Crim Law Reviewer

CRIMINAL LAW 1 Criminal Law – branch of public substantive law which defines crimes, treats of their nature and provides for their punishment. CRIMINAL LAW

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Substantive

Remedial

Prospective, unless favorable to the accused who is not a habitual delinquent

Retroactive, in favor of the ends of substantial justice

Only comes from the Legislative Body

Can be promulgated by the Judiciary

TERMS: 1.

2. 3. 4.

Rules on Jurisdiction CRIMES Crimes punishable under PH laws but not under the laws of US Crimes punishable under US laws but not PH laws

Crimes punishable under both PH and US laws

JURISDICTION PH has exclusive jurisdiction US has exclusive jurisdiction There is concurrent jurisdiction but PH has the right to primary jurisdiction, especially when it is a threat to RP security namely: treason, espionage, sabotage

Crimes committed by a US personnel against the PH has no jurisdiction security and property of the US alone Generally, the PH cannot refuse the request of the US for waiver of jurisdiction and has to approve the request for waiver except if the crime is of national importance: (HCD) 1. Those crimes defined under RA 7659 – Heinous Crimes 2. Those crimes defined under RA 7610 – Child Abuse Cases 3. Those crimes defined under RA 9165 – Dangerous Drugs Cases

Crime – the generic term used to refer to a wrongdoing punished either under the RPC or under the special laws; an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or commanding it. Felony – a crime punished under the RPC Offense – a crime punished under the special law Misdemeanor – a minor infraction of law

SOURCES: 1. The RPC 2. Special Penal Laws 3. Penal Presidential Decrees issued during the martial law

Laws of Preferential Application 1. RA 75 penalizes acts which would impair the proper observance by the republic and its inhabitants of the immunities, rights, and privileges of duly-accredited foreign diplomatic representatives

LEGAL MAXIMS: 1. Nullum Crimen Nullum Peona Sine Lege – there is no crime when there is no law punishing it 2. Actus Non Facit Reum, Nisi Mens Sit Rea – the act cannot be criminal unless the mind is criminal 3. Actus Me Invito Factus Non Est Meus Actus – an act done by me against my will is not my act 4. 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

General Rule: under RA 75, persons who are exempt from arrest and imprisonment and whose properties are exempt from distraint, seizure and attachment are the following: (MAS) 1. Public Ministers 2. Ambassadors 3. Domestic Servants of Ambassadors and Public Ministers Exceptions: a. The person is a citizen or inhabitant of the Philippines; and b. the writ or process issued against him is founded upon a debt contracted before he entered upon such service or the domestic servant is not registered with the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Characteristics of CRIM LAW: A. GENERAL – it is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in the Philippine Territory, regardless of nationality, gender, or other personal circumstances Exceptions: 1.

Treaty Stipulations Under the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement, which was signed on Feb. 10, 1998, the Philippines agreed that: a. US shall have the right to exercise within the PH all criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction conferred on them by the military law of the US over US personnel in PH. b. US exercises exclusive jurisdiction over US military personnel with regard to offenses relating to the security of the US punishable under the laws of US, but not under PH laws. c. US shall have primary right to exercise jurisdiction over US military in relation to: - Offenses solely against the property or security of the US or offenses solely against the property or person of US personnel - Offenses arising out of any act or omission done in performance of official duty Under the VFA, in determining whether one can be prosecuted or not, the citizenship is immaterial, what is material is one‟s membership in the US Armed Forces either as: 1. US Military Personnel; or 2. US civilian personnel connected to US military operations

Note: RA 75 is not applicable when the foreign country adversely affected does not provide similar protection to our diplomatic representatives 2. WARSHIP RULE – a warship of another country even though docked in the PH is considered as an extension of the territory of their respective country. Same rule applies to foreign embassies in the PH. PH warship and embassies abroad are deemed extra-territories of the country. 3.

Principles of Public International Law The following persons are exempted: (SCAM2) a. Sovereigns and other Heads of State b. Charges d‟ affaires c. Ambassadors d. Ministers Plenipotentiary

Consuls, vice-consuls, and other commercial representatives of foreign nations cannot claim the privileges and immunities accorded to ambassadors and ministers. B.

TERRITORIAL General Rule: Penal Laws of the PH have force and effect only within its territory The National Territory is set forth in Article 1 OF THE 1987 Constitution. It composes of 3 domains: 1. Terrestrial 2. Fluvial 3. Aerial

Exceptions: 1. RPC shall not be enforced within or outside the PH territories if so provided under: a. Treaties b. Laws of Preferential Application 2. Extraterritoriality – refers to the application of the RPC outside PH territory Extraterritorial crimes – enforceable even outside PH territory against those who: a. should commit an offense while on a PH ship or airship Requisites: The ship or airship must not be within the territorial jurisdiction of another country; it must be in the international waters The ship or airship must be registered in the PH under PH laws Rules on Private/Merchant Vessels: 1. PH Vessel or Aircraft a. must be understood as that which is registered with MARINA (Maritime Industry Authority) in accordance with PH laws b. the RPC applies when such PH vessel is found within - the PH waters - the high seas 2. Foreign Merchant Vessels a. ENGLISH RULE b. A distinction must be made between merchant ships and warships; the former are more or less the subject of territorial laws. c. Foreign merchant vessels in transit: possession of dangerous drugs is not punishable, but use of the same is. d. Foreign merchant vessels NOT in transit: mere possession of dangerous drugs is punishable because it can already be considered as illegal importation. FRENCH RULE ENGLISH RULE (FLAG OR (TERRITORIALITY OR NATIONALITY) SITUS OF THE CRIME) GENERAL RULE Crimes committed Crimes committed aboard aboard a vessel within a vessel within the the territorial waters of territorial waters of a a country are NOT country are triable in the triable in the courts of courts of such country. said country. EXCEPTION When their commission When the crimes merely affects the peace and affect things within the security of the territory vessek or when they only or when the safety of refer to the internal the state is management thereof. endangered. 3. Foreign Warships: a. In the case of a foreign warship, the nationality of such warship determines the applicable penal laws to crimes committed therein, as they are considered to be an extension of the territory of the country to which they belong. Thus, their respective national laws shall apply to such vessels wherever they may be found. b. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippines or obligations and securities issued by the government. Forgery is committed by giving a treasury or bank note or any instrument payable to bearer or to order the appearance of a true genuine document or by erasing, substituting, counterfeiting or altering, by any means, the figures, letters, words or signs contained therein. If forgery was committed abroad, it must refer only to Philippine coin, currency note or obligations and securities. Obligations and securities of the GSIS, SSS and Landbank are NOT of the government because they have separate charters.

c. Should introduce into obligations and securitites.

the

country

above-mentionex

Those who introduced the counterfeit items are criminally liable even if they were not the ones who counterfeited the obligations and securities. On the other hand, those who counterfeited the items are criminally liable even if they did not introduce the counterfeit items. d. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions like: i. Direct Bribery ii. Indirect Bribery iii. Qualified Bribery iv. Failure to render Bank Accounts v. Failure to render Bank Account before leaving the country vi. Illegal use of Public Funds or Property vii. Failure to make Delivery of Public Funds/Property viii. Falsification ix. Fraud against Public Treasury and Similar Offenses x. Malversation of Public Funds or Property xi. Possession of Prohibited Interest xii. Corruption Note: A crime committed within the grounds of a Philippine Embassy on foreign soil shall be subject to PH Penal Laws, although it may or may not have been committed by a public officer in relation to his official duties. Embassy grounds are considered as extensions of the sovereignty of the country occupying them. Example: A Philippine consulate official who is validly married here in the PH remarries in a foreign country cannot be prosecuted here in the PH for bigamy under no. 4 of Art. 2 of the RPC because the crime has no connection with his official duties. Nevertheless, if the second marriage is celebrated in the PH embassy, the ambassador may be prosecuted in the PH because the embassy grounds are considered the extension of sovereignty. e. Should commit any of the crimes against National Security and the Law of Nations defined in title one of book two. When rebellion, coup d‟etat and sedition are committed abroad, the PH courts will NOT have jurisdiction because these are crimes against public order. Terrorism as defined by RA 9372 otherwise known as the Human Security Act of 2007, is now a crime against National Security in the law of nations. C. PROSPECTIVE General rule: Penal laws cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when committed. Exception: It may be applied retroactively when favorable to the accused. Exceptions to the Exception: 1. The law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of actions 2. Offender is a habitual delinquent. Limitations on the power of Congress to Enact Penal laws: 1. NO EX-POST FACTO LAW or BILL OF ATTAINDER shall be enacted, Art 3, Section 22, 1987 Consti. Ex-post Facto Law It is a law that would make a previous act criminal although it was not so at the time it was committed. Bill of Attainder It is a legislative act that inflicts punishment without trial, its essence being the substitution of legislative trial for a judicial determination of guilt.

2. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.

b. Omission – is inaction or the failure to perform a positive duty required by law.

3. it should not impose cruel and unusal punishment nor should it impose excessive fines.

2. The act or omission must be punishable by RPC, based upon the maxim, “nullum crimen nulla peona sine lege.” 3. The act performed or the omission is uncured, by means of dolo (malice) or culpa (fault).

RA 9346 prohibits the imposition of death penalty therefore repealing RA 7659. In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed: a. the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes us of the nomenclature of the penalties of the RPC; or b. the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the RPC. 4. It must be in general application and must clearly define the acts and omissions punished as crimes. ARTICLE 1 TIME WHEN ACT TAKES EFFECT The Revised Penal Code was approved on December 8, 1930. It took effect on January 1, 1932. 2 theories in CRIM LAW: 1. Classical or Juristic Theory a. The basis of criminal liability is human free will and the purpose of the penalty is retribution b. Man is essentially a moral creature with an absolutely free will to choose between good and evil thereby placing more stress upon the effect or result of the felonious act than upon the man, the criminal himself c. It has been endeavored to establish a mechanical and direct proportion between crime and penalty. 2. Positivist or Realistic Theory a. Man is subdued occasionally by a stranger and morbid phenomenon which constrains him to do wrong, in spite of, or contrary to his volition. b. The crime is essentially a social and natural phenomenon and as such it cannot be treated and checked neither by applying law and jurisprudence nor by imposition of a punishment, fixed and determined a priori. The purpose of penalty is reformation. Note: Some authorities add a third school of thought: Eclectic or Mixed Theory – a combination of both classical and positive theories. RPC is Eclectic. (i.e., the age of offender is taken into consideration, intoxication of the offender in order is considered a mitigating circumstance unless it is habitual or intentional) ARTICLE 2 APPLICATION OF ITS PROVISIONS Article 2 sets forth the instances where the provisions of the RPC are applicable although the felony is committed outside the PH territory. 1. Extraterritoriality – RPC is applicable even though outside the PH territory 2. Exterritotiality – a term of international law which signifies the immunity of certain persons who, although in the state, are not amenable to its laws (i.e., ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary etc.) 3. Intraterritoriality – RPC is made applicable within the PH territory Felonies under this article shall be cognizable by the proper court where the criminal action was first filed. TITLE ONE: FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY CHAPTER ONE: FELONIES (ARTICLES 3-10) ARTICLE 3 FELONIES Felonies – acts or omissions punishable by the RPC Elements of Felonies: (General) 1. There must be an act or omission (i.e., there must be external acts) a. Act – any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the external world. It must be external as internal acts are beyond the sphere of penal law.

- The act or omission must be VOLUNTARY. Classification of Felonies according to the means by which they are committed: A. Intentional Felonies – the act is performed or the omission is incurred with deliberate intent or malice to do an injury. Requisites of DOLO or MALICE: (FII) 1. FREEDOM a. Voluntariness on the part of the person to commit the act or omission b. When a person acts without freedom, he is no longer a human being but a tool. - Lack of freedom exempts an offender from liability (i.e., presence of irresistible force or uncontrollable fear) 2. INTELLIGENCE - It is the capacity to know and understand the consequences of one‟s act. Without this power necessary to determine the morality of human acts, no crime can exist. - Lack of intelligence exempts offender from liability (i.e., imbecile, insane, or 15 years of age or under) 3. INTENT (CRIMINAL) a. the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result b. intent to commit an act with malice, being purely a mental process, is presumed. Such presumption arises from the proof of commission of an unlawful act. c. a mental state, hence, its existence is shown by over acts. - Lack of intent makes an act justified. Offender incurs NO criminal liability (i.e., existence of a lawful or insuperable cause, commission by mere accident) Criminal intent is necessary because: a. ACTUS NON FACIT REUM NISI MENS SIT REA – the act itself does not make a man guilty unless his mind was also guilty b. ACTUS ME INVITO FACTUS NON EST MEUS ACTUS – an act done by me against my will is not my act. GENERAL CRIMINAL INTENT An intention to do a wrong Presumed to exist from the mere doing of a wrongful act The burden of proving the absence of intent is upon the accused When the crime is consummated, general intent is presumed. (i.e., when a person killed another the intent to kill is presumed)

SPECIFIC CRIMINAL INTENT An intention to commit a definite act Existence of the intent is not presumed because it is an ingredient or element of a crime The burden of proving the existence of the intent is upon the prosecution; as such intent is an element of the crime. When the crime is in the attempted or frustrated stage, special intent must be proven. (i.e., when a person seriously injures another the intent to kill must be proved in order that the change will be one of attempted or frustrated homicide, murder, parricide or infanticide, as the case may be and not mere physical injuries)

B. Culpable Felonies – performed without malice REQUISITES OF CULPA: (FIN) 1. FREEDOM 2. INTELLIGENCE 3. NEGLIGENCE, IMPRUDENCE, LACK OF FORESIGHT OR LACK OF SKILL The act or omission is voluntary but the intent or malice in intentional felonies is replaced by imprudence, etc. Negligence – indicates a deficiency of perception, failure to pay proper attention and to use diligence in foreseeing the injury or damage impending to be caused; usually involves lack of foresight. Imprudence – indicates a deficiency of action, failure to take the necessary precaution to avoid injury to person or damage to property; usually involves lack of skill.

Reason for punishing acts of negligence: A man must use his common sense, and exercise due reflection in all his acts; it is his duty to be cautious, careful and prudent, if not from instinct, the thru fear of incurring punishment. Note: in Art. 3, culpa is a mode of committing a crime; hence, killing is denominated “homicide through reckless imprudence.” In Art. 365 (quasioffenses), culpa is the crime punished; hence, the crime is denominated “reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.” INTENTIONAL Act is malicious With deliberate intent Has intention to cause an injury

CULPABLE Not malicious Injury caused is unintentional being incident of another act performed without malice Wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill.

HONEST MISTAKE OF FACT – is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person causing injury to another. Such person is NOT criminally liable as he acted without criminal intent (Ignorantia facti excusat) An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent which arises upon the commission of a felonious act. HONEST MISTAKE OF FACT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN CULPABLE FELONIES. Requisites of Mistake of Fact as a defense: 1. That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been 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 carelessness on the part of the accused. a. US VS AH CHONG – the accused had no alternative but to take the facts as they appeared to him, and such fact justified his act of killing his roommate. b. PEOPLE VS OANIS – there was no mistake of fact when the accused police officers shot Tecson, whom they thought to be Balagtas (A notorious criminal) who was sleeping in his bed, without ascertaining his identity and the non-existence of threat from the part of Tecson. MALA PROHIBITA – crimes punishable by special penal laws whereby criminal intent is not, as a rule, necessary, it being sufficient that the offender has the intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law. It is punishable because the prohibited act is so injurious to the public welfare that it is the crime itself. General rule: mere commission of crimes classified as mala prohibita, even without criminal intent, is punishable. MALA IN SE

MALA PROHIBITA AS TO NATURE Wrong because it is prohibited by Wrong from its very nature law USE OF GOOD FAITH AS A DEFENSE Good faith is a valid defense Good faith is NOT a valid defense USE OF INTENT AS AN ELEMENT Intent is an element Criminal intent is immaterial DEGREE OF ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE CRIME The degree of accomplishment of The act gives rise to a crime only the crime is taken into account in when it is consummated punishing the offender AS TO MITIGATING AND AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES Mitigating and aggravating Mitigating and aggravating circumstances are taken into circumstances are generally NOT account in imposing the penalty taken into account DEGREE OF PARTICIPATION When there is more than one Degree of participation is generally offender, the degree of participation NOT taken into account. All who of each in the commission of the participated in the act are punished crime is taken into account to the SAME extent AS TO PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE Penalty is computed on the basis of The penalty on the offenders is the whether he is a principal offender, same whether they are merely or merely an accomplice or accomplices or accessories. accessory. LAWS VIOLATED Violation of the RPC Violation of Special Laws (general rule) (general rule)

AS TO STAGES IN EXECUTION There are 3 stages: attempted, No such stages of execution frustrated, consummated AS TO PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE There are 3 persons criminally liable: principal, accomplice and Generally, only the principal is liable accessory AS TO DIVISION OF PENALTIES Penalties may be divided into There is no such division of degrees and periods penalties INTENT The purpose to use a particular means to effect such result

MOTIVE The reason or moving power which impels one to commit an act for a definite result

An element of the crime, except in unintentional felonies (Culpable)

NOT an element of the crime

Essential in intentional felonies

Essential ONLY WHEN the identity of the perpetrator is in doubt

MOTIVE: When relevant (CUT-NID) 1. If the evidence is merely circumstantial 2. Where the identification of the accused proceeds from unreliable source and the testimony is inconclusive and not free from doubt; 3. In ascertaining the truth between the two antagonistic theories or versions of the killing; 4. Where there are no eyewitnesses to the crime, and where suspicion is likely to fall upon a number of persons; 5. Where there is doubt to the identity of the assailant; 6. When the act is alleged to be committed in defense of a stranger because it must not be induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive. ARTICLE 4 CRIMINAL LIABILITY Par. 1: Criminal liability for a felony different from that which is intended to be committed. Rationale: El Que Es Causa Dela Causa Es Causa Del Mal Causado – he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused .: 1. That an intentional felony has been committed. There is no intentional felony when: a. the act or omission is not punishable by RPC; or b. the act is covered by any of the justifying circumstances in Art. 11 Act or omission should not be punished by a special law because the offender violating a special law may not have the intent to do any injury to another. In such case, the wrongful act done could not be different, as the offender did not intend to do any other injury. 2. That the wrong done to the aggrieved party be direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony committed. PROXIMATE CAUSE – that cause which, in the natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. If the result can be traced back to the original act, then the doer of the original act can be held criminally liable. The relation of cause and effect must be shown: a. unlawful act is the efficient cause b. accelerating cause c. proximate cause Note: Any person who creates in another person‟s mind an immediate sense of danger, which causes the latter to do something resulting in the latter‟s injuries, is liable for the resulting injuries. Thus, the person is still criminally liable although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended: a. ERROR IN PERSONAE – mistake in the identity of the victim b. ABERRATIO ICTUS – mistake in the blow c. PRAETER INTENTIONEM – injurious result is greater than intended ABERRATIO ICTUS The victim as well as the actual victim are both in the scene of the crime

ERROR IN PERSONAE The supposed victim may or may not be in the scene of the crime

The offender delivers the blow to his intended victim but because of poor aim landed on someone else Generally gives rise to complex crimes unless the resulting consequence is not a grave or less grave felony

The offender delivers the blow NOT to his offended victim

There is NO complex crime

When the death us presumed to be the natural consequence of physical injuries inflicted: (NER) a. That the victim at the time the physical injuries were inflicted was in normal health b. That the death may be expected from the physical injuries inflicted c. That the death ensued within a reasonable time. Note: The offended party is not obliged to submit to a surgical operation or medical treatment to relieve the accused from liability Felony committed is NOT the proximate cause of the resulting injury when: a. There is an active force between the felony committed and the resulting injury, such active force is distinct from the felony committed. b. The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim, i.e., fault or carelessness of the victim to increase the criminal liability of the assailant. Instances where there is a proximate cause and when there is none: INSTANCE CRIMINALLY LIABLE WHEN THERE IS AN INTERVENING DISEASE If the disease is closely related to YES the wound If the disease is unrelated to the NO wound YES – Mortal wound is a contributing factor to a victim‟s death.

If disease is combined force with wound

Note: A mortal wound is a contributing factor when: 1. The wound is sufficient to cause the victim‟s death along with the diseased

2. The mortal wound was caused by actions committed by the accused WHEN THE DEATH WAS CAUSED BY AN INFECTION OF THE WOUND DUE TO THE UNSKILLED MEDICAL TREATMENT FROM THE DOCTORS YES – Unskilled treatment and If the wound is mortal infection are NOT efficient intervening causes NO – Unskilled treatment and If the wound is slight infection are efficient intervening causes EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE – cause which interrupted the natural flow of events leading to one‟s death. This may relieve the offender from liability. NOT EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSES a. The weak or diseased physical condition victim; b. The nervousness or temperament of the victim; c. Causes which are inherent in the victim; d. Neglect of the victim or third person; (ex. Refusal of medical attendance) e. Erroneous or unskilled medical or surgical treatment (unless the wound is slight or not mortal) Par. 2: Impossible Crime Requisites: (PEIN) 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 inefficient. Inadequate – insufficient means (e.g. small quantity of poison) Ineffectual – means employed did not produce the result expected (e.g. pressed the trigger of the gun not knowing that it is empty) Inherent Impossibility of its Accomplishment:

a. Legal Impossibility – where the intended acts, even if completed would not amount to a crime (E.g. Stealing a property that turned out to be owned by the stealer) b. Physical Impossibility – when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime (E.g. When one tries to murder a corpse) 4. That the act performed should NOT constitute a violation of another provision of the RPC. Case of INTOD VS CA – The crime committed is an impossible crime and not attempted murder. Felonies against persons are: (MHPI-DRAP) 1. Murder 2. Homicide 3. Parricide 4. Infanticide 5. Duel 6. Rape 7. Abortion 8. Physical Injuries Felonies against property are: (RBTUCSCAM) 1. Robbery 2. Brigandage 3. Theft 4. Usurpation 5. Culpable Insolvency 6. Swindling and other deceits 7. Chattel Mortgage 8. Arson and other crimes involving destruction 9. Malicious Mischief Purpose of punishing impossible crimes: To suppress criminal propensity or criminal tendencies Notes: a. felonies against persons or property should not be actually committed, for otherwise, he would be liable for that felony; there would be no impossible crime to speak of b. there is NO attempted or frustrated impossible crime. It is ALWAYS consummated and applies only to grave or less grave felonies. c. under Art. 59, the penalty for impossible crimes is arresto mayor or a fine ranging from 200-500 pesos. ARTICLE 5 DUTY OF THE COURT Par. 1: Acts which should be repressed but which are not covered by law. Requisites: 1. The act committed by the accused appears NOT punishable by any law 2. But the court deems it proper to repress such act 3. In that case, the court must render proper decision by dismissing the case and acquitting the accused; and 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. The Philippines does not subscribe to the common law crimes system. Under this article, if an act should be repressed but there is no law punishing the same, the proper decision of acquittal must be made. This is in consonance with the maxim nullum crimen nulla peona sine lege. Par. 2: Excessive Penalties Requisites: 1. The court after trial find the accused guilty 2. The penalty provided by law and which the court imposed 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; and 4. The judge should submit a statement to the Chief Executive, through the Secretary of Justice, recommending executive clemency The court must impose the penalty prescribed for the crime committed although it finds the penalty too harsh considering the conditions

surrounding the commission of the crime. The most the judge could do is to recommend to the Chief Executive to grant executive clemency. Par. 2 not applicable to the offense defined and penalized by a SPECIAL LAW. ARTICLE 6 CONSUMMATED, FRUSTRATED AND ATTEMPTED FELONIES Formal Crimes or Crimes of Effect: These are felonies which by a single act of the accused consummates the offense as a matter of law (i.e., physical injuries, acts of lasciviousness, attempted flight to an enemy country, coercion, slander, illegal exaction). Material Crimes – crimes which involve the 3 stages of execution Stages of Execution: (does NOT apply to crimes under special laws unless otherwise provided, crimes by omission, and formal crimes) 1. CONSUMMATED FELONY – when all the necessary elements for its execution and accomplishment are present 2. FRUSTRATED FELONY – Elements: a. The offender performs all the acts of execution; b. All the acts performed would produce felony as a consequence; (belief of the accused as to whether or not he had performed all acts of execution immaterial) c. But the felony is not produced; d. By reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator Crimes that do not admit of frustrated stage – those which, by the definition of a frustrated felony, the offender cannot possibly perform all the acts of execution to bring the desired result without consummating the offense. Examples: a. RAPE – Since the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge, hence, no matter how slight the penetration, the felony is consummated. b. INDIRECT BRIBERY – Since it is committed by accepting gifts offered to the public officer by reason of his office. If he does not accept, he does not commit the crime. If he accepts, it is consummated. c. DIRECT BRIBERY d. CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICERS – Since the offense requires the concurrence of the will of both parties, such as that when the offer is accepted, the offense is consummated. But when the offer is rejected, the offense is merely attempted. e. ADULTERY – Since the essence of the crime is sexual congress. f. PHYSICAL INJURY – Since it cannot be determined whether the injury will be slight, less serious, or serious unless and until consummated. g. THEFT – Since the unlawful taking immediately consummates the offense and the disposition of the thing is not an element thereof.

Note: The spontaneous desistance of the offender negates only the attempted stage but not necessarily all criminal liability. If the desistance was made when acts done by him already resulted to a felony, that offender will still be criminally liable for the felony brought about by his act. Kinds of Desistance LEGAL DESISTANCE

FACTIAL DESISTANCE DEFINITION Desistance referred to in law which would obviate criminal liability Actual desistance of the actor, unless the overt or preparatory act the actor is still liable for the already committed in themselves attempt constitute a felony other than what the actor intended TIME OR PERIOD EMPLOYED Desistance made during the Desistance made after the attempted stage attempted stage of the crime

2 Stages in the Development of the Crime: 1. Internal Acts: a. Such as mere thoughts or ideas in the mind of person b. Not punishable 2. External Acts a. Preparatory acts – ordinarily not punished except when considered by law as independent crimes (e.g. possession of picklocks and similar tools) b. Acts of Execution – punishable under RPC ATTEMPTED STAGE – Marks the commencement of the subjective phase SUBJECTIVE PHASE – That portion of the acts constituting the crime, starting from the point where the offender begins the commission of the crime to the point where he has still control over his acts, including their (acts) natural course If between those 2 points the offender is stopped by reason of any cause outside of his own voluntary desistance, the subjective phase has not been passed and it is an attempt. If he is not so stopped but continues until he performs the last act, it is frustrated. FRUSTRATED STAGE – the end thereof and the start of the objective phase OBJECTIVE PHASE – result of the acts of the execution, that is, the accomplishment of the crime If the subjective and objective phases are present, there is a consummated felony.

3. ATTEMPTED FELONY – Elements: a. The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts; b. He does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony; c. He is not stopped by his own spontaneous desistence; and d. The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to a cause or accident other than the offender‟s own spontaneous desistence.

The spontaneous desistance of the accused is exculpatory only: a. If made during the attempted stage; and b. Provided that the acts already committed do not constitute any offense.

Overt Acts: a. These are some physical activity or deed, indicating intention to commit a particular crime b. More than mere planning or preparation, which if carried to its complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by voluntary desistance of the perpetrator will logically ripen into a concrete offense

Murder/Homicide/Parricide/Infanticide 1. With the intent to kill, but no mortal wound is inflicted – attempted 2. With intent to kill, and mortal wound is inflicted but victim does not die – frustrated 3. The moment the victim dies, intent to kill is conclusively presumed – consummated

Felony is deemed commenced by overt acts when the following are present: a. That there be external acts; b. Such external acts have direct connection with the crime intended to be committed. Indeterminate Offense – one where the purpose of the offender in performing an act is not certain. The accused may be convicted of a felony defined by the acts performed by him up to the time of desistence (PEOPLE VS LAMAHANG) Desistance – an absolutory cause which negates criminal liability because the law encourages a person to desist from committing a crime.

Factors determining stage of execution of felony: (MEN) 1. Manner of committing the felony 2. Elements constituting the felony 3. Nature of the offense

Rules on Crimes against Persons DEATH INTENT TO RESULTS KILL YES PRESUMED NO YES NO YES NO

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

(MHPI) and stages of Execution: GRAVITY OF CRIME COMMITTED THE WOUND MORTAL CONSUMMATED MORTAL FRUSTRATED NON-MORTAL ATTEMPTED OVERT ACT ONLY – no ATTEMPTED wound SERIOUS PHYSICAL MORTAL INJURY LESS SERIOUS/SLIGHT NON-MORTAL PHYSICAL INJURY

Robbery/Theft: a. Both crimes are committed by taking of the personal property of another and with the intent to gain b. The difference is that in robbery, there is the use of FORCE or VIOLENCE c. So long as there is possession of the property, no matter how momentary it may be, the crime is consummated d. In robbery by the use of force upon things, since the offender must enter the building to commit the crime, he must be able to carry out of the building the thing taken to consummate the crime e. In robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons, the crime is consummated the moment the offender gets hold of the thing taken and/or is in a position ro dispose of it freely f. 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 is important is whether or not there was asportacion or unlawful taking. RAPE – the crime of rape is consummated by mere penetration or the male organ no matter how slight or superficial Instances where there is attempted rape: a. When the skirt of the victim has been lifted no matter what position; b. When the accused mounted on the body of the victim; c. When there is epidermal touching of the genital organs of the accused and the victim In attempted rape, there is the intent to have carnal knowledge or sexual intercourse. In acts of lasciviousness, there is none. There is NO crime of frustrated rape, only a frustrated rapist. Examples of Common Crimes and their Stages of Execution: CONSUMMATED FRUSTRATED ATTEMPTED ARSON The tools used alone are The tools to be used Any part of the building on fire, or a furniture or for committing the burned, even if only a thing not attached to the crime are in the small portion building is in fire building ESTAFA The money taken has No money was Deceit and damage to not been “damaged: or taken yet, only the victim are present spent deceit is present ATTEMPTED Evil intent is not accomplished Evil intent is possible of accomplishment

FRUSTRATED Evil intent is not accomplished Evil intent is possible of accomplishment

What prevented the accomplishment is the intervention of certain cause or accident in which offender had no part

What prevented the accomplishment are causes independent of the will of the perpetrator

IMPOSSIBLE Evil intent is not accomplished Evil intent cannot be accomplished Evil intent cannot be accomplished because it‟s inherently impossible of accomplishment or the means employed by the offender is inadequate or ineffectual

ARTICLE 7 LIGHT FELONIES Those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty or arrestomenor or fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both, is provided. General rule: punishable only when they have been consummated Reason: They produce light, insignificant moral and material injuries that public conscience is satisfied with providing a light penalty for their consummation. If they are not consummated the wrong done is so slight that there is no need of providing a penalty at all. Exception: If committed against persons or property, punishable even if attempted or frustrated Light felonies under RPC: (STAMI) 1. Slight Physical Injuries 2. Theft 3. Alteration of boundary marks 4. Malicious Mischief 5. Intriguing against honor Note: only principals and accomplices are held liable ARTICLE 8 CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT A FELONY

General Rule: Mere conspiracy or proposal to commit a felony is not punishable since they are only preparatory acts Exception: In cases which the law specially provides a penalty therefor CONSPIRACY – exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it Agreement may be oral or written, express or implied. „ Requisites of Conspiracy: 1. That 2 or more persons came to an agreement 2. That the agreement pertains to the commission of a felony 3. That the execution was decided upon There must be participation with a criminal resolution because simple knowledge thereof by a person may only make him liable as an accomplice. The law specially provides penalty for mere conspiracy under RPC in: (TRICSM) 1. Treason 2. Rebellion 3. Insurrection 4. Coup d‟etat 5. Sedition 6. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade Under Special Laws: (EHISAT) 1. Espionage 2. Highway Robbery 3. Illegal Association 4. Selected acts committed under Dangerous Drugs Act 5. Arson 6. Terrorism under the Human security Act Conspiracy as a felony, distinguished from conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability: AS A FELONY AS A MANNER OF INCURRING CRIM. LIABILITY Conspirators should not actually If the conspirators commit it, say commit treason, rebellion, etc., it treason, they will be held liable for being sufficient that 2 or more treason, and the conspiracy which persons agree and decide to commit they had before committing treason it. is only a manner of incurring criminal liability, not treated as a separate offense Felony relates to a crime actually Conspiracy is not treated as a committed separate offense but used to determine the liability of the offenders In conspiracy, the act of one is the

act of all

General rule: When conspiracy is established, all who participated therein, irrespective of the quantity or quality of his participation is liable equally, whether conspiracy is pre-planned or instantaneous. Exception: Unless one or some of the conspirators committed some other crime which is not part of the intended crime. Exception to the exception: When the act constitutes a *single indivisible offense.* Doctrine of Implied Conspiracy – conspiracy may be inferred if it is proven that 2 or more persons aimed their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their acts although apparently independent were in fact connected and cooperative thus indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment. It is enough that at the time of the commission of the offense, the offenders acted in concert, each doing his part to fulfill their common design. There is unity of purpose and unity in the execution of the offense. In determining whether there is implied conspiracy, it must be based on: 1. Overt acts done before, during or after the commission of the crime; or 2. Words, remarks or language used before, during, or after the commission of the crime. a. They must be distinct from each other, independent or separate b. They must be closely associated, related linked and coordinated

c. They must be for a common criminal design, joint criminal interest, unity of criminal purpose or concerned action, geared towards attainment of the felony. Proposal to commit a felony – when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons Requisites of Proposal: 1. Decision 2. Proposal RPC specially provides penalty for mere proposal (TRIC) in: 1. Treason 2. Rebellion 3. Insurrection; and 4. Coup d‟etat There is no criminal proposal when: 1. The person who proposes is NOT determined to commit the felony 2. There is no decided, concrete, and formal proposal but a mere suggestion 3. It is not the execution of a felony that is proposed. It is not necessary that the person to whom the proposal is made agrees to commit TRIC, what constitutes the felony is the making of the proposal. ARTICLE 9 CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES ACCORDING TO GRAVITY Grave Felonies – felonies to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with Art. 25 of the Code: 1. Reclusion Perpetua 2. Reclusion Temporal 3. Perpetual or Temporary Absolute Disqualification 4. Perpetual or Temporary Special Disqualification 5. Prison Mayor 6. Fines more than Php 6,000 Less Grave Felonies – felonies which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are correctional, in accordance with Art. 25 of the Code: 1. Prison correccional 2. Arresto Mayor 3. Suspension 4. Destierro 5. Fines equal to or more than Php 200 but less than Php 500 Light Felonies – infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of arrestomenor or a fine not exceeding Php 200, or both, is provided. Importance of Classification: 1, To determine whether these felonies can be complexed or not 2. To determine the prescription of the crime and the prescription of the penalty. ARTICLE 10 OFFENSES NOT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE RPC General rule: RPC provisions are supplementary to special laws Exceptions: 1. Where the special law provides otherwise 2. When the provisions of the RPC are impossible of application, either by express provision or by necessary implication Thus, when the special law adopts the penalties imposed in the RPC, such as reclusion temporal, the provisions of the RPC on imposition of penalties based on stage of execution, degree of participation, and attendance of mitigating and aggravating circumstances may be implied by necessary implication. ARTICLE 11 JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES Justifying Circumstances 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 both criminal and civil liability. There is no civil liability, except in par. 4 of Art. 11 (where the civil liability is borne by the persons benefited by the act).

An affirmative defense, hence, the burden of proof is on the accused who must prove it by clear and convincing evidence. There is both NO crime and NO criminal. BASIS: Lack of criminal intent. Par. 1. Self-Defense. Rights Included In Self-defense: Self-defense includes not only the defense of the person or body or life the assaulted but also that of his rights, the enjoyment of both is protected by law. Thus, it includes: 1. The right to honor. Hence, a slap on the face is considered as unlawful aggression since the face represents a person and his dignity. It is a serious personal attack; a physical assault, coupled with a willful disgrace; and it may, therefore, be frequently regarded as placing in real danger a person‟s dignity, right and safety 2. The defense of property rights can be invoked if there is an attack upon the property although it is not coupled with an attack upon the person of the owner of the premises. All the elements for justification must however be present (People vs. Narvaez, 121 SCRA 389, 1993.

Subjects of Self-Defense (PRPH) a. Defense of Person b. Defense of Rights c. Defense of Property d. Defense of Honor What is important is not the duality of the attack but whether the means employed is reasonable to prevent the attack. Self-Defense is lawful because: a. Impulse of self-preservation; b. State cannot provide protection for each of its constituents. Stand ground when in the right. The law does not require a person to retreat when his assailant is rapidly advancing upon him with a deadly weapon. Reason: He runs the risk of being attacked in the back by the aggressor. Requisites: (URL) 1. Unlawful aggression (condition sine qua non); Kinds of aggression: a. Lawful i. in the exercise of the right ii. in the fulfillment of duty b. Unlawful 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it (if by a peace officer, reasonable necessity of the means employed to overcome opponent); and 3. Lack sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Unlawful aggression a. Equivalent to an actual physical assault or b. Threatened assault of an immediate and imminent kind which is offensive and positively strong, showing the wrongful intent to cause injury. Actual The danger must be present that it is actually in existen Imminent The danger is on the point of happening. It is not required that the attack already begins, for it may be too late. c. Must come from the person attacked by the accused. No unlawful aggression when there was an agreement to fight. The challenge to fight must be accepted. But aggression which is ahead of a stipulated time and place is unlawful. d. Not merely oral threats or threatening stance or posture. Mere belief of an impending attack is not sufficient. e. In relation to “mistake of fact,” the belief of the accused may be considered in determining the existence of unlawful aggression, e.g. there is self-defense even if the aggressor used a toy gun, provided that the accused believed it to a real gun. Reasonable necessity of the means employed 1. It involves two elements, necessity for the course of action and necessity of the means employed, which should be reasonable.

2. In determining reasonable means, some factors are to be considered such as: (PINES) a. Presence of imminent danger; b. Emergency to which the person defending himself has be exposed to; c. Nature of quality of the weapon used by the accused compared to the weapon of the aggression; d. Impelled by the instinct of self-preservation; e. 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. This element should be interpreted literally in favor of the law-abiding

3. In case to provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making the defense had not part therein. Relatives that can be defended: (SADBroSAC4) 1. Spouse 2. Ascendants 3. Descendants 4. Legitimate, natural or adopted Brothers and Sisters, or relative by Affinity in the same degrees. Death of the spouse terminated the relationship by affinity. 5. Relatives by Consanguinity within the fourth civil degree.

citizen.

The fact that the relative defended gave provocation is immaterial.

Perfect equality between the weapons used by the one defending himself and that of the aggressor is not required, neither is the material commensurability between the means of attack and defense. Rational equivalent is enough.

There is not distinction in the Revised Penal Code whether the descendant should be legitimate or illegitimate; when the law does not distinguish the courts cannot distinguish.

Reason: Because the person assaulted does not have sufficient tranquility of mind to think and to calculate. Retreat of aggressor- aggression ceases. EXCEPT: when retreat is made to take a more advantageous position to insure the success of the attack begun unlawful aggression continues. RETALIATION Inceptual unlawful aggression had already ceased when the accused attacked him.

SELF-DEFENSE Unlawful aggression was still existing when the aggressor was making the defense. There must be no appreciable time interval between the unlawful aggression and the killing,

Under Republic Act 9262, known as the Anti-Violence against Women and the Children Act of 2004: Victim-survivors who are found by the counts to be suffering from Battered Woman Syndrome do not incur any criminal or civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the RPC (Sec. 26, R.A. No. 9262). The law provides for an additional justifying circumstance. Battered Woman Syndrome It is a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a result of cumulative abuse. “Cycle of violence” has three phases: (TAT) 1. The Tension building phase; 2. The Acute battering incident; 3. The Tranquil, loving (or at least non-violent) phase (People v. Genosa G.R. No. 135981. Jan. 15, 2004). Four characteristics of the syndrome: 1. The woman believes that the violence was her fault; 2. She has inability to place the responsibility for the violence elsewhere; 3. She fears for her life and/or her children‟s life; and 4. She has an irrational belief that the abuser is omnipresent and omniscient. Only certified psychologist or psychiatrist can prove the existence of the Battery Woman Syndrome of a woman. Battery It is any act of inflicting physical harm upon the woman or her child resulting to physical and psychological or emotional distress. Lack of Sufficient Provocation Sufficient provocation should not come from the person defending himself/accused, and it must immediately precede the aggression, Defense of property should be coupled with danger to the person defending oneself; if there is no danger o the person or the person‟s life or limb, defense of property cannot be invoked. Par. 2. Defense of Relatives. Requisites: 1. Unlawful aggression; 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and

Justification: It is found not only upon a humanitarian sentiment, but also upon the impulse of blood which impels men to rush, on the occasion of great perils, to the rescue of those close to them by ties of blood. Par. 3. Defense of Stranger. Stranger They are any person not included in the enumeration of relatives under par.2 of Art. 11. Damage to another includes injury to persons and damage to property. A person deciding his common-law spouse or adopted child will fall under this paragraph. Requisites: 1. Unlawful aggression; 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and 3. The person defending was not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive. Motive is relevant only in this kind of defense. Justification: The ordinary person would not stand idly by and see his companion killed without attempting to save his life. Par. 4. Avoidance of greater evil or injury. State of Necessity Article 11, par. 4 – offender deliberately caused damage. Article 12, par. 4 – offender accidentally caused damage. Requisites: (EIN) 1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists; 2. That the injury feared be greater that done to avoid it; and 3. There be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it. It is only in this par. (4) That he person defending himself incurs civil liability, since generally in this article there is no civil liability on the part of the accused. Such liability is borne by the person benefited. Greater evil must not be brought about by the negligence or imprudence or violation of law by the actor. The damage caused by the accused in the state of necessity contemplated here is deliberate, while that in Par. 4 of Art. 12 is accidentally caused (Regalado, 2009, p. 57). Par. 5. Fulfillment of duty or 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 and 2. That the injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office. People vs. Delima (46 Phil. 738, 1922) The delegated who escaped from prison while serving sentence was under the obligation to surrender of his sentence to common assault and disobedience with a weapon on his kind, which compelled the policeman to resort to such extreme means, which although it proved to be fatal, was justified by the circumstances.

The shooting by prisoner guards of escaping prisoners is always justified. A security guard who shot a thief who refused to surrender is not justified. The executor of death convicts at the Bilibid Prison cannot be liable for murder for the executors performed by him because he was merely acting in lawful exercise of his office. Doctrine of “SELF-HELP” Article 429 of the Civil Code is applicable under this paragraph. The article states, “The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical Invasion or usurpation of his property. The actual Invasion of property may consist of a mere disturbance of possession or of a real dispossession. If it is a mere disturbance of possession, force may be used against it at any time as long as it continues, even beyond the prescriptive period of forcible entry. If the invasion consists of a real dispossession, force to regain possession can be used only immediately after the dispossession. Par. 6 Obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose Requisites: 1. That an order has been issued by a superior; 2. That such order must be for some lawful purpose; and 3. That the means used by the subordinate to carry our said order is lawful. Par. 6 presupposes that what was obeyed by the accused was a lawful order; but if the accused complied with an unlawful order under mistake of fact, he should not incur criminal liability (Regalado, 2009, p.58). Subordinate is not liable for carrying out an illegal order if he is not awarded. Its illegality and he is not negligent. ARTICLE 12 EXTEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES Exempting Circumstances (or the Circumstances for Non-imputability) Those grounds for exemption from punishment, because there is wanting in the agent of the crime any of the conditions which makes the act voluntarily, or negligent. There is a crime but NO criminal. The burden of proof to prove the existence of an exempting circumstance lies with the defense. Basis: The exemption from punishment is based on the complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or on the absence of negligence on the part of the accused. Justifying Circumstance It affects the act not the actor. The act is considered to have been done within the bounds of law, hence, legitimate and lawful in the eyes of the law. Since the act is considered lawful, there is no crime.

No crime No criminal No criminal liability No civil liability (except Art.11,par.4, where there is civil liability)

Exempting Circumstance It affects the actor not the act. The act complained of is actually wrongful, but the actor is not liable.

Since the act complained of is actually wrong there is a crime but since the actor acted without voluntaries, there is neither dolo nor culpa. There is a crime No criminal No criminal liability There is civil liability (except Art 12, par. 4 and 7, where there is no civil liability)

Par. 1. Imbecility or Insanity

Imbecility It exists when a person, while of advanced age has a mental development comparable to that of children between two and seven years of age. Insanity It exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence or freedom of the will. Mere abnormality of mental faculties is not enough especially if the offender has not lost consciousness of his acts. Insanity and imbecility, to exempt under Par. 1 must be complete, and they cannot be graduated in degrees of gravity (Regalado, 2009, p.60) An Insane person is not so exempt if it can be shown that he acted during a lucid interval. But an imbecile is exempt in all cases from criminal liability.

People vs. Formigones (87 Phil 661, 1950) feeblemindedness is not exempting but can be considered as mitigating,

Somnambulism or sleepwalking must be clearly proven to be considered as an exempting circumstance under this Article.

Malignant Malaria affects the nervous system and causes among others such

complication as acute melancholia and insanity at times, and if clearly proven will be considered as an exempting circumstance under this paragraph. (People vs. Lacena 69 Phil 350) Two tests of Insanity: 1. Test of COGNITION – complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the crime. 2. Test of VOLITION – total deprivation of freedom will. In the Philippines, both cognition of volition tests are applied. There must be complete deprivation of the intellect (cognition) or will or freedom (volition). The defense must prove that the accused was Insane at the time of commission of the crime because the presumption is always in favor of sanity. What are the effects of insanity of the accused? TIME WHEN ACCUSED SUFFERS EFFECT ON CRIMINAL INSANITY LIABILITY At the time of the commission of the Exempt from liability. crime. Proceedings will be suspended and During. accused is committed to a hospital. Execution of judgment is suspended, the accused is At the judgment or while securing committed to a hospital, the period sentence. of confinement in the hospital is counted for the purpose of the prescription of the penalty. The fact that a person behaves crazily is not conclusive that he is insane. The prevalent meaning of the word “crazy” is not synonymous with the legal terms “insane”, “non compose mentis,” “unsound mind,” “idiot, or “lunatic.” The popular conception of the word “crazy” is being used to describe a person or an act unnatural or out of the ordinary. A man may behave in a crazy manner but it does not necessarily and conclusively prove that he is legally so (People vs. Florendo, G.R. No. 136845, October 8, 2003). Basis: Complete absence of intelligence JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT OF 2006 Child in Conflict with the Law Refers to a child who is alleged as, accused of or adjudged as, having committed and offense under Philippine laws 1. Minimum Age of Responsibility – Under RA 9344, the following are EXEMPT from criminal Liability: a. Child 15 years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense. The child shall be subjected to an INTERVENTTION PROGRAM pursuant to Section 20 of RA 9344. 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, and then the court shall either decide on the sentence or extend the intervention, b.

Child above 15 but below 18 who acted without discernment.

Discernment It is the mental capacity to understand the difference between right or wrong determined by the child‟s appearance, attitude, component and behavior not only before and during the commission of the offense but also after and during the trial. It is manifested through: i. Manner of committing the crime ii. Conduct of the offender. DISCERNMENT Refers to moral significance the person ascribes to the act.

INTENT Refers to the desired act of the person.

After initial investigation, the local social worker may: a. Proceed in accordance with Section 20 if the child is fifteen (15) years or below or above fifteen (15) but below eighteen (18) years old, who acted without discernment; and b. If the child is above fifteen (15) years old but below eighteen (18) and who acted with discernment, proceed to diversion under the following without undergoing court proceedings subject to the following conditions: (Section 23) I. Where the imposable penalty is not more than 6 years of imprisonment, the Punong Barangay or law enforcement officer shall conduct mediation, family conferencing and conciliation. ii. Where the imposable penalty exceeds 6 years imprisonment, diversion measures may be resorted to only by the court. 2.

Exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil liability.

3. Determination of age – The child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the presumption of minority until he/she is proven to be 18 years old or older (Section 7, par. 1). The age of a child may be determined from: a. child‟s birth certificate, b. baptismal certificate, and c. any other pertinent documents. In the absence of these documents, age may be based on information from the child himself/herself, testimonies of other persons, the physical appearance of the child and other relevant evidence. In the case of doubt as to the age of the child, it shall be resolved in other favor. A person manifesting the age of the child in conflict with the law may: a. If the case against the child has not yet been filed – file a case in a summary proceeding for the determination of age prior to the filing of the information in any appropriate court before the Family Court which shall decide the case within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the appropriate pleadings of all interested parties. b. If a case has been filed against the child in conflict with the law and is pending in the appropriate court – file a motion to determine the age of the child in the same court where the case is pending. Pending hearing on the said motion, proceedings on the main case shall be suspended. 4.

5.

The prosecutor shall conduct a preliminary investigation and file an information upon determination of probable cause in the following instances (Section 33): a. When the child in conflict with the law does not qualify for diversion. b. When the child, his/her parents or guardian does not agree to diversion; and c. Upon determination by the prosecutor that diversion is not appropriate for the child in conflict with the law. Automation Suspension of Sentence – Once the child who is under 18 years of age at the time of commission of the offense is found guilty of the offense charged; the court shall determine and ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted from the offense committees. However, instead of pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict with the law under suspended sentence, without need of application and impose the appropriate disposition measures as provided in the Supreme Court Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law (Section 38).

6. Upon recommendation of the social worker who has custody of the child, the court shall order the final discharge of the child. The discharge of the child in conflict with the law shall not affect the civil liability resulting from the commission of the offense (Section 39). 7.

Status Offenses – any conduct act considered an offense or not penalized if committed by an adult shall not be considered an offense and shall not be punished if committed by a child.

8. Offenses not applicable to children – persons below 18 years of age shall be exempt from prosecution for the crime of: a. Vagrancy and Prostitution (Art. 202, RPC) b. Mendicancy (P.D. No. 1563) c. Sniffing of Rugby (P.D. No. 1619) PROVIDED, that said persons shall undergo appropriate counseling and treatment program. Summary of Rules If the judgment is an acquittal, the decision shall immediately take effect without suspension and the decision shall be promulgated and pronounced. 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: 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, and then the court shall either decide on the sentence or extend the intervention. Note: Only when there is (1) refusal to be subjected to reformation or (2) when there is failure to reform can the child is subjected to criminal prosecution and the judicial system. Basis: Complete absence or lack of intelligence. Par. 4 Accident without fault or intention of causing it Accident It is an occurrence that happens outside the sway of our will, and although it comes about through some act of our will, it lies beyond the bounds of humanity foreseeable consequences. Elements: (LDMW) 1. A person is performing a lawful act; 2. With due care; 3. He causes injury to another by mere accident; and 4. Without fault or intention of causing it. Basis: Lack of negligence and intent. Par. 5 a person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force. Elements: (PIT) 1. That the compulsion is by means of physical force; 2. That the physical force must be irresistible; and 3. That the physical force must come from a third person. Passion and obfuscation cannot amount to irresistible force. The force must be so irresistible as to reduce the actor to a mere instrument who acts not only without will but against his will. The person who used the force or created the fear is criminally and primarily civilly liable, but the accused who performed the act involuntarily and under duress is still secondarily liable (Art. 10). Basis: Complete absence of freedom. IRRESISTIBLE FORCE Offender uses violence or physical force to compel another person to commit a crime. Must have been made to operate directly upon the

UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR Offender employs intimidation or threat in compelling another to commit a crime May be generated by a threatened act directed to a 3rd person, e.g., the wife of

person of the accused. The injury feared may be of a lesser degree that the damage caused by the accused.

the accused who was kidnapped. The evil feared must be greater or at least equal to the damage caused to avoid it.

8. Marriage of the offender and the offended party in case of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape (Art. 344) 9. Adultery and concubinage if the offended party shall have consented or pardoned the offenders (Art. 344)

Par. 6 Uncontrollable Fear

Entrapment is NOT an absolutory cause. A buy-bust operation conducted in connection with illegal drug related offenses is a form of entrapment.

Elements: 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; and 2. That it promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary man would have succumbed to it.

ENTRAPMENT Ways and means are resorted to for the capture of lawbreaker in the execution of his criminal plan.

Duress as a valid defense should be based on real, imminent, or reasonable fear for one‟s life or limb and should not be speculative, fanciful, or remote fear. The compulsion must be of such character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat.

The means originates from the mind of the criminal.

It must be presuppose intimidation or threat not foreseen violence. Basis: Complete absence of freedom. Par. 7 Insuperable cause Insuperable cause It is some motive which has lawfully, morally or physically prevented a person to do what the law commands. It applies to felonies by omission Elements: (RFI) 1. That an act is required by law to be done; 2. That a person fails to perform such act; and 3. That his failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause. Examples: The municipal president detained the offended party for three days because to take him to the nearest justice of the peace required a journey for three days by boat as there was no other means of transportation (US vs. Vicentillo, 19 Phil, 118, 1911). The distance which required a journey for three days was considered an insuperable cause Note: Under the law, the person arrested incident to arrest must be delivered to the nearest judicial authority at most within 36 hours under Art. 125, RPC; otherwise, the public officer will be liable delay in the delivery to judicial authorities. A mother, who at the time of childbirth was overcome by severe dizziness and extreme debility, and left the child in the thicket where said child died, is not liable for infanticide because it was physically impossible for her to take home the child (People vs. Bandian, 63 Phil. 530, 1936). The severe dizziness and extreme debility of the woman constitute an insuperable cause. Basis: Lack of Intent Absolutory Causes Those where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment, there is not penalty imposed. Examples of absolutory cause: (DELIMA2-T4) 1. Spontaneous desistance (Art. 6) 2. Attempted or frustrated light felonies (Art. 7) 3. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability by reason on relationship (Art. 20) and in light felonies. 4. Slight or less serious physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances (Art. 247) 5. If persons exempt from criminal liability for theft, swindling and malicious mischief (Art. 332) 6. Instigation 7. Trespass to dwelling when the purpose of entering another‟s dwelling against the latter‟s will is to prevent some serious harm to himself, the occupants of the dwelling or a third persons, or for the purpose of rendering some service to humanity or justice, or when entering cafes, taverns, inns and other public houses, while the same are open (Art. 280, par.2)

Not a bar to the prosecution and conviction of the lawbreaker.

INSTIGATION Instigator induces the would-be accused to commit the crime, hence he becomes a co-principal The law enforcer conceives the commission of the crime and suggests to the accused who adopts the idea and carries it into execution. It will result in the acquittal of the accused.

If the one who made the instigation is a private individual not performing public function, both he and the one induced are criminally liable for the crime committed; the former, as principal by induction; and the latter, as principal by direct participation.