravating   Accused  was  in  the  middle  of  the  road.  Victim  was  brushing  his  teeth  by  the  window  of  the  house.   Dwelling  is  aggravating,  regardless  of  the  location  of  the  offender   Accused  under  the  house  of  victim.  Victim  on  the  upper  portion.  Aggravating?  Yes.   - Carport?  Yes   - Comfort  room  of  house?  Yes   - If  the  CR  is  500  meters  from  the  house?  No.  no  longer  an  integral  part  of  the  house.   Victim  inside  car.  Car  is  in  carport?  Yes.    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 78 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

Son  of  owner  of  house,  raped  housemaid.  Not  aggravating.  Must  not  be  living  in  the  same  house.   -­‐Maid  only  reports  from  6  am  to  9  pm.  Then  goes  home  to  family.  No.   Family  driver  reports  from  6am  to  8pm.  Employer  was  out,  driver  raped  thestay-­‐in  housemaid.  This  is   aggravating.   Siblings  –  brother  killed  brother?  No.   Husband  killed  paramour  in  conjugal  room.  Aggravating  against  the  husband?  No   Wife  had  sex  with  a  stranger  in  the  conjugal  room.  Aggravating  against  wife?  Yes.  See  page  354.   Exception  to  the  rule  that  dwelling  is  not  aggravating  if  both  is  living  inside.   If  the  owner  is  the  offender?  No,  as  a  general  rule   -

Exception:  lease  –  “temporary  dwelling”  

  • Article  14(4)  –  Abuse  of  Confidence/Obvious  Ungratefulness   -­‐  this  paragraph  contemplates  TWO  aggravating  circumstances   • Abuse  of  Confidence  –  exists  only  when  the  offended  party  has  trusted  the  offender  who  later  abuses   such  trust  by  committing  the  crime.  The  abuse  of  confidence  must  be  a  means  of  facilitating  the   commission  of  the  crime.  The  culprit  taking  advantage  of  the  offended  party’s  belief  that  the  former   would  not  abuse  said  confidence   -­‐  a  generic  aggravating  circumstance  =  can  be  offset  by  an  ordinary  mitigating  circumstance;  can  be   raised  to  the  maximum   • There  are  instances  where  abuse  of  confidence  is  qualifying:   -­‐  qualified  theft   -­‐  qualified  rape   -­‐  qualified  seduction     • Requisites:   1.  offender  had  trusted  the  offended   2.  offender  abused  such  trust  with  the  commission  of  the  crime   3.  abuse  of  confidence  facilitated  the  commission  of  the  crime   • There  should  be  direct  relationship  and  trust   • Confidence  must  be  immediate  and  personal   • Abuse  of  Confidence  is  inherent  in  the  ff:   -­‐  malversation   -­‐  qualified  theft    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes -­‐  estafa  

 

Page 79 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

-­‐  qualified  seduction  

ü Supposing,  lovers  broke  off  1  week  before  their  encounter,  can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of   abuse  of  confidence  be  appreciated?  NO   ü Supposing,  a  nanny  killed  2  yr.old  child  under  her  care,  can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  abuse  of   confidence  be  appreciated?  NO,  because  there  is  no  direct  relationship  and  trust  between  the  nanny   and  child   ü Supposing,  the  nanny  killed  the  mother  of  that  child  under  her  care,  can  the  aggravating   circumstance  of  abuse  of  confidence  be  appreciated?  YES,  because  there  is  direct  relationship  and   trust  between  the  nanny  and  the  parents  of  the  child     • Ungratefulness  –  must  be  obvious,  manifest  and  clear   -­‐  a  generic  aggravating  circumstance  =  can  be  offset  by  an  ordinary  mitigating  circumstance;  can  be   raised  to  the  maximum   -­‐  applicable  to  domestic  servants,  “katiwalas”,  security  guards   -­‐  not  applicable  to  if  offender  and  offended  both  live  in  the  same  house     • Basis  for  aggravation:  greater  perversity  of  the  ways  and  means  employed     Abuse  of  confidence  in  estafa?  Inherent.   Obvious  ungratefulness   Employer  attempted  against  the  honor  of  housemaid.  After  several  day,  employer  invited  housemaid  to   farm.  Raped  housemaid.  No.     Abuse  of  confidence?  Confidence  broken.       • Article  14(5)  –  Palace  and  Places  of  Commission  of  Offense   -­‐  this  paragraph  contemplates  FOUR  aggravating  circumstances   -­‐  offender  must  have  the  intention  to  commit  a  crime  when  he  entered  the  place   -­‐  all  the  four  circumstances  are  not  applicable  to  cases  attendant  of  passion  or  obfuscation,  immediate   vindication  or  those  with  sufficient  provocation  =  because  of  the  lack  of  intent   -­‐  not  applicable  to  cases  involving  spurs  of  the  moment  or  chance  meetings   • Wisdom  behind  this  circumstance:  Why  aggravate?  What’s  with  the  place?  Because  the  place  deserves   respect  (applies  to  all  the  places  mentioned  under  this  paragraph)   • Crime  committed  in  the  Palace  of  the  Chief  Executive   -­‐  a  generic  aggravating  circumstance  =  can  be  offset  by  an  ordinary  mitigating  circumstance;  penalty  can   be  raised  to  the  maximum  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 80 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

-­‐  Is  it  necessary  that  the  Chief  Executive  be  there?  NO   -­‐  the  palace  contemplated  here  is  the  Malacanang  Palace   ü Supposing,  the  chef  of  the  Chief  Executive  killed  a  janitor,  can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  palace   of  the  Chief  Executive  be  appreciated?  YES,  the  Chief  Executive  need  not  be  there   ü Supposing,  a  guest  shot  to  death  FG  Mike  Arroyo,  can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  palace  of  the   Chief  Executive  be  appreciated?  YES   ü Supposing,  using  the  same  facts  above,  the  crime  was  committed  in  the  lawn,  can  the  aggravating   circumstance  of  palace  of  the  Chief  Executive  be  appreciated?  NO,  because  the  lawn  is  not  part  of  the   palace   ü Supposing,  using  the  same  facts  above,  the  crime  was  committed  in  the  presidential  mansion,  can   the  aggravating  circumstance  of  palace  of  the  Chief  Executive  be  appreciated?  NO,  because  the   mansion  is  not  the  palace     • Crime  committed  in  the  Presence  of  the  Chief  Executive   -­‐  a  generic  aggravating  circumstance  =  can  be  offset  by  an  ordinary  mitigating  circumstance;  penalty  can   be  raised  to  the  maximum   -­‐  requires  the  personal  presence  of  the  Chief  Executive   -­‐  Is  it  necessary  that  the  crime  be  committed  in  the  Presidential  palace?  NO     ü Supposing,  the  president  personally  saw  the  crime,  can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  in  the   presence  of  the  Chief  Executive  be  appreciated?  YES   ü Supposing,  the  president,  while  watching  television,  saw  the  crime?  can  the  aggravating   circumstance  of  palace  of  the  Chief  Executive  be  appreciated?  NO   ü Supposing,  on-­‐board  a  helicopter,  the  Chief  Executive  saw  the  crime  from  a  distance,  can  the   aggravating  circumstance  of  palace  of  the  Chief  Executive  be  appreciated?  YES   ü Supposing,  the  offender  had  no  knowledge  that  the  Chief  Executive  was  present  or  near  the  place  of   the  commission  of  the  crime,  can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  palace  of  the  Chief  Executive  be   appreciated?  NO     • Crime  committed  in  the  Place  where  Public  Authorities  are  in  the  Discharge  of  their  Duties   -­‐  a  generic  aggravating  circumstance  =  can  be  offset  by  an  ordinary  mitigating  circumstance;  penalty  can   be  raised  to  the  maximum   -­‐  emphasizes  the  place  of  the  commission  of  the  crime     -­‐  the  public  authority  must  be  in  the  exercise  or  performance  of  one’s  official  function     • Crime  committed  in  a  Place  Dedicated  for  Religious  Worship   -­‐  a  generic  aggravating  circumstance  =  can  be  offset  by  an  ordinary  mitigating  circumstance;  penalty  can   be  raised  to  the  maximum   -­‐  emphasizes  the  respect  that  should  be  afforded  to  the  place    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 81 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

ü Supposing,  there  was  no  ceremony  in  the  church  when  the  crime  was  committed,  can  the  aggravating   circumstance  of  place  dedicated  for  religious  worship  be  appreciated?  YES   ü Supposing,  there  was  no  priest  in  the  church,  can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  place  dedicated  for   religious  worship  be  appreciated?  YES     ü Supposing,  the  crime  was  committed  in  a  chapel  inside  a  cemetery  (the  chapel  is  used  only  when   there  are  masses  to  be  held  for  purposes  of  funeral  services),  can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of   place  dedicated  for  religious  worship  be  appreciated?  NO,  the  place  of  religious  worship  should  hold   religious  ceremonies  there  regularly     Basis  for  aggravation:  greater  perversity  shown  by  the  place  of  the  commission  of  the  crime,  which  must   be  respected     Generic   Emphasis  of  par  5?  PLACE  of  the  commission  of  the  crime.  (respect  due  to  the  place)   Pres  Noynoy  in  Times  St.  Crime  committed  in  Malacanang  grounds.  (garden).  No,  must  be  in  palace   itself,  not  garden.   If  the  convoy  was  caught  in  heavy  traffic.  Accused  knew  it  was  the  president’s  convoy.  Committed   holdup  in  the  streets.  Aggravating?  Yes   Incompatible  with  negligence,  p/o  and  sp.   President  noynoy  in  helicopter  hovering  over  the  projects.  Two  workers  had  a  fight.  One  stabbed   another  to  death  within  view  of  president  noynoy.  Aggravating?  Yes.   Place  devoted  for  religious  worship.   Generic.     Is  it  enough  that  the  crime  be  committed  in  a  place  decoted  to  religious  worship?  No.  deliberate  intent.   Accused  rape  victim  while  praying  in  San  Beda  Abbey?  Yes   If  in  a  private  chapel  in  your  house?  No.  1.)  regular  worship.  Regular  religious  worship.  2.)  must  be  open   to  the  public.   Chapels  in  cemeteries?  No.       Public  authorities  are  engaged  in  the  performance  –  generice   Not  necessary  that  the  PA  must  be  engaged  in  the  performance  of  functions.  Why?  Emphasis  is  in  the   place.  Reason  is  the  respect  due  to  the  place.  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 82 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

Chief  justice  asleep  in  his  house.  The  Office  of  Chief  Justice  was  robbed.  Aggravating?  Yes   Office  of  Senate  Pres  while  SP  was  sleeping  in  his  house  in  the  middle  of  the  night?  Yes   BOOK  IS  WRONG.  It  will  collide  with  par  2  if  it  will  be  required  that  the  PA  should  be  in  the  exercise  of   his  functions.       • Article  14(6)  –  Nighttime,  Uninhabited  Place  or  Band   -­‐  this  paragraph  contemplates  THREE  aggravating  circumstances   -­‐  all  the  three  circumstances  are  not  applicable  to  cases  attendant  of  passion  or  obfuscation  or  those   with  sufficient  provocation     • Applicable  in  cases  where:   1.  the  circumstance  facilitated  the  commission  of  the  crime   2.  the  circumstance  was  especially  sought  for  by  the  offender  to  insure  the  commission  of  the  crime  or   for  the  purpose  of  impunity     -­‐  to  commit  the  crime  with  more  ease     -­‐  contemplates  a  planned  attack;  not  a  mere  encounter   3.  the  offender  took  advantage  of  the  circumstance  for  the  purpose  of  impunity     -­‐  to  prevent  being  recognized  or  to  secure  himself  against  detection     • Nighttime   -­‐  a  qualifying  aggravating  circumstance  =  cannot  be  offset  by  a  mitigating;  CHANGES  THE  NATURE  OF   THE  CRIME   -­‐  nighttime  means:  beginning  at  the  end  of  dusk  and  ending  at  dawn   -­‐  it  is  not  enough  that  it  was  nighttime   -­‐  what  is  especially  sought  for  by  the  offender  is  the  darkness  of  the  night     -­‐  this  circumstance  is  not  applicable  to  cases  involving  accidents,  accidental  meetings,  chance   encounters,  or  spurs  of  the  moment     ü Supposing,  the  crime  was  committed  inside  a  dark  movie  house  at  around  4pm,  can  the  aggravating   circumstance  of  nighttime  be  appreciated?  NO,  because  was  should  be  especially  sought  for  is  the   darkness  of  night,  not  the  darkness  of  the  movie  house  when  the  lights  were  only  off  because  it  was   only  4  in  the  afternoon   ü Supposing,  the  crime  was  committed  inside  a  movie  house  when  the  lights  were  still  open  and  the   time  then  was  9pm,  can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  nighttime  be  appreciated?  NO,  because   even  though  it  was  nighttime,  the  place  of  the  commission  was  well-­‐lighted  when  it  was  committed   ü Supposing,  the  crime  was  committed  in  a  place  where  it  was  well-­‐lighted  by  a  Meralco  lightpost,  can   the  aggravating  circumstance  of  nighttime  be  appreciated?  NO     • Uninhabited  Place  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 83 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

-­‐  a  qualifying  aggravating  circumstance  =  cannot  be  offset  by  a  mitigating;  CHANGES  THE  NATURE  OF   THE  CRIME   -­‐  there  should  be  intent   • Spur  of  the  moment  –  Not  applicable   • What  is  considered  is  the  reasonable  possibility  for  the  victim  to  receive  some  help;  the  degree  of   difficulty  of  giving  assistance  or  help   • Solitude  (must  be  sought  for  to  better  attain  criminal  purpose)   -­‐  for  an  easy  and  uninterrupted  accomplishment  of  their  criminal  design   -­‐  to  insure  concealment  of  the  offense;  security  against  detection  and  punishment     • Band   -­‐  more  than  three  malefactors   -­‐  shall  have  acted  together   -­‐  a  qualifying  aggravating  circumstance  =  cannot  be  offset  by  a  mitigating;  CHANGES  THE  NATURE  OF   THE  CRIME   • What  do  you  mean  by  “armed”?  only  guns?  NO,  knives  are  considered;  anything  that  can  kill  a  person   • Aggravating  in  crimes  against  property  and  crimes  against  persons;  NOT  applicable  in  crimes  against   chastity     • Basis  for  aggravation:  time  &    place  of  the  commission  &    means  employed       How  many  AC?  3     Nighttime  –  generic  (with  jurisprudence)   Nighttime  as  absorbed  in  treachery  qualifies  homicide  to  murder   What  is  nighttime?  P.  365   8pm.  Met  in  the  classroom.  Stabbed  amurao.  Aggravating?  No.  classroom  is  well  lighted.   Incompatible  with:  accidental  meeting,  negligence,  p/o,  s/p,  spur  of  the  moment.   Started  the  crime  at  5pm  (sunset)  finishes  at  11  pm  –  aggravating?  No.  unset  not  dark  yet.   Started  at  3  am  –  530  pm  –  sunrise?  No.   Deliberate  intent.   If  the  crime  was  finished  only  at  nighttime  –  not  aggravating   Moviehouse.  Lights  off?  No.   Announcement  of  total  eclipse  causing  total  darkness  from  3pm  to  5  pm.  You  plan  to  kill  your  neighbor   when  the  eclipse  set  in.  not  aggravating   \killed  during  full  moon.no  clouds  covered  the  moon.  NO   - Nighttime  to  be  aggravating,  the  accused  must  have  sought  the  darkness  of  the  night.   In  crimes  against  person  –  may  be  an  indicia  of  treachery.     Uninhabited  place   Generic   Legal  effect?   Why  aggravating?  No  possibility  of  receiving  help  (TEST)  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 84 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

Deliberate  intent   Incompatible  with  negligence,  sp,  p/o,  chance  encounter,  spur  of  the  moment,   Can  treachery  absorb  this  ac?  Yes.     By  Band   Generic   Absorbed  by  treachery?  Yes   Synonymous  with  syndicate?  No   - 2  or  more   - Not  necessarily  armed   5  persons  commirtted  robbery,  only  3  armed.  Bya  band?  No.  at  least  4  armed.         Article  14(7)  –  On  occasion  of  calamity  or  misfortune   -­‐  that  the  crime  be  committed  on  the  occasion  of  a  conflagration,  shipwreck,  earthquake,  epidemic  or   other  calamity  or  misfortune   -­‐  a  qualifying  aggravating  circumstance  =  cannot  be  offset  by  a  mitigating;  CHANGES  THE  NATURE  OF   THE  CRIME   -­‐  there  should  be  deliberate  intent  to  take  advantage   -­‐  this  circumstance  is  not  applicable  to  cases  involving  accidents,  accidental  meetings,  chance   encounters,  or  spurs  of  the  moment   -­‐  this  circumstance  is  not  applicable  to  cases  attendant  of  negligence  or  carelessness   -­‐  not  applicable  to  cases  attendant  of  passion  or  obfuscation  or  those  with  sufficient  provocation   • Reason:  in  the  midst  of  great  calamity,  instead  lending  aid  to  the  afflicted,  the  offender  adds  to  the   victims’  suffering  by  taking  advantage  of  their  advantage  of  their  misfortune  to  despoil   • The  offender  must  seek  for  the  calamity  as  an  opportunity  to  take  advantage  or  to  commit  the  crime   ü Supposing,  the  offender  saw  his  mortal  enemy  in  a  flood,  then  he  killed  his  mortal  enemy,  can  the   aggravating  circumstance  of  be  appreciated?  NO   • Basis  for  aggravation:  time  of  the  commission  of  the  crime     PARAGRAPH  7   - Qualifying   - Legal  effect   - Deliberate  intent  –  must  take  advantage  of  the  calamity   Incompatible  with  negligence    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 85 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

Conflagration   Retrieving  your  property.  Accidentally  met  your  mortal  enemy.  Stabbed  him.  Not  aggravating   Incompatible  with:  p/o,  spur  of  the  moment,  sp   Conflagration  -­‐  A  stranger  took  your  properties,  what  is  the  crime.  Qualified  theft.   • Article  14(8)  –  Aid  or  Armed  Men,  etc.   -­‐  that  the  crime  be  committed  with  the  aid  of  (1)  armed  men  or,  (2)  persons  who  insure  or  afford   impunity   • Armed  Men   -­‐  at  least  two  (2)  men;  the  law  says  “men”;  four  (4)  men  =  band  already     -­‐  a  qualifying  aggravating  circumstance  =  cannot  be  offset  by  a  mitigating;  CHANGES  THE  NATURE  OF   THE  CRIME   • Rule:  Casual  presence  of  armed  men  is  NOT  aggravating   • The  armed  men  must  take  part  directly  or  indirectly  in  the  crime   • The  offender  must  avail  of  the  aid   • Mere  moral  or  psychological  aid  or  reliance  is  sufficient   • Actual  aid  is  NOT  necessary   • Persons  who  insure  or  afford  impunity   -­‐  a  qualifying  aggravating  circumstance  =  cannot  be  offset  by  a  mitigating;  CHANGES  THE  NATURE  OF   THE  CRIME   -­‐  these  persons  should  have  or  be  in  a  position  to  afford  impunity   ü Is  a  judge  a  person  who  can  afford  impunity?  YES   ü Is  an  employee  a  person  who  can  afford  impunity?  NO   ü Is  a  secretary    a  person  who  can  afford  impunity?  NO   ü Is  a  mistress    a  person  who  can  afford  impunity?  NO     • Basis  for  aggravation:  means  and  ways  of  committing  the  crime     PARAGRAPH  8   How  many?  2   1.) Aid  of  armed  men   2.) Aid  of  persons  who  afford  impunity   Classification>  qualifying   Legal  effect?  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 86 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

Requirements:     1.) Took  part   2.) Availed  or  relied   Armed  men  distinguished  from  band:   2  

 

 

Direct  or  indirect  

 

4  

 

directly  took  part  

What  kind  of  aid  is  contemplated?   Moral  or  psychological  will  suffice;  material   A  and  4  friends  decided  to  kill  Amurao.  4  friends  all  armed  outside  the  gate.  A  armed  with  licensed   revolver.  4  friends  will  only  help  upon  signal.  Aggravating?  Yes.   Casual  presence  of  armed  men  already  aggravating?  No   Police  major  celebrating  bday.  Invited  subordinates  with  service  firearms.  A  guest  stabbed  another  guest   –  No   Impunity   Qualifying   Legal  effect?     e.g.  first  gentleman  approchaed  to  protect  you  after  killing  somebody  –  Yes   Chieftain  of  ABB-­‐NPA  (notorious).  Aggravating?  Yes.  Impunity  for  Criminal  Prosecution.  Assurance  that   there  will  be  no  complainant  and  witnesses  –  Yes.  not  required  to  be  legal  source.   Mistress  of  mayor  to  afford  impunity  –  yes     • Article  14(9)  –  Recidivism   -­‐  a  generic  aggravating  circumstance  =  can  be  offset  by  an  ordinary  mitigating  circumstance;  penalty  can   be  raised  to  the  maximum   • Recidivist  –  one  who,  at  the  time  of  his  trial  for  one  crime,  shall  have  been  previously  convicted  by   final  judgment  of  another  crime  embraced  in  the  same  title  of  the  RPC   • Requisites:   1.  that  the  offender  is  on  trial  for  an  offense   2.  that  he  was  previously  convicted  by  final  judgment  of  another  crime  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 87 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

3.  that  both  the  first  and  the  second  offense  are  embraced  in  the  same  title  of  the  RPC   4.  that  the  offender  is  convicted  of  the  new  offense   ü Supposing,  the  first  offense  was  acts  of  lasciviousness  in  1980,  then  the  second  offense  in  2006  was   attempted  rape,  can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  recidivism  be  appreciated?  NO,  because  acts  of   lasciviousness  and  attempted  rape  are  not  embraced  in  the  same  title  of  the  RPC;  acts  of   lasciviousness-­‐crimes  against  chastity;  attempted  rape-­‐crimes  against  persons   ü Supposing  the  first  offense  in  1980  was  attempted  rape,  then  the  second  offense  in  2006  was  acts  of   lasciviousness,  can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  recidivism  be  appreciated?  YES  because   attempted  rape  then  in  1980  was  embraced  under  crimes  against  chastity,  hence  both  crimes  are   embraced  in  the  same  title  of  the  RPC   • Pardon  does  not  obliterate  the  fact  that  the  accused  was  a  recidivist   • The  time  or  period  between  the  two  offenses  is  immaterial   • Basis  for  aggravation:  inclination  to  crimes     - Qualifying   - Legal  effect   - Deliberate  intent  –  must  take  advantage  of  the  calamity   Incompatible  with  negligence   Conflagration   Retrieving  your  property.  Accidentally  met  your  mortal  enemy.  Stabbed  him.  Not  aggravating   Incompatible  with:  p/o,  spur  of  the  moment,  sp   Conflagration  -­‐  A  stranger  took  your  properties,  what  is  the  crime.  Qualified  theft.   Recidivist  –  define   Violation  of  special  penal  laws    -­‐  No,  must  be  in  the  RPC   Simple  theft  convict  –  pending  appeal   Violation  of  anti  fencing  law  –  No   Qualified  theft  –  pending  appeal   Accomplice  in  attempted  robbery  –  no,  final  judgment   Before  8353  –  attempted  rape  –  served  sentence   Slight  physical  injuries  –  NO-­‐  not  embraced   Public  interest  in  the  same  title  of  RPC   Falsification  of  commercial  documents  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 88 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

Estafa   - Poperty   1970-­‐2010:  not  embraced  in  the  same  title.   Article  14(10)  –  Reiteracion  or  Habituality   -­‐  that  the  offender  has  been  previously  punished  for  an  offense  to  which  the  law  attaches  an  equal  or   greater  penalty  or  for  two  or  more  crimes  to  which  it  attaches  a  lighter  penalty   -­‐  a  generic  aggravating  circumstance  =  can  be  offset  by  an  ordinary  mitigating  circumstance;  penalty  can   be  raised  to  the  maximum   • Requisites:   1.  that  the  accused  is  on  trial  for  an  offense     2.  that  he  previously  served  sentence  for  another  offense  to  which  the  law  attaches  an  equal  or  greater   penalty  or  for  2  or  more  crimes  to  which  it  attaches  a  lighter  penalty  than  that  for  the  new  offense     3.  that  he  is  convicted  of  the  new  offense    Difference  between  Recidivism  and  Reiteracion   RECIDIVISM  

 

 

-­‐  its  enough  that  a  final  judgment  

 

REITERACION  

-­‐  its  necessary  that  the  offender  shall  

   has  been  rendered  for  the  1st  offense      have  served  out  his  sentence  for                                                                                                                                            

 the  1st  offense  

-­‐  requires  that  both  offenses  be    

-­‐  1st  and  2nd  offense  must  not  be  

   embraced  in  the  same  title  of  the  RPC          embraced  in  same  title  of  the  RPC   -­‐  always  taken  into  consideration  in  

-­‐  not  always  an  aggravating  

   terms  of  the  penalty  to  be  imposed  

   circumstance  

   

-­‐  previous  crimes  must  be  of  equal    

 

 

 

 

or  greater  in  penalty  (at  least  one)     or  at  least  two  lighter  penalties   • If  the  2nd  crime  is  an  offense  or  crime  punishable  under  a  special  law,  it  cannot  be  considered  under   reiteracion  because  Articles  13,  14,  15  of  the  RPC  are  not  applicable  to  special  law  crimes,  applicable   only  to  crimes  defined  under  the  Revised  Penal  Code.  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 89 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

ü Supposing,  the  1st  offense  is  illegal  possession  of  firearms  (a  special  law  crime),  punishable  by   reclusion  temporal,  while  the  2nd  offense  is  less  serious  physical  injuries,  can  the  aggravating   circumstance  of  reiteracion  be  appreciated?  YES,  if  the  offender  was  previously  punished  for  a  special   law  crime  or  an  offense,  the  nature  of  the  crime  is  immaterial;  the  emphasis  is  on  the  punishment  or   penalty     • Four  Forms  of  Repetition   1.  Recidivism      

3.  Habitual  Delinquency/Multi-­‐recidivism  

2.  Reiteracion  or  Habituality  

4.  Quasi-­‐recidivism  

  • Habitual  Delinquency  –  when  a  person  within  a  period  of  10  years  from  the  date  of  release  or  last   conviction  of  the  crimes  of  serious  or  less  serious  physical  injuries,  robbery,  theft,  estafa,  or   falsification,  found  guilty  for  a  3rd  time  or  oftener.  A  habitual  delinquent  shall  suffer  an  additional   penalty       • Quasi-­‐recidivism  –  any  person  who  shall  commit  a  felony  after  having  been  convicted  by  final   judgment  before  beginning  to  serve  such  sentence  or  while  serving  the  same,  shall  be  punished  by  the   maximum  period  of  the  penalty  prescribed  by  law  for  the  new  penalty.       • Basis  for  aggravation:  inclination  to  crimes     Reiteraciion  and  recidivism  –  distinguish   Murder  –  pardon.  Aggravating?  Yes.  Pardon  does  not  obliterate.   Attempted  homicide  –  6  years  probation   Frustrated  murder  –  No.   Serious  physical  injuries  –  4  years,  pobation   Less  serious  –  no   Classification  –  generic   Legal  effect?    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 90 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

Attempted  homicide  –  not  alleged  but  proved  during  trial  –  appreciate  habituality?  Yes,  generic  if   without  objection   -

Distinguish  from  habitual  delinquency  –  nature  of  offense  –  10  years  required   Habituality  –  generic   Both  must  be  alleged  in  the  information  

  • Article  14(11)  –  Price,  Reward  or  Promise   -­‐  a  qualifying  aggravating  circumstance  =  cannot  be  offset  by  a  mitigating;  CHANGES  THE  NATURE  OF   THE  CRIME   • The  price,  reward  or  promise  must  be  the  sole  motivating  factor  for  committing  the  crime;  must  be  for   the  purpose  of  inducing  another  to  perform  a  deed   • There  should  be  two  or  more  offenders:  the  one  who  offers,  the  one  who  accepts  it   • Criminal  Participation:  the  one  who  offers  is  a  principal  by  inducement,  the  one  who  accepts  is  a   principal  by  direct  participation   • It  is  not  necessary  that  the  principal  by  direct  participation  receive  the  reward  or  promise;  what  is   important  is  that  the  reward  or  promise  was  the  sole  motivating  factor  otherwise  the  crime  would  not   have  been  committed     ü Supposing,  the  one  who  commits  the  crime  knows  of  the  reward  or  promise  already,  can  the   aggravating  circumstance  of  price,  reward  or  promise  be  appreciated?  NO,  because  there  was  no   motivation  already     • Basis  for  aggravation:  greater  perversity  by  the  motivating  power  itself     Price,  reward  or  promise   - At  least  2  or  more  offenders   - Must  be  the  sole  mitigating  power  without  which  there  would  be  no  crime   - Qualifyinf  –  legal  effects   Giving  reward  –  principal  by  inducement   Acceptor  –  direct  participation   Necessary  that  accused  actually  received?  NO   You  approached  a  gun-­‐for-­‐hire.  Paid  50k  to  kill  Amurao.  Gun  for  hire  was  his  former  student  willing  to   kill  Amurao  without  price.  Aggravating?  No.   • Article  14(12)  –  By  means  of  inundation,  fire,  etc.    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 91 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

-­‐  that  the  crime  be  committed  by  means  of  inundation,  fire,  poison,  explosion,  stranding,  of  a  vessel  or   intentional  damage  thereto,  derailment  of  a  locomotive,  or  by  the  use  of  any  other  artifice  involving   great  waste  and  ruin   -­‐  a  qualifying  aggravating  circumstance  =  cannot  be  offset  by  a  mitigating;  CHANGES  THE  NATURE  OF   THE  CRIME   • There  are  instances  when  these  circumstances  are  inherent  in  the  crime,  thus  cannot  be  appreciated   as  aggravating  circumstances:   1.  “by  means  of  fire”-­‐  inherent  in  arson   2.  “by  means  of  derailment  of  locomotive”  –  inherent  in  damage  to  means  of  communication   3.  “by  means  of  explosion”-­‐  without  intent  to  kill,  inherent  in  destruction  to  property   • Difference  of  Par.7  and  Par.12   Par.7  =  on  occasion  of  calamity  or  misfortune;  not  within  offender’s  control   Par.12  =  the  acts  of  great  waste  and  ruin  are  used  by  the  offender  as  means   • Basis  for  aggravation:  means  and  ways  employed       • Article  14(13)  –  Evident  Premeditation   -­‐  a  qualifying  aggravating  circumstance  =  cannot  be  offset  by  a  mitigating;  CHANGES  THE  NATURE  OF   THE  CRIME   -­‐  this  circumstance  is  not  applicable  to  cases  involving  accidents,  accidental  meetings,  chance   encounters,  or  spurs  of  the  moment   -­‐  this  circumstance  is  not  applicable  to  cases  attendant  of  negligence  or  carelessness   -­‐  not  applicable  to  cases  attendant  of  passion  or  obfuscation  or  those  with  sufficient  provocation   • Evident  Premeditation  –  the  essence  of  such  is  that  the  execution  of  the  criminal  act  must  be   preceded  by  cool  thought  and  reflection  upon  the  resolution  to  carry  out  the  criminal  intent  during   the  space  of  time  sufficient  to  arrive  at  a  calm  judgment     • Requisites:   1.  the  time  when  the  offender  determined  to  commit  the  crime   2.  an  act  manifestly  indicating  that  the  culprit  has  clung  to  his  determination;  through  an  overt  act   3.  the  date  &  time  when  the  crime  was  committed  (to  compute  lapse  of  time)  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 92 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

4.  a  sufficient  lapse  of  time  between  the  determination  and  execution,  to  allow  him  to  reflect  upon  the   consequences  of  his  act  and  to  allow  his  conscience  to  overcome  the  resolution  of  his  will       ü Is  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  Evident  Premeditation  compatible  with  the  mitigating   circumstance  Immediate  Vindication  of  a  Relative  for  a  Grave  Offense?  YES,  the  mitigating   circumstance  and  aggravating  circumstance  can  be  appreciated.   ü Can  evident  premeditation  be  present  in  error  in  personae?  NO   ü Can  evident  premeditation  be  present  in  aberratio  ictus?  NO   ü Supposing,  you  intended  to  kill  Prof.  Amurao,  thinking  it  was  him,  you  shot  at  the  person,  who  turned   out  to  be  Dean  Jara,  can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  evident  premeditation  be  appreciated?  NO,   because  there  should  be  deliberate  intent  to  kill  Dean  Jara   • General  rule:  In  aberratio  ictus,  evident  premeditation  is  NOT  applicable   • Exception:  if  there  was  a  general  plan  to  kill  anyone;  if  offenders  intended  to  kill  anyone   • Basis  for  aggravation:  reference  to  the  ways  of  committing  the  crime  because  evident  premeditation   implies  deliberate  planning  of  the  act  before  executing  it     Elements:  4   Classification  –  qualifying   Legal  effects?   Incompatible  with  negligence,  spur  of  the  moment,  accidental  meeting,  p/o,  sp   Vindication  of  grave  offense?  Yes   Error  in  personae   -­‐general  rule:  No   Except:  if  there  is  a  general  plan   Accused  has  a  specific  victim  but  willing  to  kill  a  person  who  interfered.  Yes   Abberatio  ictus:  No   • Article  14(14)  –  Craft,  Fraud,  Disguise   -­‐  that  (1)  craft,  (2)  fraud,  (3)  disguise  be  employed   -­‐  this  paragraph  contemplates  THREE  aggravating  circumstances   -­‐  a  qualifying  aggravating  circumstance  =  cannot  be  offset  by  a  mitigating;  CHANGES  THE  NATURE  OF   THE  CRIME  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 93 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

• Craft  –  involves  intellectual  trickery  and  cunning  on  the  part  of  accused     ü Supposing,  the  accused  pretended  to  be  a  customer,  then  he  robbed  the  place,  can  the  aggravating   circumstance  of  craft  be  appreciated?  YES   ü Supposing  the  accused  pretended  to  be  a  person  in  authority,  for  example  posing  as  Meralco  officials,   then  they  commit  a  crime,  can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  craft  be  appreciated?  YES     • Fraud  –  insidious  words  or  machinations  used  to  induce  the  victim   • Fraudulent  machinations  and  grave  abuse  of  authority  will  be  absorbed  in  the  crime  of  rape   • Fraud  is  inherent  in  the  crime  of  estafa     • Disguise  –  resorting  to  any  device  to  conceal  identity   • Examples:   -­‐  wearing  a  mask     -­‐  use  of  an  assumed  name   -­‐  wearing  a  uniform  of  a  police  officer     Q:  Craft  definition   It  is  Qualifying-­‐legal  effects     Example:  A,  B,  C  in  order  to  kill  D,  told  the  latter  they  are  going  on  camping,  killed  D  in  the  forest     Fraud   Qualifying-­‐  legal  effects   Estafa-­‐legal  effect  of  fraud   It  is  inherent  in  the  commission  of  estafa  inherent  in  Art.  213     Disguise   When  is  there  disguise?   Qualifying-­‐legal  effect     Example:  Several  members  of  Bonnet  Gang  committed  robbery  in  the  highway   • Basis  of  aggravation:  means  employed     Article  14(15)  –  Abuse  of  Superior  Strength/Means  to  Weaken  Defense   -­‐  that  (1)  advantage  be  taken  of  superior  strength  or  (2)  means  be  employed  to  weaken  the  defense   -­‐  this  paragraph  contemplates  TWO  aggravating  circumstances   -­‐  a  qualifying  aggravating  circumstance  =  cannot  be  offset  by  a  mitigating;  CHANGES  THE  NATURE  OF   THE  CRIME   -­‐  there  should  be  deliberate  intent  to  take  advantage  of  superior  strength  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 94 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

• Abuse  of  Superior  Strength  –  depends  on  the  age,  size,  and  strength  of  the  parties;  it  is  considered   whenever  there  is  notorious  inequality  of  forces  between  the  victim  and  the  aggressor,  assessing  a   superiority  of  strength  notoriously  advantageous  for  the  aggressor  which  is  selected  or  taken   advantage  of  by  him  in  the  commission  of  the  crime   • If  the  victim  was  alternately  attacked,  there  is  NO  abuse  of  superior  strength     • Means  to  Weaken  the  Defense   ü Supposing,  the  offender  intoxicated  the  victim  to  materially  weaken  her,  can  the  aggravating   circumstance  of  means  to  weaken  defense  be  appreciated?  YES       Article  14(16)  –  Treachery  (Alevosia)   -­‐  a  specific  aggravating  circumstance:  only  applicable  to  crimes  against  persons;  can  treachery  be   appreciated  in  rape?  YES     -­‐  a  qualifying  aggravating  circumstance  =  cannot  be  offset  by  a  mitigating;  CHANGES  THE  NATURE  OF   THE  CRIME   -­‐  this  circumstance  is  not  applicable  to  cases  involving  accidents,  accidental  meetings,  chance   encounters,  or  spurs  of  the  moment,  or  on-­‐the-­‐spot  decisions  to  commit  the  crime   -­‐  this  circumstance  is  not  applicable  to  cases  attendant  of  negligence  or  carelessness   -­‐  not  applicable  to  cases  attendant  of  passion  or  obfuscation  or  those  with  sufficient  provocation   Treachery   When  is  there  treachery   Qualifying  and  specific-­‐  crimes  against  person   Qualifying-­‐change  the  nature  of  the  crime     Incompatible  with  negligence,  sufficient  provocation,  passion  or  obfuscation     Can  co-­‐exist  with  voluntary  confession  of  guilt?  Yes.  With  voluntary  surrender?  Yes.  They  are  not   inconsistent  with…     BUT  IS  IT  STILL  ACCURATE  THAT  THIS  QUALIFYING  AGGRAVATING  CIRCUMSTANCE  CANNOT  BE  OFFSET   BY  ANY  MITIGATING  CIRC?  Yes.  Different  functions.  One  is  to  change  the  nature  of  the  felony.  (AGG)   Other  is  to  reduce  penalty  by  one  period  after  the  offense  is  qualified  (MIT)     Does  a  privileged  mit.  Circ.  Offset  a  qualifying  aggravating?  NO.   -­‐Function  of  qualifying  agg.  Circ.  Is  to  change  the  nature  of  the  offense  for  which  the  accused  stands  to   be  prosecuted.  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 95 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

-­‐Role  of  privilege  mitigating  circ.  Is  to  reduce  the  penalty  by  one  or  two  degrees  as  the  case  may  be  from   the  proper  penalty  imposed  on  the  offense  as  qualified.     Can  co-­‐exist  with  vindication  for  a  grave  offense?  Yes.     Kill  neighbor     W/o  treachery-­‐  Homicide  (reclusion  temporal)     w/  treachery-­‐  Murder  (reclusion  perpetua  to  death)   with  1  mit  circ.  (RP  in  medium,  RP  in  minimum)   with  1  priv.  mit  circ.  RT  (one  degree  lower  from  RT)     Treachery  can  be  appreciated  in  RAPE?  Yes,  crime  against  persons.   In  a  prosecution  for  rape,  by  treachery  and  abuse  of  superior  strength  or  craft,  fraud,  disguise-­‐  absorbed   in  treachery     In  prosecution  for  MURDER  qualified  by  treachery  and  evident  premeditation.  Can  EP  be  appreciated  so   as  to  increase  penalty  in  maximum?  NO.  absorbed  in  treachery.     Same  with  inundation,  fire,  poison,  explosion,  price,  reward  or  promise.   Aid  of  armed  men,  persons  who  afford  impunity,  nighttime,  calamities  or  misfortune.     ALL  QUALIFYING  AGGRAVATING  CIRC.  Enumerated  in  People  vs.  Palaganas  can  be  absorbed  by   treachery.     Supposing  you  killed  your  neighbor  with  evident  premeditation  and  employed  means  to  weaken   defense  and  used  disguise  and  took  advantage  of  deep  flood.  How  many  qualifying?  4   Assuming  there  was  treachery,  how  many?  5   Is  it  necessary  for  the  court  to  consider  all  5  to  change  the  nature  of  the  felony?  No.  Treachery  will   suffice.   Now,  what  will  happen  to  the  other  4  aggravating  circ?  Deemed  absorbed  in  treachery.  They  can  no   longer  be  appreciated  to  impose  penalty  in  the  maximum.     TESTS  in  TREACHERY.   1.  Is  the  attack  sudden  and  unexpected?   2.  Was  the  victim  given  an  opportunity  for  defense?   3.  Was  the  means  employed  deliberate  and  consciously  adopted?  (3rd  test  is  the  most  important.)     Incompatible  with  casual  encounter-­‐  even  if  1  and  2  were  present,  if  3  is  lacking,  there  is  no  treachery.  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 96 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

Incompatible  with  accidental  meeting-­‐  spur  of  the  moment.   Incompatibel  if  killing  was  preceded  by  a  heated  argument.  (place  the  victim  on  guard  to  be  prepared   for  any  attack)     Entering  carpark,  vacant  lot   Another  vehicle  hurrying  towards  the  slot.  You  got  in  first.  There  was  a  heated  argument.  He  warned   you,  Babalikan  kita.  After  two  minutes  shot  you.  Was  there  treachery?  None.     If  killing  was  preceded  by  threat,  treachery?  No.   Lacking  question  no.  2.     When  attack  consists  of  2  or  more  stages   Aggression  is  interrupted-­‐  fatal  blow-­‐there  was  treachery   Continuing-­‐treachery  must  be  present  at  the  inception     Example  of  #1  (see  green  notebook)     A  saw  his  enemy  B   w/o  any  warning  from  behind,  inflicted  stab  wounds.   B  was  able  to  avoid.  Open  fight  followed,  B  fled.   A  immediatelt  behind,  stabbed  B.  B  died.  Was  there  treachery?  None.  Treachery  was  not  consciously   adopted  at  the  inception  and  the  aggression  being  continuing.     Example  of  #2.  People  v.  Canete,  US  vs.  Baluyot     A  sa  B  in  a  bar.  A  challenged  his  enemy  B  in  a  fight.  They  fought  inside  the  bar.  A  hit  B  in  the  back  by   pipe,  B  died.  What  crime?  Homicide  only.  Chance  encounter,  not  treachery.     Accused  found  to  be  intoxicated  under  influence  of  drugs?  MURDER.  Influence  of  illegal  drugs  qualifies   crime  from  homicide  to  murder.  (RA  9165  Comprehensive  Dangerous  Drugs  Act  of  2002)     Supposing  victim  warned  not  to  enter  a  certain  area  while  walking  along  the  road,  somebody  stabbed   him  from  behind,  treachery?  YES.  General  warning  is  not  enough  to  remove  treachery.     ü Is  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  Treachery  compatible  with  the  mitigating  circumstance  Immediate   Vindication  of  a  Relative  for  a  Grave  Offense?  YES,  because  there  was  intent  to  take  revenge     • Rules  regarding  Treachery   1.  applicable  only  to  crimes  against  persons    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 97 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

2.  means,  methods,  or  forms  need  not  insure  accomplishment  of  crime;  only  to  insure  execution   3.  the  mode  of  attack  must  be  consciously  adopted   • Requisites   1.  That  at  the  time  of  the  attack,  the  victim  was  not  in  a  position  to  defend  himself   2.  That  the  offender  consciously  adopted  the  particular  means,  method  or  form  of  attack  employed  by   him     • What  is  important  to  determine  are  the  following:   -­‐  the  victim’s  ability  to  defend  himself   -­‐  the  mode  of  attack  was  consciously  adopted     • Important  questions  to  answer:     1.  Was  the  attack  sudden  and  unexpected?   2.  Did  the  offended  have  any  opportunity  to  defend  himself?   3.  Was  the  mode  the  attack  deliberately  or  consciously  adopted  by  the  accused  to  insure  execution   without  risk  to  the  offender?   ü If  the  answer  to  all  these  questions  is  YES;  then  treachery  is  present       • Summary  of  the  rules:   1.  When  the  aggression  is  a  single  and  continuous  act,  it  must  be  present  right  at  the  inception  or   present  in  the  beginning  of  the  assault     2.  When  the  assault  is  not  continuous,  or  the  attack  is  divisible  into  two  or  more  stages,  or  interrupted,   it  is  sufficient  that  treachery  was  present  at  the  time  of  the  mortal  blow  was  inflicted.     ü Supposing,  there  was  a  heated  argument  between  the  offender  and  the  offended  before  they   attacked  each  other,  can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  treachery  be  appreciated?  NO,  either  or   both  parties  should  have  been  prepared   ü Supposing,  there  was  a  warning  from  the  offender,  then  after  a  few  minutes  he  attacked  the  victim,   can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  treachery  be  appreciated?  NO,  because  there  was  a  chance  to   defend  himself  and  pose  a  risk  to  the  offender   ü Supposing,  your  enemy  was  sleeping,  you  tapped  him,  then  you  shot  him  as  soon  as  he  awakened,   can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  treachery  be  appreciated?  YES    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 98 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

ü Supposing,  the  victim’s  hands  and  feet  were  tied,  then  mortal  wounds  were  inflicted  on  the  victim,   can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  treachery  be  appreciated?  YES   ü Supposing,  the  offender  buried  half  of  the  victim’s  body,  then  he  hacked  the  victim  to  death,  can  the   aggravating  circumstance  of  treachery  be  appreciated?  YES   ü Supposing,  the  accused  shot  the  victim  who  was  tied  to  a  coconut  tree,  can  the  aggravating   circumstance  of  treachery  be  appreciated?  YES   ü Supposing,  there  was  a  dispute  over  a  parking  space,  then  the  accused  shot  the  victim,  can  the   aggravating  circumstance  of  treachery  be  appreciated?  NO     ü Supposing,  the  victim  suffered  frontal  mortal  wounds,  immediately,  can  the  aggravating   circumstance  of  treachery  not  be  appreciated?  NO,  because  having  frontal  wounds  is  NOT  conclusive   that  there  was  no  treachery   ü Supposing,  the  victim  suffered  mortal  wounds  at  the  back,  immediately,  can  the  aggravating   circumstance  of  treachery  be  appreciated?  NO   • Note:  The  location  of  the  wounds  does  not  give  rise  to  the  presumption  of  the  presence  of  treachery     ü Supposing,  the  victim  hid  behind  a  drum  where  he  could  not  be  seen  by  the  offender,  the  offender,   knowing  that  the  victim  was  hiding  behind  the  drum  shot  at  the  drum;  the  bullet  penetrated  the   drum  and  hit  the  victim  which  caused  his  death,  can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  treachery  be   appreciated?  YES,  because  the  victim  was  not  in  a  position  to  defend  himself   ü Supposing,  there  was  an  agreement  to  fight     • Treachery  cannot  be  presumed;  must  be  proved  by  clear  and  convincing  evidence   • In  treachery,  it  is  not  necessary  that  the  person  intended  to  be  killed  was  not  the  one  actually  killed   • According  to  Prof.  Amurao,  treachery  is  a  politician  and  a  “buwaya”,  because  it  takes  everything;   because  treachery  absorbs  all  other  aggravating  circumstances     • Basis  for  aggravation:  means  and  ways  employed     • Additional  notes  from  Prof.  Amurao:     -­‐  If  the  offender  was  under  the  influence  of  drugs  in  the  crime  of  murder  or  homicide,  this  can  be   considered  a  qualifying  aggravating  circumstance,  even  in  the  absence  of  treachery  (pursuant  to  RA   9165)     -­‐  the  use  of  an  unlicensed  firearm  =  a  special  aggravating  circumstance  for  the  crime  of  murder  or   homicide;  before  it  was  separately  prosecuted,  but  now  unlawful  possession  is  only  a  special   aggravating  circumstance  that  can  increase  the  penalty  to  the  maximum;  no  separate  prosecution   • Article  14(17)  –  Ignominy  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 99 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

-­‐  that  means  be  employed  or  circumstances  brought  about  which  add  ignominy  to  the  natural  effects  of   the  act   -­‐  a  qualifying  aggravating  circumstance  =  cannot  be  offset  by  a  mitigating;  CHANGES  THE  NATURE  OF   THE  CRIME   • Ignominy  –  a  circumstance  pertaining  to  the  moral  order  which  adds  disgrace  and  obloquy  to  the   material  injury  caused  by  the  crime   • Applicable  to  crimes  against  chastity,  less  serious  physical  injuries,  light  or  grave  coercion  and  murder     • Effect  of  ignominy:  the  crime  becomes  more  humiliating  or  to  put  the  offended  party  to  shame     ü Supposing,  a  woman  was  raped  in  the  presence  of  her  husband  and  children,  can  the  aggravating   circumstance  of  ignominy  be  appreciated?  YES   ü Supposing,  a  woman  was  raped  while  cogon  grass  was  wrapped  around  the  penis  of  the  offender,   can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  ignominy  be  appreciated?  Prof.  Amurao  thinks  that  this  scenario   falls  under  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  cruelty     • Basis  for  aggravation:  means  employed     IGNOMINY   Art,  18  and  19-­‐  PD  532,  accomplices  in  PD  532   Art.  19  accessories-­‐  Anti-­‐fencing  law  PD  1829  (Obstruction  of  Justice)   Art.  29  Preventive  Imp  and  crediting     Victim  all  wounds  frontal     Treachery  cannot  be  appreciated?  No.  Mere  presence  of  frontal  wound  is  not  conclusive  that  no   treachery  was  employed  neither  will  presence  of  back  wounds  be  conclusive  that  treachery  was  present.   Absent  any  proof  as  to  how  wound  was  inflicted.     Victim  has  just  awaken,  still  drowsy  when  attacked.  Treachery?  Yes.   Question  Hour:  Amurao  Speaking.   When  there  are  2  qualifying,  one  will  suffice  to  change  the  nature  of  the  crime.  What  will  happen  to  the   other  qualifying?  The  other  will  be  considered  as  generic  aggravating  circumstance-­‐  penalty  to  the   maximum.  (Except  treachery,  because  treachery  will  absorb  them)     N.B.  Other  qualifying  circ.  Not  in  art  248  (murder)  e.g.  craft,  fraud,  or  disguise.  They  are  means  of   treachery,  absorbed  in  treachery  in  Art.  248.)     • Article  14(18)  –  Unlawful  Entry    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 100 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

-­‐  that  the  crime  be  committed  after  an  unlawful  entry   -­‐  a  qualifying  aggravating  circumstance  =  cannot  be  offset  by  a  mitigating;  CHANGES  THE  NATURE  OF   THE  CRIME   • Unlawful  Entry  –  an  entrance  is  effected  by  a  way  not  intended  for     • Purpose  –  to  effect  entrance  not  for  escape     ü Supposing,  the  window  was  used  to  gain  entry  into  the  house,  can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of   unlawful  entry  be  appreciated?  YES   ü Supposing,  the  owners  of  the  house  commonly  use  the  window  as  their  ordinary  means  to  enter  the   house,  then  the  accused  entered  the  door,  can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  unlawful  entry  be   appreciated?  YES       • Unlawful  entry  is  inherent  (thus  cannot  be  appreciated  as  an  aggravating  circumstance)  in  the   following  crimes:   -­‐  robbery  with  force  upon  things     -­‐  violation  of  domicile  (committed  by  public  persons)   -­‐  trespass  to  dwelling  (committed  by  private  individuals)    Basis  for  aggravation:  means  and  ways  employed     • Article  14(19)  –  Breaking  Wall   -­‐  that  as  a  means  to  the  commission  of  a  crime,  a  wall,  roof,  floor,  door  or  window  be  broken   -­‐  a  qualifying  aggravating  circumstance  =  cannot  be  offset  by  a  mitigating;  CHANGES  THE  NATURE  OF   THE  CRIME   • To  effect  entrance  only   • Should  be  as  a  means  to  commit  to  crime     ü Supposing,  the  accused  intended  to  kill  his  next-­‐door  neighbor  by  breaking  the  wall  separating  them,   then  he  shot  the  neighbor,  can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  breaking  wall  be  appreciated?  YES   • Breaking  wall  is  inherent  in  robbery  with  force  upon  things     • Basis  for  aggravation:  means  and  ways  employed     • Article  14(20)  –  Aid  of  Minor  or  by  Means  of  Motor  Vehicles  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 101 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

-­‐  that  the  crimes  be  committed  (1)  with  the  aid  of  persons  under  15  years  of  age  or  (2)  by  means  of   motor  vehicles,  airships  or  other  similar  means   -­‐  this  paragraph  contemplates  TWO  aggravating  circumstances   • Aid  of  Minor   -­‐  a  generic  aggravating  circumstance  =  can  be  offset  by  an  ordinary  mitigating  circumstance   -­‐  involves  the  taking  advantage  of  the  child’s  immaturity  or  innocence     • Use  of  Motor  Vehicles   -­‐  a  qualifying  aggravating  circumstance  =  cannot  be  offset  by  a  mitigating;  CHANGES  THE  NATURE  OF   THE  CRIME   -­‐  the  offender  should  deliberately  seek  for  the  use  of  the  vehicle     -­‐  the  use  of  the  motor  vehicle  must  be  the  means  used  to  commit  the  crime   -­‐  should  facilitate  the  commission  of  the  crime   ü Supposing,  the  accused  robbed  a  house  then  found  a  car  in  front  of  the  house  which  he  used  for  his   escape,  can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  use  of  motor  vehicle  be  appreciated?  NO,  because  the   crime  was  already  accomplished   ü Supposing,  the  accused  robbed  the  passengers  in  a  bus,  can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  use  of   motor  vehicle  be  appreciated?  YES,  even  if  it  is  a  public  vehicle,  the  circumstance  can  be  appreciated     ü Supposing,  a  taxicab  was  hired,  then  an  argument  ensued  inside  where  the  accused  killed  the  victim,   can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  use  of  motor  vehicle  be  appreciated?  NO,  because  the  motor   vehicle  was  just  incidental  to  the  crime     ü Are  motorized  bikes  considered?  YES   ü What  if  it  is  a  motorized  bike  but  the  motor  is  not  used?  YES   ü Are  road-­‐rollers  or  “pison”  considered?  NO,  because  it  is  not  motorized  as  contemplated  by  the  LTO   • Use  of  motor  vehicles  is  inherent  in  the  crime  of  carnapping     • Basis  for  aggravation:  means  and  ways  employed     • Article  14(21)  –  Cruelty   -­‐  that  the  wrong  done  in  the  commission  of  the  crime  be  deliberately  augmented  by  causing  other   wrong  not  necessary  for  its  commission   -­‐  a  qualifying  aggravating  circumstance  =  cannot  be  offset  by  a  mitigating;  CHANGES  THE  NATURE  OF   THE  CRIME   • Cruelty  –  when  the  culprit  enjoys  and  delights  in  making  his  victim  suffer  slowly  and  gradually,  causing   the  victim  unnecessary  physical  pain  in  the  consummation  of  the  criminal  act  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 102 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

• Requisites:   1.  That  the  injury  caused  be  deliberately  increased  by  causing  another  wrong   2.  That  the  other  wrong  be  unnecessary  for  the  execution  of  the  purpose  of  the  offender   ü Is  there  cruelty  when  it  is  done  against  a  dead  body?  NO,  because  it  did  not  prolong  pain  since  the   person  was  already  dead   ü Is  there  cruelty  when  it  is  done  against  an  unconscious  person?  YES   ü Supposing,  a  dead  person  was  found  with  125  stab  wounds,  can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  use   of  motor  vehicle  be  appreciated?  NO,  because  the  number  of  wounds  is  immaterial  with  cruelty     • Ignominy  –  moral  suffering   Cruelty  –  physical  suffering  prolonged   • Cruelty  cannot  be  presumed     • Basis  for  aggravation:  ways  employed    

Article  15   -­‐  those  which  must  be  taken  into  consideration  as  aggravating  or  mitigating  according  to  the  nature  and   effects  of  the  crime  and  the  other  conditions  attending  its  commission   • The  following  are  alternative  circumstances:   1.  Relationship   2.  Intoxication   3.  Degree  of  Instruction  and  Education  of  the  Offender   • Article  15(1)  –  Relationship   -­‐  considered  when  the  offended  party  is  the:   a.  spouse   b.  ascendant   c.  descendant   d.  legitimate,  natural,  adopted  sibling   e.  relative  by  affinity     Q:  Supposing,  a  stepdaughter  was  raped  by  her  stepfather,  can  the  alternative  circumstance  of   relationship  be  appreciated?  YES     • Relationship  is  mitigating  in  crimes  against  property  (RUFA):  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes 1.  robbery  

Page 103 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

3.  fraudulent  insolvency  

2.  usurpation   4.  arson   • Relationship  is  exempting  in  crimes  of  theft,  swindling,  or  malicious  mischief  if  the  offender  and   offended  live  together   • Relationship  is  aggravating  in  crimes  against  persons  when  the  offended  is  a  relative  of  higher   degree  than  the  offender  or  when  the  offender  and  offended  are  parties  of  the  same  level     • If  the  offended  is  a  relative  of  lower  degree,  in  the  crime  of  less  serious  and  slight  physical  injuries,   relationship  is  mitigating   • If  the  offended  is  a  relative  of  higher  degree,  in  the  same  crimes,  relationship  is  aggravating   • When  the  crime  is  homicide  or  murder,  which  resulted  to  the  death  of  the  victim,  relationship  is   aggravating,  regardless  of  degree.   • In  crimes  against  chastity,  relationship  is  ALWAYS  aggravating     • Article  15(2)  -­‐  Intoxication     a.  mitigating  when:   -­‐  the  drinking  is  not  habitual;  or  accidental   -­‐  if  the  intoxication  is  not  subsequent  to  the  plan  to  commit  a  crime   § Reason  for  mitigation:  exercise  of  will  power  is  impaired   b.  aggravating  when:     -­‐  if  habitual   -­‐  if  intoxication  is  intentional  (fully  knowing  its  effects  as  a  stimulant)  or  subsequent  to  the  plan  to   commit  the  crime   § Reason  for  aggravation:  bolstered  courage  to  commit  the  crime  (intentional);  lessens  resistance  to  evil   thoughts  (habitual)     • Article  15(3)  –  Instruction  or  Education   -­‐  what  is  measured  is  the  degree  of  intelligence  not  the  formal  education     • Low  degree  of  instruction/Lack  of  education  –  mitigating   • High  degree  of  instruction;  offender  avails  of  intelligence  -­‐  aggravating     ü Supposing,  the  crime  was  done  not  in  a  civilized  society,  can  the  alternative  circumstance  of  low   degree  of  instruction  as  a  mitigating  circumstance  YES,  it  is  a  mitigating  circumstance   ü Supposing,  the  accused  killed  a  person,  can  the  alternative  circumstance  of  low  degree  of  instruction   as  a  mitigating  circumstance  be  appreciated?  NO,  because  killing  is  inherently  wrong    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 104 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

ü Supposing,  the  accused  committed  the  crime  of  treason,  can  the  alternative  circumstance  of  low   degree  of  instruction  as  a  mitigating  circumstance  be  appreciated?  NO,  because  love  for  country  is  a   natural  feeling  that  requires  no  degree  of  instruction   ü Supposing,  accused  committed  crimes  against  chastity,  can  the  alternative  circumstance  of  low   degree  of  instruction  as  a  mitigating  circumstance  be  appreciated?  NO   ü Supposing,  accused  committed  crimes  against  chastity,  can  the  alternative  circumstance  of  low   degree  of  instruction  as  a  mitigating  circumstance  be  appreciated?  NO   ü Supposing,  accused  committed  the  crime  of  murder,  can  the  alternative  circumstance  of  low  degree   of  instruction  as  a  mitigating  circumstance  be  appreciated?  NO     ü Supposing,  a  lawyer  committed  the  crime  of  estafa,  can  the  alternative  circumstance  of  high  degree   of  instruction  as  an  aggravating  circumstance  be  appreciated?  YES   ü Supposing,  a  doctor  prepared  a  special  poison  to  kill  the  victim,  can  the  alternative  circumstance  of   high  degree  of  instruction  as  an  aggravating  circumstance  be  appreciated?  YES    

Article  16   • ARTICLE  16  –  WHO  ARE  CRIMINALLY  LIABLE   -­‐the  following  are  criminally  liable  for  grave  and  less  grave  offenses:   1.  Principals       2.  Accomplices   3.  Accessories     -­‐  the  following  are  criminally  liable  for  light  felonies:   1.  Principals   2.  Accomplices   • Accessories  are  not  liable  for  light  felonies  because  the  social  wrong  is  so  small   • Rules  on  light  felonies   1.  punishable  only  when  consummated   2.  when  committed  against  persons  or  property  and  punishable  in  the  attempted  or  frustrated     3.  only  principals  and  accomplices  are  liable   4.  accessories  are  not  liable  even  in  crimes  against  persons  or  property   • Only  natural  persons  can  be  active  subjects  of  a  crime  contemplated  under  Article  16  of  the  RPC     Reasons:     1.  Under  the  Revised  Penal  Code,  persons  act  with  personal  malice  or  negligence;  artificial/judicial   persons  can’t  act  with  malice  or  negligence   2.  A  juridical  person  like  a  corporation  can’t  commit  a  crime  that  requires  willful  purpose  or  malicious   intent  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 105 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

3.  There  is  substitution  of  deprivation  of  liberty  for  pecuniary  penalties  in  insolvency  cases   4.  Other  penalties  like  destierro  and  imprisonment  =  executed  on  individuals  only  

Article  17   • ARTICLE  17  –  PRINCIPALS   -­‐  the  following  are  considered  principals:   1.  those  who  take  a  direct  part  in  the  execution  of  the  act     (By  Direct  Participation)   2.  those  who  directly  force  or  induce  others  to  commit  it  (By  Inducement)   3.  those  who  cooperate  in  the  commission  of  the  offense  by  another  act  without  which  it  would  not   have  been  accomplished     (By  Indispensable  Cooperation)   • Article  17(1)  –  Principals  by  Direct  Participation  (PDP)   -­‐  Requisites:   1.  they  participated  in  the  criminal  resolution   2.  they  carried  out  their  plan  and  personally  took  part  in  its  execution  by  acts  which  directly  tended  to   the  same  end     • In  multiple  rape,  all  the  rapists  are  equally  liable,  regardless  of  degree  of  participation   • Without  the  2nd  requisite,  there  is  only  conspiracy  =  thus  there  is  no  criminal  liability     • Article  17(2)  –  Principals  by  Inducement  (PI)   • Principals  by  Inducement  are  ONLY  liable  when  the  Principal  by  Direct  Participation  committed  the  act   induced   • Two  ways  of  becoming  principal  by  induction   1.  by  directly  forcing  another  to  commit  a  crime   2.  by  directly  inducing  another  to  commit  a  crime     • By  directly  forcing  another  to  commit  a  crime  (no  conspiracy  involved)   1.  by  using  irresistible  force   2.  by  causing  uncontrollable  fear   • By  directly  inducing  another  to  commit  a  crime   1.  by  giving  price  or  offering  reward  or  promise  =  collective  criminal  responsibility   2.  by  using  words  of  command    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 106 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

  • Requisites  for  the  Principal  by  Inducement   1.  that  the  inducement  be  made  directly  with  the  intention  of  procuring  the  commission  of  the  crime   2.  that  such  inducement  be  the  determining  cause  of  the  commission  of  the  crime     • Inducement  –  may  be  by  acts  of  command,  advice,  or  through  influence  or  agreement  for   consideration;  the  words  of  advice  or  influence  must  actually  move  the  hands  of  the  principal  by  direct   participation   • The  inducement  must  be  the  determining  cause  for  the  commission  of  the  crime  by  the  principal  by   direct  participation,  that  is  without  such  inducement  the  crime  would  not  have  been  committed   • The  inducement  must  precede  the  act  and  must  be  so  influential     • If  there  is  a  price  or  reward  involved,  w/o  prior  promise  =  no  inducement   • By  using  words  of  command   -­‐  the  words  must  be  the  moving  cause  of  the  offense   1.  that  the  one  uttering  the  words  of  command  must  have  the  intention  of  procuring  the  commission  of   the  crime     2.  that  the  one  who  made  the  command  must  have  an  ascendancy  or  influence  over  the  person  who   acted   3.  that  the  words  used  must  be  so  direct,  so  efficacious,  so  powerful  as  to  amount  to  physical  or  moral   coercion     Efficacious  –  it  would  seem  or  it  was  furnished  that  the  material  executor  or  principal  by  direct   participation  had  reason  to  believe  or  was  made  to  believe  that  the  deceased  did  something  wrong   4.  the  words  of  command  must  be  uttered  prior  to  the  commission  of  the  crime;  when  the  words  were   uttered  after  the  commencement  of  the  crime  =  no  inducement   5.  the  material  executor  has  no  personal  reason  to  commit  the  crime     • Difference  bet.  Principal  by  Inducement  &  Offender  by  Proposal   PRIN.  BY  INDUCEMENT     OFFENDER  BY  PROPOSAL   -­‐  inducement  to  commit  the  crime   -­‐  inducement  to  commit  the  crime   -­‐  liable  only  when  crime  is  committed       -­‐  mere  proposal  to  commit  is   by  the  principal  by  direct  participation      punishable  in  treason  &  rebellion;                                                                                                                                      person  proposed  to  shouldn’t    

 

 

 

 

-­‐  inducement  involves  any  crime  

   commit  the  crime   -­‐  applies  in  treason  &  rebellion  only    

• Article  17(3)  -­‐  Principal  by  Indispensable  Cooperation  (PIC)   -­‐  those  who  cooperate  in  the  commission  of  the  crime  by  another  act  without  which  it  would  not  have   been  accomplished  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 107 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

• Cooperate  –  means  to  desire  or  wish  in  common  a  thing,  but  that  common  will  or  purpose  does  not   necessarily  mean  previous  understanding  for  it  can  be  explained  or  inferred  from  the  circumstances  of   each  case   • Requisites:   1.  participation  in  the  criminal  resolution,  that  is,  there  is  either  anterior  conspiracy  or  unity  of  criminal   purpose  and  intention  immediately  before  the  commission  of  the  crime  charged   2.  cooperation  in  the  commission  of  the  crime  by  performing  another  act,  without  which  it  would  not   have  been  accomplished   • First  requisite   -­‐  requires  participation  in  the  criminal  resolution   -­‐  there  must  be  conspiracy   -­‐  concurrence  is  sufficient   -­‐  cooperation  indispensable   • Second  requisite   -­‐  cooperation  MUST  be  indispensable   -­‐  if  dispensable,  accused  is  only  an  accomplice     • Collective  Criminal  Responsibility  (CCR)  –  when  the  offenders  are  criminally  liable  in  the  same  manner   and  to  the  same  extent;  penalty  is  the  same  for  all:   a.  Principals  by  Direct  Participation  –  CCR   b.  Principals  by  Inducement  –  CCR  with  Principals  by  Direct  Participation,  except  those  who   directly  forced  another  to  commit  a  crime     c.  Principals  by  Indispensable  Cooperation  –  CCR  with  Principals  by  Direct  Participation   • Individual  Criminal  Responsibility  (ICR)  –  in  the  absence  of  previous  conspiracy,  unity  of  criminal   purpose  and  intention  immediately  before  the  commission  of  the  crime  or  community  of  criminal   design,  the  criminal  responsibility  arising  from  different  acts  directed  against  one  and  the  same  person   is  individual  and  not  collective,  and  each  of  the  participants  is  liable  only  for  the  act  committed  by  him    

Article  18   • ARTICLE  18  -­‐  ACCOMPLICES   -­‐  Accomplices  are  persons  who,  not  being  included  in  Article  17,  cooperate  in  the  execution  of  the  crime   by  previous  or  simultaneous  acts     • Quasi-­‐Collective  Criminal  Responsibility  –  some  of  the  offenders  in  the  crime  are  principals;  others   are  accomplices  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 108 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

  • Participation-­‐proved  by  positive  &competent  evidence;  can’t  be  presumed     • Accomplices  have  -­‐  no  previous  agreement                      -­‐  no  understanding          with  the  Principal  by    

 

             -­‐  not  in  conspiracy    

 

Direct  Participation  

  • Difference  between  an  Accomplice  and  a  Conspirator   ACCOMPLICES       CONSPIRATORS   -­‐  they  know  &  agree  with  the      

-­‐  they  know  &  agree  with  the    

   criminal  design  

   criminal  design  

 

 

-­‐  they  come  to  know  about  the    

-­‐  they  know  the  criminal  intention  

   criminal  design  after  the  conspirators      because  they  have  decided  upon      have  decided  on  it  

 

 

-­‐  only  concurs  to  the  commission  of    

     the  course  of  action   -­‐  they  decide  to  commit  the  crime  

     the  crime;  they  do  not  decide;  they        merely  assent  to  it  and  cooperate   -­‐  mere  instruments  performing  acts  

-­‐  they  are  the  authors  of  the  crime  

   NOT  essential  to  the  perpetration  of        the  crime   • Requisites  for  an  accomplice:   1.  that  there  be  community  of  design;  that  is,  knowing  the  criminal  design  of  the  principal  by  direct   participation,  he  concurs  with  the  latter  in  his  purpose   2.  that  he  cooperates  in  the  execution  of  the  offense  by  previous  and  simultaneous  acts  with  the   intention  of  supplying  the  material  or  moral  aid  in  the  execution  of  the  crime  in  an  efficacious  way   3.  that  there  be  a  relation  between  the  acts  done  by  the  principal  and  those  attributed  to  the  person   charged  as  accomplice  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 109 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

• Rules  on  Accomplices:   1.  the  one  who  had  the  original  criminal  design  is  the  person  who  committed  the  resulting  crime  (there   should  be  a  principal  by  direct  participation)   2.  an  accomplice  cooperates  only  with  previous  or  simultaneous  acts   3.  an  accomplice  does  not  inflict  more  or  most  serious  wounds   • Moral  aid  –  may  be  through  advice,  encouragement  or  agreement   • Examples  of  previous  acts   -­‐  lending  of  a  weapon,  knowing  of  the  purpose   -­‐  furnishing  a  drug  or  sleeping  drug,  knowing  the  purpose  is  for  rape   • Examples  of  simultaneous  acts   -­‐  disarming  the  victim  while  the  principal  is  attacking     -­‐  preventing  the  victims  from  receiving  help   -­‐  acted  as  a  look-­‐out,  without  conspiracy   -­‐  supplying  material  or  moral  aid   -­‐  distracting  the  victim    

Article  19   • ARTICLE  19  -­‐  ACCESSORIES   -­‐  Accessories  are  those  who,  having  knowledge  of  the  commission  of  the  crime  and  without  having   participated  therein,  either  as  principals  or  accomplices,  take  part  subsequent  to  its  commission  in  any   of  the  following  manners:   1.  by  profiting  themselves  or  assisting  the  offender  to  profit  by  the  effects  of  the  crime     2.  by  concealing  or  destroying  the  body  of  the  crime  or  the  effects  or  instruments  thereof,  in  order  to   prevent  its  discovery   3.  by  harboring,  concealing  or  assisting  in  the  escape  of  the  principal  of  the  crime,  provided  the   accessory  acts  with  of  his  public  functions  or  whenever  the  author  of  the  crime  is  guilty  of  treason,   parricide,  murder,  or  an  attempt  to  take  the  life  of  the  Chief  Executive  or  is  known  to  be  habitually   guilty  of  some  other  crime     • Accessories  do  not  participate;  they  do  not  cooperate   • Accessories  must  have  knowledge  of  the  commission  of  the  crime,  then  takes  part  subsequent  to  the   commission,  eg.  fencing   • Knowledge  may  be  acquired  after  the  acquisition  of  stolen  property    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 110 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

• Examples  of  by  profiting  themselves  by  the  effects  of  the  crime   -­‐  received  stolen  property  and  used  it   -­‐  shared  in  the  reward  for  murder   • Examples  of  assisting  the  offender  by  the  effects  of  the  crime   -­‐  sells  the  stolen  property  for  the  offender’s  benefit   -­‐  runners  or  couriers  for  picking-­‐up  or  getting  the  ransom  money     • Examples  of  by  concealing  or  destroying  the  body  of  the  crime  (or  the  corpus  delicti)   -­‐  assisted  in  the  burial  to  prevent  discovery   -­‐  concealing  or  hiding  weapons  used  in  the  commission  of  the  crime     -­‐  furnishes  the  means  to  stage  the  crime  scene   • Requisites  for  Article  19(3):   a.  –  accessory  is  a  public  officer    

b.  -­‐  accessory  is  a  private  person  

       -­‐  harbors,  conceals,  assists  in  the  

       -­‐  harbors,  conceals,  assists  in  the  

           escape  

       -­‐  escape  

 

 

 

       -­‐  acts  with  abuse  of  his  public    

       -­‐  crime  of  principal  is  treason,    

             functions    

             parricide,  murder,  attempt    

 

 

       -­‐  crime  of  principal  is  any  crime  

             against  the  life  of  the  President,  

             not  a  light  felony  

             a  known  habitual  criminal    

 

 

• If  the  principal  is  acquitted  by  exemption,  accessory  may  still  be  convicted   • Apprehension  and  conviction  of  the  principal  is  not  necessary  for  the  accessory  to  be  held  criminally   liable   • If  the  principal  is  at-­‐large  or  not  yet  apprehended,  the  accessory  may  be  prosecuted  and  convicted     • Anti-­‐Fencing  Law  of  1979  (Presidential  Decree  No.1612)   • Fencing  –  is  the  act  of  any  person  who,  with  intent  to  gain  for  himself  or  for  another,  shall  buy,   receive,  possess,  keep,  acquire,  conceal,  sell  or  dispose  of,  or  shall  buy  and  sell,  or  in  any  other  manner   deal  in  any  article,  item,  object  or  anything  of  value  which  he  knows,  or  should  be  known  to  him,  to   have  been  derived  from  the  proceeds  of  the  crime  of  robbery  or  theft   • Fence  –  includes  any  person,  firm,  association,  corporation  or  partnership  or  other  organization   who/which  commits  the  act  of  fencing    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 111 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

 

Article  20   • ARTICLE  20  –  ACCESSORIES  EXEMPT  FROM  CRIMINAL  LIABILITY   -­‐  those  who  are  exempt  are  the  following:      a.  spouses  

c.  descendants   e.  relatives  by  affinity  w/in  same  degrees  

   b.  ascendants   d.  legitimate,  natural,  adopted  siblings   -­‐  except  those  that  fall  under  Article  19(1)     • Ground  for  exemption  –  ties  of  blood;  preservation  of  the  cleanliness  of  one’s  name   • Nephew  or  niece  not  included     • Accessories  not  exempt  if  they:  -­‐  profited  by  the  effects  of  the  crime      -­‐  assisted  the  offender  to  profit   • PENALTIES   • Penalty  –  the  suffering  that  is  inflicted  by  the  State  for  the  transgression  of  a  law     • Different  juridical  conditions  of  penalty   -­‐  productive  of  suffering       -­‐  certain   -­‐  commensurate  with  the  offense  

-­‐  equal  for  all  

-­‐  personal  

-­‐  correctional  

 

 

 

-­‐  legal   • Purpose  of  punishment:  To  secure  justice   • Theories  justifying  penalty   1.  Prevention  –  prevent  or  suppress  the  danger  to  the  State   2.  Self-­‐defense  –  right  to  punish;  protect  society  from  the  threat  or  wrong   3.  Reformation  –  correct  and  reform  the  offender   4.  Exemplarity  –  punishment  for  deterrence   5.  Justice  –  punishment  as  an  act  of  retributive  justice    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 112 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

• Social  defense  &  exemplarity:  justifies  the  imposition  of  the  death  penalty   • The  penalties  under  the  RPC  have  a  3-­‐fold  purpose   1.  Retribution  or  expiation  –  penalty  commensurate  with  the  gravity  of  the  crime   2.  Correction  or  reformation  –  shown  by  rules  that  regulate  execution  of  penalties  consisting  in   deprivation  of  liberty   3.  Social  defense  –  shown  by  its  inflexible  severity  to  recidivists  and  habitual  delinquents  

Article  21-­‐29   • ARTICLE  21  –  PENALTIES  THAT  MAY  BE  IMPOSED   -­‐  No  felony  shall  be  punishable  by  any  penalty  not  prescribed  by  law  prior  to  its  commission   • ARTICLE  22  –  RETROACTIVE  EFFECT  OF  PENAL  LAWS   -­‐  Penal  laws  shall  be  retroactive  in  so  far  as  they  favor  the  person  guilty  of  a  felony  and  is  not  a  habitual   criminal   General  Rule  –  prospective  effect   Exception  –  favorable  to  the  accused   Reason  for  the  exception  –  former  laws  repealed  or  amended  are  unjust   Article  22  does  not  apply  to  the  provisions  of  the  Revised  Penal  Code;  but  applies  to  (1)  penal  laws   enacted  before  the  RPC,  and  (2)  penal  laws  enacted  subsequent  to  the  RPC,  which  are  more  favorable   to  the  accused   • Criminal  Liability  of  repealed  laws  still  subsist  when:   1.  there  is  a  reenactment  of  the  law   • • • •

2.  when  the  repeal  is  by  implication   3.  when  there  is  a  saving  clause   • ARTICLE  23  –  PARDON  BY  THE  OFFENDED  PARTY     -­‐  does  not  extinguish  criminal  action  except  in  Article  344  of  the  RPC;  but  an  express  waiver  can   extinguish  the  civil  liability  for  the  injured  party   • A  pardon  by  the  offended  party  does  not  extinguish  criminal  action,  because  a  crime  committed  is  a   felony  or  offense  committed  against  the  State,  eg.  estafa  -­‐  even  the  offender  pays  damages  to  the   injured  party,  the  offender  can  still  be  prosecuted   • Compromise  does  not  extinguish  criminal  liability   • Under  Article  344,  in  the  crimes  of  seduction,  abduction,  rape  or  acts  of  lasciviousness,  there  shall  be   no  criminal  prosecution  if  the  offender  is  expressly  pardoned  by  the  parents  or  grandparents  or   guardian  of  the  offended  party.  In  the  crime  of  adultery  or  concubinage,  both  offenders  (the  offending   spouse  and  paramour)  must  be  pardoned  by  the  offended  party    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 113 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

• Pardon  under  Article  344  must  be  made  before  the  institution  of  criminal  prosecution,  unless  after  the   institution  of  the  criminal  action,  the  offender  and  the  offended  decide  to  get  married;  This  pardon  is   only  a  bar  to  criminal  prosecution   • ARTICLE  24  –  MEASURES  OF  PREVENTION  AND  SAFETY  THAT  ARE  NOT  CONSIDERED  AS  PENALTIES   1.  Arrest  and  Temporary  Detention    5.  Deprivation  of  Rights  with   2.  Commitment  of  a  Minor  

 

         Reparations  

3.  Suspension  from  Employment   4.  Fines  &  Other  Corrective  Measures,  administrative  or  disciplinary  in  nature   ARTICLE  25  –  CLASSIFICATION  OF  PENALTIES   • Principal  Penalties   Capital  punishment        

Light  penalties  

Death    

 

 

 

 

Arresto  Menor  

 

 

 

 

 

Fines  

Afflictive  penalties    

 

 

 

Public  Censure  

Reclusion  Perpetua  

 

Reclusion  Temporal  

 

 

Perpetual  or  Temporary  absolute  disqualification  

Penalties  common  to  the  

Perpetual  or  Temporary  special  disqualification  

three  preceding  classes  

Prision  Mayor  

 

 

 

 

Fine  

 

 

 

 

 

Bond  to  keep  the  peace  

 

 

 

 

Correctional  penalties   Prision  Correccional   Arresto  Mayor  

 

 

 

 

Suspension   Destierro                

 

• Accessory  Penalties  

-­‐  Perpetual  or  Temporary  absolute  disqualification   -­‐  Perpetual  or  Temporary  special  disqualification  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 114 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

-­‐  Suspension  from  public  office,  the  right  to  vote  and  be  voted  for,  the  profession  or        calling   -­‐  Civil  interdiction   -­‐  Indemnification   -­‐  Forfeiture  of  confiscation  of  instruments  and  proceeds  of  the  offense   -­‐  Payment  of  cost  

Classification  of  penalties  according  to  subject  matter   1.  Corporal  (death)   2.  Deprivation  of  freedom  (reclusion,  prision,  arresto)   3.  Restriction  of  freedom  (destierro)   4.  Deprivation  of  rights  (disqualification  and  suspension)   5.  Pecuniary  (fine)   • ARTICLE  26  –  FINES  (AFFLICTIVE,  CORRECTIONAL,  LIGHT)   • Fines  and  Bond  to  keep  the  Peace  are:   1.  Afflictive  –  over  P6,000.00   2.  Correctional  –  P200.00  –  P6,000.00   3.  Light  Penalty  –  less  than  P200.00   • ARTICLE  27  –  DURATION  OF  PENALTIES     1.  Reclusion  perpetua  –  20  yrs.  and  1  day  to  40  yrs.   2.  Reclusion  temporal  –  12  yrs.  and  1  day  to  20  yrs   3.  Prision  mayor  –  6  yrs.  and  1  day  to  12  yrs.   4.  Prision  correctional,  suspension,  destierro  –  6  months  and  1  day  to  6  yrs.   5.  Arresto  mayor  –  1  month  and  1  day  to  6  months   6.  Arresto  menor  –  1  day  to  30  days   7.  Bond  to  keep  the  peace  –  the  period  during  which  the  bond  shall  be  effective  is  discretionary  on  the   court   • ARTICLE  28  –  COMPUTATION  OF  PENALTIES  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 115 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

(reading  matter)   • ARTICLE  29  –  PREVENTIVE  IMPRISONMENT     • Preventive  imprisonment  –  an  accused  undergoes  this  when  the  crime  charged  is  non-­‐bailable,  or   even  if  bailable,  he  cannot  furnish  the  required  bail   • The  full-­‐time  or  four-­‐fifths  of  the  time  during  which  offenders  have  undergone  preventive   imprisonment  shall  be  deducted  from  the  penalty  imposed    

Article  30-­‐35  

  • ARTICLES  30-­‐35  –  EFFECTS  OF  PENALTIES   (reading  matter)   • Civil  interdiction  –  shall  deprive  the  offender  during  the  time  of  his  sentence  of  the  rights  parental   authority,  or  guardianship,  either  as  to  the  person  or  property  of  any  ward,  of  marital  authority,  of  the   right  to  manage  his  property,  and  of  the  right  to  dispose  of  such  property  by  any  act  or  any   conveyance    

Article  36   ARTICLE  36  –  PARDON;  ITS  EFFECTS   -­‐  shall  not  restore  the  right  to  hold  office  and  the  right  of  suffrage,  unless  expressly  restored  by  the   terms  of  the  pardon   -­‐  shall  not  exempt  the  culprit  from  civil  liability     • Difference  bet.  Pardon  by  the  President  &  Pardon  by  the  Offended   PARDON  BY  PRESIDENT     PARDON  BY  OFFENDED   -­‐  extinguishes  criminal  liability    

-­‐  does  not  extinguish  criminal        liability,  except  in  Article  344  

-­‐  cannot  include  extinction  of  civil  

-­‐  offended  party  can  waive  right  

     liability  

   to  claim  civil  liability  

 

 

 

-­‐  should  be  given  only  after  conviction   -­‐  should  be  given  before  the        institution  of  the  criminal  action   -­‐  may  be  extended  to  any  of  the    

-­‐  must  be  extended  to  both  offenders  

   offenders  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 116 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

Article  37   ARTICLE  37  –  COSTS   1.  Fees   2.  Indemnities,  in  the  course  of  judicial  proceedings    

Article  38     ARTICLE  38  –  PECUNIARY  LIABILITIES;  ORDER  OF  PAYMENT   1.  The  reparation  of  the  damage  caused   2.  Indemnification  of  the  consequential  damages   3.  Fine   4.  Costs  of  proceedings   • The  order  of  payment  is  as  stated    

Article  39   ARTICLE  39  –  SUBSIDIARY  PENALTY   • Subsidiary  Penalty  –  a  subsidiary  personal  penalty  to  be  suffered  by  the  convict  who  has  no  property   with  which  to  meet  the  fine,  at  the  rate  of  one  day  for  each  eight  (P8)  pesos,  subject  to  the  rules   provided  for  in  Article  39   • Subsidiary  penalties  should  be  expressly  specified  in  the  conviction  because  without  it,  the  accused   cannot  be  compelled  to  comply  with  it    

Article  40-­‐44   ARTICLES  40-­‐44  –  ACCESSORY  PENALTIES  OF  ARRESTO   (reading  matter)   -­‐  Accessory  penalties  do  not  have  to  be  specified  expressly  in  the  judgment  of  conviction   -­‐  usually,  the  specific  accessory  penalties  are  not  specified,  they  are  said  generally  

Article  45-­‐47   • ARTICLE  45  –  CONFISCATION  AND  FORFEITURE   -­‐  the  proceeds  of  the  crime  must  first  be  submitted  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  courts,  and  also  the  tools   used;  if  not  submitted,  the  courts  cannot  adjudicate  on  the  proceeds  and  tools  whether  they  would  be   disposed  in  favor  of  the  state  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 117 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

• ARTICLE  46  –  PENALTY  TO  BE  IMPOSED  UPON  PRINCIPALS  IN  GENERAL   -­‐  the  penalty  prescribed  by  law  for  the  commission  of  a  felony  shall  be  imposed  upon  the  principals   -­‐  the  law  prescribes  a  penalty  for  a  felony  in  general  terms,  it  shall  be  understood  as  applicable  to  the   consummated  felony   • Penalty  in  general  terms  shall  be  imposed:   1.  upon  the  principals     2.  for  the  consummated  felony   • Exception  –  when  the  law  fixes  a  penalty  for  frustrated  or  attempted  felony     • ARTICLE  47  –  WHEN  DEATH  PENALTY  NOT  TO  BE  IMPOSED   1.  minors  under  18  at  the  commission  of  the  crime  (repealed  by  RA  9344)   2.  persons  over  70  years  old   • The  Death  Penalty  should  be  imposed  on  cases  where  the  law  specifies  it   • The  Death  Penalty  as  of  now  is  deemed  to  be  irrelevant      

Article  48   ARTICLE  48  –  COMPLEX  CRIMES     1.  When  a  single  act  constitutes  two  or  more  grave  or  less  grave  felonies  (compound  crimes)   2.  When  an  offense  is  a  necessary  means  for  committing  the  other            (complex  crime  proper)   • There  must  be  at  least  two  crimes   • Complex  crime  =  ONLY  one  crime   • Complex  crimes  are  more  favorable  to  the  accused  because  instead  of  being  convicted  of  two  separate   counts  of  the  same  crime,  it  is  considered  as  only  one     • Compound  Crime   -­‐  Requisites:   1.  that  only  a  single  act  is  performed  by  the  offender     2.  that  the  single  act  produces  (i)  2  or  more  grave  felonies,  (ii)  one  or  more  grave  &  one  or  more  less   grave  felonies,  (iii)  2  or  more  less  grave  felonies  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 118 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

• The  single  act  should  produce  a  grave  felony  or  a  less  grave  felony  or  a  combination  of  both   • Light  felonies  produced  by  the  same  single  act  should  be  treated  and  punished  as  separate  offenses  or   may  be  absorbed  by  the  grave  felony     ü Supposing,  you  shot  your  neighbor  then  the  bullet  hit  two  children;  the  result  was  your  neighbor   died,  two  children  slightly  injured,  the  result  was  1  grave  and  2  light  felonies,  is  the  crime  complex  or   separate?  Separate,  because  the  single  act  should  produce  a  grave  or  less  grave  felony  only   ü Supposing,  a  single  criminal  act  produced  1  grave  felony  and  10  light  felonies,  is  the  crime  complex  or   separate?  Separate   ü Supposing,  a  single  criminal  act  produced  1  less  grave  felony  and  several  light  felonies,  is  the  crime   complex  or  separate?  Separate   ü Supposing,  a  single  criminal  act  produced  a  crime  punishable  by  the  RPC  and  a  crime  punishable  by   special  law,  is  the  crime  complex  or  separate?  Separate,  considered  as  separate  violations   ü Supposing,  Prof.  Amurao  throws  a  grenade  in  class,  5  students  died,  is  the  crime  complex  or  separate?   Complex   ü Supposing,  using  the  same  facts  above,  in  addition  3  light  felonies  were  produced,  is  the  crime   complex  or  separate?  Separate   ü Supposing,  Prof.  Amurao  switched  the  machine  gun  to  automatic  and  shot  at  the  students  with  one   single  act  of  pressing  the  trigger,  producing  several  injuries,  is  the  crime  complex  or  separate?   Separate,  because  the  what  is  considered  is  the  no.  of  bullets  discharged  (People  v.  Desierto)   ü Supposing,  Prof.  Amurao  switched  the  machine  gun  to  not  automatic  and  fired  one  bullet  aimed  at   someone  but  hit  3  others  producing  serious  physical  injuries,  is  the  crime  complex  or  separate?   Complex   ü Supposing,  the  act  of  firing  a  machine  gun  produces  the  crimes  of  attempted  murder  and  physical   injuries,  is  the  crime  complex  or  separate?  Separate,  as  held  by  the  Court  of  Appeals   ü Supposing,  two  shots  were  fired  directed  against  two  different  persons,  is  the  crime  complex  or   separate?  Separate   ü Supposing,  in  a  notorious  village,  a  commander  ordered  all  his  soldiers  to  shoot  at  the  residents,  is   the  crime  complex  or  separate?  Complex,  the  SC  held  in  People  v.  Lawas  that  it  was  a  complex  crime   because  there  was  a  single  offense  since  there  was  a  single  criminal  impulse/intent/purpose   ü Supposing,  a  person  stole  the  fighting  cocks  of  his  neighbor  alternately  with  three  separate,   independent  acts,  is  the  crime  complex  or  separate?  Complex,  as  held  by  the  SC  in  People  v.  De  Leon,   the  criminal  act  was  done  on  the  same  occasion  and  the  offender  was  motivated  by  one  criminal   impulse   ü Supposing,  a  libelous  article  was  published  defaming  5  congressmen  specifically  identified  by  their   names,  is  the  crime  complex  or  separate?  Separate,  because  there  are  as  many  crimes  of  libel  as   there  are  persons  libeled,  provided  that  the  persons  are  expressly  specified;  because  each  of  the  5   congressmen  may  file  for  libel   ü Supposing,  using  the  same  facts  above  except  that  the  congressmen  were  not  identified,  is  the  crime   complex  or  separate?  Complex   ü Supposing,  in  a  local  publication,  news  writers  wrote  that  the  Herrera  doctors  are  inefficient,  is  the   crime  complex  or  separate?  Complex,  because  the  identification  was  in  general  terms,  not  specifically   identified     Complex  Crime  Proper  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 119 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

-­‐  Requisites:   1.  that  at  least  two  offenses  are  committed   2.  that  one  or  some  of  the  offenses  must  be  necessary  to  commit  the  other   3.  that  both  or  all  the  offenses  must  be  punished  under  the  same  statute   • Necessary  means  not  equivalent  to  indispensable  means     ü Supposing,  the  accused  kidnapped  a  girl  with  intent  to  kill,  brought  the  victim  somewhere  then   killed  her,  is  the  crime  complex?  NO,  the  crime  is  only  murder,  because  the  kidnapping  was  only  a   means  to  commit  the  crime  of  murder   ü Supposing,  law  students  made  a  falsified  solicitation  letter  and  collected  money,  is  the  crime   complex?  YES,  the  falsification  of  the  private  document  was  necessary  for  the  crime  of  estafa   ü Supposing,  a  public  official  committed  malversation  through  falsification  of  public  documents,  is  the   crime  complex?  YES,  because  the  falsification  was  necessary  to  commit  malversation   ü Supposing,  the  accused  killed  his  victim  in  a  building,  then  committed  arson  to  conceal  the  murder,   is  the  crime  complex?  NO   • In  the  crimes  of  estafa  and  falsification,  you  look  at  the  crime  first  committed  if  it  was  necessary  for   the  commission  of  the  other;  the  common  element  in  estafa  and  falsification  is  the  intent  to  cause   damage     ü Supposing,  a  city  treasurer  malversed  P5million  pesos  out  of  taxes  then  falsified  documents  to   conceal  the  malversation,  is  the  crime  complex?  NO,  the  crimes  are  separate   ü Supposing,  in  the  crime  of  rebellion,  an  NPA  commander  burned  villages  and  killed  the  villagers  in   furtherance  of  his  acts  of  rebellion,  is  the  crime  complex?  NO,  because  the  acts  he  committed  were   absorbed  in  the  crime  of  rebellion   ü Supposing,  in  the  crime  of  rebellion,  the  NPA  commander  killed  someone  for  personal  reasons,  is  the   crime  complex?  NO,  the  crimes  are  separate   • In  the  crimes  of  treason  or  rebellion,  when  common  crimes  are  committed,  (1)  in  furtherance  of  or  is   related  to  treason  or  rebellion,  the  crimes  are  absorbed,  but  (2)  for  personal  reasons  or  for  a  private   purpose,  the  crimes  are  separate   • There  is  no  complex  crime  of  rebellion  with  common  crimes     • Special  Complex  Crimes   -­‐  Rape  with  Homicide    

-­‐  Robbery  with  Serious  Physical  Injuries  

-­‐  Robbery  with  Homicide  

-­‐  Kidnapping  with  Murder  or  Homicide  

• Express  provisions  in  the  Revised  Penal  Code  that  cannot  be  complex   -­‐  Article  129:  search  warrant  obtained  maliciously  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 120 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

-­‐  Article  235:  maltreatment  of  prisoners   -­‐  Direct  Bribery  =  cannot  be  complexed   • Article  48  is  intended  to  favor  the  culprit  or  accused   • The  penalty  for  complex  crimes  is  the  penalty  for  the  most  serious  crime,  the  same  to  be  applied  in  its   maximum  period   • Two  felonies  in  a  complex  crime  punishable  by  imprisonment  and  fine  =  only  the  imprisonment  is   imposed    

Article  49   • ARTICLE  49  –  PENALTY  FOR  PRINCIPALS  OF  CRIME  COMMITTED  WAS  DIFFERENT  FROM  WHAT  WAS  INTENDED   • applicable  only  to  mistake  in  identity   Steps   1.  identify  lesser  penalty   2.  whichever  penalty  is  prescribed  by  law,   3.  the  lesser  penalty  is  always  applied  or  imposed    

Article  50-­‐57   • ARTICLES  50-­‐57  –  DEGREES  TO  WHICH  PENALTIES  SHOULD  BE  LOWERED  (reading  matter)   Participants’  liability  lowered  by  degrees    

• • • • • • • •  

consummated  

frustrated  

attempted  

Principals  

0  

1  

2  

Accomplices  

1  

2  

3  

Accessories  

2  

3  

4  

Article  50  –  Principals  in  a  frustrated  felony   Article  51  –  Principals  in  an  attempted  felony   Article  52  –  Accomplices  in  a  consummated  felony   Article  53  –  Accessories  in  a  consummated  felony   Article  54  –  Accomplices  in  a  frustrated  felony   Article  55  –  Accessories  in  a  frustrated  felony   Article  56  –  Accomplices  in  an  attempted  felony   Article  57  –  Accessories  in  an  attempted  felony  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 121 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

• Basis  for  the  determination   -­‐  under  the  RPC,  penalties  can  be  reduced  by  degrees   1.  stage  reached  by  the  crime  in  its  development  (consummated,  frustrated,  attempted)   2.  participation  of  persons  liable  (principals,  accomplices,  accessories)   3.  privileged  mitigating  circumstances     • All  penalties  for  each  crime  in  the  RPC  =  generally,  shall  always  be  imposed  unless  the  law  itself   expressly  provides,  except  Article  60     • Degree  –  one  whole  penalty;  one  entire  penalty  or  one  unit  of  penalties  enumerated  in  the  graduated   scales   • Period  –  one  of  the  3  equal  portions  (minimum,  medium,  maximum)    

Article  58-­‐60   • ARTICLE  58  –  ADDITIONAL  PENALTY  UPON  ACCESSORIES  OF  ART.19(3)   -­‐  Absolute  perpetual  disqualification  if  guilty  of  a  grave  felony   -­‐  Absolute  temporary  disqualification  if  guilty  of  a  less  grave  felony   • Article  19(3)  –  public  officers  who  help  the  author  of  the  crime  by  misusing  their  office  and  duties  shall   suffer  the  additional  penalties   • ARTICLE  59  –  PENALTY  FOR  IMPOSSIBLE  CRIMES   -­‐  Arresto  mayor,  with  fine  of  P200-­‐P500   • Basis  for  imposition:   -­‐  social  danger     -­‐  degree  of  criminality   • ARTICLE  60  –  EXCEPTIONS  TO  ARTICLE  50-­‐57   -­‐  shall  not  be  applicable  to  cases  in  which  the  law  prescribes  a  penalty  for  frustrated  and  attempted   stages  or  to  be  imposed  on  accomplices  or  accessories  

Article  61   • ARTICLE  61  –  RULES  FOR  GRADUATING  PENALTIES   • Divisible  Penalties  –  divided  into  three,  so  effects  of  ordinary  mitigating  circumstances  and  generic   aggravating  circumstances  can  be  applied  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 122 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

Indivisible  Penalties  –  eg.  reclusion  perpetua,  public  censure,  fine   First  Rule  and  Second  Rule   Penalty  only  consists  of  a  degree   The  penalty  next  lower  by  one  degree  =  penalty  immediately  following  the  penalty  prescribed  by  the   law   -­‐  single  and  indivisible  =  Reclusion  perpetua   • • • •

-­‐  penalty  next  lower  in  degree  =  Reclusion  temporal   ü Supposing,  accused  shot  the  victim  qualified  by  treachery,  but  the  victim  survived,  thus  accused  was   convicted  of  frustrated  murder,  the  penalty  for  murder  is  reclusion  perpetua,  but  since  it  was   frustrated,  the  penalty  next  lower  in  degree  applies,  which  is  reclusion  temporal     • Fourth  and  Fifth  Rule   • Penalty  prescribed  by  law  is  1,  2,  or  3,  several  periods   -­‐  If  one  period  lower,  go  down  one  period  in  the  graduated  scale   -­‐  If  two  periods  lower,  go  down  two  periods  in  the  graduated  scale   -­‐  If  three  periods  lower,  go  down  three  periods  in  the  graduated  scale   • Example:  Prision  Mayor   -­‐  Supposing  the  penalty  prescribed  by  law  is  prision  mayor  medium  period:  is  in  itself  a  degree;  RPC  –  all   divisible  penalties  are  divided  into  3  periods;  prision  mayor  medium  can  be  divided  into  maximum,   medium,  minimum   -­‐  Prision  mayor  (6  years  and  1  day  to  12  years)     12  –  6  =  6  /  3  =  2     2  =  common  multiple  (add  2  to  the  periods  starting  from  the  minimum)     Minimum  –  6  years  and  1  day  to  (6+2)  8  years      Medium  –  8  years  and  1  day  to  (8+2)  10  years    

Prision  mayor  

   Maximum  –  10  years  and  1  day  (10+2)  12  years            medium   -­‐  Prision  mayor  medium  (8  years  and  1  day  to  10  years)      10  –  8  =  2  years  /  3  =  8  months        8  months  =  common  multiple  (add  8  months)      Minimum  –  8yrs.  &  1  day  to  8yrs.  &  8  months  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 123 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

   Medium  –  8yrs.  &  8  months  to  9yrs.  &  4  months      Maximum  –  9yrs.  &  4  years  to  10  years   • With  the  3  periods  of  prision  mayor  medium  now  determined,  the  mitigating  and  aggravating   circumstances  attendant  can  now  be  applied       • Third  Rule   -­‐  when  three  penalties  are  imposed  in  one  (eg.  Reclusion  temporal  –  Death)   -­‐  since  Death  is  not  imposed,  three  periods  lowered  immediately  following  

Article  62   • ARTICLE  62  -­‐  EFFECTS  OF  THE  ATTENDANCE  OF  MITIGATING  AND  AGGRAVATING  CIRCUMSTANCES  AND  HABITUAL   DELINQUENCY     • First  rule:  Aggravating  circumstances:   1.  should  not  themselves  constitute  a  crime,  eg.  by  means  of  fire  =  arson;  by  means  derailment  of  a   locomotive  =  destruction  of  property     -­‐  Is  unlawful  entry  a  crime  in  itself?  YES   2.  should  not  be  included  in  defining  the  crime,  eg.  by  means  of  poison  in  the  crime  of  murder   3.  The  maximum  period  shall  be  imposed  regardless  of  mitigating  circumstances  if  the  offender  is  a   public  officer  who  took  advantage  by  public  position   4.  The  maximum  period  shall  be  imposed  for  members  of  an  organized  or  syndicated  crime  group   • Organized  or  Syndicated  Crime  Group  –  group  of  two  or  more  persons  collaborating,  confederating  or   mutually  helping  one  another  for  purposes  of  gain  in  the  commission  of  any  crime     • Second  rule   -­‐  Aggravating  circumstances  are  not  applicable  if  inherent  in  the  crime,  eg.  evident  premeditation  in   robbery  or  theft;  advantage  taken  by  public  position  in  malversation;  sex  in  crimes  against  chastity;   breaking  wall  in  malicious  mischief   • Third  rule:  Aggravating  or  Mitigating  Circumstances  arising  from:   1.  Moral  attributes   ü Supposing,  the  victim  gave  sufficient  provocation,  which  irritated  the  accused  who  called  his  brother   for  assistance,  then  they  both  killed  the  victim,  can  the  mitigating  circumstance  of  sufficient  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 124 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

provocation  be  appreciated  for  both  of  them?  NO,  only  to  the  one  who  was  the  target  of  the   provocation  (the  accused)  and  not  his  brother   2.  Private  relations   ü Supposing,  your  neighbor  slapped  your  mom,  then  you  asked  your  friend  to  accompany  you  to  kill   your  neighbor,  can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  immediate  vindication  of  a  relative  for  a  grave   offense  be  appreciated  for  the  both  you?  NO,  only  to  you  because  it  was  your  mom  who  was   offended  first  and  not  your  friend         3.  Personal  cause   ü Supposing,  you  and  your  friend  entered  your  neighbor’s  house,  not  knowing  that  your  friend  is   afflicted  with  kleptomania,  can  the  mitigating  circumstance  of  illness  be  appreciated  for  the  both  of   you?  NO,  illness  can  be  appreciated  only  to  your  friend     • Fourth  rule:  Aggravating  or  mitigating  circumstances  apply  in  the:   -­‐  material  execution  of  the  act  and  in  the  means  employed  to  accomplish  it;  only  to  those  who  had   knowledge  at  the  time  of  the  execution   1.  Material  execution   ü Supposing,  Prof.  Amurao  asked  his  student  to  simply  kill  his  classmate,  but  the  student  applied   cruelty  when  he  killed  his  classmate,  can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  cruelty  be  appreciated  with   Prof.  Amurao?  NO,  because  he  had  no  knowledge  of  the  material  execution  used.   ü Supposing,  using  the  same  facts  above,  but  Prof.  Amurao  told  his  student  to  kill  his  classmate  ‘at  all   costs’,  can  the  aggravating  circumstance  of  cruelty  be  appreciated  with  Prof.  Amurao?  YES   2.  Means  employed  to  accomplish   -­‐  Principal  by  direct  participation  uses  poison  to  commit  murder  without  the  knowledge  of  the   Principal  by  inducement   • Habitual  Delinquency   • Habitual  Delinquent  –  a  person  who,  within  a  period  of  10  years  from  the  date  of  release  or  last   conviction  of  the  crimes  of  serious  or  less  serious  physical  injuries,  robbery,  theft,  estafa,  or   falsification,  found  guilty  for  a  3rd  time  or  oftener.  A  habitual  delinquent  shall  suffer  an  additional   penalty   • Difference  between  Habitual  Delinquent/Recidivist/Reiteracion    

Habitual  Delinquent  

   Recidivism  

       

 Reiteracion  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 125 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

Crimes   -­‐  specified  crimes    

-­‐  2  crimes  embraced  in            -­‐  2  crimes  not      

 

 

 

 

the  same  title  of  the  RPC    embraced  in  the  same  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 title  of  the  RPC  

Period     -­‐  within  10  years    

-­‐  time  bet.  2  offenses  

-­‐  has  served  sentence  

 

   is  immaterial  

   for  the  1  offense  

 

 

 

 

st

No.  of     rd

Crimes   -­‐  3  time  or  oftener  

nd

nd

-­‐  2  time  is  sufficient  

-­‐  2  time  is  sufficient  

Effects   -­‐  additional  penalty  

-­‐  a  generic  aggravating  

-­‐  not  always  an    

 

     is  imposed  

 

   circumstance;  can  be  

     aggravating  

 

 

 

 

   offset  by  an  ordinary  

     circumstance  

 

 

 

 

   mitigating  circumstance  

 

• Difference  bet.  Habitual  Delinquency  &  Subsidiary  Imprisonment   Habitual  Delinquent     Subsidiary  Imprisonment   -­‐  needs  to  be  alleged  in  the  

-­‐  does  not  need  to  be  alleged  

   information   -­‐  should  be  alleged  in  the    

-­‐  comes  only  after  the  sentence  of  

     beginning  

     conviction  

 

 

-­‐  imposes  an  additional  penalty   -­‐  imposed  only  when  unable  to  pay  fine   -­‐  cannot  be  considered  with  a     -­‐  general  allegation  will  suffice        general  allegation,  must  be          specifically  alleged     • Requisites  for  a  Habitual  Delinquent:   1.  offender  has  been  convicted  of  serious  or  less  serious  physical  injuries,  robbery,  theft,  estafa,  or   falsification  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 126 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

2.  after  conviction  or  after  serving  sentence  again  committed  within  10  years  from  his  release  or  date  of   first  conviction,  he  was  convicted  of  any  of  said  crimes  for  the  2nd  time   3.  after  conviction  or  after  serving  sentence  for  the  2nd  offense  again  commits  and  within  10  years  of   conviction  or  release  for  the  2nd  offense,  commits  a  3rd  time  or  oftener   • Additional  Penalties   1.  For  the  3rd  time  =  the  penalty  for  the  last  crime  +  Prision  correctional  medium  to  maximum   2.  For  the  4th  time  =  the  penalty  for  the  last  crime  +  Prision  mayor  minimum  to  medium   3.  For  the  5th  time  or  more  =  the  penalty  for  the  last  crime  +  Prision  mayor  maximum  to  Reclusion   temporal  minimum   • Total  of  last  penalty  and  additional  penalty  =  should  not  exceed  30  yrs.   • If  the  court  overlooked  the  imposition  of  an  additional  penalty  for  habitual  delinquency  =  the   offender  cannot  be  compelled  to  suffer  the  additional  penalty   • In  the  commission  of  several  crimes  occurring  on  or  about  the  same  date  shall  be  considered  only  as   one  for  purposes  of  habitual  delinquency   • In  the  conviction  for  those  crimes  occurring  on  or  about  the  same  date  shall  also  be  considered  as  one    

Article  63   • ARTICLE  63  –  RULES  ON  INDIVISIBLE  PENALTIES   1.  For  single  indivisible  penalties  (reclusion  perpetua)  –  shall  be  applied  regardless  of  mitigating  or   aggravating  circumstances,  eg.  the  crime  of  rape  with  homicide,  with  the  mitigating  circumstances  of   voluntary  surrender,  voluntary  confession  of  guilt,  and  illness,  the  penalty  shall  still  be  reclusion   perpetua  because  circumstances  are  disregarded   2.  For  two  indivisible  penalties  (sub-­‐paragraphs  1-­‐4  are  inapplicable,  because  there  is  no  death  penalty,   therefore  there’s  only  one  indivisible  penalty)   • Exception  to  disregarding  circumstances:  if  it  is  a  privileged  mitigating  circumstance  (Articles  68  &   69),  or  if  the  accused  is  a  minor  who  acted  with  discernment  =  can  be  entitled  to  a  penalty  next  lower   in  degree    

Article  64   • ARTICLE  64  –  RULES  FOR  PENALTIES  WITH  3  PERIODS   -­‐  In  accordance  w/  Articles  76-­‐77  whether  there  are  attending  circumstances   • First  rule   -­‐  if  neither  a  mitigating  or  aggravating  circumstance  is  present  =  medium  period  is  imposed  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 127 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

• Second  rule   -­‐  if  there  is  a  mitigating  circumstance  =  minimum  period  is  imposed   • Third  rule   -­‐  if  there  is  an  aggravating  circumstance  =  maximum  period  is  imposed   • Fourth  rule   -­‐  if  there  is  both  a  mitigating  and  aggravating  circumstance  =  courts  shall  offset  the  circumstances   according  to  relative  weight   • Fifth  rule   -­‐  if  there  are  2  or  more  mitigating  circumstances  and  absolutely  no  aggravating  circumstances  =  the   penalty  next  lower  in  degree  is  imposed   • Sixth  rule   -­‐  whatever  the  number  or  nature  of  aggravating  circumstances  =  courts  cannot  impose  a  greater  penalty   than  prescribed  by  law  in  maximum   • Seventh  rule   -­‐  Courts  can  determine  extent  of  penalty  within  the  limits  of  each  period     • Mitigating  circumstance  must  be  ordinary  =  not  privileged   • Aggravating  circumstance  must  be  generic  =  not  qualified  or  inherent    

Article  65-­‐67   • ARTICLE  65  –  RULES  FOR  PENALTIES  NOT  IN  THREE  PERIODS   (reading  matter)   • ARTICLE  66  –  IMPOSITION  OF  FINES   (reading  matter)   -­‐  ¼  of  the  maximum  fine  is  either  added  (for  aggravating  circumstances)  or  deducted  (for  mitigating   circumstances)  from  the  maximum  fine   -­‐  courts  must  consider:   1.  mitigating  or  aggravating  circumstances   2.  wealth  or  means  of  the  culprit   • ARTICLE  67  –  PENALTY  FOR  INCOMPLETE  EXEMPTING  CIRCUMSTANCE  OF  ACCIDENT   -­‐  Arresto  mayor  maximum  to  prision  correccional  minimum  (grave  felonies)   -­‐  Arresto  mayor  minimum  to  Arresto  mayor  medium  (for  less  grave  felonies)  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 128 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

• Light  felonies  through  negligence  =  no  penalty    

Article  68   • ARTICLE  68  –  PENALTY  FOR  MINORS  UNDER  18   (repealed  by  RA  9344)   • Minor  under  18  who  acted  with  discernment  =  penalty  two  degrees  lower    

Article  69     • ARTICLE  69  –  PENALTY  FOR  INCOMPLETE  JUSTIFYING  OR  EXEMPTING  CIRCUMSTANCES   -­‐  lowered  by  1  or  2  degrees   • Majority  of  such  conditions  must  be  present     • In  self-­‐defense,  defense  of  a  relative,  defense  of  a  stranger     -­‐  Unlawful  Aggression  is  indispensable    

Article  70   • ARTICLE  70  –  SUCCESSIVE  SERVICE  OF  SENTENCE   • Simultaneous  Service  –  if  the  nature  of  the  penalties  will  so  permit,  i.e.  Reclusion  temporal  and   Perpetual  Absolute  Disqualification  (refer  to  Reyes  book  for  a  complete  list  of  penalties  that  ca  be   served  simultaneously)   • Successive  Service  –  if  cannot  be  served  simultaneously  (such  as  two  jail  sentences)  shall  follow  the   scale  provided  by  Article  70  based  in  the  order  according  to  severity   • 3-­‐fold  rule  –  the  maximum  duration  of  the  convict’s  sentence  shall  not  be  more  than  3-­‐fold  the  length   of  the  time  corresponding  to  the  most  severe  of  the  penalties  imposed   • only  applies  when  the  convict  has  to  serve  at  least  4  sentences   • In  no  case  shall  the  sum  total  of  penalties  exceed  40  years   • In  the  scale,  Arresto  menor  comes  before  destierro  because  complete  deprivation  of  liberty  or   imprisonment  in  arresto  menor  is  more  severe  than  destierro     ü Supposing,  you  are  a  judge,  can  you  impose  the  sentence  of  500  counts  of  malversation,  which  is   each  punishable  by  15  yrs.  of  imprisonment,  without  violating  Article  70?  YES,  because  the  3-­‐fold   rule  does  not  refer  to  the  imposition  of  sentence  but  refers  to  the  service  to  the  penalty;  the  courts   can  sentence  no  matter  what  and  no  matter  how  much   • The  3-­‐fold  rule  is  the  concern  of  the  Director  of  Prisons,  NOT  of  the  courts  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 129 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

• If  the  sum  total  of  all  the  penalties  does  not  exceed  the  most  severe  multiplied  by  3,  the  3-­‐fold  rule   does  not  apply   • Duration  of  convicts’  sentence  refers  to  several  penalties  for  different  offenses  not  yet  served  out  =   has  to  serve  continuous  imprisonment    

Article  71-­‐77   • ARTICLE  71  –  GRADUATED  SCALES   • Penalties  are  classified  between  personal  penalties  (imprisonment)  and  political  rights  (suspension,   fine,  etc)   • Arresto  mayor  is  followed  by  destierro     • ARTICLES  72-­‐77  (reading  matter)   • Article  73  –  Accessory  penalties  are  deemed  imposed   • Subsidiary  imprisonment  is  NOT  an  accessory  penalty     • INDETERMINATE  SENTENCE  LAW  (ACT  4103  AMENDED  BY  ACT  4225)   -­‐  mandatory  in  nature;  whether  the  courts  like  it  or  not,  they  have  to  apply  the  same  except  for  those   mentioned  in  Sec.  2  who  are  disqualified     • Purpose/Objectives  of  the  ISLAW   1.  to  uplift  and  redeem  valuable  human  materials   2.  promote  economic  usefulness   3.  prevent  unnecessary  and  excessive  deprivation  of  liberty   • The  ISLAW  was  enacted  to  benefit  the  accused  by  allowing  the  convict  not  to  serve  the  full  sentence     • These  objectives  are  attained  with  the  application  of  the  ISLAW     • Court  fixes  a  Maximum  term  and  a  Minimum  term   • After  serving  the  Minimum  term,  the  convict  shall  be  entitled  to  parole  upon  evaluation  of  the  Board   of  Pardons  and  Parole   • The  ‘release’  shall  be  evaluated  by  the  Court  whether  the  convict  is:   -­‐  fitted  by  training  for  release   -­‐  reasonable  probability  not  to  commit  another  crime  or  violate  the  law   -­‐  compatible  with  the  welfare  of  society   (take  note  of  this;  this  was  given  by  Prof.  Amurao)     • As  applied  in  special  penal  laws   -­‐  the  Maximum  term  should  not  be  more  than  what  is  prescribed   -­‐  the  Minimum  term  should  not  be  less  than  what  is  prescribed   • Example:  5  yrs  and  1  day  to  15  yrs   -­‐  the  Minimum  may  be  anywhere  from  5  yrs  to  14  yrs,  but  not  less  than  5  yrs   -­‐  the  Maximum  may  be  anywhere  from  6  -­‐  15  yrs.  but  not  more  than  15yrs.   • As  applied  in  the  Revised  Penal  Code  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 130 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

-­‐  the  Maximum  term  should  be  imposed  under  the  rules  of  the  RPC;  penalty  prescribed  by  law  after   applying  the  legal  effects  of  mitigating  or  aggravating  circumstances;  only  the  maximum  is  affected  by   the  attending  circumstances   -­‐  the  Minimum  term  should  be  within  the  range  of  the  penalty  next  lower  to  that  prescribed  by  the  RPC;   the  penalty  prescribed  by  law,  lower  it  immediately  by  one  degree,  ignore  all  the  mitigating  or   aggravating  circumstances     Example:   ü Supposing,  accidentally  you  met  your  neighbor  along  the  road,  he  challenged  you  to  a  fight  and  you   accepted  the  challenge,  there  was  a  physical  fight,  then  you  inflicted  a  mortal  wound  that  caused  his   death  in  the  hospital,  you  were  charged  with  homicide,  because  there  were  no  qualifying   circumstances,  and  since  there  was  no  mitigating  and  aggravating  you  should  be  sentenced  to  a   medium  period  of  reclusion  temporal  (for  homicide)   -­‐  To  get  Minimum  term,  immediately  get  the  penalty  next  to  Reclusion  temporal,  lower  by  1  degree  =   Prision  mayor  –  anywhere  within  Prision  mayor,  the  court  can  decide  what  period,  regardless  of   attending  circumstances   -­‐  The  Maximum  term,  considering  the  absence  of  attending  circumstances,  is  Reclusion  Temporal   medium  period   -­‐  The  sentence  now  using  the  ISLAW  is  Prision  mayor  in  any  period  as  the  Minimum  term,  up  to   Reclusion  temporal  medium  period  as  the  Maximum  term     • If  the  convict  reaches  the  Minimum  term,  he  shall  eligible  for  parole;  terms  and  conditions  can  be   imposed  by  the  BPP   • Note  from  Prof.  Amurao:  It  pays  to  be  in  good  terms  with  the  judge  and  his  wife  or  his  number  2  so   you  can  get  a  low  Minimum  term  if  not  the  lowest     • Surveillance  Period  during  Parole  (SP)   1.  If  there  is  no  violation  during  the  during  the  special  period,  the  court  will  issue  an  order  for  final   discharge   2.  Legal  effect  of  a  violation  of  law  or  rules:   -­‐  release  may  be  revoked   -­‐  prosecuted  anew   -­‐  prolonged  change  in  the  terms  and  conditions  of  the  parole   -­‐  made  to  serve  out  the  remaining  unexpired  portion  of  the  sentence   • During  parole,  the  convict  is  as  free  as  any  normal  person  except  for  the  terms  and  condition  that  have   to  be  observed     • ISLAW  is  inapplicable  with  the  following:   1.  persons  convicted  of  death  or  life  imprisonment   -­‐  in  terms  of  death,  this  refers  to  the  penalty  actually  imposed  in  the  conviction  by  the  courts,  not  the   penalty  prescribed  by  the  law   -­‐  in  terms  of  life  imprisonment,  what  if  Reclusion  perpetua  is  imposed,  can  the  ISLAW  still  be  applied?   The  SC  says  NO,  it’s  not  applicable   2.  those  convicted  of  treason,  proposal  or  conspiracy  to  commit  treason   3.  those  convicted  of  misprision  of  treason,  rebellion,  sedition,  espionage  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 131 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

4.  convicted  of  piracy   5.  habitual  delinquents   6.  those  who  escaped  from  confinement   7.  those  who  violated  the  terms  of  conditional  pardon  by  the  President   8.  maximum  term  of  imprisonment  less  than  a  year     9.  those  convicted  by  destierro  or  suspension   -­‐  destierro  is  a  conviction  imposed  by  courts     • PROBATION  LAW  (PD  968)   • Probation  –  a  disposition  under  which  a  defendant  after  conviction  and  sentence,  is  released  subject   to  the  conditions  imposed  by  the  court  and  to  the  supervision  of  the  probation  officer     • Objectives/Purpose   1.  Promote  correction  and  rehabilitation   2.  Opportunity  for  reformation   3.  Prevent  commission  of  offenses     • Criteria  for  granting   -­‐  character   -­‐  environment    

 

-­‐  institution/community  

-­‐  antecedents   -­‐  mental  and  physical  condition   • Criteria  for  denying;  if  the  convict:   1.  needs  correctional  treatment   2.  has  undue  risk  of  committing  another  crime     3.  probation  will  depreciate  seriousness  of  offense     • Inapplicability  of  the  Probation  Law   1.  a  convict  sentenced  to  more  than  6  years   2.  convicted  of  subversion  other  crimes  of  national  security  or  public  order   3.  a  recidivist   4.  previously  probationed     5.  already  serving  sentence     • There  is  first,  a  judgment  of  conviction  imposed  by  the  court    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 132 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

• Duration   -­‐  not  exceeding  6  years  and  not  disqualified   -­‐  the  accused  may  file  an  application  for  probation  with  the  court   -­‐  the  court  will  order  an  investigation  through  the  probation  officer,  all  the  aspects  of  the  life  of  the   convict   -­‐  probation  officer  submits  findings  and  recommendation     -­‐  after  submission,  court  may  deny  or  approve  recommendation  and  admit  the  accused  to  probation   -­‐  Court  may  impose  duration  based  on:  -­‐  rehabilitation      

 

 

 

                     -­‐  reformation  

   

 

 

 

                     -­‐  reintegration  

• Duration  of  the  Probation  Period   1.  sentence  not  more  than  1  year  =  probation  is  less  than  2  years   2.  sentence  more  than  1  year  =  probation  is  less  than  6  years   3.  sentence  is  fine  with  subsidiary  imprisonment  =  probation  is  twice  the  days  of  subsidiary   imprisonment   • After  the  Probation  Period   -­‐  the  court  can  issue,  upon  recommendation  by  the  probation  officer,  a  certificate  of  final  discharge;  its   effects  are:   1.  restored  to  one’s  original  position   2.  liability  for  the  fine  is  deemed  extinguished   • When  to  apply  for  probation   -­‐  15  days  from  promulgation,  during  the  reglamentary  period   -­‐  the  convict  can  either  appeal  or  apply  for  probation   ü Supposing,  convict  filed  a  notice  of  appeal,  later  changed  his  mind,  withdrew  his  appeal  then  filed  an   application  for  probation,  can  he  do  that?  NO,  once  you  file  for  an  appeal,  you  waive  your  right  to  file   for  an  application  for  probation,  and  vice-­‐versa  if  you  first  file  for  an  application  then  later  on  decide   to  withdraw  it.   ü Supposing,  a  judgment  of  conviction  was  made,  thus  not  entitled  to  probation,  so  accused  filed  an   appeal  in  the  CA  where  his  sentence  was  lowered,  qualifying  him  for  probation,  can  he  apply  for   probation  now?  CA  says  –  YES,  there  can’t  be  any  waiver  of  right  because  he  was  not                    entitled  to  file  an  application  for  probation  =  there’s  nothing  to        

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 133 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

                 waive          SC  says  –  NO,  because  he  already  appealed,  though  with  strong  dissenting                                              opinions  about  it  (The  SC  is  supreme,  but  it  is  not  always  right)   • Beyond  the  15-­‐day  reglamentary  period,  you  can’t  file  an  application  for  probation,  except  in  RA  9344,   a  child  in  conflict  with  the  law  can  file  an  application  for  probation  anytime     • ARTICLES  78-­‐80  (reading  matters)     -­‐  Article  79  –  Suspension  of  Execution   -­‐  Article  80  (repealed  by  RA  9344)  –  involves  the  diversion  and  intervention  programs  for  children  in   conflict  with  the  law   • ARTICLES  81-­‐85  –  PROCEDURE  AND  GUIDELINES  FOR  THE  EXECUTION  OF  DEATH  PENALTY  (reading  matter)   • ARTICLE  86  –  ADMINISTRATIVE  MATTER  ON  PENITENTIARIES   (reading  matter)   • ARTICLE  87  –  DESTIERRO     -­‐  prohibition  in  a  certain  place  or  places  designated  in  the  conviction   -­‐  not  permitted  to  enter  the  place  or  places  nor  within  the  radius  specified  not  more  than  250,  but  not   less  than  25  kilometers  from  the  place   • ARTICLE  88  –  ARRESTO  MENOR   -­‐  shall  be  served  in  municipal  jails   -­‐  or  for  health  reasons,  can  be  allowed  to  stay  home  (house  arrest)   • ARTICLE  89  –  TOTAL  EXTINCTION  OF  CRIMINAL  LIABILITY   1.  Death  of  a  convict  =  extinguishes  personal  penalties  but  not  pecuniary          if  death  comes  before  final  judgment,  even  pecuniary  liabilities  are  extinguished   2.  Service  of  sentence   -­‐  crime  is  a  debt  incurred  by  the  offender  as  a  consequence;  after  service  of  the  sentence,  the  debt  is   paid   3.  Amnesty   -­‐  extinguishes  the  penalty  and  its  effects;  as  if  the  crime  was  not  committed     4.  Absolute  Pardon  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 134 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

-­‐  an  act  of  grace  by  the  Chief  Executive;  exempts  the  person  from  punishment  only   5.  Prescription  of  crime   -­‐  forfeiture  or  loss  of  the  right  of  the  State  to  prosecute   6.  Prescription  of  penalty   -­‐  loss  or  forfeiture  of  right  of  the  government  to  execute  the  final  sentence   7.  Marriage  of  offended  woman  (Article  344)   -­‐  private  crimes  (abduction,  seduction,  lascivious  acts  adultery,  concubinage)  cannot  be  prosecuted  de   officio   -­‐  public  crimes  (rape)  can  be  prosecuted  de  officio  (meaning  initiated  in  Court  by  filing  a  complaint   • Marriage  can  extinguish  either  crimes   • ARTICLE  90  AND  91  –  PRESCRIPTION  OF  CRIMES  AND  COMPUTATION   1.  Death,  Reclusion  perpetua,  Reclusion  temporal  =  20  years   2.  Crimes  punishable  by  other  afflictive  penalties  =  15  years   3.  Crimes  punishable  by  correctional  penalties  =  10  years   4.  Arresto  mayor  =  5  years   5.  Crimes  of  libel,  or  other  similar  offenses  =  1  year   6.  Oral  defamation/  Slander  by  deed  =  6  months     7.  Light  felonies  =  2  months   • The  prescriptive  period  shall  commence  to  run  from  the  discovery  of  the  crime  and  shall  be   interrupted  only  by  filing  a  complaint  or  information  in  court   • Commences  to  run  again  when  such  proceedings  terminate  without  the  accused  being  convicted  or   acquitted   • The  prescriptive  period  shall  not  run  when  the  offender  is  absent  from  the  Philippines     ü Supposing,  in  1980  the  accused  commits  a  crime,  then  goes  into  hiding,  he  resurfaces  20  years  later,   then  the  government  finds  a  witness,  can  they  institute  a  case?  NO,  but  if  the  accused  left  for  the  US,   YES  he  can  be  prosecuted  still   • The  mere  filing  of  a  complaint  with  the  following  does  not  interrupt  the  prescriptive  period:   -­‐  Chief  of  Police  -­‐  Office  of  the  NBI   -­‐  Office  of  the  Provincial  Director  of  the  PNP  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 135 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

   because  these  do  not  constitute  the  court;  they  are  not  part  of  the  judiciary,  not  part  of  the  courts  of   justice   • But  filing  with:  Office  of  the  Public  Prosecutor  or  Office  of  the  Ombudsman,  may  interrupt  the   prescriptive  period     • ARTICLE  92  AND  93  –  PRESCRIPTION  OF  PENALTIES  AND  COMPUTATION   1.  Death,  Reclusion  perpetua  =  20  years   2.  Crimes  punishable  by  other  afflictive  penalties  =  15  years   3.  Crimes  punishable  by  correctional  penalties  =  10  years   4.  Arresto  mayor  =  5  years   5.  Light  felonies  =  1  year   • The  prescriptive  period  shall  commence  upon  evasion  of  the  service  of  sentence  of  the  convict  and   shall  be  interrupted  by  the  following:   1.  if  offender  gives  himself  up   2.  if  he  is  captured   3.  goes  to  a  foreign  country  with  which  we  have  no  extradition  treaty   4.  commits  another  crime  before  expiration  of  the  period  of  prescription     • Difference  between  Prescription  of  crimes  &  Prescription  of  penalties   PRESCRIPTION  OF  CRIME     PRESCRIPTION  OF  PENALTY   -­‐  loss  or  forfeiture  of  the  State  to  

 

-­‐  loss  or  forfeiture  of  the  State  to  

prosecute  

 

 

 

   enforce  judgment  after  a  lapse  of    

           

 

 

 

   time  

 

-­‐  light  felonies  for  1  year  

 

-­‐  period:  includes  libel,  oral    

   defamation;  difference  in  time  for      light  felonies   -­‐  starts  counting  upon  discovery  of  the   -­‐  starts  counting  upon  the  escape  or  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes    commission  of  the  crime  

Page 136 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao  

     evasion  of  service  of  the  sentence  

-­‐  mere  absence  from  the  Philippines  

-­‐  absence  from  the  Philippines    

   interrupts  

 

 

 

   interrupted  only  when  he  goes  to  a  

 

 

 

 

   foreign  country  without  an    

 

   extradition  treaty  with  us   -­‐  commission  of  another  crime  before   -­‐  commission  of  another  crime        the  expiration  of  the  period  does  not        before  expiration  of  the  period          interrupt  

 

 

 

     interrupts  the  prescription    

  • ARTICLE  94  –  PARTIAL  EXTINCTION  OF  CRIMINAL  LIABILITY   1.  Conditional  pardon   -­‐  must  be  delivered  and  accepted;  contract  bet.  President  and  the  convict   2.  By  commutation  of  the  sentence     3.  For  good  conduct  allowances  which  culprit  may  earn   4.  Full  credit  of  service  of  preventive  imprisonment     5.  Release  on  Parole   6.  Release  under  Probation     • ARTICLE  95  –  OBLIGATIONS  OF  THOSE  GRANTED  CONDITIONAL  PARDON   (reading  matter)   • ARTICLE  96  –  EFFECT  OF  COMMUTATION  OF  SENTENCE   (reading  matter)     • ARTICLE  97  –  ALLOWANCES  FOR  GOOD  CONDUCT   1.  first  2  years  =  deduction  of  5  days  for  each  month  of  good  behavior   2.  3  -­‐  5  years  =  deduction  of  8  days  for  each  month  of  good  behavior  

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 137 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

3.  6-­‐10  years  =  deduction  of  10  days  for  each  month  of  good  behavior   4.  11  &  so  on  years  =  deduction  of  15  days  for  each  month  of  good  behavior           • ARTICLE  98  –  SPECIAL  TIME  ALLOWANCES   -­‐  it  is  a  deduction  of  1/5  of  the  period  of  the  entire  sentence:  having  evaded  service  during  calamity  or   catastrophe  (Art.158)  gives  himself  up  to  the  authorities  within  48  hours;  otherwise,  if  captured  1/5  of   the  remaining  sentence  will  added   ü Supposing,  there  is  a  calamity,  but  you  did  not  escape,  will  you  be  awarded  the  1/5  deduction?  NO,   the  law  says  you  have  to  first  escape     • ARTICLE  99  –  WHO  GRANTS  TIME  ALLOWANCES  (reading  matter)   -­‐  The  Director  of  Prisons     • Article  100  –  Civil  Liability     • In  every  felony,  arises  two  things:   (i)  criminal  liability,  which  can  be  extinguished  by:   -­‐  imprisonment    

-­‐  fine  

-­‐  prescription  of  liberty   Ø Interested  parties  are:  the  government/State/President  against  the  accused  who  is  the  only  one  liable   because  penalties  are  personal     (ii)  civil  liability,  which  can  be  extinguished  by:   -­‐  restitution  

-­‐  indemnification  

-­‐  reparation   Ø Interested  parties  are:  the  offended  party  and  heirs  against  the  accused  and  heirs   Ø Civil  liability  can  be  extinguished  similar  to  that  of  contracts    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 138 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

Upon  filing  of  the  criminal  action,  civil  action  is  deemed  instituted   If  the  criminal  case  was  filed  first,  it  shall  take  precedence   If  the  civil  case  was  filed  first,  it  will  be  suspended  when  the  criminal  case  is  filed   Reservation  of  right  –  loses  right  to  intervene  in  criminal  case,  but  allows  for  the  institution  of  an   independent  civil  action  (ICA)   • Independent  Civil  Action  (for  cases  of  or  claims  for  damages,  defamation,  physical  injuries)  may   proceed  simultaneously  with  the  criminal  case,  but  if  there  is  prejudicial  question,  it  shall  be  decided   first   • Prejudicial  Question  –  is  one  which  arises  in  a  case,  the  resolution  of  which  is  a  logical  antecedent  of   the  issue  involved  in  the  said  case,  and  the  cognizance  of  which  pertains  to  another  tribunal   • Extinction  of  criminal  liability  (acquittal)  shall  not  carry  the  civil  action  with  it  unless  it  is  the  basis  for   the  decision     • • • •

• ARTICLE  101  –  RULES  ON  CIVIL  LIABILITY   -­‐  Article  12  pars.  1,  2,  3,5,6  and  Article  11(4)  are  not  exempt  from  civil  liability   • First  rule:   -­‐  Article  12  (1,  2,  3)  =  civil  liability  devolves  to  those  who  have  parental  or  legal  authority  of  them   • Second  rule:   -­‐  Article  11(4)  =  those  who  benefited  from  the  harm  prevented  are  civilly  liable     • Third  rule:   -­‐  Article  12  (5  &  6)  =  the  persons  causing  the  fear  or  using  violence  are  primarily  liable;  in  their  absence,   those  who  acted  are  secondarily  liable     • ARTICLES  102-­‐103  –  SUBSIDIARY  LIABILITY  OF  OTHER  PERSONS   (reading  matter)   • ARTICLES  104-­‐109  &111  –  FORMS  OF  CIVIL  LIABILITY  &  OBLIGATIONS   (reading  matter)     • ARTICLE  110  –  SEVERAL  LIABILITIES  OF  PARTICIPANTS  IN  A  CRIME   • The  principals,  accomplices,  accessories  shall  have  several  liability;  thus,  the  offended  party  can  ask   payment  from  any  of  them   • In  case  of  insolvency  of  the  principal,  the  accomplice  is  next  in  line,  and  so  on,  if  the  latter  is  also   insolvent   • 3rd  person  gratuitous  –  requires  participation  knowledge;  requires  knowledge  on  his  part  of  the   commission  of  the  crime    

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

CRIMINAL LAW Lecture & Recitation Notes

Page 139 of 139 Atty. Maximo Amurao

• ARTICLE  112  &  113  –  EXTINGUISHMENT  OF  CIVIL  LIABILITY   -­‐  same  as  extinguishment  of  contracts   1.  by  payment  or  performance   2.  by  the  loss  of  the  thing  due   3.  by  condonation  or  remission  of  the  debt   4.  by  the  confusion  or  merger  of  the  rights  of  the  creditor  and  debtor   5.  by  compensation   6.  by  novation          

NOTES BY:

Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) | year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly Villanueva*Ayla Salendab

View more...

Comments

Copyright ©2017 KUPDF Inc.
SUPPORT KUPDF