Crim I - Art. 1 - 10 Notes - PDF

1 Criminal Law – is that branch or division of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for their punishment. Crime – is an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or commanding it. Sources of PH Criminal Law 1. RPC 2. Special Penal Laws passed by Congress 3. Penal Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law No common law crimes in the Philippines Common law crimes – the body of principles, usages, and rules of action, which do not rest for their authority upon any express and positive declaration of the will of the legislature. -Even if it be socially or morally wrong, no criminal liability is incurred if there is no law punishing it. -Court decisions ARE NOT SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW, bec they merely explain the meaning of the law and applies its meaning. Power to define and punish crimes – with the State. Basis: POLICE POWER. -attributes that by natural law belong to the sovereign power instinctively charged by the common will of the members of society to look after, guard and defend the interest of the community, the individual and social rights and liberties of every citizen and the guaranty of the exercise of his rights. Limitations on the power of law-making body to enact penal legislation. 1. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. (Art. III, Sec. 22, 1987 Consti) -Ex post facto law is one which: (1) makes criminal an act done BEFORE the passage of the law, WHICH WAS INNOCENT WHEN DONE and PUNISHES SUCH ACT; (2) aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, WHEN IT WAS COMMITTED; (3) CHANGES THE PUNISHMENT and inflicts GREATER PUNISHMENT than the law annexed to the crime when committed; (4) ALTERS THE LEGAL RULES OF EVIDENCE, AUTHORIZES CONVICTION UPON LESS OR DIFFERENT TESTIMONY THAN THE LAW REQUIRED AT THE TIME OF COMMISSION. (5) assumes to REGULATE CIVIL RIGHTS AND REMEDIES ONLY. (6) deprives person accused of a crime some LAWFUL PROTECTION TO WHICH HE HAS BECOME ENTITLES, such as former conviction, acquittal or proc of amnesty. -To give law retroactive application TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE ACCUSED is to make it an ex post facto law. -Bill of attainder – (1) legislative act which (2) inflicts punishment (3)without trial. In esse, substitution of legislative act for judicial determination of guilt. 2. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. (Art. III, Sec. 1, 1987 Consti) -Criminal laws must be of general application and must clearly define the acts and omissions punished as crimes. Constitutional rights of the accused. (Art. III, 1987 Consti) 1. Right to speedy disposition of their cases 2. Right to due process of law. 3. The right to bail. 4. The right to be presumed innocent. Criminal Law I – Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang. Academic Year 2016-2017. Athena Angeline C. Lajom References: The Revised Penal Code, Luis B. Reyes

2 a. b. c. d. e. 5. 6. 7.

8.

Right to be heard by himself and counsel Right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him Right to speedy, impartial and public trial Right to meet the witnesses face-to-face Right to have compulsory processes (subpoena) to secure attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence (subpoena duces tecum) Right against self-incrimination Right against excessive fines, cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment. Right against double jeopardy. -Double jeopardy – if an act punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall CONSTITUTE A BAR TO ANOTHER PROSECUTION FOR THE SAME ACT. Right to free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance.

Statutory Rights of the accused (Section 1, Rule 115, Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rules of Court) *same as Constitutional Rights of Accused 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt.* To be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him.* To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings.* To testify as witness in his own behalf, subject to cross examination. His silence shall not in any manner prejudice him. To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself.* To confront and cross-examine witnesses against him at trial. To have compulsory processes issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and production of other evidence in his behalf.* To have speedy, impartial and public trial.* To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law.

Rights of the accused which may be waived (confrontation and cross-examination [ratio: personal right]) and rights which may not be waived (to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him[ratio: involve public interest]). CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW 1. GENERAL. Criminal law is binding on all who live or sojourn in Philippine territory. -PH sovereign state with obli and right of every govt to uphold its laws and maintain order within its domain, with GENERAL JURISDICTION to punish persons for OFFENSES COMMITTED WITHIN ITS TERRITORY, REGARDLESS OF THE NATIONALITY OF THE OFFENDER. General Rule (GR): The jurisdiction of the civil courts is not affected by the military character of the accused. Civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction with general courts-martial over soldiers of the AFP. -even in times of war, PROVIDED that in the place of commission of the crime, no hostilities are in progress and civil courts are functioning. RPC or other penal law NOT APPLICABLE when MILITARY COURT TAKES COGNIZANCE – Articles of war will apply. The prosecution of an accused before a court-martial is a bar to another prosecution of the accused FOR THE SAME OFFENSE – court martial is a court not an administrative body, otherwise accused would be placed in double jeopardy. Offenders accused of war crimes are triable by military commission. Criminal Law I – Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang. Academic Year 2016-2017. Athena Angeline C. Lajom References: The Revised Penal Code, Luis B. Reyes

3 -EO 68 which established National War Crimes Office is valid and constitutional. Promulgation of EO is exercised by President, of his powers as Commander-in-Chief of the AFP. -Military commission has jurisdiction as long as technical state of war continues – includes armistice, military occupation up to effective date of treaty of peace. EXCEPTIONS: A. Treaties or treaty stipulations. -Bases Agreement – US jurisdiction over (1) offenses committed within any base, EXCEPT where offended party and offender are both Philippine citizens, or offense is against the security of the Philippines; (2) offense committed outside the bases by any member of the armed forced of US, offended party also member of armed force of US; (3) offense committed outside the bases by any member of armed forces of US against security of US. -RP-US Visiting Forces Accord – (1) US military authorities shall have the right to exercise WITHIN PH all criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction conferred on them by military law over US PERSONNEL IN RP; (2) exclusive jurisdiction over US personnel w/ respect to offenses related to security of US, BUT NOT UNDER THE LAWS OF RP; (3) primary right to exercise jurisdiction over US personnel in relation to: offenses SOLELY against property or security or person of US personnel; and offenses arising out of any act or omission done in performance of official duty. B. Laws of Preferential Application -RA 75 – in favor of diplomatic representatives, and their domestic servants. EXCEPTION: Not applicable when the foreign country adversely affected does not provide similar protection to our diplomatic representatives. C. Principles of Public International Law. -Persons exempt from the operation of our criminal laws by virtue of principles of PIL: (1) Sovereigns and other chiefs of state (2) Ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, ministers resident and charges d’affairs -A consul is not entitled to privileges and immunities of an ambassador or minister. Other commercial representatives of foreign nations do not possess the status of, and cannot claim the privileges and immunities accorded to ambassadors and ministers. 2. TERRITORIAL. Criminal laws undertake to punish crimes committed within PH territory. PH Territory as defined in Art. I, 1987 Constitution. EXCEPTIONS. ART. 2 of RPC. 3. PROSPECTIVE. That a penal law cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when committed. -Crimes are punished under the laws in force at the time of their commission. (Art. 366, RPC) EXCEPTIONS. Whenever a new statute dealing with crime established a condition MORE LENIENT OR FAVORABLE TO THE ACCUSED. It can apply retroactively. EXCEPTION TO EXCEPTION: (1) Where the offender is a habitual criminal (Art. 62, RPC) (2) Where the new law is EXPRESSLY MADE INAPPLICABLE TO PENDING ACTIONS OR EXISTING CAUSE OF ACTION. Effects of Repeal of Criminal Law Criminal Law I – Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang. Academic Year 2016-2017. Athena Angeline C. Lajom References: The Revised Penal Code, Luis B. Reyes

4 1. New Law makes PENALTY LIGHTER – may apply EXCEPT if habitual delinquent or NEW LAW expressly provided that it will not apply to pending actions or existing causes of action 2. New Law imposes HEAVIER PENALTY – law at the time of commission applies 3. New law TOTALLY obliterates the offense charged in the old law – THE CRIME IS OBLITERATED. REPEAL IS ABSOLUTE THE OFFENSE CEASES TO BE CRIMINAL. When the new law and the old law penalize the SAME OFFENSE, the offender can be tried under the OLD LAW. When the repealing law fails to penalize the offense under the old law, the accused cannot be convicted under the new law. A person erroneously accused and convicted under a repealed statute may be punished under the repealing statute. A new law which omits anything in the old law dealing on the same subject, operates as repeal of anything not so included in the amendatory act. cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex the reason for the law ceasing, the law itself also ceases Article 1 January 1, 1932. Time RPC (Act No. 3815) took affect. Theories in Criminal Law – PH mainly follows classical

Classical theory Basis of criminal Liability: Human free will Purpose of penalty: retribution

Positivist Theory

Man is essentially creature, with An absolutely free will to choose between Good and evil Focus: offence

Man subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon which contains him to do wrong Focus: offender

Established mechanical and direct Proportion between crime and penalty

Crime is essentially a social and natural phenomenon which can be created and checked. enforcement and of individual Measures in each particular case after a thorough personal and individual investigation

Scant regard to human element

Article 2 Rationale: affects political and economic life of the nation  Philippine vessel/aircraft – registered in Philippine Bureau of Customs – REGISTRATION: Vessel - MARINA; Aircraft – CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD. Registration wc makes it PH ship/airship. -Extends to crew, passengers; stowaways * law does not distinguish RTC – recognizes/has jurisdiction over crimes punishable in the Philippines Under Art. 2; where filed first

Criminal Law I – Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang. Academic Year 2016-2017. Athena Angeline C. Lajom References: The Revised Penal Code, Luis B. Reyes

5  Foreign merchant ship/airship – considered an extension of country to which it belongs. - On the high seas- X TRIABLE - On PH waters - / TRIABLE  Rule as to jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard foreign merchant vessel French Rule – X TRIABLE, unless commission affects peace and security Of the territory and safety of the state is endangered. English Rule - TRIABLE, unless merely affects things within the vessel - Refer to internal management. - PH OBSERVES THE ENGLISH RULE. Disorders – disturb peace of the ship – sovereignty of home of ship i.e. homicide - disturb public peace – maybe suppressed - offenders punished by proper authorities of local jurisdiction

Warship – territory of country which they belong. *Offender should forge/counterfeit any coin or currency note of the PH OR obligations and securities issued by the Government. Includes, those responsible for the introduction of said obligations and securities. *When offender while being a public officer or employee, should commit an offense in the exercise of his functions. PO-E still liable even if committed abroad. *When the offender should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of the nations – treason, sedition, espionage, piracy and mutiny on the high seas. Continuing offense on board a foreign vessel – TRIABLE – forbidden conditions existed during the time the ship was within territorial waters. Offenses committed on board a foreign merchant vessel while on PH waters is triable before our court. – PH territory extends 3 miles from the headlands, foreign vessel enters this 3 mile limit – its officers and crew are subject to our territorial jurisdiction. Crimes not involving a breach of public order committed on board a foreign merchant vessel in transit not triable by our courts. Smoking opium constitutes a breach of public order. RA 9372 – Human Security Act of 2007 has extra-territorial application, subject treaties of which PH is signatory. Article 3 Felonies- acts or omissions punishable by RPC. Elements 1. act/omission – must be external 2. must be punishable by RPC 3. performed/incurred by means of dolo/culpa Act – any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the external world. - Defined by RPC + external

Criminal Law I – Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang. Academic Year 2016-2017. Athena Angeline C. Lajom References: The Revised Penal Code, Luis B. Reyes

6 Only external act is punished. – Internal acts are beyond the sphere of penal law. Omission – inaction - Failure to do/ perform a positive duty which one is bound to do - There must be a law requiring. The doing/ performance of an act. - Abandonment of persons in danger. (Art. 275, RPC) - Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege – there is no crime when there is no law punishing it. Forging

Vs.

Counterfeit

-

Simple Did not try to imitate genuine signature

-

Complex - Imitate genuine signature and purported it as one’s signature

- made fraudulent copy/specimen - copy exactly

Extradition Theory – legal surrender of a fugitive to the jurisdiction of another state, country/government for trial. Public Officer – person elected through popular election, appointed takes part in governance as an employee. KINDS OF FELONIES 1. Intentional 2. Culpable 3. Punishable by special laws Punished by law - punished by RPC, X special laws.

Negligence

Vs.

- Lack of foresight - Deficiency of perception

- lack of skill - deficiency of action

Crime -

Vs.

Punished by SPL Statutes Dolo( Deceit) Intentional Felonies

Imprudence

Felonies - RPC only

Vs.

ACT – malicious - w/ deliberate intent - intention to cause injury to another

Culpa(fault) Culpable Felonies - X malicious - unintentional - incident of another act performed without malice - results from negligence/imprudence

A criminal act is presumed voluntary, as well as negligent acts. A person who caused an injury, without intention to cause an evil, may be held liable for a culpable felony.

Criminal Law I – Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang. Academic Year 2016-2017. Athena Angeline C. Lajom References: The Revised Penal Code, Luis B. Reyes

7 Imprudence – deficiency of action. Involves lack of skill. If a person fails to take the necessary precaution to avoid injury to person/damage to property. Negligence – a deficiency of perception. Involves lack of foresight. If a person fails to pay proper attention and to use due diligence in foreseeing the injury/damage impending. Reason for punishing acts of negligence – A man must use common sense, and exercise due diligence in all his acts; it is his duty to be cautious, careful and prudent, if not from instinct, then through fear of incurring punishment. A criminal act is presumed to be voluntary. Acts executed negligently are voluntary. Requisites of Dolo/Malice 1. Freedom- capacity to act on his own. 2. Intelligence- necessary to determine the morality of human acts. 3. Intent- presumed, mental state, presupposed Freedom & Intelligence - Shown by OVERT ACTS - Refers to general intent only. The existence of intent is shown by the overt acts of a person. – Intent is a mental state, the existence of which is shown by the overt acts of a person. Presumption, in commission of an unlawful act. There is criminal intent will to commit a crime. Presumption of criminal intent does not arise from the proof of the commission of an act which is NOT UNLAWFUL.

 Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea - Crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained be innocent. There is no felony BY DOLO if there is no intent. PP vs. Sia PP vs Formalan

U.S. vs. Ah Chong

Vs. There is fault or Negligence in Oanis

PP vs. Oanis

 Ignorantia legis non excusat - Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.  Ignorantia facti excusat -ignorance/mistake of fact relieves the accused of criminal liability Mistake of fact – misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who accused injury to another - Destroy presumption of criminal intent - Involves lack of intent

Criminal Law I – Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang. Academic Year 2016-2017. Athena Angeline C. Lajom References: The Revised Penal Code, Luis B. Reyes

8 Requisites: 1. Act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be (U.S. vs. Ah Chong) 2. Intention of accused in performing the act must be lawful 3. Mistake must be without fault or carelessness on part of the accused Error in Personae – mistake in the identity of the victim -

X mistake of fact X relieve from criminal liability-act < malicious , willful

 Mistake of fact is not a defense in culpable felonies.  Defense in intentional felonios - Criminal intent is necessary.  Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea - Act itself does not make a man guilty unless his intentions more so.  Actus me invite factus non ost mens actus - An act done by me against my will is not my act  When accused is negligent, mistake of fact is not a defense. - PP vs. Oanis When the accused is charged with intentional felony, absence of criminal intent is a defense. Criminal intent is replaced by negligence and imprudence in felonies committed by means of culpa. Dolo is not required in crimes punished by special laws. -Sufficient that the prohibited act is done freely and consciously. Motive is immaterial. -When doing of an act is prohibited by a special law, it is considered that the act is injurious to public welfare and the doing of the prohibited act is the CRIME ITSELF. Good faith and absence of criminal intent not valid defenses in crimes punished by special laws. People vs. Sunico - Poll desks, duty he transfer names of excess voters, X transfer some were not allowed to vote.  Person causing damage/injury to another, without malice/fault; not criminally liable under RPC; act must be lawful Mala in Se

Vs.

Mala Prohibita

- wrongful from their nature

- wrong merely bec. Prohibited by statute

- so serious on their effects on society as to call for unanimous condemnation by its members

- violation of mere rules of designed to secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs of society

- intent governs

- criminal intent is not necessary - intent to perpetrate act is sufficient is done & freely

Criminal Law I – Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang. Academic Year 2016-2017. Athena Angeline C. Lajom References: The Revised Penal Code, Luis B. Reyes

9 and consciously has the law been violated? Act alone constitutes offense - originally defined and penalized by special laws

- refers to felonies defined and penalized by the RPC - inherently immoral

- made criminal, only by special laws good faith, absence of criminal intent; not valid defenses

 act is inherently immoral, but punished under special law, they are MALA IN SE.  People vs Sunico Intent

vs.

- Purpose to use a particular means to effect each result

Motive - moving power w/c impels one to action for a definite result - not essential element of crime - not sufficient for conviction (alone) - need not be proved

MOTIVE:  RELEVANT 1. Doubt as to identity of killer/assistant or; 2. Proceeds from unreliable source; 3. Testimony inconclusive and not free from doubt 4. No eyewitness 5. Suspicion likely to fall upon a # of persons 6. Evidence is merely circumstantial

NEED NOT BE ESTABLISHED

How proved.... by testimony of witness on acts/ statements of the accused  Motive alone, not sufficient to support conviction - Cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt  Disclosure of motive is an aid in completing the proof of the commission of the crime Lack of motive, may be an aid in showing innocence of the accused Article 4  One who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the consequences which may naturally and logically result therefrom, whether foreseen, intended, or not  El que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado - He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused People vs. Mariano - Rape of 6yrs old girl, died be her head hit the powerment People vs. Bindoy - Making “awat” only Suicide, killed another, criminally liable? X. Criminal Law I – Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang. Academic Year 2016-2017. Athena Angeline C. Lajom References: The Revised Penal Code, Luis B. Reyes

10 Helping another to commit suicide, felony? YES. People vs. Rona - Intend to kill one, but killed another due to darkness People vs. Mabugat - Abberatio ictus - Sweethearts - Intended to shoot another, hit niece People vs. Cagoco - Praeter intentionem - Hit A on back of head, caused head to hit pavement, death People vs. Paje - “ hold-up” jumped off jeepney  Person has not committed a felony, he is not criminally liable for the result which is not intended. Ex. People vs. Bindoy (p.65-66)  Person committing felony is still criminally liable, even if different from that which he intended to commit: 1. Error in personae- mistake in identity of victim 2. Abberatio ictus- mistake in the blow 3. Praeter intentionem- result is greater than that intended not MC When a person has not committed a felony, he is not criminally liable for the result which is not intended. Requisites of par. 1 of Art.4: 1. Must be intentional felony 2. Wrong done to aggrieved party be the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony committed by the offender  No felony is committed when: 1. Act/omission is not punishable by the RPC 2. Covered by JC in Art. 11 Acting in self defense - due Fulfilment of duty – care – liable for culpable felony  Person who creates in another’s mind an immediate sense of danger, which causes the latter to do something resulting to the latter’s injuries, is liable for said injuries. (People vs. Toling)  Wrong done must be the direct, natural and logical consequence of felonious act.  Offended party is not obliged to submit to a surgical operation to relieve the accused from the natural and ordinary results his crime.  Felony committed must be the proximate cause of the resulting injury. Proximate cause - natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. Natural - occurrence in the ordinary cause of human life/events Logical – rational connection b/w act of the accused & resulting injury/damage (a relation of cause and effect) Proximate Legal Cause - is that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately, or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a causal connection with its immediate predecessor. Criminal Law I – Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang. Academic Year 2016-2017. Athena Angeline C. Lajom References: The Revised Penal Code, Luis B. Reyes

11  1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Cause and effect relationship is not altered/changed because of pre-existing conditions not efficient intervening causes Weak/diseased condition of the victim Nervousness/temperament of the victim Causes inherent in the victim Neglect of victim or by 3rd person Erroneous/unskillful medical/surgical treatment

 Felony committed is NOT proximate cause of resulting injury 1. Active force intervened between felony committed and resulting injury distinct act/fact absolutely foreign from felonious act of the accused (intervening cause) 2. Resulting injury is due to intentional act of the victim  Not direct, natural and logical consequence of felony committed - offender is not responsible. U.S vs. Valdez – jumped off, cannot swim. People vs. Reloj People vs. Plamonte – stabbed, had/infected w/ disease (mucous colitis) due to stabbing, he died. When death is presumed to be the natural consequence of physical injuries inflicted. Death of the victim is presumed to be the natural consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, when the ffg facts are established: - Death may be expected from the physical injuries inflicted - Death occurred, reasonable time after the injury - Victim at the time the physical injuries were inflicted has in normal health Not direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony committed. – from distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the criminal act, offender is not responsible for such consequences. Impossible Crimes Requisites: 1. Act performed would be an offense against persons/property 2. Act has done with evil intent to do injury to another 3. Accomplishment inherently impossible or means employed is either inadequate/ineffectual - Legal/physical impossibility 4. Act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the RPC  

Act performed, offense other than felony against persons/property = X impossible crimes Purpose in punishing: to suppose criminal propensities/tendencies.

Inherently Impossible (1) legal and (2) physical impossibility i.e. murder corpse theft of watch he lost to a prior act of theft Employment of inadequate means  Means employed is adequate – X impossible crime; IT IS Frustrated Felony -poison placed in soup is not enough Employment of ineffectual means - Substance in soup w/c he believed would kill, but is in fact sugar - w/ intent to kill, pointed an empty revolver

Criminal Law I – Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang. Academic Year 2016-2017. Athena Angeline C. Lajom References: The Revised Penal Code, Luis B. Reyes

12 Intod vs. Court of Appeals – intending to kill A, peppered his house with bullets but A was not at home. R:Guily of impossible crime, factual impossibility of producing crime. Article 5  applies only to acts mala in se based on the phrase “taking into consideration the degree of MALICE”  Trial of Criminal Case: - acts which should be suppressed - not covered by law Requisites: 1. Act committed by the accused appears not punishable by any law 2. Court deems it proper to repress such act. 3. Court must render proper decision by dismissing the case , and Acquitting the accused 4. Judge must make a report to the Chief Executive through the Secretary of Justice stating reason which induce him to believe, said act should be made subject of penal legislation. Rationale : nullum crimen poena sine lege excessive penalties Requisites: 1. Court after trial finds accused guilty 2. Penalty provided by law which the court imposes for the crime committed appears to be clearly excessive because a. Accused acted with lesser degree of malice b. There is no injury or the injury caused is of lesser gravity 3. Court should not suspend the execution of sentence 4. Judge should submit statement, to the Chief Executive through the Secretary of Justice, recommending executive clemency.  Penalties are not excessive when intended to enforce public policy  Duty of Judicial officers, is to respect and apply the law, as interpreted by the SC Basis: Dura lex, sed lex Article 6 Consummated Felony – when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present. Frustrated Felony – when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. Attempted Felony – when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.  Development of crime 1. Internal Acts – mere ideas in the mind of a person. Not punishable.  Intention and effect must concur. - Mere intention producing no effect is no more a crime than a mere effect without the intention is a crime. 2. External Acts Criminal Law I – Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang. Academic Year 2016-2017. Athena Angeline C. Lajom References: The Revised Penal Code, Luis B. Reyes

13 a. Preparatory Acts - Not punishable, GR Except... when law provides for their punishment they are considered in themselves by law, as crimes. b. Acts of Execution - punishable under RPC Stages of Execution: 1. Attempted felony Requisites: 1. Offender begins the commission of a felony directly (taking direct part on execution of the act) by overt acts (external act, must have direct connection w/ crime intended to be committed) 2. not performed all acts of execution which should produce the felony 3. act not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance 4. non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause/accident, other than his own spontonous desistance  External acts must be directly connected w/ crime intended to be committed Overt Acts – physical activity deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular crime. Indeterminate offense – purpose of offender in performing an act is not certain. Nature in relation to its objective is ambiguous. The intention of the accused must be viewed from the nature of the acts executed by him, and not from his admission. -Acts susceptible of double interpretation, in favor and against accused, show an innocent as well as punishable act, MUST NOT AND CANNOT FURNISH GROUNDS BY THEMSELVES FOR AN ATTEMPTED CRIME.

People vs. Tabago - Motion to withdraw pistol - Chief of Police hugged him, withdrawal of pistol - Asked companions to fire, X fire bec. Chief is holding sabage; fined but X aim at anybody H X. Act is not an event set of homicide could be interpreted in many ways What is mortal wound? Fatal death would naturally result therefrom -> would cause death ->crimes against person for it to be frustrated consummated It is necessary that a mortal wound be inflicted Only offenders who personally execute the commission of a crime, can be guilty of attempted felony, bec of word “direct”. Preparatory vs. Event Acts - X punishable - punishable - Aint be ascertain if it - there must be direct is done in connection or in connection to felony relation to the commission of intended to be felony committed  Intention of accused must be viewed from the nature of acts executed by him, and not from his admission. Criminal Law I – Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang. Academic Year 2016-2017. Athena Angeline C. Lajom References: The Revised Penal Code, Luis B. Reyes

14 -

For event acts to constitute an attempted offense it is necessary that the objective be known and established or such that acts be of such nature that they obviously disclose the criminal objective necessary intended

 Desistance should be made before all acts of execution are performed - Desistance w/c exempts from criminal liability has reference to the crime intended to be committed and has no reference to the crime actually committed by the offender before his desistance. Subjective Phase – portion of the acts constituting the crime, starting from the point where the offender begins the commission of the crime to that point where he has still control over his acts, including their natural cause. - If stopped by any cause outside of his own voluntary desistance -> not been passed -> attempt - Not so stopped but continues until he performs the last act, but crime is not produced. -> Frustrated! 2. Frustrated Felony Elements/ Requisites: 1. Offender performs all acts of execution - has performed the last act necessary to produce the crime  AC in certain cases has emphasized belief of the accused People vs. Sy Pio - Fired at Sy (felony hit) -> but hit Kiap (hit @ shoulder) - Escape - Knew that he did not hit fatally bec. able to escape - Knew that he did not perform all acts of execution H: Belief of accused was emphasized! Attempted murder only. Attempted -> accused knew that he had not actually perform all acts of execution necessary to kill his victim. Frustrated -> accused thought they had killed; believed that he had performed all the acts necessary to consummate the crime (murder)  What should be considered is whether all the acts of execution performed by the offender “would produce the felony as a consequence.”  Stage of execution was held to be frustrated, wound inflicted was mortal. Stage of execution was held to be attempted x wound inflicted 2. Acts performed would produce the felony  On crimes against persons (murder), require that the victim should die to consummate the felony, it is necessary for the frustration of the same that a mortal wound is inflicted. 3. Felony is not produced - otherwise, it would be consummated. 4. By reason independent of the will of the peprpetrator - timely intervention of 3rd person -> frustrated - offender prevented its consummation -> X frustrated, but? May be convicted of another felony – physical injuries (in whatever stage it is in)

Criminal Law I – Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang. Academic Year 2016-2017. Athena Angeline C. Lajom References: The Revised Penal Code, Luis B. Reyes

15 Us vs. Adiao – frustrated theft took gather belt from baggage of Japanese - Put it in his drawer - Convicted of frustrated theft by RTC - SC considered consummated - All elements necessary for execution & accomplishment are present - Actual taking w/ intent to gain US vs. Dominguez – estafa - Took money to be given to cashier w/ intent to misappropriate H: frustrated estafa Lacking in element: damage to OP DIFFERENCE: ELEMENTS OF 2 CRIMES People vs. Diño F: stolen boxes of rifles – discovered by MP in checkpoint H: consummated theft –bec. Timely discovery boxes  Ability to dispose freely (Fact determinative of consummation)

People vs. Espiritu F: removed pcs. of hospital linen to their truck - discovered by guard when they tried to pass chekpt. H:frustrated theft

Why are decisions different? - When meaning of element is controversial, there is bound to crime diff. Rulings as to the stage of execution of that felony. - X frustrated theft. The moment you take personal property w/ intent to gain, it is already consummated theft. Free disposal is not an element, moment of deprivation = consummated - X frustrated rape. Frustrated

Vs. Attempted Offender has not accomplished his criminal purpose

- Performed all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence

- merely commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts; does not perform all acts of execution

- No intervention of foreign/extraneous cause/agency between the beginning of the consummation of the crime and the moment when all of the acts have been performed which should result in the consummated crime.

- there is intervention and the offender does not arrive at the point of performing all the acts which should produce the crime.

- Will produce result

- will not produce result

Attempted & Frustrated vs. Impossible Crime Evil intent of the offender is not accomplished -

Possible of accomplishment Intervention of certain cause/accident in which the offender had no part

- cant be accomplished - inherently impossible - means employed is inadequate/ineffectual

3. Consummated Felony - all elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present - every crime has its own elements which must all be present to constitute a culpable violation of a precept of law Criminal Law I – Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang. Academic Year 2016-2017. Athena Angeline C. Lajom References: The Revised Penal Code, Luis B. Reyes

16

 How to determine whether the crime is only attempted, frustrated/ consummated? Consider: a.) nature of the offense b.) elements constituting the felony c.) manner of committing the same  Manner of committing the crime 1. Formal crimes – consummated in one instant, no attempt - Between the thought the deed there is no chain of acts that can be severed in any link. i.e. slander – w/n defamatory words were spoken publicly Sale of marijuana/prohibited drugs – mere act of selling/acting as broker 2. Crimes consummated by mere attempt/proposal/event act i.e. flight to enemy’s country – mere attempt to flee Corruption of minors – mere proposal to minor to satisfy the lust of another reason – overt act in itself 3. Felony by omission - no attempted stage - offender does not execute acts, omits to perform them 4. Crime requiring the intervention of 2 persons to commit them, consummated by mere agreement i.e. corruption of public offices - offer is rejected – attempted - return money given – frustrated 5. Material crimes – there are 3 stages of execution  No attempted/frustrated impossible crime. X attempt. Performed all acts for the execution of the same, but nevertheless crime is not produced by reason of the fact that act intended is by its nature impossible/ bec. Means are essentially inadequate or ineffectual to produce result desired by him. Article 7 Light felonies - infractions of law punishable only for the commission of which the penalty of arresto menor (1-30 days) or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or both is provided. General Rule: Light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated. Ratio: The wrong done is so slight that there is no need of providing a penalty. Exception: If committed against person/property, it is punishable even if attempted or frustrated. Ratio: presupposes moral depravity in the offender. Light felonies punished by RPC Against person: Slight physical injuries; Maltreatment Against property: + Theft by hunting/gathering fruits, cereals or other forest or farm products upon an inclosed estate or field where trespass is forbidden; where the value is stolen property does not exceed 5php and offender was prompted by hunger, poverty, or the difficulty of earning a livelihood; + Alteration of boundary marks + Malicious mischief when damage isn’t more than 200/can’t be estimated + Intriguing against honor Article 8 General Rule: Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are not punishable. Exception: When law specifically provides a penalty therefore (treason, coup d’etat, rebellion, insurrection, sedition) Reason: Conspiracy and proposal are only preparatory acts Criminal Law I – Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang. Academic Year 2016-2017. Athena Angeline C. Lajom References: The Revised Penal Code, Luis B. Reyes

17

 APC specifically provides penalty for mere conspiracy Act.115 Treason betraying ones country < attempting to kill a soveign overthrow government - Concerns external security of the state. Act.136 Coup d’ etat. Sudden violent, illegal seizure of power from government Rebellion – act of violent or open resistance to an established government. - Insurrection. Violent uprising against any authority/ government. Act.141 Sediction. Conduct/speech inciting people to rebel against authority of the state Concerns internal security of the state should not be actually committed if committed, only a manner of incurring criminal liability conspiracy is absorbed, not punishable as separate offense. Act.186 conspiracy in monopolies and combinations in restrain of trade. Agreement to commit a crime -

Conspirators do not perform overt acts Security of state is outraged Not guilty if public is undisturbed

Conspiracy as felony

vs. As manner of incurring criminal liability Relates to a crime actually committed

-Not separate offense -Conspiracy is absorbed -Act of one is act of all -Not punishable as a separate offense  Indications of Conspiracy (Doctrine of Implied Conspiracy) When defendants by their acts, aimed at the same object, one performing one part and another performing another part, so as to complete it, with a view to the attainment of the same object, and their acts, though apparently independent were, in fact converted and cooperative, indicating, closeness of personal association, concerted actions and concurrence of sentiments acting in concert to the fulfilment of a common design.  For collective responsibility to be established it is sufficient that at the time of aggression, all of them acted in concert, each doing his part to fulfil their common design.  Neither joint nor simultaneous action per se is sufficient proof of conspiracy. It must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission itself. There must be unity of purpose and unity of in execution of the unlawful objective.  Period of time to afford opportunity for meditation and reflection, not required in conspiracy, it arise on the very instant the plotters agree. Expressly or impliedly, to commit the felony and faith with decide to pursue it. Requisites: 1. That two or more persons come to an agreement - presupposes meeting of the minds of 2 or more persons 2. That the agreement concerned the commission of a felony - Agreement to act, to effect, to bring about what has already been conceived and determined 3. That the execution of the felony be decided upon - Conspirators have made up their minds to commit the crime Direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy.

Criminal Law I – Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang. Academic Year 2016-2017. Athena Angeline C. Lajom References: The Revised Penal Code, Luis B. Reyes

18 -May be inferred from the collective acts of the accused, before, during and after the commission of the crime. -Acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interests.  Must be proven beyond reasonable doubt - Evidence of actual cooperation is required  Crime of treason/rebellion actually committed after and because of the proposal, liable for treason/rebellion as principal by inducement. Requisites of proposal: 1. Person has decided to commit a felony 2. Proposes its execution to some other person/persons No criminal proposal when: 1. Person who proposes, is not determined to commit the felony 2. No decided, concrete and formal proposal 3. It is not the execution of a felony that is proposed. When felony is proposal? When is there conspiracy? Problem: proponents of rebellion DESISTED: before in rebellious act is performed by material executors arrest Should they be exempt? Conspiracies? Desisted. Should be exempted, law would rather prevent than punish crimes and encouragement should be given to those who hearken the voice of conscience. Proposal? Consummated the moment he made proposal to another person.  Not necessary any that the person to whom the proposal is made agrees to commit treason/rebellion making of proposal w/c constitute the felony – if accepted -> conspiracy The crimes in wc conspiracy and proposal are punishable are against the security of the State or economic security. – If the culprit succeeds in his criminal enterprise, he would obtain the power and therefore impunity for crime committed. Article 9  The gravity of the felonies is determined by the penalty attached to them by law. Capital Punishment – death penalty – suspended! Afflictive Penalty – fine exceeding P6,000 -

Penalty prescribed for the offense is composed of two/more distinct penalties, higher/highest must be effective, or two/more periods corresponding to two different divisible penalties, higher/maximum period

Under art.25 – Reclusion Perpetua Reclusion temporal Perpetual/temporary, absolute/special disqualification Prison Mayor Grave felony – penalty is composed of 2 periods of an afflicted penalty, or two periods corresponding to different effective penalties. Correctional - fine NOT exceeding P6,000

Criminal Law I – Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang. Academic Year 2016-2017. Athena Angeline C. Lajom References: The Revised Penal Code, Luis B. Reyes

19 -

-

-

Penalty prescribed for the offense is composed of 2/more distinct penalties , higher or maximum period is correctional. Prision correcional Arresto mayor Suspension Destions

Less Grave felony – penalty is composed of 2 periods of a correctional penalty, or of 2 periods corresponding to different correctional penalties Light felony – fine not exceeding 200 - Arresto menor - Censure

US vs. Basa -Offered to furnish street lamps to municipality. Prohibition against interest in Municipal contracts At price stated therein, X accepted. H: attempt. X accepted Navarra vs. People F: exchange of property of husband of woman councilor and That of municipality were approved by municipal council H: consummated People Vs Moreno Reckless imprudence Under motor vehicle law Article 39 & 100, indemnity to Heirs and subsidiary imprisonment Were applied subsidiarily.

People Vs Gayroma

People Vs De Lima (digest) People Vs Hernandez

People Vs Navarro Girl 13 year 11 months 10 days old Prosecuted for selling cocoa More than selling price fixed By government prosecutor failed to establish Discernment Article 12 par. 3 applied -Lack of intelligence. Article 10  RPC not intended to supersede special penal laws. They are supplementary only, unless, special law should specially, provide the contrary.  Provisions of RPC on penalties cannot be applied to offenses punishable under special laws. - special laws do not provide for a scale of penalties, does not contain 3 period.  Offenses under special laws, not subject to provisions, relating to attempted and frustrated crimes. - law must provide penalty. Criminal Law I – Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang. Academic Year 2016-2017. Athena Angeline C. Lajom References: The Revised Penal Code, Luis B. Reyes

20  Special law has to fix penalties for attempted and frustrated crime.  When special law covers the mere attempt to commit the crime Defined by it, attempted stage is punishable by the same penalties Provided by that law.  No accessory penalty, unless special law provides therefore.  Special laws amending RPC are subject to its provisions.

Criminal Law I – Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang. Academic Year 2016-2017. Athena Angeline C. Lajom References: The Revised Penal Code, Luis B. Reyes