Criminal Law Review Syllabus Prosec. Garcia

SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW This is a compilation of all the cases assigned by Prosecutor Victoria Garcia You can add additional annotations for improvement of this material. Sources include reviewers from various schools and books, from Boado, Paras etc.

Art. 2, RPC. ―Except as provided in the treaties or laws of preferential application xxx‖

a. Treaty Stipulations Examples:

I. BASIC PRINCIPLES Characteristics 1. Generality 2. Territoriality 3. Prospectivity 1. GENERALITY Art. 14, NCC. The penal law of the country is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations

Generality of criminal law means that the criminal law of the country governs all persons within the country regardless of their race, belief, sex or creed. However, it is subject to certain exceptions brought about by international agreement. Ambassadors, chiefs of states and other diplomatic officials are immune from the application of penal laws when they are in the country where they are assigned. Note that consuls are not diplomatic officers. This includes consul-general, viceconsul or consul in a foreign country, who are therefore, not immune to the operation or application of the penal law of the country where they are assigned. Generality has no reference to territory. Whenever you are asked to explain this, it does not include territory. It refers to persons that may be governed by the penal law. [Take note of the Visiting Forces Agreement, Art. V, which defines Criminal Jurisdiction over United States military and civilian personnel temporarily in the Philippines in connection with activities approved by the Philippine Government (see attached supplement).]

Philippines and the US on Mar. 14, 1947 and expired on Sept. 16, 1991. signed on Feb. 10, 1998.

b. Laws of Preferential Application Examples: Members of Congress are not liable for libel or slander for any speech in Congress or in any committee thereof. (Sec. 11, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution) Any ambassador or public minister of any foreign State, authorized and received as such by the President, or any domestic or domestic servant of any such ambassador or minister are exempt from arrest and imprisonment and whose properties are exempt from distraint, seizure and attachment.3 (R.A. No. 75) – A warship of another country, even though docked in the Philippines, is considered an extension of the territory of its respective country. This also applies to embassies. b. Principles of Public International Law Art. 14, NCC. ―xxx subject to the principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations.‖

The following persons are exempt from the provisions of the RPC: (1) Sovereigns and other heads of state (2) Ambassadors, ministers, plenipotentiary, minister resident and charges d‗ affaires. (Article 31, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations) Note: Consuls and consular officers are NOT

Limitations: CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

Page 1

SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

exempt from local prosecution. (See Article 41, Vienna Convention on Consular Relations)

territory (Art. 2, RPC) (ASKED 4 TIMES IN BAR EXAMS)

Public vessels of a friendly foreign power are not subject to local jurisdiction.

Art. 2 embraces two scopes of applications:

2. TERRITORIALITY GENERAL RULE: Penal laws of the country have force and effect only within its territory.

General rule - Intraterritorial refers to the application of the RPC within the Philippine territory (land, air and water). Exception - Extraterritorial refers to the application of the Revised Penal Code outside the Philippine territory.

outside its territory. The Archipelagic Rule to the land where its sovereignty resides but includes also its maritime and interior waters as well as its atmosphere. (Art. 2, RPC) Territoriality means that the penal laws of the country have force and effect only within its territory. It cannot penalize crimes committed outside the same. This is subject to certain exceptions brought about by international agreements and practice. The territory of the country is not limited to the land where its sovereignty resides but includes also its maritime and interior waters as well as its atmosphere.  Terrestrial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over land. 



Fluvial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over maritime and interior waters. Aerial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over the atmosphere.

All bodies of water comprising the maritime zone and interior waters abounding different islands comprising the Philippine Archipelago are part of the Philippine territory regardless of their breadth, depth, width or dimension. On the fluvial jurisdiction there is presently a departure from the accepted International Law Rule, because the Philippines adopted the Archipelagic Rule as stated above. In the International Law Rule, when a strait within a country has a width of more than 6 miles, the center lane in excess of the 3 miles on both sides is considered international waters. Three international law theories on aerial jurisdiction 1. The atmosphere over the country is free and not subject to the jurisdiction of the subjacent state, except for the protection of its national security and public order.

(1) Terrestrial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over land. (2) Fluvial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over maritime and interior waters. (3) Aerial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over the atmosphere.

Under this theory, if a crime is committed on board a foreign aircraft at the atmosphere of a country, the law of that country does not govern unless the crime affects the national security. 2. Relative Theory- The subjacent state exercises jurisdiction over the atmosphere only to the extent that it can effectively exercise control thereof.

EXCEPTIONS (1) Extraterritorial crimes, which are punishable even if committed outside the Philippine

Under this theory, if a crime was committed on an aircraft that is already beyond the control of the subjacent state, the criminal law of the state will not govern anymore. But if the crime is committed in an aircraft

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

Page 2

SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

within the atmosphere over a subjacent state that exercises control, then its criminal law will govern. 3. Absolute Theory (adopted by the Philippines) - The subjacent state has complete jurisdiction over the atmosphere above it subject only to the innocent passage by aircraft of a foreign country. Under this theory, if the crime is committed in an aircraft, no matter how high, as long as it can be established that it is within the Philippine atmosphere, Philippine criminal law will govern.

3.PROSPECTIVITY This is also called irretrospectivity. GENERAL RULE: Acts or omissions will only be subject to a penal law if they are committed AFTER a penal law has taken effect. Conversely, acts or omissions which have been committed before the effectivity of a penal law could not be penalized by such penal law. EXCEPTION: Art. 22 RPC. Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect, insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.

Art. 62(5) RPC. xxx For the purpose of this article, a person shall be deemed to be a habitual delinquent, if within a period of 10 years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo(robbery), hurto(theft), estafa, or falsification, he is found guilty of any crimes a third time or oftener

EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION: CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

(1) The new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing cause of actions; or (2) The offender is a habitual criminal. Effects of repeal of penal law (1) If the repeal makes the penalty lighter in the new law, (a) The new law shall be applied, (b) EXCEPT when the offender is a habitual delinquent or when the new law is made not applicable to pending action or existing causes of action. (2) If the new law imposes a heavier penalty (a) Law in force at the time of the commission of the offense shall be applied. (3) If the new law totally repeals the existing law so that the act which was penalized under the old law is no longer punishable, (a) The crime is obliterated. (b) Pending cases are dismissed. (c) Unserved penalties imposed are remitted. (4) Rule of prospectivity also applies to judicial decisions,7 administrative rulings and circulars. Acts or omissions will only be subject to a penal law if they are committed after a penal law had already taken effect. Vice versa, this act or omission which has been committed before the effectivity of a penal law could not be penalized by such penal law because penal laws operate only prospectively. In some textbooks, an exemption is said to exist when the penal law is favorable to the offender, in which case it would have retroactive application (RPC Art. 22); provided that the offender is not a habitual delinquent and there is no provision in the law against its retroactive application. The exception where a penal law may be given retroactive application is true only with a repealing law. If it is an original penal law, that exception can never operate. What is contemplated by the exception is that there is an original law and there is a repealing law repealing the original law. It is the repealing law that may be given retroactive application to those who violated the original law, if the repealing penal law is more favorable to the offender who violated Page 3

SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

the original law. If there is only one penal law, it can never be given retroactive effect.

Underlying Philosophies Classical or Juristic Philosophy Best remembered by the maxim ―An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.‖ [Note: If you want to impress the examiner, use the latin version- Oculo pro oculo, dente pro dente.] The purpose of penalty is retribution. The offender is made to suffer for the wrong he has done. There is scant regard for the human element of the crime. The law does not look into why the offender committed the crime. Capital punishment is a product of this kind of school of thought. Man is regarded as a moral creature who understands right from wrong. So that when he commits a wrong, he must be prepared to accept the punishment therefore. Positivist or Realistic Philosophy The purpose of penalty is reformation. There is great respect for the human element because the offender is regarded as socially sick who needs treatment, not punishment. Cages are like asylums, jails like hospitals. They are to segregate the offenders from the ―good‖ members of society. From this philosophy came the jury system, where the penalty is imposed on a case to case basis after examination of the offender by a panel of social scientists which do not include lawyers as the panel would not want the law to influence their consideration. Crimes are regarded as social phenomena which constrain a person to do wrong although not of his own volition. A tendency towards crime is the product of one‘s environment. There is no such thing as a natural born killer. This philosophy is criticized as being too lenient.

Eclectic or Mixed Philosophy This combines both positivist and classical thinking. Crimes that are economic and social by nature should be dealt with in a positivist manner; thus, the law is more compassionate. Heinous crimes should be dealt with in a classical manner; thus, capital punishment. Since the Revised Penal Code was adopted from the Spanish Codigo Penal, which in CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

turn was copied from the French Code of 1810 which is classical in character, it is said that our Code is also classical. This is no longer true because with the American occupation of the Philippines, many provisions of common law have been engrafted into our penal laws. The Revised Penal Code today follows the mixed or eclectic philosophy. For example, intoxication of the offender is considered to mitigate his criminal liability, unless it is intentional or habitual; the age of the offender is considered; and the woman who killed her child to conceal her dishonor has in her favor a mitigating circumstance.

MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA Violations of the Revised Penal Code are referred to as malum in se, which literally means, that the act is inherently evil or bad or per se wrongful. On the other hand, violations of special laws are generally referred to as malumprohibitum. Note, however, that not all violations of special laws are mala prohibita. While intentional felonies are always mala in se, it does not follow that prohibited acts done in violation of special laws are always mala prohibita. Even if the crime is punished under a special law, if the act punished is one which is inherently wrong, the same is malum in se, and, therefore, good faith and the lack of criminal intent is a valid defense; unless it is the product of criminal negligence or culpa. Likewise when the special laws require that the punished act be committed knowingly and willfully, criminal intent is required to be proved before criminal liability may arise. For example, Presidential Decree No. 532 punishes piracy in Philippine waters and the special law punishing brigandage in the highways. These acts are inherently wrong and although they are punished under special laws, the act themselves are mala in se; thus good faith or lack of criminal intent is a defense. Distinction between crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code and crimes punished under special laws 1. As to moral trait of the offender Page 4

SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, the moral trait of the offender is considered. This is why liability would only arise when there is dolo or culpa in the commission of the punishable act. In crimes punished under special laws, the moral trait of the offender is not considered; it is enough that the prohibited act was voluntarily done. 2. As to use of good faith as defense In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, good faith or lack of criminal intent is a valid defense; unless the crime is the result of culpa. In crimes punished under special laws, good faith is not a defense. 3. As to degree of accomplishment of the crime In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, the degree of accomplishment of the crime is taken into account in punishing the offender; thus, there are attempted, frustrated and consummated stages in the commission of the crime.

Doctrine of Pro reo/Lenity Rule Doctrine of Pro Reo Whenever a penal law is to be construed or applied and the law admits of two interpretations - one lenient to the offender and one strict to the offender- that interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the offender will be adopted. This is in consonance with the fundamental rule that all doubts shall be construed in favor of the accused and consistent with the presumption of innocence of the accused. This is peculiar only to criminal law. Basis: The fundamental rule that all doubts shall be construed in favor of the accused and presumption of innocence of the accused. Art. III, Sec. 14(2), 1987 Const. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.

In crimes punished under special laws, the act gives rise to a crime only when it is consummated; there are no attempted or frustrated stages, unless the special law expressly penalizes a mere attempt or frustration of the crime.

Note: This is peculiar only to criminal law.

4. As to mitigating and aggravating circumstances In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are taken into account since the moral trait of the offender is considered.

When the evidence of the prosecution and the defense are equally balanced, the scale should be tilted in favor of the accused in obedience to the constitutional presumption of innocence.

In crimes punished under special laws, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are not taken into account in imposing the penalty. 5. As to degree of participation In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, when there is more than one offender, the degree of participation of each in the commission of the crime is taken into account in imposing the penalty; thus, offenders are classified as principal, accomplice and accessory. In crimes punished under special laws, the degree of participation of the offenders is not considered. All who perpetrated the prohibited act are penalized to the same extent. There is no principal or accessory to CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

Equipoise Rule

Utilitarian Rule Utilitarian Theory or Protective Theory The primary purpose of the punishment under criminal law is the protection of society from actual or potential wrongdoers. The courts, therefore, in exacting retribution for the wronged society, should direct the punishment to potential or actual wrongdoers, since criminal law is directed against acts and omissions which the society does not approve of. Consistent with this theory, the mala prohibita principle which punishes an offense regardless of malice or criminal intent, should not be utilized to apply the full harshness of the special law. Page 5

SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

In Magno vs. CA, decided on June 26, 1992, the Supreme Court acquitted Magno of violation of Batas PambansaBlg. 22 when he acted without malice. The wrongdoer is not Magno but the lessor who deposited the checks. He should have returned the checks to Magno when he pulled out the equipment. To convict the accused would defeat the noble objective of the law and the law would be tainted with materialism and opportunism.

II. THE REVISED PENAL CODE A. Territorial and Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction The provisions in Article 2 embraces two scopes of applications: 1. Intraterritorial- refers to the application of the Revised Penal Code within the Philippine territory; 2. Extraterritorial- refers to the application of the Revised Penal Code outside the Philippines territory. Intraterritorial application In the intraterritorial application of the Revised Penal Code, Article 2 makes it clear that it does not refer only to the Philippine archipelago but it also includes the atmosphere, interior waters and maritime zone. So whenever you use the word territory, do not limit this to land area only. As far as jurisdiction or application of the Revised Penal Code over crimes committed on maritime zones or interior waters, the Archipelagic Rule shall be observed. So the three-mile limit on our shoreline has been modified by the rule. Any crime committed in the interior waters comprising the Philippine archipelago shall be subject to our laws although committed on board a foreign merchant vessel. A vessel is considered a Philippine ship only when it is registered in accordance with Philippine laws. Under international law, as long as such vessel is not within the territorial waters of a foreign country, Philippine laws shall govern. Extraterritorial application CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

Extraterritorial application of the Revised Penal Code on a crime committed on board a Philippine ship or airship is not within the territorial waters or atmosphere of a foreign country. Otherwise, it is the foreign country‘s criminal law that will apply. However, there are two situations where the foreign country may not apply its criminal law even if a crime was committed on board a vessel within its territorial waters and these are: 1. When the crime is committed in a war vessel of a foreign country, because war vessels are part of the sovereignty of the country to whose navel force they belong; 2. When the foreign country in whose territorial waters the crime was committed adopts the French Rule, which applies only to merchant vessels, except when the crime committed affects the national security or public order of such foreign country. The French Rule The French Rule provides that the nationality of the vessel follows the flag which the vessel flies, unless the crime committed endangers the national security of a foreign country where the vessel is within jurisdiction in which case such foreign country will never lose jurisdictionover such vessel. The American or Anglo-Saxon Rule This rule strictly enforces the territoriality of criminal law. The law of the foreign country where a foreign vessel is within its jurisdiction is strictly applied, except if the crime affects only the internal management of the vessel in which case it is subject to the penal law of the country where it is registered. Both the rules apply only to a foreign merchant vessel if a crime was committed aboard that vessel while it was in the territorial waters of another country. If that vessel is in the high seas or open seas, there is no occasion to apply the two rules. If it is not within the jurisdiction of any country, these rules will not apply.

B. Felonies- Definition and Kinds Felony

Page 6

SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

A crime under the Revised Penal Code is referred to as a felony. Do not use this term in reference to a violation of special law. The term felony is limited only to violations of the Revised Penal Code. When the crime is punishable under a special law you do not refer to this as a felony, it is to be understood as referring to crimes under the Revised Penal Code.

cause. This may be a cause which is far and remote from the consequence which sets into motion other causes which resulted in the felony.

This is important because there are certain provisions in the Revised Penal Code where the term “felony” is used, which means that the provision is not extended to crimes under special laws. A specific instance is found in Article 160Quasi-Recidivism, which reads: A person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve sentence or while serving the same, shall be punished under the maximum period of the penalty.

Purpose of punishing impossible crimes: To suppress criminal propensity or criminal tendencies. Objectively, the offender has not committed a felony, but subjectively, he is a criminal.

Offense A crime punished under a special law is called a statutory offense. Misdemeanor A minor infraction of the law, such as a violation of an ordinance, is referred to as a misdemeanor. Crime Whether the wrongdoing is punished under the Revised Penal Code or under a special law, the generic word crime can be used.

C. Proximate cause Impossible crimes

theory

and

Proximate cause is that cause which sets into motion other causes and which unbroken by any efficient supervening cause produces a felony and without which such felony could not have resulted. He who is the cause of the cause is the evil of the cause. As a general rule, the offender is criminally liable for all the consequences of his felonious act, although not intended, if the felonious act is the proximate cause of the felony or resulting felony. A proximate cause is not necessarily the immediate CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

An impossible crime is an act which would be an offense against person or property were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.

Requisites: (1) That the act performed would be an offense against persons or property. (2) That the act was done with evil intent. ony against persons or against property, and the act performed would have been an offense against persons or property. t must be shown that the actor performed the act with the intent to do an injury to another. ver, it should not be actually performed, for otherwise, he would be liable for that felony. (3) That its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that the means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual. Inherent impossibility: The act intended by the offender is by its nature one of impossible accomplishment. There must be either (1) legal impossibility or (2) physical impossibility of accomplishing the intended act. Legal impossibility: The intended acts, even if completed, would not amount to a crime. Legal impossibility would apply to those circumstances where: a. the motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in violation of the law; b. there is intention to perform the physical act; c. there is a performance of the intended physical act; and d. the consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a crime. Page 7

SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

(Intod v. CA) Physical or factual impossibility: Extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime. Note: In the Philippines, impossibility of accomplishing the criminal intent is not merely a defense but an act penalized by itself. (4) That the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the RPC.

Modified Concept of impossible crime In a way, the concept of impossible crime has been modified by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Intod vs. CA, et. al., 285 SCRA 52. In this case, four culprits, all armed with firearms and with intent to kill, went to the intended victim‘s house and after having pinpointed the latter‘s bedroom, all four fired at and riddled the said room with bullets, thinking that the intended victim was already there as it was about 10:00 in the evening. It so happened that the intended victim did not come home on that evening and so was not in her bedroom at that time. Eventually the culprits were prosecuted and convicted by the trial court for attempted murder. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment but the Supreme Court modified the same and held the petitioner liable only for the so-called impossible crime. As a result, petitioneraccused was sentenced to imprisonment of only six months of arresto mayor for the felonious act he committed with intent to kill: this despite the destruction done to the intended victim‘s house. Somehow, the decision depreciated the seriousness of the act committed, considering the lawlessness by which the culprits carried out the intended crime, and so some members of the bench and bar spoke out against the soundness of the ruling. Some asked questions, was it really the impossibility of accomplishing the killing that brought about its non-accomplishment? Was it not purely accidental that the intended victim did not come home that evening and, thus, unknown to the culprits, she was not in her bedroom at the time it was shot and riddled with bullets? Suppose, instead of using firearms, the culprits set fire on the intended victim‘s house, believing that she was there when in fact she was not, would the criminal liability be for an impossible crime? CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

Until the Intod case, the prevailing attitude was that the provision of the Revised Penal Code on impossible crime would only apply when the wrongful act, which would have constituted a crime against persons or property, could not and did not constitute another felony. Otherwise, if such act constituted any other felony although different from what theoffender intended, the criminal liability should be for such other felony and not for an impossible crime. The attitude was so because Article 4 of the Code provides two situations where criminal liability shall be incurred, to wit:

Article 4. Criminal liability—Criminal liability shall be incurred: 1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. 2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. Paragraph 1 refers to a situation where the wrongful act done constituted a felony although it may be different from what he intended. Paragraph 2 refers to a situation where the wrongful act done did not constitute any felony, but because the act would have given rise to a crime against persons or against property, the same is penalized to repress criminal tendencies to curtail their frequency. Because criminal liability for impossible crime presupposes that no felony resulted form the wrongful act done, the penalty is fixed at arresto mayor or a fine from P200.00 to P500.00, depending on the ―social danger and degree of criminality shown by the offender‖(Article 59), regardless of whether the wrongful act was an impossible crime against persons or against property. There is no logic in applying paragraph 2 of Article 4 to a situation governed by paragraph 1 of the same Article, that is, where a felony resulted. Otherwise, a redundancy or duplicity would be perpetrated. In the Intod case, the wrongful acts of the culprits caused destruction to the house of the intended victim; this felonious act negates the idea of an impossible crime. But Page 8

SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

whether we agree or not, the Supreme Court has spoken, we have to respect its ruling.

D. Stages in Felony Preliminaries

the Commission

of

Classification Under Art. 6 a. Consummated Felony When all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present; the felony is produced. b. 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. c. 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. a. Overt act A commission of the felony is deemed commenced when the following are present: (1) There are external acts. (2) Such external acts have a direct connection with the crime intended to be committed. Overt act: Some physical activity or deed (but not necessarily physical, depending on the nature of the felony) indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried to its complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense. b. Development of a crime (1) Internal acts Intent, ideas and plans; generally not punishable. The intention and act must concur. Illustration: Ernie plans to kill Bert (2) External acts

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

(a) Preparatory Acts unished except when considered by law as independent crimes (i.e. Art. 304 – possession of picklocks) spiracy to commit a felony are not punishable except when the law provides for their punishment in certain felonies. yet constitute even the first stage of the acts of execution. Illustration: Ernie goes to the kitchen to get a knife. (b) Acts of Execution s with a logical relation to a particular concrete offense.

Acts Performed

Why

Position in the Timeline

ATTEMPTED Overt acts of execution are started BUT Not all acts of execution are present Due to reasons other than the spontaneous desistance of the perpetrator Offender still in subjective phase because he still has control of his acts, including their natural cause.

FRUSTRATED All acts of execution are finished BUT Crime sought to be committed is not achieved Due to intervening causes independent of the will of the perpetrator Due to intervening causes independent of the will of the perpetrator

The difference between the attempted stage and the frustrated stage lies on whether the offender has performed all the acts of execution for the accomplishment of a felony. Literally, under the article, if the offender has performed all the acts of execution which should produce the felony as a consequence but the felony was not realized, then the crime is already in the frustrated stage. If the offender has not yet performed all the acts of execution—there is something yet to be performed—but he was not able to perform all the acts of execution due to some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance, then you have an attempted felony. You will notice that the felony begins when the offender performs an overt act. Not any act will mark the beginning of a felony, and therefore, if the act so far being done does Page 9

SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

not begin a felony, criminal liability correspondingly does not begin. In criminal law, there is such a thing as preparatory act. These acts do not give rise to criminal liability. a. Attempted Stage Elements: (1) The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts; (2) He does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony; (3) The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause or accident other than his ownspontaneous desistance. Marks the commencement of the subjective phase: Subjective phase - That portion of the acts constituting a crime, starting from the point where the offender begins the commission of the crime to that point where he still has control over his acts including their (act‗s) natural course If between those two points, the offender is stopped by reason of any cause outside of his own voluntary desistance, the subjective phase has not been passed and it is merely an attempt. Illustration: The subjective phase for Ernie was from the moment he swung his arm to stab Bert up until he finished his stroke. This is the interim where he still has control of his actions. Desistance – is an absolutory cause which negates criminal liability because the law encourages a person to desist from committing a crime But, it does not negate all criminal liability, if the desistance was made when acts done by him already resulted in a felony, The offender will still be criminally liable for the felony brought about by his act. What is negated is only the attempted stage, but there may be other felonies arising from his act. Note: Desistance is true only in the attempted stage of the felony. If the felony is already in its frustrated stage,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

desistance liability.

will

NOT

negate

criminal

b. Frustrated Stage Elements (1) The offender performs all the acts of execution; (2) All the acts performed would produce the felony as a consequence; (3) But the felony is not produced; (4) By reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. The end of the subjective phase and the beginning of the objective phase. Objective phase – the result of the acts of execution, that is, the accomplishment of the crime. If the subjective and objective phases have been passed there is a consummated felony. Crimes which do not admit of frustrated stage (a) Rape essence of the crime is carnal knowledge. er what the offender may do to accomplish a penetration, if there was no penetration yet, it cannot be said that the offender has performed all the acts of execution. We can only say that the offender in rape has performed all the acts of execution when he has effected a penetration. is penetration, no matter how slight it is, the offense is consummated (b) Arson say that the offender, in the crime of arson, has already performed all the acts of execution which could produce the destruction of the premises through the use of fire, unless a part of the premises has begun to burn. he crime of arson is therefore consummated even if only a portion of the wall or any part of the house is burned. The consummation of the crime of arson does not depend upon the extent of the damage caused. (People v. Hernandez) (c) Bribery and Corruption of Public Officers manner of committing the crime requires the meeting of the minds between the giver and the receiver.

Page 10

SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

meeting of the minds, there is consummated bribery or consummated corruption.

(d) Adultery res the sexual contact between two participants. link is present, the crime is consummated; (e) Physical Injuries vised Penal Code, the crime of physical injuries is penalized on the basis of the gravity of the injuries. is no simple crime of physical injuries. There is the need to categorize because there are specific articles that apply whether the physical injuries are serious, less serious or slight. could not punish the attempted or frustrated stage because one does not know what degree of physical injury was committed unless it is consummated.

offender does not execute acts, he omits to perform an act which the law requires him to do. (4) Crimes requiring the intervention of two persons to commit them are consummated by mere agreement. (a) In bribery, the manner of committing the crime requires the meeting of the minds between the giver and the receiver. (b) When the giver delivers the money to the supposed receiver, but there is no meeting of the minds, the only act done by the giver is an attempt. (5) Material Crimes – have three stages of execution Thus, in determining the stage of some crimes, the manner of execution becomes pivotal in determining the end of the subjective phase, i.e. once the offender performs the act in the manner provided for in the law, HE IS ALREADY DEEMED TO HAVE PERFORMED EVERY ACT FOR ITS EXECUTION.

(f) Theft e is unlawful taking, theft is consummated. of the stolen goods is not an element of theft under the RPC. Rule of thumb: Felonies that do not require any result do not have a frustrated stage. Factors in Determining the Stage of Execution of a Felony a. The manner of committing the crime; b. The elements of the crime; and c. The nature of the crime itself. These three factors are helpful in trying to pinpoint whether the crime is still in its attempted, frustrated or consummated stage. a. The Manner of Committing the Crime (1) Formal Crimes - consummated in one instant, no attempt. (a) Ex. Slander and false testimony (b) There can be no attempt, because between the thought and the deed, there is no chain of acts that can be severed.

b. The Elements of the Crime (1) Along with the manner of execution, there are crimes wherein the existence of certain elements becomes the factor in determining its consummation. (2) In the crime ofestafa, the element of damage is essential before the crime could be consummated. If there is no damage, even if the offender succeeded in carting away the personal property involved, estafa cannot be considered as consummated. (3) On the other hand, if it were a crime of theft, damage or intent to cause damage is not an element of theft. (4) What is necessary only is intent to gain, not even gain is important. (5) In the crime of abduction, the crucial element is the taking away of the woman with lewd designs. c. The Nature of the Crime Itself In defining of the frustrated stage of crimes involving the taking of human life (parricide, homicide, and murder), it is indispensable that the victim be mortally wounded.

(2) Crimes consummated by mere attempt or proposal by overt act. (a) Ex. Flight to enemy‗s country (Art. 121) and corruption of minors (Art. 340)

Hence, the general rule is that there must be a fatal injury inflicted, because it is only then that death will follow.

(3) Felony by omission (a) There can be no attempted stage when the felony is by omission, because the

E. Conspiracy- Kinds and Distinctions Two ways for conspiracy to exist:

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

Page 11

SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

1. There is an agreement. 2. The participants acted in concert or simultaneously which is indicative of a meeting of the minds towards a common criminal goal or criminal objective. When several offenders act in a synchronized. Coordinated manner, the fact that their acts complimented each other is indicative of the meeting of the minds. There is an implied agreement. Two kinds of conspiracy: 1. Conspiracy as a crime; and 2. Conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability. When conspiracy itself as a crime, no overt act is necessary to bring about the criminal liability. The mere conspiracy is the crime itself. This is only true when the law expressly punishes the mere conspiracy; otherwise, the conspiracy does not bring about the commission of the crime because conspiracy is not an overt act but a mere preparatory act. Treason, rebellion, sedition and coup d’ etat are the only crimes where the conspiracy and proposal to commit them are punishable.

There is NO crime committed, the act being justified. Thus, such persons cannot be considered criminals. Basis: Lack of criminal intent G.2. Exempting Circumstances Relate to: R.A. No. 9344- The Juvenile Justice &Welfare Act SIX TYPES of exempting circumstances: 1. Imbecility/Insanity 2. Minority 3. Accident 4. Compulsion of irresistible force 5. Impulse of uncontrollable fear 6. Insuperable or lawful cause IMPORTANT POINTS: The reason for the exemption lies in the involuntariness or lack of knowledge of the act: (1) one or some of the ingredients of criminal liability such as criminal intent, intelligence, or freedom of action on the part of the offender is missing (2) In case it is a culpable felony, there is absence of freedom of action or intelligence, or absence of negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill. G.3 Mitigating Circumstances

F. Felonies as To Severity: Grave Less Grave Light G. Circumstances criminalliability

affecting

G.1 Justifying Circumstances Relate to: R.A. No. 9262, The Anti-Violence against Women and their Children

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, Art. 11, wherethe civil liability is borne by the persons benefited by the act. An affirmative defense, hence, the burden of evidence rests on the accused who must prove the circumstance by clear and convincing evidence.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

TWELVE TYPES of mitigating circumstances: 1. Incomplete Justification and Exemption 2. Under 18 or Over 70 years of age 3. No intention to commit so grave a wrong 4. Sufficient Provocation or Threat 5. Immediate vindication of a grave offense 6. Passion or obfuscation 7. Voluntary surrender 8. Voluntary plea of guilt 9. Plea to a lower offense 10. Physical defect 11. Illness 12. Analogous Circumstances Mitigating circumstances or causas attenuates are those which, if present in the commission of the crime, do not entirely free the actor from criminal liability, but serve only to reduce the penalty. Basis: They are based on the diminution of either freedom of action, intelligence or intent or on the lesser perversity of the offender. However, voluntary surrender and plea of guilt which, being circumstances that occur after the commission of the offense, show the accused‗s respect for the law Page 12

SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

(voluntary surrender) and remorse and acceptance of punishment (plea of guilt), thereby necessitating a lesser penalty to effect his rehabilitation (based on the Positivist School) The circumstances under Article 13 are generally ordinary mitigating. However, paragraph 1, is treated as a privileged mitigating circumstance if majority of the requisites concurred, otherwise, it will be treated as an ordinary mitigating circumstance. (Reyes, citing Art. 69). Correlate Article 13 with Articles 63 and 64. Article 13 is meaningless without knowing the rules of imposing penalties under Articles 63 and 64

Ordinary MC Can be offset by any aggravating circumstance If not offset by aggravating circumstance, produces the effect of applying the penalty provided by law for the crime in its min period in case of divisible penalty

Privileged MC Cannot be offset by aggravating circumstance The effect of imposing upon the offender the penalty lower by one or two degrees than that provided by law for the crime.

G.4 Aggravating Circumstances Relate to: PD 1866 as amended by R.A. No. 8294- Illegal Possession of Firearms, Ammunitions & Explosives Those circumstances which raise the penalty for a crime in its maximum period provided by law applicable to that crime or change the nature of the crime. TWENTY-ONE aggravating circumstances under Art. 14: 1. Taking Advantage of Public Office 2. In Contempt Of Or With Insult To Public Authorities 3. With Insult Or Lack Of Regard Due To Offended Party By Reason Of Rank, Age Or Sex 4. Abuse Of Confidence And Obvious Ungratefulness 5. Crime In Palace Or In Presence Of The Chief Executive CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

6. Nighttime; Uninhabited Place; With A Band 7. On Occasion Of A Calamity 8. Aid Of Armed Men Or Means To Ensure Impunity 9. Recidivism 10. Reiteration or Habituality 11. Price, Reward Or Promise 12. Inundation, Fire, Poison 13. Evident Premeditation 14. Craft, Fraud Or Disguise 15. Superior Strength Or Means To Weaken Defense 16. Treachery 17. Ignominy 18. Unlawful Entry 19. Breaking Wall, Floor, Roof 20. With Aid Of Persons Under 15 By Motor Vehicle 21. Cruelty

Note: The list in this Article is EXCLUSIVE – there are no analogous aggravating circumstances. The aggravating circumstances must be established with moral certainty, with the same degree of proof required to establish the crime itself. According to the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, BOTH generic and qualifying aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the Information in order to be considered by the Court in imposing the sentence. (Rule 110, Sec. 9) Basis 1. the motivating power behind the act 2. the place where the act was committed 3. the means and ways used 4. the time 5. the personal circumstance of the offender and/or of the victim Generic aggravating circumstances The effect of a generic AC, not offset by any Mitigating circumstance, is to increase the penalty which should be imposed upon the accused to the MAXIMUMPERIOD.

Qualifying aggravating circumstances The effect of a qualifying AC is not only to give the crime its proper and exclusive name but also to place the author thereof in such a situation as to deserve no other penalty than that specially Page 13

SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

It is not an ingredient of the crime. It only affects the penalty to be imposed but thecrime remains the same

The circumstance can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance

prescribed by law for said crime. The circumstance affects the nature of the crime itself such that the offender shall be liablefor a more serious crime. The circumstance is actually an ingredient of the crime Being an ingredient of the crime, it cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance

Aggravating circumstances which do not have the effect of increasing the penalty: (1) Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime especially punishable by law. (2) Aggravating circumstances which are included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefore shall not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty. (Art. 62, par. 1). (3) The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to such a degree that it must of necessity accompany the commission thereof. (Art. 62, par. 2). Aggravating circumstances which are personal to the offenders. Aggravating circumstances which arise: (1) from moral attributes of the offender; (2) from his private relations with the offended party; or (3) from any personal cause, shall only serve to aggravate the liability of the principals, accomplices, accessories as to whom such circumstances are attendant. (Art. 62, par. 3).Aggravating circumstances which depend for their application upon the knowledge of offenders. The circumstances which consist (1) in the material execution of the act, or (2) in the means employed to accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate the liability of those persons only who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act or their cooperation therein. (Art. 62, par. 4).

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

G.5 Alternative Circumstances THREE TYPES of alternative circumstances: 1. Relationship 2. Intoxication 3. Degree of education/instruction IMPORTANT POINT: Circumstances which must be taken in consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime

Absolutory Causes There are FOUR TYPES of absolutory circumstances: 1. INSTIGATION 2. PARDON 3. OTHER ABSOLUTORY CAUSES 4. ACTS NOT COVERED BY LAW AND IN CASE OF EXCESSIVE PUNISHMENT (ART. 5)

IMPORTANT POINTS: Acts not covered by law and in case of excessive punishment (art. 5) Absolutory causes are those where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment there is no penalty imposed. From Ortega Notes: The effect of this is to absolve the offender from criminal liability, although not from civil liability. It has the same effect as an exempting circumstance, but do not call it as such in order not to confuse it with the circumstances under Article 12. Article 20 provides that the penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees with the exception of accessories who profited themselves by assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime. Then, Article 89 provides how criminal liability is extinguished: 

     

Death of the convict as to the personal penalties, and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefore is extinguished is death occurs before final judgment; Service of the sentence; Amnesty; Absolute pardon; Prescription of the crime; Prescription of the penalty; and Marriage of the offended woman as provided in Article 344.

Under Article 247, a legally married person who kills or inflicts physical injuries upon his or her spouse whom he surprised having sexual intercourse with his or her paramour or mistress in not criminally liable.

Page 14

SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA Under Article 219, discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence of the ward by their guardian is not penalized. Under Article 332, in the case of theft, swindling and malicious mischief, there is no criminal liability but only civil liability, when the offender and the offended party are related as spouse, ascendant, descendant, brother and sister-in-law living together or where in case the widowed spouse and the property involved is that of the deceased spouse, before such property had passed on to the possession of third parties. Under Article 344, in cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness, and rape, the marriage of the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action. Absolutory cause has the effect of an exempting circumstance and they are predicated on lack of voluntariness like instigation. Instigation is associated with criminal intent. Do not consider culpa in connection with instigation. If the crime is culpable, do not talk of instigation. In instigation, the crime is committed with dolo. It is confused with entrapment. Entrapment is not an absolutory cause. Entrapment does not exempt the offender or mitigate his criminal liability. But instigation absolves the offender from criminal liability because in instigation, the offender simply acts as a tool of the law enforcers and, therefore, he is acting without criminal intent because without the instigation, he would not have done the criminal act which he did upon instigation of the law enforcers.

H. Persons Criminally liable for felonies Principals, Accomplices, and Accessories Relate to: P.D. 1612 The Anti-Fencing Law PD 1829 Obstruction of Justice Under the Revised Penal Code, when more than one person participated in the commission of the crime, the law looks into their participation because in punishing offenders, the Revised Penal Code classifies them as: A. PRINCIPAL B. ACCOMPLICE C. ACCESSORY This classification is true only under the RPC and is not applied under special laws, because the penalties under the latter are never graduated. Do not use the term ―principal‖ when the crime committed is a violation of special law (use the term ―offender/s, culprit/s, accused) As to the liability of the participants in the grave, less grave or light felony: CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

felony is grave, or less grave, all participants are criminally liable. felony is only light, only the principal and the accomplice are liable. The accessory is not. only when the light felony is against persons or property that criminal liability attaches to the principal or accomplice, even though the felony is only attempted or frustrated, but accessories are not liable for light felonies. I. Penalties 1. Definitions/Classifications/Kinds Relate to RA 9346 Prohibiting imposition of the death penalty

the

2. Duration and effect 3. Rules for the application(with computations) Relate to: Act 4104 The Indeterminate Sentence Law PD 968 TheProvation Law as amended 4. Execution and Service J. Extinction of Criminal Liability(Total v. Partial) K. Civil liability of persons guilty of felony III. CASES in BOOK ONE A. Utilitarian Theory MAGNO V. CA 210 SCRA 471 June 26, 1992 In Magno vs. CA, decided on June 26, 1992, the Supreme Court acquitted Magno of violation of Batas PambansaBlg. 22 when he acted without malice. The wrongdoer is not Magno but the lessor who deposited the checks. He should have returned the checks to Magno when he pulled out the equipment. To convict the accused would defeat the noble objective of the law and the law would be tainted with materialism and opportunism.

FACTS: Petitioner was in the process of putting up a car repair shop sometime in April 1983, but a did not have complete equipment that could make his venture workable. He also had another problem, and that while he was going into this entrepreneurship, he lacked funds with which to purchase the necessary equipment to make such business operational. Thus, petitioner, representing Ultra Sources International Corporation, approached Corazon Teng, (private complainant) Vice President of Mancor Industries (hereinafter referred to as Mancor) for his needed car repair service

Page 15

SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

equipment of which Mancor was a distributor, (Rollo, pp. 40-41) Having been approached by petitioner on his predicament, who fully bared that he had no sufficient funds to buy the equipment needed, the former (Corazon Teng) referred Magno to LS Finance and Management Corporation (LB Finance for brevity) advising its Vice-President, Joey Gomez, that Mancor was willing and able to supply the pieces of equipment needed if LS Finance could accommodate petitioner and provide him credit facilities. (Ibid., P. 41) The arrangement went through on condition that petitioner has to put up a warranty deposit equivalent to thirtyper centum (30%) of the total value of the pieces of equipment to be purchased, amounting to P29,790.00. Since petitioner could not come up with such amount, he requested Joey Gomez on a personal level to look for a third party who could lend him the equivalent amount of the warranty deposit, however, unknown to petitioner, it was Corazon Teng who advanced the deposit in question, on condition that the same would be paid as a short term loan at 3% interest HELD: Under the utilitarian theory, the "protective theory" in criminal law, "affirms that the primary function of punishment is the protective (sic) of society against actual and potential wrongdoers." It is not clear whether petitioner could be considered as having actually committed the wrong sought to be punished in the offense charged, but on the other hand, it can be safely said that the actuations of Mrs. Carolina Teng amount to that of potential wrongdoers whose operations should also be clipped at some point in time in order that the unwary public will not be failing prey to such a vicious transaction (Aquino, The Revised Penal Code, 1987 Edition, Vol. I, P. 11) Corollary to the above view, is the application of the theory that "criminal law is founded upon that moral disapprobation . . . of actions which are immoral, i.e., which are detrimental (or dangerous) to those conditions upon which depend the existence and progress of human society. This disappropriation is inevitable to the extent that morality is generally founded and built upon a certain concurrence in the moral opinions of all. . . . That which we call punishment is only an external means of emphasizing moral disapprobation the method of punishment is in reality the amount of punishment," (Ibid., P. 11, citing People v. RoldanZaballero, CA 54

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

O.G. 6904, Note also Justice Pablo's view in People v. Piosca and Peremne, 86 Phil. 31). ―xxx the element of "knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment, which check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason . . . is inversely applied in this case. From the very beginning, petitioner never hid the fact that he did not have the funds with which to put up the warranty deposit and as a matter of fact, he openly intimated this to the vital conduit of the transaction, Joey Gomez, to whom petitioner was introduced by Mrs. Teng. It would have been different if this predicament was not communicated to all the parties he dealt with regarding the lease agreement the financing of which was covered by L.S. Finance Management.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is REVERSED and the accused-petitioner is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged. B. Doctrine of Pro REo/ Equipoise Rule PP V. PABIONA 433 SCRA 301 June 30, 2004 FACTS: this case involves the death of Roberto. Witnesses include his cousin Pagayon, but was not able to clearly pinpoint who caused the injuries as he happened to pass by the scene 10 meters away. He only heard a cry for help but the identity of the victim was unknown. The he saw the accused. H two weeks later, he heard a radio news that Robert died after falling into a well on the date he witnessed appellants mauling an unknown victim. He then narrated what he saw on the night of Nov. 20, 1996 to his wfe. Two months later, Pagayon recounted what he witnessed to the mother of the victim. RTC and CA: ConvitedPabiona et.al. SC: reversed CA Equipoise Rule; Where the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates, the party having the burden of proof loses. the court must acquit the accused because the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and therefore is insufficient to support a judgment of conviction. In the case at bar, two antithetical interpretations may be inferred from the evidence presented. The pieces of circumstantial evidence do not inexorably lead to the conclusion that appellants are guilty of the crime charged. The circumstances proffered by the prosecution and relied upon by the trial court only create suspicion that appellants probably perpetrated the crime charged. However, it is not sufficient for a Page 16

SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

conviction that the evidence establishes a strong suspicion or probability of guilt.[63] The basis of acquittal in this case is reasonable doubt, the evidence for the prosecution not being sufficient to sustain and prove the guilt of appellants with moral certainty. By reasonable doubt is not meant that which of possibility may arise but it is that doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and an inability, after such an investigation, to let the mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt.[64] An acquittal based on reasonable doubt will prosper even though the appellants‘ innocence may be doubted, for a criminal conviction rests on the strength of the evidence of the prosecutionand not on the weakness of the evidence of the defense

PP V. DIMALANTA 440 SCRA 55 October 1, 2004 Equipoise Rule; In the case at bar, the evidence for the prosecution is concededly weak. In such cases, even if the evidence for defense is also weak, the accused must be duly accorded the benefit of the doubt in view of the constitutional presumption of innocence that an accused enjoys. When the circumstances are capable of two or more inferences, as in this case, one of which is consistent with the presumption of innocence while the other is compatible with guilt, the presumption of innocence must prevail and the court must acquit FACTS: On November 10, 1999, appellant was charged with Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 (d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 818 WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 121, in Criminal Case No. C-58083 (99), is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant Josefina M. Dimalanta is ACQUITTED on grounds of reasonable doubt. The civil action is DISMISSED, without prejudice to the filing of a separate action to recover the civil liability under the transaction. AMANQUITON V. PP 596 SCRA 366 August 14, 2009 FACTS: Petitioner Julius Amanquiton was a purok leader of Barangay Western Bicutan, Taguig, Metro Manila. As apurok leader and barangay tanod, he was responsible for the maintenance of cleanliness, peace and order of the community.

At 10:45 p.m. on October 30, 2001, petitioner heard an explosion. He, together with two auxiliary tanod, Dominador Amante1 and a certain Cabisudo, proceeded CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

to Sambong Street where the explosion took place. Thereafter, they saw complainant Leoselie John Bañaga being chased by a certain Gil Gepulane. Upon learning that Bañaga was the one who threw the pillbox2 that caused the explosion, petitioner and his companions also went after him. On reaching Bañaga‘s house, petitioner, Cabisudo and Amante knocked on the door. When no one answered, they decided to hide some distance away. After five minutes, Bañaga came out of the house. At this juncture, petitioner and his companions immediately apprehended him. Bañaga's aunt, Marilyn Alimpuyo, followed them to the barangay hall. Bañaga was later brought to the police station. Held:Alimpuyo admitted that she did not see who actually caused the bloodied condition of Bañaga‘s face because she had to first put down the baby she was then carrying when the melee started.17 More importantly, Alimpuyo stated that she was told by Bañaga that, while he was allegedly being held by the neck by petitioner, others were hitting him. Alimpuyo was obviously testifying not on what she personally saw but on what Bañaga told her.

While we ordinarily do not interfere with the findings of the lower courts on the trustworthiness of witnesses, when there appear in the records facts and circumstances of real weight which might have been overlooked or misapprehended, this Court cannot shirk from its duty to sift fact from fiction. We apply the pro reo principle and the equipoise rule in this case. Where the evidence on an issue of fact is in question or there is doubt on which side the evidence weighs, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused.18 If inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and will not justify a conviction

C. Intent/ Motive PP V. DELIM 396 SCRA 386 January 28, 2003 It bears stressing that in determining what crime is charged in an information, the material inculpatory facts recited therein describing the crime charged in relation to the penal law violated are controlling. Where the specific intent of the malefactor is determinative of the crime charged such specific intent must be alleged in the information and proved by the prosecution. Page 17

SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

If the primary and ultimate purpose of the accused is to kill the victim, the incidental deprivation of the victim‘s liberty does not constitute the felony of kidnapping but is merely a preparatory act to the killing, and hence, is merged into, or absorbed by, the killing of the victim.[16]The crime committed would either be homicide or murder. What is primordial then is the specific intent of the malefactors as disclosed in the information or criminal complaint that is determinative of what crime the accused is charged with--that of murder or kidnapping. Specific intent may be proved by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. It may be inferred from the circumstances of the actions of the accused as established by the evidence on record.[19] Specific intent is not synonymous with motive. Motive generally is referred to as the reason which prompts the accused to engage in a particular criminal activity.

In this case, it is evident on the face of the Information that the specific intent of the malefactors in barging into the house of Modesto was to kill him and that he was seized precisely to kill him with the attendant modifying circumstances. The act of the malefactors of abducting Modesto was merely incidental to their primary purpose of killing him. Moreover, there is no specific allegation in the information that the primary intent of the malefactors was to deprive Modesto of his freedom or liberty and that killing him was merely incidental to kidnapping.[23] Irrefragably then, the crime charged in the Information is Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and not Kidnapping under Article 268 thereof.

MANUEL V. PP 476 461 November 29, 2005(bigamy) In the present case, the prosecution proved that the petitioner was married to Gaña in 1975, and such marriage was not judicially declared a nullity; hence, the marriage is presumed to subsist.[36] The prosecution also proved that the petitioner married the private complainant in 1996, long after the effectivity of the Family Code.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

The petitioner is presumed to have acted with malice or evil intent when he married the private complainant. As a general rule, mistake of fact or good faith of the accused is a valid defense in a prosecution for a felony by dolo; such defense negates malice or criminal intent. However, ignorance of the law is not an excuse because everyone is presumed to know the law. Ignorantialegisneminemexcusat.

It was the burden of the petitioner to prove his defense that when he married the private complainant in 1996, he was of the wellgrounded belief that his first wife was already dead, as he had not heard from her for more than 20 years since 1975. He should have adduced in evidence a decision of a competent court declaring the presumptive death of his first wife as required by Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Article 41 of the Family Code. Such judicial declaration also constitutes proof that the petitioner acted in good faith, and would negate criminal intent on his part when he married the private complainant and, as a consequence, he could not be held guilty of bigamy in such case. The petitioner, however, failed to discharge his burden. PP V. ESPONILLA 404 SCRA 421 June 20, 2003(murder) the appellants assert that if found guilty, they should only be made liable for the crime of homicide and not for murder. They claim that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The Court does not agree. The trial court correctly appreciated treachery as having qualified the killing of the victim to murder. Treachery is present when the shooting was unexpected and sudden, giving the unarmed victim no chance whatsoever to defend himself. The two conditions for treachery to be present are (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself, and (2) the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method, or form of attack employed by him.[66] In the case at bar, the victim was shot at the back. Though the Court is not unmindful that a shot at the back of the victim‘s body is not conclusive proof that there was treachery, nonetheless, in this case, the victim was in a wide open field, plowing his farm. The attack was a complete surprise Page 18

SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

and was unprovoked. There was hardly any risk at all to the appellants. The victim was plowing his farmland, completely impervious that death was at hand. He was unarmed and was not in a position to defend himself against the assault of the appellants. Clearly, he was killed in a treacherous manner. The appellants are therefore guilty of murder, the prescribed penalty for which, under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, isreclusionperpetua to death. There being neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance that attended the killing, the lesser of the two indivisible penalties shall be imposed, i.e., reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Article 63 (2) of the Revised Penal Code. the rule is that conspiracy must be shown to exist by direct or circumstantial evidence, as clearly and convincingly as the crime itself. In the absence of direct proof thereof, as in the present case, it may be deduced from the mode, method, and manner by which the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves, when such acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest. Hence, it is necessary that a conspirator should have performed some overt act as a direct or indirect contribution in the execution of the crime planned to be committed. The overt act may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself or it may consist of moral assistance to his coconspirators by being present at the commission of the crime or by exerting moral ascendancy over the other coconspirators.[58] In the case at bar, it was established that the appellants suddenly arrived at the farmland of the victim, each armed with a gun. Even as Jose was shot, both the appellants tarried at the scene, their firearms pointed at the fallen victim, ready to finish him off. They left the situscriminis together after Enriqueta had shouted for help. There is no evidence that one prevented the other from shooting the victim. The acts of the appellants before, during and after the commission of the crime indicated a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest. If one of the two shot the victim, the other, armed with a lethal weapon, was nonetheless present at the scene of the crime, undoubtedly to lend moral and material assistance to the actual assassin — another badge of conspiracy. Thus, the appellants as conspirators are equally liable as the principals for the crime. CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

RECUERDO V. PP 493 SCRA 421 June 27, 2006(estafa) FACTS: Petitioner avers that she acted in good faith and exerted her utmost efforts to confer with the private complainant to settle her obligations. She points out that she made monthly cash payments to lessen her civil liability and later on, for convenience, deposited the monthly payments at the private complainant‘s bank account with the Bank of the Philippine Islands. She continued to make payments even during the pendency of the case in the CA, and continues to make deposits to private complainant‘s bank account.

Petitioner asserts that her efforts to settle her civil obligations to the private complainant indicate that she has no intention of duping the latter, as well as the absence of deceit on her part. That she failed to comply with her obligations by failing to make good the checks as they fell due does not suggest deceit, but at best only financial hardship in fulfilling her civil obligations. Thus, there is no factual and legal basis to convict her of estafa. Petitioner insists that criminal intent in embezzlement is not based on technical mistakes as to the legal effect of a transaction honestly entered into, and there can be no embezzlement if the mind of the person doing the act is innocent or if there is no wrongful purpose. Petitioner further avers that she should be benefited by the Court‘s ruling in People v. Ojeda,7 considering that the facts therein are parallel if not almost identical to this case, the only difference being that, in the Ojeda case, the accused-appellant was able to fully settle her civil obligations Held: In the case of Ojeda, the prosecution failed to prove deceit. Ojeda never assured Chua the checks were funded. Chua knew that the checks were issued to guarantee future payments. Furthermore, Ojeda did not only make arrangements for payment but she fully paid the entire amount of the dishonored checks.

In the instant case, the elements of deceit and damage were established by convincing evidence. Petitioner Recuerdo issued the subject bank checks as payment for the pieces of jewelry simultaneous to the transactions, that is, on the very same occasion when the pieces of jewelry were bought. The issuance of the check by Recuerdo was the principal inducement to private complainant to part with the subject jewelries (CA Decision, pp. 12-13). In addition, petitioner only promised to replace the dishonored checks but she did not settle her obligations with private complainant. Assuming that there was an offer to settle her obligations, this will not overturn the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals as to the presence of deceit. Page 19

SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

The guilt of petitioner was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The crime of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code has the following basic elements: Postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted simultaneously at the time the check was issued; The postdating or issuance was done when the offender had no funds in the bank, or that his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check; and Damage to the payee thereof (Justice Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Thirteenth Edition 1993, Book Two, p. 693; People v. Panganiban, 335 SCRA 354). The existence of the foregoing elements of the crime was concretely established by the prosecution through convincing evidence, warranting petitioner‘s conviction of the offense of Estafa. PP V. MAPALOG.R. February 6, 2007

No.

172608

HELD: Homicidal intent must be evidenced by the acts that, at the time of their execution, are unmistakably calculated to produce the death of the victim by adequate means.97 We cannot infer intent to kill from the appellant‘s act of hitting Piamonte in the head with a lead pipe. In the first place, wounds were not shown to have been inflicted because of the act. Secondly, absent proof of circumstances to show the intent to kill beyond reasonable doubt, this Court cannot declare that the same was attendant.

When the offender shall ill-treat another by deed without causing any injury, and without causing dishonor, the offense is Maltreatment under Article 266,98 par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code. It was beyond reasonable doubt that by hitting Piamonte, appellant ill-treated the latter, without causing any injury. As we have earlier stated, no proof of injury was offered. Maltreatment is necessarily included in Murder, which is the offense charged in the Information. Thus: ART. 266. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment. – The crime of slight physical injuries shall be punished: x xxx 3. By arrestomenor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding 50 pesos when the offender shall ill-treat another by deed without causing any injury. The duration of the penalty of arrestomenor in its minimum period is 1 day to 10 days. Appellant Bernard Mapalo is ACQUITTED of the charge of MURDER for lack of evidence beyond reasonable doubt. He is CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

found GUILTY of the crime of MALTREATMENT, as defined and punished by Article 266, par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code. He is accordingly sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of arrestomenor of 10 days. Considering that appellant has been incarcerated since 2004, which is wellbeyond the period of the penalty herein imposed, the Director of the Bureau of Prisons is ordered to cause appellant‘s IMMEDIATE RELEASE, unless appellant is being lawfully held for another cause, and to inform this Court, within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision, of the compliance therewith. D. Mistake of fact US V. AH CHONG 15 Phil. 488 FACTS: Ah Chong worked as a cook at the ―Officers‘ quarters No. 27, Fort McKinley, Rizal Province.‖ The said place was a detached house around 40 meters away from the nearest building. It also served as the officers‘ ―mess‖ room. Only Ah Chong and PascualGualberto, a muchaho slept in that place. It was not furnished with a permanent lock. O August 14, 1908, around 10′o clock in the evening, Ah Chong was suddenly awaken because someone had been trying to open the room. Out of fear, I shouted ―who is there‖ but none replied. Instead, the other person kept on forcing his entry. Ah Chong believed that it was a thief, and shouted again ―if you enter, I will kill you!‖ Again none replied. Upon entry, and out of fear Ah Chong inflicted a wound. When he realized, that person was Gualberto. He immediately called his employers and dressed Pascual‘s wound. ISSUE: Whether or not should Ah Chong should be exempt from criminal liability? HELD: YES. The Supreme Court held that “A careful examination of the facts as disclosed in the case at bar convinces us that the defendant Chinaman struck the fatal blow alleged in the information in the firm belief that the intruder who forced open the door of his sleeping room was a thief, from whose assault he was in imminent peril, both of his life and of his property and of the property committed to his charge; that in view of all the circumstances, as they must have presented themselves to the defendant at the time, he acted in good faith, without malice, or criminal intent, in the belief that he was doing no more than exercising his legitimate right of self-defense; that had the facts been as he believed them to be he would have been wholly exempt from Page 20

SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

criminal liability on account of his act; and that he can not be said to have been guilty of negligence or recklessness or even carelessness in falling into his mistake as to the facts, or in the means adopted by him to defend himself from the imminent danger which he believe threatened his person and his property and the property under his charge.” E. Mala in Se/ Mala Prohibita LONEY V. PP 482 SCRA 195 February 10. 2006 GARCIA V. CA 484 SCRA 617 March 14, 2006

MUPAS & MUPAS V. PP 172834 February 5, 2008 VALENZUELA V. PP 160188 June 21, 2007 PP V. QUINANOLA 126148 May 5, 1999 PP V. ORANDE 415 SCRA 699 November 12, 2003 H. Conspiracy PP V. PAGALASAN 404 SCRA 275 PP V. CASTILLO 425 SCRA 136 PP V. LARRANAGA 421 SCRA 530

F. Article 4: Proximate Cause Theory & Impossible CeimeDocteine Cinsolidated Cases of Villareal V. PP, G.R. No. 151258

FERNAN et. al. V. PP 145927 PP V. GARCHITORENA 597 SCRA 420

PP V. CA, et.al. G.R. No. 154954

PP V. CARANDANG, et.al. 175926

DIZON V. PP G.R. No. 155101

PP V. BOKINGCO, et.al. 187536

VILLA V. ESCALONA II G.R. no. 178057 & 178080

I. JUSTIFYING/EXEMPTING/AGGRAVA TING Circumstances

URBANO V. IAC 157 ACRA 1 January 7, 1988 PP V. VILLACORTA G.R. No. 186412 September 7, 2011

PP V. FORD GUTIERREZ 188602 PP V. REGALARIO 582 SCRA 738 TOLEDO V. PP 439 SCRA 94

PP V. NOEL SALES G.R. No. 177218 October 3, 2011 GARCIA V. PP 597 ACRA 392 August 28, 2009

MADALI V. PP 595 SCRA 274 PP V. SARCIA 599 SCRA 20 PP V. MANTALABA 186227

INTOD V. CA 215 SCRA 52 October 12, 1992 JACINTO V. PP 592 SCRA 426 July 13, 2009

PP V. BALDOGO 396 SCRA 31 TY V. PP 439 SCRA 220 URBANO V. PP 576 SCRA 826

G. Consummated/Frustrated/ Attempted Felonies PP V. LIZADA 396 SCRA 62 January 24, 2003

PP V. ANOD 597 SCRA 205 PP V. IGNAS 412 SCRA 311 PP V. MANGUERA 398 SCRA 618

BALEROS V. PP 483 SCRA 10 February 22, 2006 RIVERA V. PP 480 SCRA 188 January 25, 2006

PP V. ALFON 399 SCRA 64 PP V. TABARNERO 168169 PP V. BOKINGCO 187536

VALENZUEL V. PP 596 SCRA 1 August 14, 2009

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

Instigation v. Entrapment PP V. NAELGA 599 SCRA 477 Page 21

SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

J. Principals/Accomplices/Accessories PP V. OCO 412 SCRA 190 PCGG V. DESIERTO 397 SCRA 171 K. Extinction of Criminal Liability PP V. BAUTISTA 168641 BRILLANTE V. CA 440 SRA 541 PANGAN V. GALBALITE 449 SCRA 145 ABELLANA V. PEOPLE, et.al 174654 IV. THE RPC. BOOK TWO & RELATED SPECIAL PENAL LAWS A. Articles 114-123: Crimes against National Security and The Law of Nations Relate to: PD 532 Anti-Piracy & AntiHighway Robbery Act RA 6235 anti-Hijacking Law RA 9372 Human Security Act of 2007 B. Articles 124-133: Crimes against the Fundamental Law of the State C. Articles 134-159: Crimes Against Public Order Relate to: PD 1866 as amended by RA 8294 Illegal Possession of Firearms, Ammunitions & Explosives

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

Page 22