Criminal Law Reviewer Ateneo 2013
Short Description
For Criminal Law...
Description
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo statute itself. An administrative regulation implementing a penal statute
CRIM LAW REVIEW RECITS/LECTURE [Glenn Tuazon] – 2010, 1st sem
part of the legal system of the Philippines. But decisions of the SC
Justice Callejo RPC BOOK ONE
interpreting criminal statutes are not penal laws per se – they are merely
Preliminary
interpretative. If asked to enumerate at least two laws which show that the Phil. criminal law follows positivist theory, what laws are these? o ISL o Habitual delinquency law o People v. Ducusin 59 Phil. 109 – The ISL was approved to
All felonies in RPC are public wrongs, as distinguished from private wrongs, the latter of which is just a breach of duty or contract of two
has effect of penal law if it complies with the two requirements. Article 8 of NCC: judicial decisions interpreting the Constitution forms
private parties. Although the State has power to prosecute persons for private crimes,
uplift and improve human life. Not focused on the person as a criminal, but the law takes into account economic usefulness of
the law gives the victim the privilege of not instituting actions for private crimes: adultery, seduction, abduction, etc. There must be a complaint
that the State is concerned not just with protective social order
and humiliation. (Juan de Penas v. P; 16 SCRA 871) Under RA 8353, the marriage of the offender and the offended party will
against criminal acts, but also redeeming the individual for
crime. (Art. 344 of RPC) – it is now a crime against persons. There are no common law crimes in the Philippines, unlike England and the U.S. There are laws there which define crimes but do not provide
common law are not binding on the Philippines unless applicable to
are: RPC, SPL, municipal ordinances. What about administrative regulations. May these partake of nature of criminal law? YES. Requisites: 1) violation of admin regulation must be made a crime by the delegating statute. 2) Penalty for violation must be provided by the
stipulations. Health Care Inc. v. Secretary of Health – How does I law become, under the 1987 Consti? Either by transformation or incorporation. o Transformation – requires that the I-law be transformed into
sine lege. (People v. Cuna 12 Phil. 241 – doctrines derived from local conditions and not in conflict with local laws) Perez v. LPG Refillers Assoc. 492 SCRA 638 – sources of criminal law
social ends. Not just retribution, but reformation. Generality – Art 14 of the NCC. Penal laws apply to all those who live or sojourn in the Philippines, subject to international law or treaty
penalties. BUT in the Philippines, we follow nullum crime nulla poena
offended and excessiveness of deprivation of liberty. De Joya v. Jail warden 417 SCRA 636 – The SC emphasized
initiated by the offended party. Ratio: to protect the latter from shame
extinguish criminal liability of the accused. Rape is no longer a private
o
domestic law; ex. local legislation o Incorporation – international law is part of the law of the land. Immunities from criminal prosecution by certain individuals o VCDR – adopted by U.N. and the Philippines. o Who are the diplomats covered? Classified into four: o A) ambassadors, ambassadors extraordinary; B) ministers and papal internuncios C) ministers-residents, D) chargesde-affaires
1
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo o
Inviolable; not subject to local penal laws. Immune from arrest
o
EXCEPTION: service-connected offenses (provided in RA
o
and prosecution for violation for local laws. But may be temporarily restrained if they commit acts that
o
7055) – courts-martial Civilian court determines before arraignment when the crime is
o
service-connected Is it possible for a service oriented crime to be tried by civilian
threaten public order. State may simply request for recall of the diplomat – but will not be prosecuted locally. Patemi v. U.S. o
(C.A. 1963, District of Columbia) Minucher v. CA 397 SCRA 244 – The petitioner is a citizen of
courts? YES. The President, before arraignment, in the
Iran, but is also an honorary consul. He was caught in
as it is covered by the RPC or any other SPL. (Gonzales v.
interest of justice, may refer the crime to a civilian court as long
possession of drugs. HELD: A consul is not exempt from criminal prosecution for violation of the penal laws of a country
where he is assigned to. Not entitled to any immunity or diplomatic privileges under the VCDR. Nature of job of consuls, vice-consuls, or consuls-general are commercial in
courts, because the PNP is civilian in character. Are there instances where even if certain persons commit crimes, nevertheless, they may not be prosecuted? o Yes, if they enjoy immunity by law. o Tanchangco v. Sandiganbayan (476 SCRA 202), one may also
nature. Exception: when there is an agreement between the Phils. and the sending country. But the exemption is o
Abaya, 498 SCRA 445, Navales v. Abaya 441 SCRA 393) Members of PNP – RA 6975 o Which entity of the government has jurisdiction? Civilian
enjoy statutory immunity from criminal prosecution, where
not based on the nature of his position. Liang v. People 407 Phil. 414. The RP and ADB entered into
o
an agreement under which officers and staff members enjoy
any incident of vote buying or vote selling, and he testifies
immunity from legal processes and prosecution, with respect to
for prosecution: he is entitled to immunity, even if he took
acts performed in their official capacity, except when the bank waives the immunity. ADB officer committed grave oral
o
defamation – not immune. This is not covered by immunity
o
part in such crime. Sec 261 of OEC. P.D. 749 – immunity granted to those furnishing information re: violation of bribery, indirect bribery,
because he was not performing his duty. RA 7055 – Members of the AFP and officers charged with such crimes. o Who are officers and members of the AFP? Art 1: members of
granted by law – Transactional immunity Omnibus Election Code – one who reports to the COMELEC
corruption of public officers Art. 2 of RPC
AFP, those subject to military law, members of the Citizens
Territory of the Philippines – within Phil. archipelago, atmosphere,
Armed Forces Geographical Units Civilian courts have jurisdiction over crimes committed by
interior waters, maritime zone UNCLOS – territorial sea up until 12 n.m. o Contiguous zone: Sec. 33 – States may exercise control even
members of the AFP.
within this area to prevent and punish infringement of customs,
2
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo immigration, fiscal, sanitary laws within territory or territorial
o
seas People v. Cheng – English vessel in Phil. territory, not in transit.
Now: in the D.D.A., mere attempt to transport marijuana is a crime. Question: can Phil. officials board the vessel to
Accused was smoking opium on the ship. HELD: Convicted. Yes,
o
prosecute those on board? Relate this to UNCLOS – if a commercial vessel passes by the
followed the English rule, because he was smoking within Phil. territory.
territorial sea. General rule: the ship cannot be boarded. But
This had pernicious effect on Phil. territory (“disturbs the peace”). o Hypothetical question – if he does not smoke the opium or sell
the UNCLOS said that the criminal law of a State may not be enforced on board the vessel to prosecute individuals, except if
it, does it still disturb the peace? Take note, the SC itself said o
measures are necessary to suppress illegal traffic of narcotic
that there is no clear definition as to what “disturbs the peace.” SUGGESTED ANSWER: Now, in the D.D.A., mere attempt to
o
transport marijuana is a crime. Relate this to UNCLOS – if a commercial vessel passes by the territorial sea. General rule:
the ship cannot be boarded. But the UNCLOS said that the
o
drugs. Note: if mere passing through the territorial sea can lead to
boarding and prosecution, what more if docked? High seas – free for all. o Is it possible that a crime was committed beyond the territorial
criminal law of a State may not be enforced on board the
sea, but yet, when the vessel enters Phil. territorial sea, can it
vessel to prosecute individuals, except if measures are o
be prosecuted? Yes, if it is a continuing crime. Does the Philippines have ability to legislate on crimes applying
o
to the high seas? Yes, for instance, P.D. 532 – Piracy. People v. Tulin 416 Phil. 352 – Pirates wanted to unload the oil
necessary to suppress illegal traffic of narcotic drugs. Note: if mere passing through the territorial sea can lead to
boarding and prosecution, what more if the ship is docked? English – the territorial State has jurisdiction, except when it merely
concerns internal management of the vessel. French – the flag of registration has offense, as long as it does not
waters, went to Singapore, and unloaded the oil to another
disturb the peace. P v. Togoto – A person in the ship, in Vietnamese waters, got drunk and shot three people. He was not prosecuted in Vietnam. The SC held
if committed in Singapore, because the crime began in our
from a PNOC-owned vessel, boarded a ship within Phil. vessel in the high seas. HELD: Can prosecute for piracy even
that the Phils. may exercise jurisdiction. Although following the English rule, which we adhere to, it must be Vietnam that exercises jurisdiction,
since Vietnam did not exercise jurisdiction, there is nothing preventing
the Philippines from deviating from English rule. Philippine Maritime Authority handles registration. Question –
country. It continued to Singapore. Exceptions 2 and 3 to Art. 2: o 2. Forge or counterfeit any coin, currency, obligation, security issued by government of PI; 3. Introducing into the PI the
abovementioned o Rationale: protect economic security of the Philippines Last paragraph: o Crimes against the law of nations
3
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
People v. Lollo – they commit piracy outside the Philippines (high seas, Dutch East Indies, etc.)
o o
READ: People v. Achong. If there is mistake of fact, then there is no criminal intent. One
o
is not culpable for dolo. The one invoking it must act with good faith. If he acts with
o
negligence, he may be liable for felony by culpa. Not a valid defense for felony by culpa. Not a valid defense for
HELD: The Philippines can prosecute, because it is a o o
crime against the law of nations. Crimes against national security Dillars v. US (182 Fed. Rep.2d 962) – purpose of penal laws involving national security is to protect the domestic order and crimes against national and economic security of the
felony by SPL. In specific intent felonies, the prosecution must prove BRD the specific intent. But sometimes, specific intent may be presumed. o Ex. intent to kill must be proved. One can presume this, for
Philippines. The law is designed to protect not only the national and economic security of the country, and should
instance, from the mere fact that the victim died from a
reach beyond the boundaries of the Philippines, wherever they may be found.
o
deliberate act. Ex. intent to gain in theft. One is found in possession of
o
recently stolen property – there is a presumption. Criminal intent can be presumed from the commission of a
Article 3
In a felony by dolo, there must be a confluence of the act and omission punishable by law and mens rea (physical act + act of the mind) o Guevarra v. Judge 169 SCRA 476 – a felony by dolo is a
delictual act. Motive – not an essential element of crime. But there are instances where motive is a prerequisite to conviction of accused. o Political crimes – rebellion, coup d’etat. If the crime committed,
voluntary act. It is a free voluntary and intentional act; one acts
for instance murder, is in pursuance of political motive in
with intelligence is he has the capacity to distinguish right from
o
wrong, moral from not, licit from not For felonies by dolo, one is not criminally liable if there is no
o
criminal intent. Manuel v. People 476 SCRA 471 – There must be an evil act
or omission and the criminal intent combined May one be criminally liable for crimes of omission? o YES. Elements: a) prosecution must prove that the accused acted voluntarily to not do a positive duty, b) criminal intent in refusing to obey the mandate of the law, c) there must be a o
positive duty provided by law Examples: misprision of treason, prevaricacion (Art. 208 of
RPC), fraud on treasury Mistake of fact
o
rebellion or coup d’etat, it is absorbed by the crime. Death by exceptional circumstances – killed wife and paramour who were having sexual intercourse. Not criminally liable for homicide, if motive is to avenge dishonor. But if he killed the wife for some other motive, and not due to exceptional
circumstances. Is reckless imprudence under Art. 365 of RPC a felony under Art. 3? (It is a quasi-offense.) o YES. Rafael Reyes Trucking v. People 329 SCRA 600 – o
reckless imprudence is a felony under Art. 3 of the RPC. Mistake in identity of the victim – does this constitute reckless imprudence?
4
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
People v. Oanis – policemen were trying to arrest an escapee, and they saw a man sleeping. They thought the man was the escapee. HELD: The felony was
Malum in se/prohibitum
dolo, not culpa, because the killing was deliberate. Mistake in identity is not culpa. Failure to identify the victim was NOT the overt act o
incompatible with recklessness, negligence, or o
crimes constitutive of plunder are mala in se. Under the law, mitigating and extenuating circumstances are applicable to
but the shooting of the victim was the overt act. People v. Carmen – may there be a crime of reckless imprudence through frustrated homicide? No. Frustrated homicide requires intent to kill. This is imprudence. People v. Castillo 76 Phil. 72 – There is no reckless
imprudence resulting in frustrated homicide. Can there be conspiracy resulting from negligence? There can be no conspiracy resulting from
intention and not of negligence. (Art. 8 “there is an agreement to commit a crime, and they decide to commit it.”) Can more than one person be liable for killing the same person, one by dolo and one by culpa? YES. IT depends on
and wrong to tamper with election results. (under OMNIBUS
on B. C lighted a match and burned B. HELD: B who
deliberate act.
ELECTION CODE) Possession of unlicensed firearm. Transient possession in RA 8294 is not a crime. – It is malum prohibitum. There must be intent to possess,
after pouring gasoline, someone with light a match – lack of foresight. C is liable for felony by dolo –
community o Penalty – rp-death o If predicate crimes are mala in se o Mitigating/extenuating circumstances o If condemned by entireity of communty Sec. 27B of the Omnibus election code. A member of the BEI who
although the crime is defined by SPL. It is inherently immoral
carnival. B was mentally retarded. A poured gasoline
resulting in homicide. He should have anticipated that
congress may intend it to be so. WHAT TO LOOK AT: o Intention of congress o If act is inherently immoral / wrong if it is an outrage to the
tampers with election results. Is it malum prohibitum or malum in se? o Garcia v. CA 484 SCRA 617 – the crime is malum in se,
their delictual acts. People v. Pugay 167 SCRA 439 – 3 people went to
poured gasoline was liable for reckless imprudence
plunder. o (2) The predicate crimes are punishable by RP to death. o (3) Plunder is inherently immoral and wrong. How do you determine if an act is inherently evil? Is the intention of congress material in determining whether it is malum in se or mala prohibita? Yes. It may not be inherently immoral but
negligence, because conspiracy is the product of
o
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan 421 Phil. 290 o Plunder is malum in se, for three reasons: o (1) Although defined by SPL, it is malum in se because the
not mere possession (Fajardo v Ppl).Good faith is not a defense. Can the use of unlicensed firearm be an aggravating circumstances? Yes. RA 8294 provides that it is an aggravating circumstance.
5
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
If unlicensed firearm used to commit ANY other crime aside from homicide / murder it is NOT an aggravating circumstance! Violation of PD1612 – Anti Fencing law – malum prohibitum;
to the public forest and cut timber (this is a violation). They
Pamintuan v Ppl. Take note of decision in Dumalo v CA 260 SCRA
were convicted, on basis of conspiracy. The court ruled that
788: Fencing under PD1612 is SPL so intent to gain is not required. Violation of Trust Receipts law: malum prohibitum. BP 22: malum prohibitum. To be criminally liable, he MUST BE AWARE
they were guilty to conspire to violate the forestry code. Agree
o
were charged for violation of the law (malum prohibitum). They
with the SC decision? Can there be conspiracy to commit
that @ the time of issuance of check, he had insufficient funds in the
bank. Law requires a special knowledge. Can one be liable for both a felony and a SPL for one delictual act? o Yes. Issued a check for a transaction. Liable for BP 22 AND o
liable for estafa. Labor law: pretended to be a licensed recruiter. Liable for both
illegal recruitment and estafa. Can one be liable for crime defined by SPL, commits another felony, and
o
complex crime of carnapping with murder. (People v. Mejia
Article 4 – felonies and impossible crimes Par.1 – felonies
275 SCRA 127) May a felony by dolo or culpa absorb a crime which is malum
Person is liable for natural and logical consequences of his criminal act o Natural = occurrence in ordinary course of things; o Logical – there must be a reasonable connection between the act done and the consequence The act must be the proximate cause of the effect o Vda de Bataclan v. Medina – “The cause, which in its natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the
prohibitum? o Loney v. People 482 SCRA 194 – NO. A felony by dolo or
result would not occurred” And that cause may cause another thing to occur,
culpa cannot absorb a malum prohibitum crime. May a crime committed by culpa be a constituent crime of a special
o
complex crime? YES. People v Mangulabnan 99 PHIL 992 – went to victim’s house to rob him. Robbed the victim. As he left house ,he heard noise and fired gun… ther was a person and he died. Guilty of robbery w/ homicide? YES. Art 294: even if homicide was committed
accidentally, the crime is still robbery with homicide. Tigoy v. People 492 SCRA 539 – To be asked in exam o People v CA:
malum prohibitum?- exception. NO. The SC is wrong. Art. 8 – agree to commit a CRIME (felony). Thus, this does not apply to malum prohibitum.
is liable for a special complex crime? o Yes. The anti-carnapping law (RA 6539). If the offender kills the driver or occupant to take the car, he is guilty of special
Violation of forestry code of the Philippines. Two persons went
which produces the injury Quinto v. Andres – cause and effect relationship between act
of accused and effect is not affected by the ff conditions: A) pre-existing condition of the victim (pathological) B) Negligence of doctor C) Refusal to get medical help INTERVENING CAUSE – cause independent from act of offender; active force which causes damage or injury; may emanate from the victim himself or a person other than the offender (does NOT include the
6
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo incompetence of the doctor… but if doc was negligent, can he be
o
criminally liable for the death of the victim?-yes, 365 RPC) if the resulting wrongful act was different from the offender’s intention,
wounds on the victim, the negligence of the doctor is NOT an active intervening force that exculpates the accused. But there are times the doctors’ acts are exculpatory. Hopton v. ? – victim was brought to the hospital, but
he is liable for that resulting act o I saw a person I wanted to kill, but I hit the person behind him instead. Praeter intentionem – I am now liable for a complex
o
the doctor was so intoxicated, he gave the victim
crime of attempted homicide with homicide. But also aberration ictus – mistake in the blow People v. Buyco 80 Phil. 58 – Inserted vibrator in anal orifice
o
of victim. It was rusty so the victim died. Complex crime of sexual assault with homicide under o
poison instead of medicine. The doctor was liable. Quinto v. Andres – not the proximate cause if: A) there is an active force that intervened between the
RA 8353 People v. Magalone 406 SCRA 546 – Accused threw a
o
felony committed and the death of the victim, B) or if the resulting injury or damage is the intentional
act of the victim. Is it possible that two persons are liable for the death of the same person even if there is no conspiracy? Yes. Two persons went to a bar, did not know each
grenade at a person. It exploded and killed the target and
o
Even if the doctor is negligent, but the accused inflicted mortal
inflicted SPI on the accused person’s wife and the three
other, sat on different tables. They saw an annoying
children. Convicted for complex crime of murder and parricide. P v. Ofello 105 SCRA 4 – The accused robbed a store and to
person. One person stabbed him. The other, not knowing that the first one stabbed him too, stabbed
shut up the woman inside, he jammed a pan de sal in her mouth. She died by asphyxiation. Convicted of robbery with
o
him again. Both wounds were mortal. Both are liable for homicide. P v. De los Santos – If the crime committed by the accused is
homicide. Situation: the kidnap victim died from a heart attack due to fear.
reckless imprudence, it is generally under Art. 365. If through
o
reckless imprudence resulting to double homicide? May
o
The accused is liable for kidnapping with homicide. P v. Tulin – Accused robbed victim of belongings, the victim
such negligence, two people died. Can he be prosecuted for reckless imprudence result into a complex crime under Art. 48
ran away and jumped in the river. She drowned. Accused is o
of the RPC? – May be asked in the Bar YES, because reckless imprudence is a felony under
liable since he created a sense of fear in the mind of the victim. P v. Castromero – Accused wanted to rape the victim, and he
Art. 3 and Art. 48 talks about felonies as component
was armed with a knife. Victim jumped out the window. Liable o
for rape with homicide, or if she did not die, rape with SPI. P v. Quianson – Accused stabbed victim. Doctor put a drainage on the wound. The victim was in pain so he removed the drainage and he died. The accused is liable.
crimes. ROC: Rule 131, Sec 5(c) – recall and reconcile o A person is presumed to contemplate the ordinary consequences of his acts, and expect those
7
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
But intent is an internal act. How do you determine this? Through
time the petitioner stole the check, there were no
circumstances of the case. Par. (1) [all natural and logical consequences] does not apply to felonies
funds in the bank. But this about this: A) What about postdated
checks? B) Does not the check (paper) itself
by culpa, because par. 1 is specific: only to delitos. What will apply to culpable felonies? o Art. 365 of the RPC applies. Offender is liable for whatever
o
damage or injury caused by him. Par. 2 – impossible crimes
impossibility, one is not criminally liable. Here, still punishable because he has the subjective tendency to
Take note of both Intod and Jacinto cases Intod v. CA: Elements o 1) offender performed an act which would be an offense o o
against persons or property 2) offender performed the act with criminal intent 3) accomplishment of the act is inherently impossible or the
means employed were inadequate or ineffectual Impossibility may be: o 1) factual or physical impossibility The factual condition must be unknown to the offender NOTE: In the US, this is just an attempted felony. But
for us, it is a consummated impossible crime. Ex. offender accepted goods which he believed to
have been stolen, but which were not, in fact stolen Ex. offender offers a bribe to someone he believes is
a public officer, but is in fact not Ex. offender believed his gun was loaded, pointed it
as his wife, and pulled the trigger. But it was empty. Ex. Intod v. CA – fired guns into empty bedroom,
because the intended victim was out of town Ex. Jacinto v. P – Sales agent, instead of giving check to employer, gave it to relative. The check bounced. HELD: impossible crime, because at the
have some value? 2) legal impossibility Even when completed, would not amount to a crime Note: in the US, it is different. If there is legal
intend commission of the crime. Ex. Stole a watch that turned out to be his. Ex. Offender saw a naked woman lying on the beach. He inserted his penis into his vagina. It turned out she was dead. Impossible crime = you cannot rape a
dead person. (P v. Balmores) Justice Regalado: Under Art. 59 of the RPC, the imposable penalty for impossible crime is arresto mayor (correctional penalty). Supposing I saw a person on a bed, thought that he was my enemy, so I punched him. He sustained slight PI. But he turned out to be dead, so it was an impossible crime. o Under Art. 266(3) of the RPC the penalty is arresto menor for o
slight PI. ODD! If that person were alive, the penalty would be less than if he were dead!
Art. 5, par. 2
Article 5 does not apply to crimes defined by SPL, because of the use of
the words “degree of malice,” etc. This brings to mind B.P. 22, in relation to A.C. 12-2000, as clarified by A.C. 13-2001:
8
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
o
S.C. noticed that people are using the courts as collection
o
agencies and are clogging up dockets So S.C. issued a circular dissuading people from filing B.P. 22,
and for judges to just impose fines A.O. 08-2008, issued 25 Jan. 2008 o Libel – imposable penalty is imprisonment or fine o According to the S.C., preference is fine over imprisonment o Brillante v. CA 174 SCRA 480 o P v. Veneracion 249 SCRA 244 – remedy is executive
o
intended crime, as long as the intended crime is established or o
o
Art. 6 Felonies in book two of RPC are all consummated, except: o Attempted or frustrated robbery with homicide Why do we punish attempted stages? o Attempts are punished because there is just as much need to
o
need not be legal or moral; could be remorse or fear –
crime P v. Lizada 396 SCRA 94 – Read this case. Lizada went to the room of
o
a woman. He removed his pants and the woman’s underpants. He mounted her, but the brother of the woman arrived. Before he could do any more injury, he left. What crime did he commit? Attempted crime: - elements
1) Commenced execution “directly, by overt acts” o There must be an overt, external act o There is crime intended to be committed o There is direct connection to crime intended to be committed – immediate and necessary connection
yet Two phases: Subjective phase Objective phase Is he is still in the subjective phase and he desists from committing the crime, is he liable? NO. He is not liable. P v. Guevarra 155 SCRA 357 – reason for desisting
reform a person who has unsuccessful attempted to commit a
Still at the “subjective phase” of the commission of crime – still has full control of acts, and has not completed the needed acts
impose.
known P v. Lamaang Differs from preparatory acts – means or measures necessary
to produce the desired end. Ex. surveillance 2) But offender did not complete all acts of execution to produce the felony o
clemency, if the penalty is too excessive. But don’t refuse to
It can be the first of a series of acts that would produce the
as long as he desists voluntarily But may he be liable for any other felony already committed
apart from that desisted from? Yes. P v. Lozada 3) Not stopped by own spontaneous desistance 4) Due to cause or accident other than spontaneous desistance
Frustrated felony
All the acts of execution needed to produce the felony, but it was not
produced by reason of causes independent of the perpetrator’s will Odd: not enough to wound the other person. The wound inflicted must be mortal. If it is not mortal, then it is a mere attempt. (Lazaro v. P) o EVEN if one has lost all control of the act, it still results in attempted crime! 9
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
P v. Eduave, P v. Borinaga, P. v. Sy – abandoned cases o In Spain, one may be liable for frustrated crime even if the
P v. Salvilla 184 SCRA 671 –the SC declared that one is liable for consummated robbery if one takes possession of the personal property
wound was not mortal, as long as the offender believed that the
of the other, however brief it may be. P v. Valenzuela – no more frustrated theft, same rule: no need to have
o
wound could cause the death of the victim. May the subjective / objective phase in the commission of the
disposed of stolen property There is no attempted or frustrated crime of physical injuries. It is
o
crime be based on the belief of the offender? J. Regalado: The belief is NOT a test to determine whether the accused passed the subjective or objective phase. It is the
always consummated. There is no frustrated crime of adultery. It is consummated upon the
sexual intercourse between the spouse and paramour. There is no attempted or frustrated stage in a felony by omission. There is no attempted or frustrated falsification of public document
FACT that he did pass the objective / subjective phase! There was never any danger of the victim dying. He never sustained
any wound! P v. Tadeo, P v. Mohamad, Sarape v P - if the wounds are FATAL /
MORTAL then the crime is frustrated homicide / murder P v. Callalo – even if the accused believed that he inflicted a mortal wound, but he did not, it is merely attempted, not frustrated. The nature of the wound controls, not the belief of the person.
unless the falsification is so imperfect. Art. 9
How do you categorize reckless imprudence resulting into slight PI? o Riodica v CA 292 SCRA 87 – The crime of reckless imprudence is a light felony, under the last paragraph of Art. 9
Crimes where no frustrated stages exist:
P v. Sampior – no such thing as frustrated rape o As long as the penis enters the labia majora, it is already
of the RPC. Punishable only by public censure. Art. 10
o
consummated It is not the mere entry; the SC said that the entry must be in
Ladonga v. P 451 SCRA 673 – The SC applied Art. 8 (conspiracy) for
o
relation with the intent to have carnal knowledge of the woman P v. Campuhan: But if it is just in the mons pubis –just
violation of BP 22, a special penal law. When the penalty for a SPL follows the nomenclature of the RPC, the
RPC applies suppletorily, ex. mitigating. P v. Simon R.A. 9165, amended by 9344; Dangerous Drugs Act – “provisions of
attempted. “Bombardment of the drawbridge, even if the troops do not successfully enter the castle.” If no intent, just o
RPC shall not apply to violations of DDA, except in the case of minor
acts of lasciviousness. RA 8353 introduced the concept of sexual assault. Although there is no SC decision yet, it seems there is no frustrated sexual assault.
offenders” o Reclusion perpetua, not L.I. o Penalty may be reduced by 1 or 2 degrees under Art. 63 Anti-hazing law – One convicted under Sec. 4 is not entitled to mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed 10
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
o The law also enumerates who will be deemed principals, etc. Anti-terrorism law – conviction of a person under said law constitutes a
there is no such penalty in the RPC, it is simply a mode of incurring criminal liability. o Contrast: In the US, conspiracy is a substantive offense,
bar to the prosecution of that person under the RPC or another SPL for
the predicate crime R.A. 7610 – Child abuse law, Sec. 10 – Where the victim is under 12
and if the actual crime is committed, conspiracy still retains
years old, the penalty for murder, homicide, or intentional mutilation, or
commits two crimes; the conspiracy and the actual
SPI, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua R.A. 9262 VAWC law – if the offender commits act of physical violence
juridical personality as a felony. In effect, the accused
and there is intent to kill o Crime is NOT violation of physical violence provision under
offense. 3 kinds of conspiracy: o A) wheel conspiracy – there is one person (hub) and his underlings (stokes) Ex. Estrada v. Sandiganbayan – READ for the
VAWC but attempted, frustrated, or consummated parricide, homicide, or intentional mutilation Art. 8
o
Bar We have this. The others, not yet recognized. B) chain conspiracy – using legitimate enterprise to
o
distribute narcotics Ex. drugs C) enterprise conspiracy – Racketeer Influenced and
May conspiracy under article 8 be considered as a preparatory act under Article 6? o People v. Lizada – distinguished preparatory acts from o
attempts to commit a felony Conspiracy under article 8 is not a felony, because there is
Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Art. 157 – another kind of conspiracy and connivance o A convict or a person who escapes in connivance with another person. The conspiracy or connivance in
no penalty provided by law. o Article 8 is thus a mode of incurring criminal liability. Enumerate at least two felonies punished pursuant to Article 8
with Art. 223 of the RPC. The penalty is prision
as a felony per se? o Conspiracy to commit treason o Conspiracy to commit rebellion For the above acts, the mere conspiracy is punishable. But the moment they actually commit treason or rebellion, conspiracy loses
connection with the crime committed here is an essential condition for the commission of said crime, in connection correccional in maximum pd instead of medium and
its juridical personality and it becomes a mere mode to commit a
crime. (IMPT.) In the Philippines, conspiracy may be a substantive offense if the conspirators agree to commit a felony penalized under the RPC. If
maximum pd. P v. Pagalasan – requirements for conspiracy: o 1) singularity of intent o 2) unity in the execution of the unlawful objective P v. Castillo – there must be a criminal intent. Conspiracy is not a product of negligence, but intentionality.
11
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
Art. 8 does not apply to crimes defined in SPL, unless the SPL
o
provides that conspiracy to commit a crime under that law is a crime
conspirator killed the victim. HELD: All the conspirators
in itself. o Ex. RA 9165 (as amended) – DDA: Sec. 26, conspiracy to
are guilty of robbery with homicide. (P v. Alvarez) P v. Berceles 388 SCRA 515 – same principle applies to
commit any of those crimes enumerated in that section is a crime by itself. Ex. sale, importation, distribution and
o
CONSPIRACY to do such. Ex. RA 8484 (access device regulations) – Sec. 11:
prevented the others from committing the extra act of and not homicide and rape. It does not matter if he
o
Conspiracy to commit access devise fraud is a crime Ex. RA 9372 (anti-terrorism law) – conspiracy to commit
homicide or rape, then he is only liable for robbery only,
o
imprisonment What if there is no provision in SPL? Can Art. 8 still be a
and carnapped it after. Only he was liable for carnapping. o
persons who conspire to commit a crime of BP 22 are o
such act differs radically and substantively from that which
forestry code. SC applied Art 8 of the RPC. Is Art 4, par. 1 applicable to Article 8 of the RPC? o Each conspirator is responsible for everything done by his
o
event, unless in the meantime, they abandon the
the common design, as one of its probable and natural
o
consequences even though not intended as part of the
Punsalan did not run, and he was caught. Defense: he
consequences of their act, by engaging in conspiracy.
o
was not guilty of the crime, because he desisted when he did not run. HELD: The mere failure or refusal to flee after the commission of the crime does not amount to a disavowal of the conspiracy. There must be an overt act to disassociate himself from the conspiracy.
suffered a heart attack and died. Kidnapping with murder? HELD: Yes. Kidnapping with homicide.
conspiracy or the conspirators are arrested. P v. Punsalan 203 SCRA 264 – They agreed to commit robbery. One conspirator stabbed the victim; he ran.
original design. Conspirators are held to have intended the
of the conspiracy. Ex. Agreed to kidnap Julia at the point of a gun. She
they intended to commit. P v. Venicaryo 420 SCRA 280 – Conspiracy continues until the object is attained. Conspiracy is a continuing
confederates, which follow incidentally in the execution of
o
(I guess because they all dispersed na anyway) P v. Bisda 406 SCRA 454 – SC said the conspirators are necessarily liable for the acts of another conspirator unless
liable for such crime, applying Art. 8 of the RPC. Tigoy v. CA 492 SCRA 539 – Accused were guilty of
(IMPT) So, extends to collateral acts incident to and growing out
succeeds in preventing them of not. P v. Mapalit 444 SCRA 793 – One of the conspirators who committed robbery, after they all escaped, saw a car
mode to commit crime? o Andan v. P 484 SCRA 539 – SC held that 2 or more
robbery with rape. P v. De jesus 229 SCRA 384 – If one of the robbers
o
terrorism is a crime punishable with 40 years of
Ex. Agreed to rob the victim only. But he resisted and one
Art. 11
12
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
Is complete self-defense an absolutory cause? o Yes, because the accused is not deemed to have committed a crime. An absolutory cause means that the o
o
accused does not incur criminal liability. You are exercising a right, because you have the right to
honor? o Kira: “Maybe if you invoke defense of honor, you don’t have to prove the other requisites? But in self-defense,
criminally liable. When a person protects himself, he is NOT
to exercise self-defense. In today’s law, rape is a crime against persons. Can De la Cruz invoke, hypothetically, self-defense instead of defense of
protect your life or property or right. Absolutory cause – person does NOT commit a crime; he is not committing a crime. If one is being kidnapped and he kills the kidnapper. Self-
the three requisites apply?” Are the RPC provisions applicable to crimes against women and children? o YES. o Art. 9 – provisions of RPC are not applicable unless
defense? Doesn’t Art 1 apply only to crimes against persons? No. It also applies to crimes against liberty. If he is being
suppletory. RA 9262 – Art 47 provides that the RPC
kidnapped, he has right to prevent kidnapping by inflicting
reasonable injury on prospective kidnapper. Basis of self-defense w/ regard to classical theory? One has to
o
in right. Is Article 12 an absolutory cause as well? o No. There is a crime, although the person is exempt from o
liability. Basis here: the person is not acting with complete
under RA 9262. People v. Jaurige compared to People v. De la Cruz: BOTH cases involved defense of honor. o Jaurige: mere touching of thigh, in church, in daylight. She killed him with fan knife. No self-defense appreciated. The means used were not reasonable.
for slight PI) How is unlawful aggression defined? o Actual peril to one’s life, or if merely a threat it must be real and imminent. In P v. Sabio – slapping. Was there danger to life and limb? Why is this unlawful aggression? o It is unlawful aggression against his honor. The face of a
intelligence. There is no mens rea. People v. Genosa – the woman was suffering from BWS, but why did the SC affirm the conviction? – for exam o Because Genosa used self-defense theory. o She should have invoked the battered woman syndrome
provisions are suppletory. The VAWC law uses RPC terms for penalties (prision mayor for SPI, prision correccional for LSPI, arresto mayor
be pushed against the wall. Positivist theory? Stand ground when
De la Cruz: groped in dark alley. Killed with knife. Allowed
person is akin to his dignity, honor, etc. o SC relied on decisions of SC of Spain. o But means used must be reasonable. Retaliation – different from unlawful aggression because in retaliation, unlawful aggression has already ceased yet person still
attacks EXCEPTION to rule that there must be unlawful aggression – if it is
has ceased and yet there is an P v. So –
13
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
Under the rules on arraignment, if accused enters plea of ‘not guilty’
o
and interposes self-defense, is there admission? HE admits killing, but prosecution must still prove guilty of accused beyond
reasonable doubt. But by invoking self-defense, accused must prove complete / incomplete self-defense. There is a dif between burden of proof and burden of evidence. If he proves complete self-
When they agreed to fight, but one attacked ahead of time.
(Justo v CA) What is the extent of defense of property rights? o See People v. Narvaez. o People v. Narvaez: 5 brothers were fencing on property of accused. They were not armed. Accused was asleep, woke
defense, acquitted. IF he fails to prove self-defense, he may be entitled to incomplete self-defense / privileged mitigating
circumstances, penalty of w/c provided in Art 69. Bitala v CA - No evidence that victim is unlawful aggressor –
presumption that U.A. is reciprocal on part of victim and accused. Spouse caught her husband having sex w/ another person –
attack on the person in possession of
Will you invoke art 11 par1 or Art 247? Better to invoke Art 11 since
o
there’s no criminal liability; Art 247 –liability for destierro; however offended party’s spouse. What if it was the brother-in-law who discovered the wife
o
reasonable. Is Art. 247 an absolutory cause? o Yes. Because the only imposed “penalty” is destierro. o
up. Gonzales went out. When he got back, he heard rustling leaves. He saw the paramour and the wife, who was putting on her
And that this is more of protection for the one who killed. P v. Rabandaban: Caught wife in sexual congress.
panties. He stabbed his wife. HELD: You cannot invoke 247 because at that time, she was already putting on her panties, not in actual sexual intercourse. o Dissent: follow this – you are unfairly punishing him, if we
jewelry. She then wanted to kill him, so he took the knife
and kill his wife. o So here, it was Art. 11 (SD), not 247 that applied. If two people agree to fight, is there SD? o No. because there is an agreement. There is no unlawful aggression. What is the exception?
importance to society than the protection of property. People v. Gonzales – the accused arrived and saw his wife in the act of sexual intercourse. The paramour ran and the wife dressed
“Honey, please leave the house.” The wife took all the
does not seem to involve the taking of human life. State v. Green 210 S.E. 145 – State SC of So. Carolina – the preservation of human life and limb is of more
having sex and killed the other person? Can’t invoke 247; only husband or parent can invoke this. Can’t invoke Art 11 cos not
property as well, and not just the property This was followed in P v. Ignacio. May use such force as reasonably necessary to prevent or repel the unlawful physical invasion of his property. This
this is not really a penalty but merely for the protection of the
up and shot them. SC said that the retaliation was disproportionate Dissent: follow this – said that there must be an
strictly apply the law. But what can you deduce from the fact that she was wearing her panties from a naked state. It is asking too much to actually catch them in the act of
actual sexual congress. Self-defense is an act to save life; thus, it is an act, not a crime.
14
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
Not anymore “retreat to the wall”; now “stand your ground when in the right.” Includes: o Defense of body and limb o Rights as person, including honor o Property and liberty Aside from the right to life and property is the right to honor. If the accused in arraignment pleads self-defense, is he
o
making a judicial confession? o It is NOT a judicial confession, but just a judicial admission. He does not admit penal liability. He is merely
is sufficient to incite the person to attack. Callejo’s usual question – study o When can you invoke Art. 11? o When can you invoke Art. 247? o Can you invoke both at the same time? Suggestion: Husband also has right to invoke his honor and defend it, so Art. 11 can be invoked by the one discovering the sexual
defense, is the burden of proof shifted to accused? o No. The burden of proof never shifts; only the burden of
because the latter results in destierro. It is not a penalty, but a
evidence shifts. Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non to complete self-
defense. o Complete SD: all three elements are present. o Incomplete: mitigating circumstance P v. Dela Cruz – aggression includes actual physical assault, or if
merely a threat, if the threat to life is real and imminent P v. Catbagon 423 SCRA 535 – The unlawful aggression must be
congress. He can also invoke 247, obviously. Prefer 11 over 247,
limitation of his liberty. Can you invoke Art. 247 if there is mistake of fact? Ex. misled
by movement of buttocks, pero wala pala sa loob. o Apply by analogy P v. Achong Only the offended spouse Art. 11 may include libel as unlawful aggression (P v. Hiung) – may commit libel to fight against libel. Justice Callejo doesn’t agree
continuous because if at some point in time, it ceases, the offender can no longer invoke self defense. The aggression must continue up to the point where the aggressor is killed. Unlawful aggression is different from retaliation. P v Adlawan 375 SCRA 388 P v. Anibong 403 SCRA 92 – SD proceeds from necessity and is limited by that necessity. The right
reached the place, one attacked. Reasonableness has no formula. It is case-by-case. When is provocation sufficient? o Oriente v. P 513 SCRA 348 – provocation is sufficient if it
admitted that he killed the victim. If the accused admitted killing the victim and pleads self-
Exception: Justo v. CA – agreed to fight but before they
begins where necessity exists, and ends when necessity ends. P v. 33 SCRA 226 – if there is an agreement to fight, no SD because no unlawful aggression.
with this. Par. 4: Know these two cases o P v. Ty o P v. Retubado
RA 8294 – special aggravating circumstance (use of unlicensed firearm)
Art. 14(12) – use of explosives is a qualified circumstance: What about RA 8294? Is it a qualifying circumstance?
Defenses
15
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
self-defense? (P. v. Genosa) o Because the threat to the woman’s life has already
or homicide (if common law spouse); can be attempted, frustrated
What was the reason why the SC did not uphold her claim of
ceased. There was no more unlawful aggression. Did the SC appreciate any mitigating circumstances in
or consummated In People v. Retubado, what is the defense? o State of necessity – Art. 11(4). o But the defense does not apply because there can be no State of necessity when there is provocation by the party
Genosa? o 1) passion and obfuscation o 2) diminished will power Why wasn’t BWS appreciated? o Because there was no RA 9262 then, during Genosa
o
(2004). May men be the victim of BWS? Yes, in the US, men may be
subject. Chester v Georgia. There is now move in US to change
BWS to “Battering and its effects” under DOJ in the US. What does section 26 of RA 9262 say? o Incur NEITHER criminal nor civil liability. Smith v State, etc. – Proof of the woman suffering from BWS is merely a basis for self-defense claim. It is NOT a defense separate from self-defense. Her mindset is she will be beaten up again, even
if she won’t. It is a “disease of the mind.” In the woman’s head, her husband is “omnipotent” – he’s always out to kill her. What are the characteristics of the BWS? o (1) The woman believes the violence was her fault o (2) inability to place responsibility for the violence o o
elsewhere (3) fears for her and her children’s lives (4) irrational belief that offender is omnipresent and
omniscient Therefore, defense under Sec. 26 of RA 9262 is separate from, and
independent from self-defense. IF woman sustains injuries under BWS, what crimes would offender be liable for? IF there is intent to kill, parricide (if married)
invoking the same. Requisites: 1) The evil sought to be avoided actually exists 2) Injury feared is greater than that done to avoid
o
it 3) there is no other practical and less harmful
means of preventing it Injury contemplated in Art 11(4) – broad. Can include
liberty, property, etc. Is there such a thing as accidental self-defense? o No. o Self-defense has intent; accident has no intent.
Estate of Gonzales v. P case – The death of the relative does not sever the vinculum that produces the relationship by affinity. The continuing affinity has been applied to the interpretation of criminal law. All doubts should be resolved in favor of the continutation of affinity. Applies not only to Art 11 par 2 but also Art 13 par 5 of RPC. Rationale for defense of relatives as a justifying circumstance? Rush of blood Driving car; ravine on left, so I swerved to right and ended up hitting other person. Justified? Yes. Avoidance of greater injury, state of necessity. HOWEVER, driving car recklessly; swerved to the side and killed mother-inlaw. Am I criminally liable? Yes. NOT state of necessity. It was deliberate. I am criminally liable for the consequences of my intentional act.
16
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo If one acts under a state of necessity, is there criminal intent? No. He does
o
not commit crime. But is there civil liability? YES. The one benefited will shoulder civil liability. P v. Norma Hernandez – Woman was supposed to be married to a man she
evil. Evil must IN FACT exist.
Lawful exercise of right or duty (Art 11(5))
Minority
What if child has reached 18, what can the court do? o Discharge child o Order execution o Extend suspended sentence until he reaches 21 yrs old Suspension of conviction – does it matter whether the minor
we should not distinguish. If he has reached 21, must court promulgate judgment of
right o [P v. Pule] Calderon: The judgment and discretion of public officers in the oppressively but within reasonable limits. In the absence of a clear legal provision, they must act in conformity with exercise of sound
discretion. P v. Pule: Victim was a deranged man, who fell on the ground,
conviction? May be sent to an agricultural camp, training facilities
helpless and mortally wounded by policemen. The policeman shot
maintained by BUCOR (People v Sarcia) Art. 13(2) and Art. 68 (privileged mitigating circumstance):
the person further on the forehead. SC HELD: there was no more
were these amended by law? o Yes. Because RA 9344 changed the provisions on
need, since the person is already prostrate Cabanlig v. Sandiganbayan: Police can use force to prevent
criminal responsibility of minors. Age 15 and below = age of absolute irresponsibility Age over 15 and under 18 – only where there is
escape, to protect himself from bodily harm, etc. May a policeman invoke SD and performance of duty at the
o o
Requisites: o 1) Must acted out of duty or office o 2) Injury caused is consequence of perform of that duty or
performance of duties must be exercised neither capriciously nor
committed a heinous crime? No. The law does not distinguish so
treatment program. When there is doubt if the person is a minor or not, what is the appropriate proceeding? o File for summary proceeding in Family Court.
did not love. Instead of going on with the marriage, she fled. Groom was left waiting for her. She was charged of slander by deed… avoidance of greater
These persons would undergo appropriate counseling and
same time? o
Yes. Cabalig v. Sandiganbayan, suppose the
discernment Under 9344, the minor is still exempt from specific offenses
policeman during patrol sees one person about to
even if he or she acted with discernment? o Yes. Art. 58: Vagrancy Prostitution Mendicancy
offender pointed the gun at the policeman, and
shoot another and gave a warning, then the the policeman shot the offender. The policeman was both defending himself and performing his
17
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo duty, in preventing the offender from shooting the
other person. Superior order o Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan 268 SCRA 332 – Tabuena was with NAIA and Marcos ordered him to disburse money.
May the presumption still apply even if the allegation was reckless imprudence (resulting in homicide or damage to
Tabuena knew that the order was illegal. The SC
property) under Art. 365? o Yes. Jarco Marketing case. What is the definition of discernment? o Guevarra v. Judge: When he is able to distinguish
acquitted him since Tabuena claimed that there was a o
mistake of fact – he didn’t know the order of Marcos was
preceding crime, and nature of weapon is evidence of
illegal. [Problematic: should have applied ignorantia legis neminem excusat]
Exempting circumstances
RA 9344 o 15 and under – exempt o Over 15 to under 18 – exempt unless acted with o
discernment Took effect 20 May 2006, and applied retroactively to those minors convicted; ordered released and cases were
dismissed to undergo diversion program Insanity v. Imbecility – just read the book’s treatment on this Ortega v P (20 Aug 2008): Cases of children 15 and below shall immediately be dismissed and the child shall be referred to diversion program provided for by law. Presumption: minor acted
without discernment. What if the minor was alleged as a co-conspirator? o Yes, the presumption of acting without discernment still o
applies. P v. Estepano 267 SCRA 701 – Evidence of conspiracy
whether his act is moral or licit or not. Jose v. P: The utterances of a minor and overt acts
discernment. Pomoy v. P: Art. 12(4) – What are requirements? o 1) performing lawful act with due care o 2) causes injury to another o 3) without intent or negligence What if there is negligence? o Art. 365 comes into play. o Jarco Marketing v. CA: Distinguished between accident o
and negligence, which are mutually exclusive. Accident is an unforeseen event in which no fault or
o
negligence attaches to the defendant. Negligence is the omission to do something w/c a
reasonable man would do. What is the difference between accident and negligence? o Accident – without fault of the human being. Cannot be o
anticipated. Negligence – when there is some degree of fault in the
person Ppl v Bandia- Woman was so dizzy. She delivered in thicket. She should not be liable cos she was so dizzy at that time.
does not automatically mean the minor acted with discernment in the commission of the crime. Mitigating circumstances
18
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo o Ordinary mitigating
privileged mitigating
Can be offset by generic aggravating
Cannot be offset by aggravating
OTHER MITIGATING: 1.
Returning a person detained
2.
Pregnant woman – abortion to conceal dishonor
If accused is habitual delinquent, no mitigating circumstances will be
rape. He was already 83 years old. His defense was erectile dysfunction. He was convicted, but the SC applied the old age as a mitigating circumstance. So far, this is the only case where this case was applied. Art 13(3)
Galakgak) Applies only to intentional felonies resulting in physical
municipal treasurer, and the audit team discovered he was short P72,000 of funds. After a few months, he returned
Lakanilaw v CA (TAKE NOTE!) June 27, 1988 – Even if there are only 2
the money he “borrowed.” SC: entitled to two mitigating
essential elements for a justifying or exempting circumstance, the same is
circumstances – voluntary surrender (by analogy – Art.
nevertheless considered a priv ileged mitigating circumstance w/c should
13(10)) and lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as
result in the reduction of the penalty to the appropriate degree.
Art. 68(2). NOTE: Under Art. 365, the court will not consider Art. 13 and 14 in
imposing the penalty. Because this crime is NOT intentional. If the criminal is 80 years, is there a mitigating circumstance?
other circumstances. Oriente v. P: Used lead pipe to hit victim on the eyebrow, victim died. SC refused to apply the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. o Also applied the presumption that a person intends all the
STILL entitled to privileged mitigating circumstance under
that committed. How do you determine lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong? Look @ type of weapon used, manner of use, injury, and
reduced by 1 DEGREE. RA 9344 did NOT repeal Art. 68. It merely amended it. o Minor over 15 and under 18, acting with discernment –
injuries to the victim. Can lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed be invoked in malversation? o Perez v. P: 544 SCRA 532 – YES. The petitioner was a
Criminal negligence under 365 – specifically provided that
RA 8049 – lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as committed CANNOT be invoked by accused in hazing incidents. (Ppl v
considerd.
NOW, par 2 art 68 applies – if minor acted w/ discernment, penalty wil be
P v. Austria 27 June 2000 – the accused was charged with
natural and logical consequences of his acts. P v. Pugay: (Gasoline burning case) SC also applied Art. 13(3), because the intent was less than the material act committed. Person who poured the gas was entitled to praeter intentionem.
19
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
NOTE: Praeter intentionem will not apply to culpable felonies but to
intentional felonies. What if two persons conspire to commit a felony, and one
o
him; must be : 1) sufficient (enough to excite a man to commit a wrongful act) ; 2) immediate to commission of
intended to commit the grave wrong as that committed, while the other did not? o P v. Espejo: The conspirator who did not intend to commit
o
o
invoke SD under Art. 11; however, the same act may still be invoked by the offender as sufficient provocation on the part of the victim.
grave a wrong as that committed refers to the state of mind
convicted of parricide. He invoked praeter intentionem. Can he?
Here, the deceased struck the petitioner w/ a bolo and fled. When
of the person. They may coexist. Ppl v Ulep – Ulep was so drunk, he elbowed his wife. 4 ribs were broken. Wife died because of her broken ribs. Accused was
he struck, that was unlawful aggression but he already fled. BUT
hacking can be considered sufficient provocation! If provocation and passion/obfuscation are based on the same facts – is the accused entitled to two separate mitigating
Yes. Ppl v Tomotorgo – wife of accused wanted to sell house; husband
circumstances or only one? o No. The accused is only entitled to only one mitigating
refused. Wife left house with their infant child. Accused overtook and pleaded for her to return with the child. He refused. Accused
latter killing the former. Gotis v. P 533 SCRA 441 (READ!!!): Even if the act of the victim may not constitute unlawful aggression to enable the accused to
used to kill the victim, while lack of intent to commit so
circumstances P v. Labeo: mere fact that the offended party merely shouted at the accused and asked the latter to leave is NOT proportionate to the
wrong as that committed, then both CAN invoke the mitigating circumstance. Can both treachery and Art 13(3) be invoked together? o P v. Flores: Treachery refers to the manner or method
crime; 3) must originate from offended party May there be interval of time from provocation to commission of delict? How long? Depends on
so grave a wrong as that committed CANNOT invoke the mitigating circumstance. BUT if both of them did not intend to commit so grave a
Provocation – act capable of inciting accused / irritating
circumstance, because both are based on the same facts. Telonia v. P (521 SCRA 207): deceased was invited by accused to
got piece of wood and hit her. She suffered fraction on one of her
a dinner. Deceased said ‘andito ako para hindi makisalo pero para
ribs. She died despite effort of doctor. Praeter intentionem? Yes.
pumatay…”. The accused got mad and shot the deceased. The
Was only triggered by quarrel.
accused was entitled to acting in immediate vindication of grave offense and sufficient provocation based on same facts. Was likewise only entitled to one mitigating circumstance still both arose
Art 13(4) – sufficient provocation
Licayo v. P, and Oriente v. P: defined sufficient provocation Oriente v “P: Requirements of sufficient provocation:
from the same factual setting. P v. Arquiza: Provocation need not be in words, but can also be in action. In this case, without speaking a word, the victim entered the accused person’s property and started gathering crops. Owner
20
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo shot him. SC HELD: this constituted sufficient provocation; however this cannot be considered unlawful aggression under self-defense because shooting was unreasonable. Art 13(5) – vindication of grave offense
“Grave offense” in this provision is different from grave offense under Art. 9. Grave offense under this provision might not even be
a felony at all. It usually is an assault to honor. W/N the assault is grave or not depends on factors such as: o Social standing of parties o Place and time and occasion when offense committed Grave offense even includes an insult o Ppl v Rosel: “You are living at the expense of your wife!” – appreciated as grave offense Bacabac v. P: Offended party hit the accused with a bamboo stick,
REQMENTS: 1. Unlawful act sufficient to produce emotional state 2. Not far removed from commission of crime What is the basis for determining lapse of time? There is no sure formula as to how much time shall have elapsed. It’s more a question of EFFECT. Is the effect still there?
P v. Ventura: Although passion and obfuscation may arise from jealousy, since there was a lapse of 1 week, accused was expected
to recover his equanimity. Passion and obfuscation must not be based on an illegitimate relationship Must come from lawful sentiment, not lawlessness and revenge Bello: EXCEPTION o He lived with common law wife for 10 years. Bello
and the accused killed the offended party. SC HELD: Hitting with a
supported her for 10 years. After, the common law wife
bamboo stick is NOT a grave offense. P v. Ignas 412 SCRA 311: The world “immediate” here is not a
wanted out, and wanted to live with another man. Bello
correct translation of the word proxima in the Spanish Penal Code.
HELD: Passion and obfuscation. Although the relationship
There can be no immediate vindication of an offense when the
was illegitimate, nevertheless, the victim was ungrateful
accused had enough time to recover his serenity. How sufficient is sufficient time? o If there was only a gap of 30 mins, still ok. o P v. Palabrica: ½ hour is ok. BUT 1 day lapse is NOT ok. o P v. Ignas: only said “hours” – still ok. P v. Diokno: 63 Phil. 601 – Diokno had a son who eloped the
killed her. “Eh wala ka namang ibubuga talaga eh.” SC
ONE mitigating circumstance may be appreciated. o EX: P. Diokno – passion and obfuscation- refusal to face
daughter. At that time, it was really deemed a dishonor. The father looked for his daughter for three days. The act of elopement was deemed continuous, and the effect was still there. o NOTE: but now, this is pretty ordinary already. So this case may be archaic already.
and had the gall to bitch about it. o Purpose was still legitimate / for the good of the deceased Felonia v. P: Vindication and passion based on the same facts: only
father and brother, o Vindication- elopement o Vvoluntary surrender P v. Pansensoy: Treachery CANNOT co-exist with passion and obfuscation. When a person acts with passion or obfuscation, he loses his reason and self-control, which is inconsistent with
Art 13(6) – Passion and obfuscation 21
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo treachery, because one who acts with treachery presupposes that
he adopted a mode of attack of killing the victim. Art 13(7) – voluntary surrender Navalos v. P: Before being charged of malversation, the accused
Accused feeble-minded. May she be liable for crime? Feeblemindedness not exempting, but MAY be mitigating.
Art 13(10)
P v. Genosa: (BWS case) SC applied par. 10. SC appreciated: mitigated mental capacity Do we still apply mitigating if that crime were committed today? No
surrendered” – analogous. o The return of the money must be spontaneous. WHO ARE PERSONS IN AUTHORITY? Those under government
acquitted. Pendency of warrant of arrest = not voluntary surrender!; there has
code; tasked to execute laws (police, bgy chairman) Committed 2 crimes – killed 2 persons and surrendered to police. Mitigating for only one or 2 crimes? For both; fact that he went to
to be no warrant. Perez v People – accused was charged of malversation; returned
returned the amount, he was deemed to have “voluntarily
because BWS would be justifying already; accused would be
police to prevent arrest is enough to mitigate. Just read the book discussion.
Plea of guilty Info alleged murder; but accused pleaded to homicide. Plea of guilty?
the money before criminal act was filed… may it be considered
voluntary surrender? People v Salazar – accused charge of murder; ran amuck.. is
running amuck mitigating? No. amuck not a mental state of mind. Ppl v Ang – Illiteracy alone will not be mitigating. There must be illiteracy + lack of sufficient intelligence!
Rules of crim pro – if prosecutor and accused agree to accused pleading to a lesser offense, is there a need to amend information? No more need. If accused is arraigned, admits crime but interposed self-defense. Plea
Miscellaneous
of guilty? No. Conditional admission of guilt / conditional plea. People v Magallanes - Accused charged of murder; pleaded to homicide bec crime was not committed under Art 248 circumstances. Prosecutor
Mistake in identity nor error in personae: NEITHER exempting nor mitigating o P v. Hilario Abberatio ictus – NEITHER exempting nor mitigating as well o P v. Genoya, Reyes v Ppl
refused to agree to the plea, presented evidence but FAILED to prove any circumstance. Accused was proved to be right. Mitigating? Yes!! Accused was correct. Art 13 (9)
Aggravating circumstances 22
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo KINDS of AC – see Boado pp. 146-147
Art. 266-B [RA 8353] – law provides for special aggravating
circumstances If the A.C. is inherent in the felony, it wont be considered as an AC.
Art 13 and 14 = applicable to Art 365 (criminal negligence)? No. Presence /absence of generic mitigating is immaterial. Penalty will depend on court.
In the crime of falsification of document by public authority, then “abuse of public position” is deemed inherent. o Also for malversation and other crimes committed by o
public officers. P v. Padilla – For this to be aggravating, the public officer must use the influence or prestige of his office to commit
the crime. Aggravating and mitigating applicable to special penal laws? IT depends. If SPL provides penalty following nomenclature of RPC,
Art 14(1)
Does not apply if the public position is a constituent element of the
crime. I.E. crimes committed by public officers. P v. Teves: Inherent in the crime of falsification by a public officer of
a public document P v. Hipol: The malversed amount was so huge, that the Sol. Gen said that the crime was already economic sabotage and must be
then Art 13 and 14 will apply. BUT if penalty does NOT follow
considered an aggravating circumstance. SC: There is no such
nomenclature, then Art 13 and 14 inapplicable (ex. 1 yr as minimum
etc) See Art 62 – special aggravating circ, cannot be offset by mitigating Art 63 – imposable penalty = RP to death lesser penalty will be imposed if there is a generic mitigating and no aggravating circ; IF there is a generic agg and NO mitigating, DP will be imposed
(amended by RA 9346 – DP cannot be imposed) Penalty for complex crime – penalty for more serious offense to be
imposed in maximum period A qualifying circ may NOT change nature of crime but require
aggravating circumstance as economic sabotage. No matter how
huge the amount is, it is not aggravating. If the public officer could have committed the crime without the use
of public position, it is not aggravating. P v. Tabeon 182 Phil. 131 – If the accused who was issued a gun by the government by virtue of his position uses that gun to commit homicide, the use of that gun is an aggravating circumstance. He could not have used that gun unless he was a public officer. o But see P v. Villamor: Where Villamor used a gun officially issued to him by virtue of office – use of that gun was not
increase of penalty by 1 or 2 DEGREES (ex. prision mayor – has 3
an abuse of public position. This is contrary to the Tabeon
periods [max,med,min]= this is one degree; prision correccional – max,med,min = another degree; lower than PM) o See ART 267 – kidnapping penalty: RP to death; if
o
there is a qualifying circumstance (victim of kidnapping killed, tortured, raped = penalty is death)
ruling. Sir thinks it’s aggravating. But when you take the bar,
the later decision is Villamor. o Fortuna v. P 401 Phil. 545: “Beautiful case” Fortuna and copolicemen were in the police car. They saw a person and his sister
23
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo walking on the street. They stopped and ordered the siblings to
enter the car. Police guy: “ganda ng relo mo ha! Ninakaw mo yan
authority under the LGC. The barangay captain was playing cards
no!” The police guy stole the watch and wallet of the girl. He also
with some people. Accused shot b. captain. Does this provision
accused the girl of stealing the money. The policeman driving did
apply? SC HELD: No. Two reasons: a) the person in authority
not say anything. They let the brother and sister go. BOTH were
must NOT be the victim per se; b) he was not performing his duty at
liable for robbery. Did the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position apply even to the driver of the
that time. He was playing cards. P v. Siojo: If the crime was only committed in the presence of an
car? o
agent of a person in authority, this provision does not apply. P v. Magbueno: If in the presence of a policeman, not aggravating
because the policeman is only an agent of a person in authority. Supposing a crime is committed in the presence of a professor
Yes. He could have prevented the other policeman from robbing the siblings. But he did not. This was abuse of
o
P v. De Mesa; [take note] A barangay captain is a person in
public position. (GR: One cannot be held liable for keeping silent; but this
while the latter was performing his duty? o P. v. Tacan: Student boxed classmate in front of teacher.
case was an exception—he was a policeman) Is this a generic or special aggravating circumstance?? o RA 7659 Sec 23 – the use of one’s public position in the
This is not aggravated. A teacher or professor is only a person in authority under Art. 148 and 152 of the RPC. (only when he is performing his duty; he is assaulted at the
commission of a crime is a SPECIAL aggravating o
circumstance. This, thus, cannot be offset by generic mitigating
circumstances. Art 14(2) – with contempt of or in insult of public authority
P v. Padro: requirements: o 1) crime committed o 2) person in authority engaged in exercise of public o o
o
aggravating) “PUBLIC AUTHORITY” – refers to persons in authority;
for the purpose of enforcement of the DDA. If you smoke marijuana in the presence of a professor, the
professor is a person in authority. In the national penitentiary, sometimes the inmates feel bored and kill each other. Is this aggravating? o P v. Mendoza: Where the inmates killed another in the
position 3) offender knew person in authority 4) victim is NOT a person in authority (otherwise, crime would be direct assault and this would no longer be
time of performance of his duties) Is there an exception? o RA 9165 – a teacher or professor is a person in authority
National Penitentiary, this was in contempt of public authority. Art. 14(3a) – insult to age, rank, sex, etc.
Inherent in the crime of direct assault (ppl v benito)
NOT to their agents (so policeman not covered)
24
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
Spanish penal code: can be considered separately, BUT as a GR:
it should only be considered one based on same set of fact P v. Samudio 406 Phil 318: The accused was conversing with the barangay captain and the former killed the latter. May the A.C. of
be absorbed by treachery. Treachery pertains to manner of
old. The SC appreciated the A.C. of age of victim in convicting the
a rank, such as barangay captain does not necessarily mean it’s
accused of murder. ALSO, treachery, since the child cannot defend
intended to disregard or insult or threaten to insult the rank of the victim. “Sex” – female The A.C. of “sex” is not applicable: o if the accused acted with passion or obfuscation, o when there is an amorous relationship between the o o
accused and the victim, when there is a relationship of employer-employee, when the sex of the victim is inherent in the crime (ex.
parricide = wife, rape = if woman raped), P v. Reyes: Key: there must be deliberate intent to insult or show
treachery. HELD: A.C. of age of victim DOES NOT apply. This is
absorbed by treachery. Sir does not agree with this case. o But Malolot should prevail, being the later case. AGE - There must be a disparity of age between accused and
victim There must evidence that accused took advantage of RANK, AGE, SEX
Art 14(3b) – dwelling -
victim is a female or has a rank, this A.C. applies. P v. Nerio: 20-year-old man raped an 80-year-old woman. The victim was the teacher of the accused in grade 1. Key fact: victim was already retired! HELD: Fact that the offended party was
P v. Sapinoso – Victim was stay-in laundrywoman, but it was not her house (obviously). The killer was the houseboy, who also lived there. Laundrywoman had her own room. SC HELD: although the
former teacher in grade 1. Court considered aggravating
offender and offended lived in the same house, the crime is
circumstances separately. GR: considered as one EXCEPT if there
Can be inherent : ie. Trespass, robbery w/ force and intimidation
already retired did not diminished the respect due her rank as
are factual differences Not aggravating in crimes against property. Ex: o Robbery o Robbery with homicide – since here, the homicide was
himself. P v. Malolot 548 SCRA 676: Accused hacked to death an 11 month old child. The TC convicted the accused of murder, qualified by
manifest disregard for the age, rank, sex. Not merely because the
commission. A.C. of age, rank, sex, refers to relationship. P v. Lora: The accused, housemaid, murdered a child 3 ½ months
“rank” apply? HELD: No. Mere fact that victim was a person with aggravating, absent evidence that the killing was deliberately
P v. Lopez: The aggravating circumstances of age and sex cannot
aggravated by dwelling, because the room was deemed a dwelling,
notwithstanding being in the same house. P v. Santiago – Accused and victim live in the same house but that house is composed of several small rooms. Each room although located in the same house is considered a dwelling separate and
merely an incident to robbery
independent of the adjacent rooms. What is considered as dwelling?
25
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo o
Includes every dependency of the house and every
integral part of the house. Includes staircase, enclosure
but within the same compound. The houseboy went to the house of
under the house, and the terrace. What if the person is a squatter? o Still dwelling. The law does not make any distinction as to
the validity of title over the property. What if the land is enclosed with a fence, and the person is
outside the house but inside the fence? o Not dwelling. AC of dwelling is NOT applicable if the victim gave sufficient
provocation. Elements (P v. Rios): o 1. Offended party gives provocation o 2. The provocation is sufficient o 3. The provocation is immediately before the crime To be considered as dwelling, it must be used exclusively for rest and comfort. o P v. Tano (May 5, 2000) – the victim owns a building
the amo and killed him there. HELD: Dwelling is NOT aggravating here because the servants quarters located in the same compound are considered as part of the dwelling of the offended party. o Sir doesn’t agree with this. He thinks that the two houses are separate and distinct means it is a different
HELD: No dwelling. The video shop is not exclusively for
dwelling. Does dwelling apply in robbery? Distinguish. o Dwelling is aggravating in robbery with homicide or o
robbery with intimidation of persons. However, in robber with force upon things, dwelling is
inherent. PD 1613: Dwelling is not aggravating in arson. Gonzales v Ppl 515 SCRA 580 – accused burned a dwelling; SC said this is NOT aggravating bec under PD 1613, burning of an uninhabited house is DESTRUCTIVE ARSON (dwelling element of
consisting of two floors: ground floor is video shop and 2nd floor is residence. The victim was killed in the video shop.
P v. Punzalan – The house and the servants’ quarters are separate,
this crime) P v. Malngan: A person dies inside a building burned on purpose. When is it homicide, when is it arson? o Intent is PRIMORDIAL. o If the intent is to burn the house, then the burning is arson
rest and comfort, even if in the same building. The law does not require that the offender must also be in the house. The offender can shoot from outside the house and kill a
person inside – it is still considered as dwelling, P v. Lasibar – If the person is stepping on the first rung of stairs,
o
even if a person dies. Homicide is absorbed. If the intent is to kill the person and the burning was the
then it is dwelling. But if he has yet to step, not pa. P v. Alcala – If both offender and offended live in the same house, it
o
means employed to commit the crime, it is homicide. If the intent is to kill the person, and the house is burned to
is not aggravating. P v. Ybanez – accused was living in the house of the other accused
cover up the crime, then it is homicide and arson – as SEPARATE CRIMES. There is no special complex crime of homicide with arson.
(a woman and her husband) – woman had an affair w/ accused and paramour (they had sexual intercourse/adultery) . IF paramour not living in house but adultery was committed, still aggravating even if both are living in same house.
Art 14(4) – abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness
P v. Ostia - elements
26
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
o 1) reposed trust and confidence to offender o 2) abused this trust and confidence Accused was co-worker of father; mere relationship does NOT
commission of the crime N.B. The subjective and objective tests are alternative. They need
amount to abuse of confidence P v. Arojado: another requirement is that the confidence is
not concur. Either test’s application is sufficient. P v. Dela Cruz: It is not enough that the crime was committed in
o
IMMEDIATE AND PERSONAL such that it gives the accused some
night time, there must be evidence that night time was sought for, or
advantage and makes it easier to commit the crime. P v. Villanueva: the mother of the victim had a common law
the nocturnity facilitated the commission of the offense
husband, whom the victim called “papa.” “Papa” raped the daughter. HELD: Abuse of confidence, even if the relationship between the mom and “papa” was illicit.
Uninhabited place (despoblado)
the crime makes it possible for the victim to receive aid. Ex. The distance is not so great, but one has to climb up a hill
P v. Jaurige – for this to be an AC, there must be intent from the outset to commit the crime inside the place of worship. Here, the accused did not intent to commit the crime inside the church (she
If all three are present, are these separate ACs or only one? General rule: only one. Exception: P v. Libraldo 390 Phil. 548 – These ACs may be
to reach the house to render aid. There is despoblado. P v. Luneta: Prosecution must prove that the accused chose the remoteness of the place to aid the commission of the crime, or to
did not expect the man to touch her thigh). Art. 14(6) – night time, uninhabited place, or by a band
P v. Ostia: it is not the distance, but the possibility or impossibility of immediate aid to be obtained. o The more important consideration is if the commission of
Art. 14(5) –committed in a place of worship
conceal the commission of the crime. By a band
P v. Oco 458 SCRA 120 – More than three armed malefactors. o What is the test? Any weapon which, by reason of its intrinsic nature or purpose, is capable of inflicted serious
considered separate and distinct if their elements are distinctly perceived and can subsist independently of each other, revealing greater perversity.
o
or fatal injuries. SC HELD: the four armed persons contemplated in the law must be principals by direct participation for band to be
Night time
Objective test – when the nocturnity facilitated the
considered as a band in this AC. They must act together
Night time: o Subjective test – when night time was sought purposely to commit the crime
in the execution of the crime. (READ!! Might Be included
in the bar) P v. Estante Jr. – There were four accused, it was alleged in the information that they composed a band. Two were acquitted.
27
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo Majority of the SC HELD: band is still subsistent even if two were acquitted. o Dissent: Justices Aquino and Abad-Santos – both said 4-2
= 2. No band. Band is merely a generic AC in robbery with homicide or robbery
Art. 14(8) – with aid of armed men (can be women)
armed men to be an AC, the requisites must concur: o 1) armed men or persons took part in the commission of
with rape, attempted/frustrated robbery w/ homicide (Art. 294 (1), 295) also in intentional mutilation or PI resulting in insanity, impotency, or blindness. This means that this can be offset by a
generic MC. BUT for par 2,3,4 band is qualifying (P. v Escua) Contrast: o Art. 266-B if rape is committed by 2 or more persons, the
offender is sentenced from RP to death (Under RA 8353). P v. Lamak – if the crime of murder was committed by a band and
aggravated by despoblado, there should only be one AC. Read ART 62 par 1-A : crime may be committed by an organized, syndicated grp 2 /more persons collaborating together for the purpose of gain. This is a SPECIAL AC. Separate from generic.
CANNOT be offset by mitigating circ. Penalty imposed in its maximum; CANNOT be offset by mitigating Art 20 – destructive arson; RP – death will be imposed when this is
o
upon them when the crime was committed The armed men are accomplices who take part in a minor capacity
directly or indirectly P v. Berayon: There should not be any conspiracy or the armed
men must not be principals (since act of one is the act of all) P. v Manayaw: Aid of armed men may be absorbed by band
Art 14(9, 10) – recidivism, reiteracion
Prior crime > decision must be final and executory – there must be
a conviction!!; crime must belong to same title Monsanto v Factoran Feb 9, 1989 – effects of first crime are NOT extinguished by mere pardon of offender (pardon extinguishes penalty but NOT the effects; unlike amnesty where penalty and
whether purpose is merely to burn/destroy / an overt act in the
Art 14 – conflagration, earthquake P. v Arpa – accused must take advantage of the calamity/misfortune to
effects are extinguished) What if crime is merely attempted/consummated? Frustrated? Law
does not distinguish. As long as crime became final and exec. 2nd crime committed AFTER conviction for the first crime P v Baldera - minor found guilty by TC but conviction was
ensure the success/ consummation of the crime -instead of helping during calamity, they commit offense P. v Sing 18 SCRA 176 – accused during a conflagration burned his own house to get insurance; guilty of arson + AC of conflagration
the crime directly or indirectly 2) Accused availed himself of aid of such men or relied
committed by 2/more persons or a grp of persons regardless of commission of another act
P v. Amion and P v. Oco and P v. Berayon – SC said that for aid of
SUSPENDED; later returned to court. During rehab, he commits another crime (rape). Is he recidivist? NO. Bec. Judgment of
conviction WAS suspended. No final judgment as yet! Art 160, RPC – Quasi-recidivism – accused committed homicide, serving sentence, commits another homicide. Recidivism? YES, but INHERENT in Quasi-recidivism! 28
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
Can there be offset by generic mitigating? No, it is inherent in quasi-
recidivism! REITERACION: o P. v Laison > doesn’t deal w/ offense but w/ penalty see p.
o
165 boado Art 14(11) – price, reward, or promise
Qualifying under 248, RPC Need not be money; can be in the form of services P v. Paredes - The inducement MUST be the primary consideration
by the principal by direct participation. P v. Fuerte – If the offer is accepted, does the AC apply to both offeror and offeree? o YES. Both of them.
Art 14(12) – explosives, poison, fire, etc.
Take note of COMADRE and MALNGAN (very important cases) Comadre ruling reiterated in MALANA March 27, 2009 Note than 8294 added a generic aggravating circumstance here,
the use of unlicensed firearms or explosives. P v Bucsit - If accused killed wife w/ poison, crime is parricide and
use of poison merely aggravating. P v Caliso - IF offender killed child w/ poison, crime is murder
P v. Anigum 403 scra 92: Elements: o (1) Proof of time when the accused came up with the o
determination to commit the crime (2) over act by accused showing he determined to commit
o
the crime (3) he clung to that determination
to carry it out Essence of this AC: precedence of cool thought and reflection P v. Rodas: how much time must elapse? The law does not give a formula. Each case must be resolved on the extent of each
factual circumstance. P v. Beltran: There was only a lapse of two hours from the decision
to commit the crime and the actual commission of the crime. P v. Guillen – was there evident premeditation when he wanted to kill President Roxas but he killed someone else? No. Because he did not intend to kill the other guy. o But if one decided to kill any Ilocano or anybody he
encounters and he does, this AC applies. P. v Obina - Intent to kill a person belonging to a class? Evident
premediation? YES! Evident premeditation is inherent in every specific intent
felony. o Ex. kidnapping o Robbery o Theft o Estafa (intent to gain) o Piracy in Phil. waters P v. Curatchia 180 scra 340: If in addition to the crime of robbery, the accused intended to kill a person (robbery with homicide), evident premeditation is aggravating. o If he had no plan to kill a person, but he ends up killing a
Art 14(13) – evident premeditation
(4) lapse of time between the determination and decision
person in the house who put up resistance, there is no
evident premeditation. P v. Perame and P v. Dela Cruz: if two or more persons conspire to commit a crime, and they decide to commit it, there may be evidence premeditation if the conspiracy allowed the conspirators to ponder upon and reflect on their decision to commit a felony. o NOTE: types of conspiracy –
29
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
1) instant conspiracy: has no evident
premeditation 2) non-instant conspiracy: time to reflect
Art. 14(14) – craft, fraud, or disguise
by treachery and cannot be considered separate AC
Art 14(16) – treachery Special qualifying circumstance in the crime of… May treachery be considered in carnapping with killing of a
victim. HELD: Aggravated by craft. Used intellectual trickery. Fraud = insidious words / machinations Disguise is used to conceal his identity (unless he is recognized by
person? P v. Lovitania 388 SCRA 417– treachery is NOT aggravating in
other means) P v San Pedro – accused told victim that he was a minister of a
treachery is NOT aggravating. GR: Treachery CANNOT be considered aggravating only in
religious sect, asked for contribution brought deceased to a
property but only in crimes against persons. Generic or special? Generic. In robbery w/ homicide, homicide is
supposedly wanted to buy are found. But they ended up killing the
place, tied him up and killed him
qualified carnapping. Carnapping is a crime against property, so
Art 14(15) – superior strength
still superior strength, because the victim was unarmed. P v. Tilapia - Accused killed his wife. Did not consider abuse of
murder.ALWAYS robbery w/ homicide prescinding from presence of
with treachery, it is a special complex crime of kidnapping
strength then loses its juridical existence Can superior strength in this case offset a mitigating circumstance? No because it already lost its juridical
existence. Parricide aggravated by abuse of superior strength
any qualifying circumstnacfe, Is treachery qualifying in special complex crime of kidnapping with murder? o YES. P v. Solangun – If the victim of kidnapping is killed
strength is absorbed by treachery. Abuse of superior o
with homicide. P. v Ancheta > Any of the circumstances under Art 248, RPC are only generic ACs and not to qualify crime to robbery w/
superior strength in parricide. It is generally accepted that the husband is physically stronger than the wife. If an AC is absorbed by another, then it loses its juridical existence. o P v. Demo and P v. Suyum – generally, abuse of superior
used in its generic term. No such thing as robbery w/ murder. Is this still true today? o NOT ANYMORE. Take note of P. v. ESCOTE (see discussion below), which appreciated treachery in robbery
P v. Guevarra – four accused were armed with a knife. One killed the victim, but there was conspiracy. Only one was armed. HELD:
Generally accepted that husband stronger than wife… SS absorbed
Craft and fraud may be aggravating in robbery with homicide, where the accused induced the victim to take them where the cows they
with murder. o So treachery can apply, under the Escote rule. Treachery must be PRESENT at the inception of the attack. Treachery will not be considered even if present at a subsequent stage.
30
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
No treachery if spur of the moment attack. P v. Garcia 554 SCRA 616 P v. Vallespin 391 SCRA 213: o For treachery to exist either as a generic aggravating or qualifying circumstance, two conditions: A) employment or means, manner, or method or execution that would ensure the safety of the offender from any defense or retaliation of the
offended party B) deliberate act of the offender or conscious
choice of the means, manner, or method of o
execution Aspects of second element: “Deliberate and conscious choice” – shown through a) prior conduct of the offender; b)
relationship of the parties; c) nature of the killing P v. Caratao 403 SCRA 482 – mere suddenness of the attack does
P Guzman 503 scra 615 – mode of attack must NOT spring from an unexpected turn of events. If a child is killed on occasion of robbery =crime is robbery w/ homicide, killing of child is AGGRAVATING and not qualifying. If 2 or more committed the crime but only one committed treachery, only that person is liable. Treachery absorbs night time, band, superior strength. Inherent in treason. Even if night time absorbs treachery, for purposes of set off, treachery may be considered. o EX killed-treachery; night time; there is a mitigating circumstance…for purposes of set off, night time considered by court. Pwede? NO!! IF circumstance is already absorbed by another, that circumstance already loses its juridical existence. It cannot be used anymore for the purpose of set off.
not by itself suggest treachery, unless the offender used the suddenness of the attack as means or method to ensure success of strike o
Chance attacks or crimes done in the spur of the moment, or those preceded by heated altercation, are NOT
treacherous May treachery be considered if the wrongful act done be different from that intended by the offender? o P v. Castillo – Treachery is present even if the victim killed o
is different the one intended to be killed Treachery may be present in aberratio ictus or error in
personae Treachery is inherent in murder by poisoning. If the offender
poisoned the victim, treachery is inherent. May there be treachery even if crime was NOT consummated? YES. Killing need not be consummated.
Art 14(17) – ignominy
P v. Fuertes (Feb 28, 2000) – circumstance pertaining to a moral order which adds disgrace or obloquy to the material injury caused
to the offended party; tends to make the crime more humiliating P v. Valla – the accused lighted a cigarette on the pubic area of the victim which caused blisters. With ignominy. P v. Umidang, P v. Bacule – o When the accused focused his flashlight on the genitals of the offended party, and he examined it before he raped her o o
in front of her father – with ignominy Raped victim before her betrothed Or asking her to present her full nakedness before raping her 31
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo o o
When victim was pregnant Tied a banana fiber around his penis before raping his victim (Bacule) P v. Sailan – when the accused raped the victim using
despicably augmented the wrong committed by him by causing
o
dog-style and not missionary style. But now it’s now a separate crime of sexual
increasing the suffering of the victim, slowly and gradually Number of wounds does not necessarily suggest cruelty; it is the
o
another wrong not necessary for its commission, or inhumanly
assault. NOTE: Art. 266-A of RPC: Decisions in Bacule and Sailan
deliberate act of committing the crime to cause unnecessary pain. o Ex. 20 wounds inflicted rapidly usually not cruelty o Ex. 20 wounds excruciatingly inflicted, where the person
are now amended. sexual assault now! (not rape; it is
no longer merely aggravating but a crime by itself) P v. Cachola – when the accused after killing the victim, sliced the
Cruelty: unnecessary physical pain the commission of the crime P v. Sitchon – test is whether the accused deliberately and
savored the act can be cruelty There can be no crime of robbery with multiple homicide,
left leg and took the flesh from the legs and shoulders of the victim,
regardless of the number of victims. But supposing for this
this is not adding ignominy to the commission of the crime because
reason of robbery, two are killed, can we not consider the 2nd
the victim was already dead.
killing as an aggravating circumstance analogous to cruelty? o SC wrote two decisions, but reversed in the third. o P v. Abdul; The SC agreed and considered the second
Art 15(20) – with aid of minors under 15 years of age
Remember RA 9344 – a minor under 15 is absolutely exempt from
liability So if he assists, then the minor is completely exempt from liability But the same may be an aggravating circumstance The use of motor vehicle for purpose of committing crime but SC
killing as an aggravating circumstance analogous to o
committed robbery, raped the victim twice on the occasion of robbery. The Sol-Gen urged the SC to treat the second rape as analogous to adding ignominy to the crime. The
said, if MV used by offender to BLOCK the path of victims and
facilitate escape of offenders, aggravating in robbery with homicide P. v. Moreno > Robbery w/ rape – aggravating if used to carry away
loot P. v. Marasigan > If victim driver of taxi, accused killed victim,
commission of crime in taxi IS aggravating “Other means?” > can be motorized tricycle; not bicycle! MV does NOT apply to DDA > provisions of RPC don’t apply for violations of DDA except if accused is a minor
Art 15(21) – Cruelty
cruelty. P v. Regala (april 5, 2000) en banc: The accused
SC HELD: No, the second rape is not an AC because it is not included in Art. 14 of the RPC (simple reasoning – o
different from Abdul). *Regala is prevailing case Ppl v Gano (feb 28, 20001), P v. De Jesus: notwithstanding how many people he killed, there is no
aggravating circumstance AFFIRMED regala Can there be cruelty AND ignominy? Yes, when father
stabbed his daughter then raped her.
Can crime against property be aggravating? Yes in case of wanton robbery.
32
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo o
Because it says any crime in the RPC. So that should
Special laws relating to aggravating circumstances R.A. 9165
Supposing the accused was under the influence of drugs and
include murder. It shouldn’t be qualifying. If unlicensed firearm is used to commit murder or homicide, it is
merely an aggravating circumstance. But what kind? Is it generic or special AC? [Important because
generic AC can be offset by generic MC, and special cannot.] o It is a special AC, not merely generic. P v. Ladjaalam – But the law says homicide or murder. It MUST be
then he killed a person, may the killing by that person under the influence of drugs be considered an aggravating circumstance in the commission of the crime? o P v. Belgar (1991) – Yes, the killing by the offender of the victim under the influence of dangerous substances must o
be considered an AC. SC changed its mind in P v. Sitchon – Drug addiction is
o
not an AC because it is not included in Art. 14 of the RPC. But R.A. 9165, sec. 25 – notwithstanding provisions of law
consummated. If the crime is merely attempted or frustrated, the
AC does not apply. Under 8294, if one uses an unlicensed firearm to commit a crime other than homicide or murder, then the use of the unlicensed arm is neither a separate crime nor an AC. BUT that person must be convicted for that other crime, before the usage of an unlicensed firearm can be considered as neither a separate
to the contrary, the positive finding for drugs shall be
crime or an AC. o P v. Sabanao – If an unlicensed firearm is used to commit
considered an aggravating circumstance. R.A. 8294
o
Section 1 and 3. 2 kinds of firearms: low-powered, high powered; with diff
homicide is an AC. But this is not controlling. The law
firearm regardless of kind is a SPECIAL AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE See the rest of the law.
P v. Comadre – Justice Tinga said that 8294 amended Art 14(12),
is clear, only murder and homicide. (ppl v Garcia) Do the words homicide or murder include parricide and infanticide? Or should it be read strictly? o P v. Mendoza – murder is used in its generic term. It therefore include parricide or infanticide, as the case may
because usage of illegally possessed firearms becomes an aggravating circumstance. “Tinga: if the person is in lawful possession of the explosives, then he uses it, it is QUALIFYING to
murder.” Dissent of Callejo: It’s absurd! If illegally possessed – only aggravating. If legally possessed – qualified to murder! Unjust.
robbery with homicide, the use of such is not an AC. But in another case, a division of the SC ruled that the ruse of an unlicensed firearm to commit robbery w/
penalties – possession, use, dealing, acquisition use of unlicensed
Use of an unlicensed explosives is AGGRAVATING.
o o
be. Ex. parricide w/ unlicensed firearm use of UF is SAC But one can argue that since the law only mentions these two crimes, under pro rio, then it must be construed in favor of the victim.
33
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
Use of unlicensed firearm during elections, aggravating? No it’s not murder or homicide; but can prosecuted under omnibus
election code. There is security guard of an agency. The agency has license to possess firearm, but the guard does not. The security guard used the gun to commit murder. Is it AC? o Catalina Security v. Decano – Yes, it is an AC. Even if the employer was licensed but the guard had no license to
possess that firearm, then 8294 applies. An accused committed double murder (complex crime). He used an unlicensed firearm. Is it special AC? o It should be. The law does not distinguish whether it is
Cuenca v people – agency allowing gun to be used by security guard; is security guard liable? NO! He was not aware. It is agency that should be liable. Catalina security agency v de cano - BUT if the gun was used by the guard to commit suicide, is he liable? YES.
RA 8353
parents or husband, there is aggravating circumstance of adding ignominy. o Is this still applicable?? o Not anymore. In RA 8353, it is a SPECIAL QUALIFYING
simple or complex. But there is no case yet. P v. Escote Jr.
Take note that before this case, the SC has always been divided whether treachery can apply to robbery with homicide. Those who say no say that it can’t apply because robbery with homicide, which
is a crime against property. But here, J. Callejo decided to cite Spanish SC decisions, stating
P v. Sailan – the accused raped the victim in the presence of her
circumstance. (under the enumeration) R.A. 8353 is found in Art. 266-B of the RPC. The crime of simple rape becomes qualified – becomes penalty of RP to death. In a sense, RA 8353 amended Art. 14 of the RPC. Did R.A. 8353 amend Art 14 of the RPC? o In Art 266-B, the use of a deadly weapon to commit rape is a special qualifying circumstance which increases the penalty
that treachery may aggravate the homicide part of that special
from RP to RP/death. It is not an AC under Art. 14, but it is in
complex crime. So treachery applies. Why not qualifying? o The crime of robbery with homicide is a unique crime in
266-B and 266-C of the RPC.
the sense that there can be no robbery with murder.
o
Homicide is always used as a generic term, even if the
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
second component is actually murder. And even if the homicide was actually just out of
Relationship
negligence, it can still be robbery with homicide. *LICENSE IS NON-transferrable! So you can’t avoid the crime by
Is relationship still an AC in rape? o Yes.
saying you had a borrowed license.
34
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo o
Rape is now a crime against persons. But it does not lose
o o
its nature as a crime against chastity, because for rape to o o
be committed, there must be lewd design. P v. Navida – Thus, relationship is still an AC in rape. P v. Catubig – relationship is aggravating in crimes against
o
chastity, including rape. RA 7610 – child abuse. If the victim is raped by a
Art. 15: Spouse, Ascendant, Descendant, Legitimate, Natural, adopted brother or sister Sec 31-C of ra7610 – maximum penalty to be imposed Crimes against persons like homicide or murder - relations hip is AGGRAVATING!
relative, is this aggravating applying Art 15? P v. Montinola – relationship is merely a generic AC RA 7610. If the victim is a victim of child
abuse. P v. Orilla – 422 SCRA 620 – J. Carpio: Art. 15 does not say when relation is an MC, and when it is an AC. o In crimes where the imposable penalty is death, relationship shall not be deemed an AC, regardless of the
P v. Bacabac – Uncle and nephew/niece not covered. P v. Atog 286 SCRA 157 – Scope of relationship under
Crimes against property – relationship is aggravating?, but in serious physical injuries = penalty is higher (263 and 265 of RPC) exempting example art 247, sec 7 of RA 9372 – penalty for accessories not imposed w/ respect to spouses (similar to art 20)
crime. Relationship is always aggravating in crimes against persons such as homicide, murder. Relationship must b e construed liberally in favor of the prosecution.
P v. Montigo – MC only if not habitual, or not pursuant to planning a
MIDTERM: state in your memo whether the ruling in orilla will still
felony, and affected mental faculties Taken to strengthen resolve – aggravating
be maintined. Pro, con 3 pars BUT in ppl v abello – accused committed sexual assault against relative (Crime against persons), SC considered relationship as aggravating o
o
P v. Ramirez – the SC said that the relationship between
Degree of Education Ppl v Casiliao – burden of accused to prove lack of intstruction; Not merely illiteracy but lack of intelligence to comprehend crime
step father and step son is akin to that to an ascendant
Ppl v Limaco – triple murder; but SC appreciated lack of instruction as
and descendant and is subject to AC of relationship. P v. Capareda – relationship between step grand niece
not cite as authority
and step grandfather is not one of the relationships o
Intoxication
contemplated in Art. 15 of the RPC P v. Calongi and P v. Fernandez – when the accused and
mitigating circ because he only reached grade1 STRANGE/ unusual, do
But in ppl v velaro, US v banaba– one does not have to be educated to know the effects of homicide.
victim are first cousins, relationship is NOT aggravating.
35
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo Theft / robbery – mitigating? Ppl v dela cruz – No! lack of education /
instruction does NOT apply to theft / robbery. Ppl v Cundamena – lack of instruction is not mitigating in theft /robbery Ppl v Ang – illiteracy alone / lack of sufficient knowledge is NOT mitigating in
Trust Receipts Law P.D. 115 – when violated by corporation, partnership, or association: penalty is imposed on responsible
officers Labor Code ex. illegal recruitment (39-D) – same penalty
theft / robbery RA 8049 ART. 16-20: principals, accomplices, accessories
Owner of place where hazing took place is liable as an accomplice.
May a private corporation, partnership, or association or other
If hazing is done in the house of one of the off icers of a sorority / frat
juridical entity be criminally liable? o P v. Chow Guri and Ching v. Sec. of Justice (by Callejo) –
and the parents don’t stop, are the parents liable? Yes, as principals. RA
if the law provides for a penalty against the corporation.
8049 – even if they don’t participate.
Or even if the crime is committed by a corporation, but prescribes a penalty on the officers or directors or employees. The state is not prevented from penalizing a corporation for violation of a penal law, even if the crime is o
committed by its agents. In criminal cases, law of agency does NOT apply. No man can invoke defense that he was merely an agent, he
o
Violation of law by partnership / corp, the partner, pres, director or manager who consents or tolerates the violation of law shall be held criminally liable as co-principal.
cANNOt invoke that defense. (unless he was NOT aware,
Sec 8, RA 9851 – law penalizing genocide
then he is not liable) New York Central v. US – the agent or employee must be
One may be a principal by direct participation
Orders, solicits commission, becomes principal
done through the scope of employment, or done to benefit o
DDA
the employer Penalty for corp – of course not imprisonment but can be
revocation of license, etc. ART 35 – A dead person may be the subject of crime of libel if
COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY – is it applicable in Phils?
designed to blacken memory of dead person; heirs entitled to civil
Omission mode of individual crim liability whether the superior is made liable for acts of those under him
liability
Still no phil law that provides for crim liability under this doctrine BUT sec10 of RA 9851 = in addition to other grounds, a superior
36
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo shlal be criminally responsible as a principal for such crimes
from each gun. There is no conspiracy here, but
committed by subordinates under his / her effective command and
both are liable as principals by direct
control bec INTERNATIONAL LAW, (INT’L code of justice), command responsibility liability
have to commit an overt act in the execution of the planned
Criminal presumption(?)
conspiracy? o Enough to be held as co-principal through conspiracy, as
Us v riano – prosecution must prove that doc was falsified / property
long as there is involvement in the planning and
was recently stolen for presumption to apply PD 704 – fishing; caught in possession; engaged in illegal fishing? Yes!
commission. What should the overt act consist for principals by direct
participation? o Active participation o Or giving moral assistance to the other conspirators Mere presence Exercising moral ascendancy Can someone not be in the scene of the crime and still be a
(Dizon v CA ) Art 16 Why aren’t accessories punishable for light felonies? Bec impairment to public order/ damage to property is minimal
principal? o Yes. For example, there is conspiracy and one is on look-
Principals
Note that these provisions only apply when two or more people are
acting criminally P v. Dasilo – When may a person be criminally liable as principal by
o
direct participation? o Participation in criminal execution o Carried out the plan and directly participated in the o
execution [N.B. There must be conspiracy, under this usual definition
o
] But can there be principals by direct participation without conspiracy? Yes (P v. Figueroa): the usual example of two people attacking a hambog guy in a bar with prior planning. The victim died due to two bullets, one
participation. How about the mastermind? For him to be a principal, does he
out duty for policemen. For as long as the conspirators perform specific acts that
were coordinated pursuant to the conspiracy. P v. Verayo 400 Phil. 202 – the 3 accused conspired to kill the victim. They all stabbed. Is it a complex crime. HELD: Convicted only for one crime of homicide, because there is only one victim. The number of crimes committed is not dependent on the number
of conspirators. Supposing rape was committed by 2 or more persons, what happens? o P v. Hofelina – It is a qualifying circumstance in the commission of the crime. In a case, the husband raped the victim, while the wife of the accused was holding the arms of the victim. HELD: The husband was guilty of rape
37
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo by direct participation, and the wife was principal by o
o
indispensable cooperation. Since the crime was committed by two persons, there is a
o Ppl v angeles (may 22, 1993) – not liable for rape THE MERE SILENCE OF A PERSON IN NOT REPORTING / NOT PREVENTING COMMISSION OF CRIME does not render him
qualifying circumstance that requires imposition of
principal by direct participation. He must perform an overt act.
RP/death. P. Quitain – 3 men, man2 and man3 held woman while
(DON’t forget Fortuno v ppl – policeman driving car while 2 other
man1 tried to rape woman but he cdnt so man2 tried to
was his duty to protect! Silence tantamount to assent to commission
open woman’s labia; man2 liable as principal by
of crime!)
polifemen were committing crime; THAT policeman STILL guilty; It
indispensable cooperation Is it possible that two persons are conspirators but are liable for different crimes? o Yes. Example, the private individual is liable for delivery of prisoners, while the escaped convict is liable for evasion of o
sentence. Ex. Two persons killed one of the guys’ wife. One is liable
Art. 48 in relation to RA 9346, RA 9344, in relation to Art. 68
for homicide, the other is liable for parricide. Robbery with homicide o General rule: when two or more persons conspire to commit robbery, they expect that it can be attended by o
violence. Is it possible that one is liable only for robbery but not robbery with homicide? P v. Napalit –f Yes, if one desisted before the homicide was committed. Ex. one prevented the
o
other from stabbing the victim What about robbery with rape? P v. Verseles – all the accused will be liable for the rape committed by one of them, unless one proves that he endeavored to prevent the person
o
from doing so. Note: P v. Punsalan – Must perform an OVERT act to prevent the commission of the other crime. Mere silence or running away is not enough disavowal.
As a general rule, principal by direct participation must be at the place of the commission of the crime. He performs acts of execution, cannot possibly do so if he is not at the situs. But this does not mean if he is not at the situs, he is not PDP. People v. Delim, 444 Phil. 430: If a part of a crime has been committed in one place and the other at another, each person who commits at one part… no matter how wide the distance between conspirators… (YOU MUST HAVE A ROLE) People v Escober – robbery w/ homicide; even if robbery was committed in a place other than the place agreed, both still liable as long as homicide committed on occasion of robbery People v. Corpuz, 412 Phil. 479: Illegal recruitment. Accused employee of a corp engaged in illegal recruitment. GR, corporations not criminally liable because no criminal intent; EXC, provision of law provides that officers, employees liable. SC: even a mere employee of a corp engaged in recruitment may be considered as PDP in the crime of illegal recruitment and if the employer is a private individual, the employer and the employee are PDP if it is shown that the employee consciously participated in illegal recruitment. The existence of corp entity does not shield the ee who si the corporate agent who knowingly causes the corp to commit the crime. Ee as agent of corp naturally aids and abets crim by corporation and will be prosecuted as principal if with knowledge of business of corp participates in the commission thereof however slight
38
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
his contribution may be. If he knows illegal and participates in furtherance, liable as PDP. o The law of agency as applied in civil cases has no application in criminal cases. Distinguish PDP from PDI Two ways of becoming PDI o By directly forcing another to commit a crime By using irresistible force By causing uncontrollable fear o By directly inducing another to commit a crime By giving price, or offering reward or promise By using words of command Is price, reward or promise qualifying under 248? Yes. To whom imputed? People v. Alicastre (chief of police killed father of mayor Gordon) – qualifying circumstance is imputed not only against PDP but also PDI. Use of words – must have actually moved the hands of the principal by direct participation. PDP has no other recourse but to obey the command. Especially if PDI has moral ascendancy over the PDP. People v. Bolivar, 317 SCRA 577: defined criminal inducement as whenever act performed by PDP is determined by influence of PDI such that PDP has no other recourse except to follow the words of the PDI. PDI must have great moral dominance over the PDP. Possible that PDI is not at the situs of the crime, PDP is but PDI still liable for inducement? Yes, his inducement is enough. People v. Manigbas, 109 P 469. People v. Gamao, 23 Phil. 81 People v. Domangcas, 320 S 600; People v. Arrari (?) – pdi by inducement must have such influence or overpowering moral ascendancy over pdp. Requisites of PDI – o Inducement be made directly with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime; and o Inducement be the determining cause of the commission of the crime by the material execution
Main distinction between principal by direct participation and principal by indispensable cooperation o PIC – an act different from the overt act of the PDP (otherwise it’s PDP also) Must the PIC be at the situs of the crime? o People v. Cayago, 244 P 308: 3 accused raped common victim. While one raping, the other 2 holding hands and feet. They took turns in doing so. In case of doubt, liability of PIC is merely as an accomplice Ppl v Buenaventura – woman held girl’s hands while man was raping her. SC said woman was accomplice only bec it was not indispensable (but for callejo there was conspiracy) Possible that one is PIC yet commits a crime different from the PDP? o Yes. Malversation through falsification of public documents committed by public officer in conspiracy with a private individual. Private individual may be liable for malversation (even if private individual is not an accountable officer). People v. Sendaydiego. May 2 persons be liable of a complex crime where one PDP is by dolo but PIC commits culpa? o Yes. Ppl v Samson, 103 P 277: bank ee and two of his friends. Encashed illegal check. Both liable for estafa through falsification of commercial document by culpa. Officer made to believe that he need not verify (liable by culpa); others liable by dolo o 105 P 2094
People v Andan: A had a check. He gave the check to B, B negotiated check to C. Check was dishonored. What are the liabilities? Can one be a principal by indispensable cooperation w/o conspiracy w/ another?
39
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo A: Yes. Both A and B are PDP although there is no conspiracy between
Ppl v Abari 232 scra 39 – aside from accused having tremendous moral
them.
ascendancy over the pdp, inducement made was EFFICIENT CAUSE w/c
Can the PDP be exempt from liability but PIC criminally liable? What article? YES. Art 332. Family members. P.920 boado PIC – there must be conspiracy A wanted to rob B, asked C to lookout. After A robbed B, A was fleeing from house, policeman arrived, confronted C and C killed the policeman. 2 crimes here -Robbery – B: PDP; A: accomplice Killing – A and B are PDPs ***MIGHT BE ASKED IN MIDTERMS: Contribution of accomplice must have
convinced pdp to commit the crime, w/o which he did not commit the crime. Ppl v Po 26 phil 913- One may be liable as PIC yet PDP is NOT. Example: person wants to get residence certificate. He goes to clerk in treasurer’s office, tells clerk he wants medical certificate—gives name, citizenship, etc but he is actually lying. Is the clerk criminally liable for falsification? No bec clerk (PDP) was just relying on what PIC was telling him. Good faith is a defense for a felony. If a man marries a woman already married, is he liable as a PIC? Ppl v Concepcion 40 OG 2878/ Ppl v Arcilla – One may be criminally liable as an ACCOMPLICE to the crime of bigamy if he/she marries a person knowing him or her to be married.
a direct relation to the PDP. However, this is an unintended situation. A still
Ppl v Nepomuceno - If one marries a married person knowing him to be
liable as PDP since he should have anticipated that as a consequence of his
married is liable as a PIC. But if he is not aware that the person is not
acts. Robbery – everybody must anticipate that violence must be
married and he married him/her, he is NOT criminally liable for bigamy.
committed!! BUT you can argue other way that he had already fled so no liability. A promised to pay B p500 to kill C. B fired gun and killed C and D. Is A a principal by inducement? A paid B to kill C but B raped C. is A still liable as principal by inducement? No. because it’s not the direct and natural consequence. If another crime is committed, he cannot be liable. Even if the reward was not later on given by the principal, the mere fact that the principal by inducement offered to pay, he is criminally liable. (Ppl v
Is there subornation of perjury under the RPC? No. BUT can you be punished for this? YES. Because he is a PIC in perjury. ***TAKE NOTE! RA 9745: Crime defining torture Do we apply command responsibility? Yes. Liable1.
persons
in
authority
in
PNP,
AFP/other
law
enforcement
agencies(ex. NBI), or their agents committing physical, mental,
Indanan 24 PHIL 203 )
40
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo psychological torture and other kinds of torture/ cruel/degrading treatment under Section 5. 2.
Those who induce another in commission of torture (PIC); cooperated in execution of torture (PIC) COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY: Any superior who issued an order to lower ranking personnel to commit torture and immediate commanding officer of unit concerned who by their act / negligence
shall have led, assisted, abetted or allowed commission of torture. IF superior is aware / should have known by diligence of the commission of torture, and failed to investigate the same to stop it, he is guilty of toture.
Art 18 – Accomplices
People v. Fabros 429 P 701. He is aware of decision of PDP but does NOT participate ; but he helps by simultaneous / prior acts. Contribution NOT indispensable. Contribution must HAVE A RELATION TO crime committed by pdp! Ppl v Heralde – accomplices are merely INSTRUMENTS of pdp. Mere presence of one at the scene of the crime if there is no conspiracy may not be enough to penalize him as accomplice UNLESS he is there to give moral support/aid to pdp. People v. Rafael, 397 P 109. At what point must accomplice acquire knowledge of commission of crime by PDP? SC: accomplices come to know of criminal resolution of pdp after the pdp has reached a decision to commit a crime. Accomplice does not decide commission of crime. Accomplice just agrees after criminal resolution is accomplished, he does not conspire. But if accomplice commits an act of execution, already PDP.
Prior or simultaneous acts not indispensable for commission of crime, not overt acts for commission People v. Geralde, 401 P 174: conspirator and accomplice has one thing in common, they know and agree with criminal resolution but the business is by pdp. Accomplices merely instruments of conspirators, not members of conspiracy. People v. Continente, 398 P 367 People v. Vera, 312 S 662: §4, PD 532 (highway robbery, brigandage) – any person who directly or indirectly abets commission of piracy or robbery in the highway or brigandage is not merely an accessory, but an accomplice to the principal in the crime RA 9372 – any person not being a principal / conspirator who cooperates in execution of crime of terrorism is only an accomplice. RA 9851 (genocide) – one may be liable as accomplice if he aids, abets in genocide. May one be a PDP on the basis solely of presumption? o Yes. One caught in possession of recently stolen property is presumed to be author of theft or robbery. May one be charged and convicted as accomplice or accessory even before principal charged or convicted or should pdp first be convicted before accomplice and accessory be charged or convicted? What are their corresponding liabilities? YES!!! Because liabilities are distinct from each other. (NOTE: if principal acquitted, no conviction for accomplice / accessory. Even if PDP is exempt from liability, accessories/accomplices may still be held liable as long as established) o People v. Rafael, 397 P 109: Following Vino v. People, 178 S 626 – as long as commission of the crime it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, determination of criminal responsibility of accessory may be determined independently of and separately from liability of pdp o PCGG v. Ombudsman Desierto, 397 S 971: if the case against PDP is dismissed, the case against acc must also be dismissed because the liability of the acc is subordinate to that of the pdp. Indeed an acc is like a shadow that follows the pdp and not the other way around. 41
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo o
But dismissal of case against acc does not necessarily result in dismissal of case against pdp.
A wanted to rob C. B acted as a LOOK OUT and profited from effects. What is his liability? Lookout not part of conspiracy is merely an accomplice since he is merely an instrument and agrees to cooperate. HOWEVER, if he is a co-conspirator
and takes part in the criminal design, he is a principal. Accomplice = cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneously acts. Art 19 – Accessories
US v Empaynado – one who receives part of the reward is an accessory to the crime People v. Favros, 429 P 701: for one to be an accessory, he must have knowledge of the commission of felony, he participates after the commission of the felony by any of the acts enumerated in art 19. His participation must not be that of a principal or accomplice. Accessory knows of commission of crime by pdp during or after the commission of the crime but does not participate in the commission of such. His participation comes after commission of the crime in any of the 3 instances in art 19. One who receives part of the ransom/loot from kidnapper/RWH is an accessory to crime of kidnapping/RWH. Corpus delicti Mere silence of one in commission of crime is not acting as accessory – not a crime to be silent. US v. Caballero. People v. Antonio, 390 P 989: accused policeman witnessed the killing of victim by co-accused. Policeman failed to arrest culprit and even told co-accused not to tell other policemen. Is Antonio an accessory? Yes, under third par of art 19, it was duty of policeman to arrest culprit and
not to conceal commission of crime by silence or misleading authorities that accused was really culprit. By his acts, policeman abused his public position. o NOTE: Art 208 – prevarication – police officer who refuses to prosecute another for a crime is liable; can he thus be held a PRINCIPAL for prevarication? YES BUT if you are prosecutor, better to file and make liable to heavier penalty —ACCESSORY to murder! Art 223 – infidelity in custody of prisoner (security guard -- allowed convict to escape) so he can be liable as PRINCIPAL under 223 or ACCESORY under 19. You should only choose one—otherwise, double jeopardy! PD 1829 : OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE – “higher penalty will be imposed” (either OJ or RPC, w/cever higher) ; it is malum in se cos of the word “willfully” (but fencing = malum prohibitum) RA 9372 – who are accessories in terrorism? Does art 20 apply? YES. There is a corresponding provision EXEMPTING relatives from criminal liability w/ the exception of par1 of RPC art 19. RA 9745 (torture) – there is also accessory here! PD 1612 – Anti-Fencing Law. Tan v. People, 313 S 229; CJ Davide in Pamintuan v. People 234 S 63. o PRESUMPTION: one found in possession of stolen property = presumed to be author o Contemplates robbery w/ force upon things OR robbery w/ violence OR robbery w/ homicide OR qualified theft o One who acquires stolen property is criminally liable as: accessory under art 19 (for robbery / theft) OR principal for fencing under pd 1612. Tan v Ppl 313 SCRA; Pamintuan v. People, 234 S 63: But for one to be principal for fencing, crime of robbery or theft must be committed, accused does not participate in commission of robbery or theft, acquires proceeds of robbery or theft, has actual knowledge or should have known subject is from robbery or theft and intent to acquire. REQMENTS for fencing: o Property stolen 42
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo Person not participant in crime buys, conceals, deals with property o He has personal knowledge / should have known that property is stolen o Intent to gain for himself / another *READ Francisco v ppl 432 scra 192; Capili v CA – law does not o
require proof of purchase. Mere possession gives rise to
Pacheco, noted commentator on Spanish Penal Code. What if policeman furnishes means for his brother to escape with abuse of public position? Is policeman exempt? Pacheco is of the opinion that policeman is exempt because ties of blood constitute a more powerful incentive than call of duty. Moreover, law does not distinguish between private individuals and public officers. J. Callejo agrees.
presumption of fencing. Accused must rebut presumption. Concealing – ex. one steals property, other hides/ conceals it May one be liable of a crime by committing another crime to conceal the 2 nd crime? Ppl v Malngan : 3 kinds - burn house (arson); rape and then burn (rape w/ arson). So one can who burns a house to conceal it si guilty as PRINCIPAL (ARSON BY INDUCEMENT) Can one be prosecuted as accessory even if PDP is still at large or already died? Yes, they can be prosecuted separately. (cristobal v ppl) If PDP is a minor who did not act w/ discernment, he would be exempt but accomp /accs wd be criminally liable. If principal was acquitted? Redounds to benefit of accomp/accs.
Art 21
death penalty upon children in conflict w/ law; admin regulations issued in pursuance of penal law has force of penal law provided violation of
What if frustrated, does it fall under art 19.3? Art 20 – Accessories exempt from liability
People v. Mariano, 400 P 883: A killed B, told sister C to hide body of B. A and C buried B. TC ruled that C (sister of principal) is an accessory under Art 19 but was exempt from liability under Art 20. SC said indeed sister who helped is exempt from criminal liability under Art 20. Basis of exemption is ties of blood of principal and accessory and preservation of cleanliness of one’s name which compels one to conceal crimes committed by one’s relatives. o J. Callejo does not agree with statement of “preservation of cleanliness of one’s name”
RA9344 – provisions of Rpc as amended and DDA notwithstanding, no
admin regulation must be crime under delegating statute o NOW: dp can no longer be imposed 2 classifications of felonies: o Heinous – dp o Quasi-heinous – reclusion perpetua to death so will these classifications still exit despite RA 9344? YES (ppl v bonn). Eh bakit meron pa wala na ngang death penalty? Purpose of classification is bec. civil liability for heinous crimes will be higher
than civil liability of convict for quasi-heinous crime. PENALTY FOR CRIME MUST NOT VIOLATE CONSTI. Offended party and accused agreed to fight; one lost. He filed for a complaint for physical injuries. Does the pari delicto doctrine apply? o
No. It does not apply to criminal cases. In fact, two people can agree to duel, and if one dies, the offender may be charged under the RPC. 43
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
Estoppel does not apply to criminal cases. The offended party is the
State. Private individual who sustained the damage is merely he
witness to the crime. P v. Judge Dacuycuy 173 SCRA 90: There can be no imprisonment at
o
CANNOT SUBSTITUTE PENALTY OF FINE FOR PENALTY OF IMPRISONMENT! Vaka v CA – court cannot impose fine and alternative penalty of
imprisonment! Brilliante v. CA: The SC issued admin orders giving preference to fine over imprisonment for BP 22 and libel. There was no abolishment of the
penalty of imprisonment. NOTE: Art 247 – does not provide for penalty but only an exempting
circumstance IS THERE A CRIME OF BLACKMAIL?
No specific provision in rpc defining and penalizing blackmail but it’s similar to THREATS
How bout euthanasia / mercy killing? no, but murder under 248 SODOMY? Defined and penalize? No. but punished by RA 8353 –
insertion of object into anal orifice Is pedophilia a crime? None in rpc but penalized by 7610 child abuse law, 8350, art 336 and 339 of rpc (?) - Ppl v ricker – 194 scra 690 (ricker was pedophile, went to olongapo, paid a 12yo girl 15 pesos and raped her) NEXT MTG: ZERO IN ON ART 48
o
still apply for Probation Sec 68 – child serving sentence at time of passage of RA 9344 and below 18 at the time of commission of crime, and acted with discernment: benefited by retroactive effect of law
* Even before RA 9346, one convicted of a crime punishable by LI / RP is NOT entitled to parol. So after the law was passed, one originally convicted of DP can only be granted the lesser penalty of RP but still NO parol. * IF MURDER CASE IS PENDING AND YOU ARE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THEN LAW on ILLEGAL FIREARMS (RA 9346) IS PASSED. WHAT DO YOU DO? 1) Move for the withdrawal of the crime of possession of unlicensed firearm since it is merely a special aggravating circumstance; 2) amend the information and allege that firearm is unlicensed BUT what if information was not amended? TRIAL proceeded. May the court still consider illegal firearm as aggravating circumstance? NO. Not alleged in information. IF LAW not yet passed, should court consider use of unlicensed firearm as special aggravating circumstance? Ppl v. Bernal: Even if more favorable to the accused, in effect it is more unfavorable bec. If you consider use of unlicensed firearm as special aggravating circ, penalty would be DEATH and
Art 22
rehab in youth rehab center Sec 67 – if minor is no longer entitled to suspension of sentence, and court resolves to impose the sentence, he can
the discretion of the court. There must be limits imposed by law. ; YOU
Those undergoing service of sentence: must undergo
There can be retroaction of the reduction of death to RP. RA 9344, o Sec. 59: DP cannot be imposed on a minor o Sec. 54: cases of children 15 and below – automatically dismissed and referred to appropriate diversion programs
would be more unfavorable to the accused. *STUDY WELL: RA 9346, 9344 problem will be given in midterms
Art 23 44
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
RA 8353 amended Art. 23 and Art. 344 o Rape and sexual assault are now crimes against persons o Criminal action can only be commenced by information filed by o
public prosecutor, and not the private offended party Else, private crimes can only be instituted by private offended party. Not due to jurisdiction but to protect private offended
Public officer or employee is charged may be suspended 90
o
days This is not deemed a penalty
Plunder -> one can be suspended when charged RA 9262 – don’t forget to study for exams (VAWC) – is there any
party. If a crime is public, private individual cannot pardon the crime or
measure contemplated? Court may issue a protection order to prevent
compromise it, unless provided by law. In a criminal action, it is the
victim during trial
State that is the offended party; the private individual is just a witness. Criminal liability may only be extinguished by law or the grounds in Art. 89. o
o
o
accused from harassing/ inflicting psychological or moral injury on the
will extinguish his civil liability. P v. Sandiganbayan Exception: RA 8353 – marriage of offender and rape victim Shall extinguish criminal action If already convicted, penalty imposed will be extinguished A husband, however, can commit rape or sexual assault
Caayong Arts 25-27
against his wife. Art 24
Par. 2 mentions commitment of minor in a facility, according to Art. 80
already repealed by PD 1603 and amended by RA 9344 RA 6975, par. 4: o If police officer or employee is charged for a crime in a valid information, he may be suspended during pendency of the o
case Lacson v. Roque: Suspension of mayor is not a penalty in this
case. This is only to facilitate justice. RA 3019:
o Par. 4 refers to administrative sanctions in administrative cases against public officers and employees (imposed by superiors) Tudtud v.
A public officer is charged with RA 3019. He returns the money. Will his liability be extinguished? No. It will not exonerate him from criminal liability, but
o
RA 9346 – DP can no longer be imposed, but it did not abolish DP, because the Constitution still allows it to be imposed Ikaw v. Judge: dual personality of temporary DQ or suspension o As principal penalty Temporary DQ: 6 years and 1 day-12 years Suspension: 6 months and 1 day-6 years o As accessory penalty: Follow principal penalty P v. Bon: RP is an indivisible penalty o There is no minimum, medium, maximum period P v. Villanueva o It is not affected by mitigating or aggravating circumstances. Indivisible penalties: o RP o Perpetual absolute or special DQ o Public censure Effect of indivisible penalties: o Impose penalty in its entirety 45
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo o
Even if there is a special aggravating or two mitigating
accessory penalties of death. This is also the reason why he cannot be pardoned
it will not be affected BUT if there is privileged mitigating, it may be reduced by 1 or
2 degrees P v. Diqui: after imprisonment of 30 years, eligible for pardon o Not mandatory; dependent on President It was never the intention of Congress to convert RP into a divisible
before 40 years have lapsed, instead of 30. Art. 26 – penalty of fine o Read in conjunction with Art. 38 (order of payment of pecuniary liabilities: 1. Reparation, 2. Indemnification, 3. Fine, 3. Cost of
penalty. P v. Gawkard – penalty of 30 years of RP was erroneous, so it was converted to just RP. o If it were the intent of Congress to make it divisible, it also
o
proceedings) Ricaforte v. Jurado: fine is not given to the complainant; it is
o
given to the State. Can accused use its cash bail bond to pay his fine, if
should have amended Art 76 of the RPC but it did not (this is
convicted? Yes. The law does not prohibit him from using his
the table of divisible penalties). Art 63 provides for indivisible o
cash bail bond to pay his fine. It is only meant to
penalties, and RP is there. P v. Lucas: Only reason for the “30 year” imposition is for the three-fold rule under Art. 70, where the maximum duration of
o
exactly 200 pesos: Considered a light felony P v. Canson
the convict’s sentence cannot be more than 3-fold of the length
of time of the most severe sentence Do not interchange RP with LI. Latter cannot be reduced by one or two degrees. EXCEPTION: o P.D. 818 Syndicated Estafa: Maximum of crime is 30 years, which in connection o
with the accessory penalties shall be 30 years of RP People v. Canales – imposed 40 years of RP, with accessory penalties of death, and cannot be pardoned until after 40 years have passed. How did the court reach this decision? Because under Art. 309 of the RPC, theft is punishable by maximum of RT. But for Art. 310, qualified theft, penalty is two degrees
higher. This is death. But the rule under Art. 74 is that if the next
ensure his attendance during the process. Conflict of provisions leading to confusing rulings, if the fine is
But for prescription, it is considered a correctional penalty – 10 years
Art. 28
How do you compute the penalty if the accused is not in jail? o Compute from the time accused is at disposal of the authorities or the court for promulgation of sentence. What if he is in prison? o From the day the judgment of conviction becomes final. If he appeals, it is not yet final. It is only when appellate court decision becomes final and executory and accused is in jail, you begin computing service of sentence.
Art 29 – preventive imprisonment
higher penalty is death, it becomes RP, with
46
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
PI – NOT a penalty! Arises if one who is accused cannot post bail
indemnification for consequential damages. The liability of the
because he has no money/property, he will remain in jail. Length of time for credit of PI depends upon whether he agrees to
accused under Art. 104 civil liabilities or pecuniary liabilities.
abide, in writing to the rules of jail where he is detained. If he agrees –
to Art. 39? o
How about the penalty of fine under Art. 38 of the RPC in relation
accorded full term of imprisonment. Otherwise, only 4/5 of time he
underwent PI. Can those sentenced to destierro avail of art 29? YES. Destierro also form of PI (Ppl v. Sabillo); Destierro does not involve imprisonment,
although only partial. Sec. 53, RA 9344 [juveniles in conflict w/ the law] – any form of physical restraint imposed on a child in conflict with the law including his community service or commitment to a rehabilitation center shall be considered as preventive imprisonment. might be in the
It is also a pecuniary liability of the accused, but it is a pecuniary PENALTY (not pecuniary liability), because it is a penalty under Art. 25 of the RPC.
Art. 38 Pecuniary liability – accused was convicted of a crime and ordered to pay civil indemnity, reparation for damage cost, fined and damage cost How will amt be paid if his money is lacking ? Art 38 (relate to Art 72 of RPC
midterms!:) If minor served maximum, can he be made to remain? YES, depends on discretion of rehab center. If penalty on minor destierro, he shall be released after 30 days as
Art 39 STUDY VERY WELL!
provided in Art 29. If the minor juvenile is imprisoned pending trial – he shall be credited
– civil liabilites shall be paid following chronological order under art 72)
penalized with a fine (either alone or in conjunction with imprisonment),
with the service of the sentence with the full time in which the child was preventively imprisoned o Provided the child agrees with the rules and regulations of
the penal institution o If not, still entitled to 4/5ths of the time If the convict is sentenced to life imprisonment, he is still entitled to the benefits of this provision. Sentenced to Imprisonment and fine can he be released if he already
law does not state? YES, he is! (Ppl v Gana) Under Art. 104 of the RPC, the offender is civilly liable to the offended party for restitution, damage, reparation, and
and because of insolvency, he cannot pay the fine. ONLY APPLICABLE TO FINES! (not reparation, indemnification, cost) Unlike preventive imp, SI is a penalty! Court must indicate in decision. The convict cannot be ordered to serve subsidiary imprisonment for failure to pay pecuniary LIABILITY; but he can serve for pecuniary
PENALTY. If he is not insolvent, but he does not want to pay the fine, can he choose to go to jail instead? o No. The accused the has no choice but to pay the fine. Fortun
served maximum imprisonment ? NO, he has to stay in prison til he his able to pay fine (Ppl v. mawunawao, March 12, 1975) Habitual delinquent – is he disqualified for benefits under 29 although
Subsidiary imprisonment can only be imposed if the accused is
o
Ironworks Co v. Schwarzkott Although in P v. Subido, the SC said the convict has to choose whether to pay the fine or choose subsidiary imprisonment. J.
Callejo does not agree with this. He agrees with Ironworks. Subsidiary imp vs. accessory penalties 47
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo o
AP = automatically included in principal penalties; SI NOT
and the instruments or tools used in the crime? o Only the TC which rendered conviction of the accused may
included—must be stated by court (Ramos v. Judge) o Principal = should refer to penalty imposed on the offender If the accused was convicted of a crime defined by SPL, Art. 39 will still apply, taking into account Art. 10 of the RPC. o Ex: Violation of BP 22, an SPL, o Ty v. P – the governing law is Art. 39, not Act 1732. Ignore
o
Otherwise, the court has no jurisdiction to order the forfeiture o
and sentenced to prison term but he was insolvent. Subsidiary
order this. People v. Singson – but before the court may do so, the tools or instruments must be presented to the court as evidence.
1732. Supposing he was convicted for possession of unlicensed firearm imprisonment? o Yes. Again, Art. 39 is consistent with Art. 10, not Act 1732. Subsidiary imprisonment is a penalty. There must be a statement in the
Who has the power to order forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime
or destruction of such. People v. Gacutan – In case of bribery, the money used may be forfeited in favor of the state.
The tool or instrument MUST belong to the accused himself. If it belongs to some other person and he has no involvement in the crime,
cannot be compelled to serve this. (Ramos v. Judge) If the penalty is higher than prision correccional, there can be no
there can be no such declaration People v. Elona Does this provision apply to SPLs? o Yes. The court may order destruction nonetheless if the items are
contraband. (DDA) RA 9165, Sec. 20 – those subject of the crime, including
subsidiary imprisonment. Toledo v. Superintendent, citing Bagtas v. Director of Prisons, supposing
dispositive portion that if he is insolvent, he must serve subsidiary imprisonment. Absent this specific order in the dispositive portion, he
proceeds derived from drug trafficking, and even money and assets
the accused is charged with 2 or more offenses and there was 1
acquired in violation of RA 9165 – deemed and ordered forfeited in favor
decision convicted him of all the charges. How do we determine the 6-
of the government, unless belonging to third persons without
year limit? o Where this situation exists, the 6 year period limit shall be
involvement of the crime. o Exception to third person rule: if the items are beyond lawful
based on the total duration of the penalties [AGGREGATE] imposed by the court based, after the joint trial, on the 3-fold
commerce – still forfeited Under Sec. 20 of the same law, the proceeds of the sale or disposition
rule under Art. 70 of tNhe RPC. If the totality of the penalties
of the property forfeited must be used to pay the expenses incurred in
exceed 6 years, no subsidiary imprisonment shall not be
the proceedings including cost of the proceedings
imposed, even if the penalty for each of the crimes is less than 6 years. Art. 45 – forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime
Art. 48 – complex crimes
P v. Bon – Death penalty may no longer be imposed, even in relation to Art. 48 of the RPC.
48
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
Material Plurality – when a single act constitutes two or more gave or
less grave offenses, or when an offense is a necessary means to commit the other o There is only one penalty, although there are multiple crimes o The more serious crime’s penalty is imposed in maximum
criminal act, not singularity of the criminal impulse. Because singularity
period Delito compuesto – (first mode) o Either dolo or culpa P v. De los Santos – person was convicted for
o o
the RPC If punishable under the RPC and an SPL, Art. 48 will NOT
of criminal purpose is NOT written in Art. 48. The SC applied single impulse test for the first time o P v. Tulos – he stole on the same occasion 13 cows. SC held: one crime of theft even if there were 13 cows, applying single o
impulse. In crimes against chastity, the SC adopted another test: single criminal intent. o P. v. Obrique – raped niece at 10 am, then 11 am at same grassy area. One crime of rape, even though committed in
apply. The offender may be charged and convicted for both
crimes, separately without double jeopardy. Ex. Estafa and illegal recruitment Ex. Estafa and BP 22 Supposing one wants to kill another with treachery, but there was
o
both the person and the person behind him. o Complex crime of murder and SPI. P v. Andaya – the accused forcibly insert his penis into the vagina of the
same place and same occasion. SC said: the accused is guilty of one count of rape and 2 counts of sexual assault, same o
place, same occasion. P v. Aaron (CJ Corona) – the accused inserted his penis into the vagina of the victim and made several push and pull movements but without removing his organ, until he reached orgasm. How many crimes of rape? Prosecutor said as many crimes of rape equal to the number of push and pull. HELD: only one, because he reached orgasm only once then he
woman and she sustained Less SPI in her vagina. Art. 48 – Rape complexed with Less SPI o Problem here: SC applied the second paragraph. J Callejo
intervals of one hour, he was motivated by one criminal intent. P v. Intong – accused inserted private organ and raped the victim, but he was not content; he also inserted his finger at the
abberatio ictus, or error in personae, then the crime committed by the accused is a COMPLEX CRIME. o Attempted homicide + homicide P v. Patrolla – the accused stabbed the victim with a bolo, the bolo hit
impulse test. P v. de Leon – took two roosters on one occasion. SC HELD: one crime of theft because it was in response to one criminal
reckless imprudence resulting into homicide and destruction of property The felonies resulting from the single act must be felonies in
Gamboa v. P, cited in P. v. Judge Pineda: there must be singularity of the
o
removed it. Lesson: do not remove it. P v. Sollano – The accused raped his niece once a day, insert
does not agree. It must be paragraph 1. The law is clear: a single act. But the SC sometimes applied the single
his finger once a day, for 16 successive days in different
impulse test or the single criminal intent test.
equal to how many times he inserted his organ and finger.
locations. HELD: as many crimes of rape and sexual assault Reasoning: there could not be a single criminal intent because
49
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo each time he committed the crime, was on different days – the
o
accused was animate by separate criminal intents on each o
occasion. P v. Calimlim: Raped victim for first time is the pig pen, about
SC said there was only 1 crime of kidnapping with homicide.]
8m from the house. Then brought her to the room and raped again. Brought her to kitchen, where he raped her again.
occasion. There are as many violations of BP 22 as there were
HELD: There were separate criminal intents because he raped
many checks. The criminal intent or resolution test does not
the victim in different places although the rapes were done
This is strange case (J Callejo does not agree) Will you apply the single criminal intent or resolution test in mala prohibita? o No. Lim v. P: Person issued 3 bouncing checks on the same
her again. Then brought victim room of cousin, and raped
o
successively. Test: “place test” NOTE: P v. Escoton: Convicted person for 5 counts of
apply because it is mala prohibita. What about falsification of documents? Apply the single criminal intent or resolution test? o P v. Penas: Accused convicted of only one complex crime of
rape even if it was in the same place, and at the same
estafa through falsification of three postal money orders which
night. Be forewarned that this might be the new rule
she cased in on the same day. Since it was the SAME occasion – the acts are considered as only one act of estafa
now (2010 decision). What test will be applied for kidnapping? Single impulse, or single intent? o P v. Laranaga – even if the persons were kidnapped on the same occasion and place, there were as many crimes of
o
through falsification of commercial document. BUT P v. Gonzales: There are as many crimes as how many
o
vouchers were falsified. P v. Villanueva: Accused falsified three money orders separately. Each constitutes separate crimes. Animated by
kidnapping as there were persons. Kidnapping with homicide, K with murder, K with rape: these are all special complex crimes, and not complex crimes under Art. 48 of the RPC.
o
be the crime. P v. Rimurin (?) – if the victim of kidnapping got raped, how many crimes of special complex crime of kidnapping and rape?
o o
separate impulses, in falsifying each voucher. P v. Segovia: Accused, an employee of the SC, falsified the roll of attorneys. Included 3 names. HELD: As many crimes of
Even if the homicide or rape is a mere afterthought, this would o
P v. Reyes – 7 persons kidnapped. Two of them killed. [The
o
falsification as there are many persons. Lastrilla v. Granda: Uncles and aunties died and left three parcels of land. Executed three separate deeds of sale, on
There are as many times of crimes of kidnapping and rape as
different occasions, making it appear that the vendors were the
the number of persons kidnapped and raped. Test: “number of persons” P v. Bacungay – Same rule for kidnapping for ransom, Even if
crimes. [Might be asked in the Bar] Antedating, forging the signature, and ? – am I
uncles and aunties, when they were still alive. Separate
it is the same situs, the number of crimes of kidnapping will
guilty for three counts of falsification for falsifying
depend on the number of persons kidnapped.
one document on three modes? Only ONE crime
50
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo of falsification of public document even if there were o
under Art. 48(1), applying single impulse test. [Note: court just
multiple modes. Gamboa v. CA: There was no single impulse, intent, or
o
resorted to this because they couldn’t tell who killed who] P v. Pingcalin – Several killings inside Bilibid prison. HELD:
resolution test mentioned in Art. 48. It mentions “a single act.”
Multiple murder and multiple attempted/frustrated murder.
They bought optical products, buyers thought he was
Against, applied single criminal impulse test. (J. Aquino) Dissent by Makasiar: Read Art. 48 – single act. It
authorized to collect but he was not; deposited and withdrew from account for his own benefit. THERE WERE AS MANY
CRIMES AS THE # OF TIMES HE WITHDREW. (This was an o
If it is prisoners, apply Art. 48. If NOT prisoners, then
estafa case, citing P v. Pineda) Compare to Ilagan v. CA: As far as the lot buyers were concerned, there were as many crimes of estafa as the number of times the petitioner fraudulently collected from the victims. As far as the corporation is concerned, it depends on obligation
o
separate crimes. [This is really strange.] P v. Pineda: DO NOT APPLY SINGLE IMPULSE TEST. Just
o
read Art. 48! A single act! (The SC got mad na here) P v. Salidad: Several accused with automatic, high powered guns and killed several people. If you pull the trigger, several
to account. If he is obliged to account everyday and he fails to
bullets shoot out. Complex crime of multiple murder and
do so, there are as many crimes of estafa as the number of
multiple attempted murder. Although several independent acts
days he failed to account. If he is obliged to account every
o
were done, it was not possible to determine who among them
month, he is guilty for every month he fails to account. Nice. - NOT A CONTINUING CRIME P v. Serrano: There were as many crimes of estafa through
forgery as there acts. Forcible abduction, concubinage – continuing crime if they moved
from one to place another Adultery continuing? Ppl v. Sapata – every sexual intercourse
killed how many victims. The accused showed a single criminal impulse based on “my gosh, di natin napatay lahat”). o
man not her husband, the crime is adultery.
Libel: o
Also used conspiracy as basis. But see P v. Dalmacio – Armalite guns fired successively, and explosives, killed several and seriously wounded others. The accused were guilty for as many crimes as how many people
constitutes a separate crime of adultery as long as the marriage bond is not terminated every time the offender commit sexual intercourse w/ a
doesn’t say single criminal impulse. On an MR: J. Aquino reneged, considering Makasiar.
were injured. Malversation: o P v. Barbas: There may be a complex crime of malversation through falsification of official documents – a crime being done to commit another crime.
Even if two or more persons were subject to libel, if there was
only one publication, there is only one crime of libel. Crimes against persons: o P v. Lawat – Constabulary officers killed around 50 Maranaws
Delito compuesto (Art. 48(2))
with guns. Convicted of complex crime of multiple murder 51
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
Necessary means to facilitate or ensure the commission of another
felony. If one felony is indispensable to the commission of another, then
house (13 year old girl) – forcible abduction with rape.
Art. 48 DOES NOT apply; there is only one crime. o Bottom line: Must be necessary but NOT indispensable Is it possible that one is delictual and the other is culpable felony? o Samson v. CA. Yes. o Cashed check on behalf of an impostor. The employee of the
What is determinative? SPECIFIC INTENTION OF
o
OFFENDER AND NOT THE DISTANCE What if there was abduction, and then there were three rapes done after? o
bank did not bother to check, since we are friends. The employee’s failure to ascertain identity of payee, there is
commit estafa. o HELD: Estafa, through falsification by culpa. Why, can a public document be done through culpa? o Yes. Because for official or mercantile documents, there is no o
need to prove that there is intent to cause damage. The intent to cause damage is only required for private
consummated. So the second and third rapes were SEPARATE crimes. HELD: One complex crime, two separate o
simple crimes. (This is en banc.) But there are some commentators that say that the subsequent
rapes must be absorbed since abduction is a continuing crime. If the accused abducted two women at the same time, and then raped both? o Guilty of TWO counts of forcible abduction with rape.
document. Therefore, there is no falsification through culpa for
P v. Garcia, P v. Caraang: The moment the first rape was committed, then forcible abduction with rape was
falsification/endorsement by culpa, becoming the means to
P v. Abarquez: Abducted to place 100m from her
private documents. What about forcible abduction with rape: related with Art. 342 and
Exceptions to the second clause
rape/sexual assault (Art. 366-A)? o Absorption of felonies. o If the intention was to rape, and the victim was brought to a
place in light of rape. HELD: Rape only – abduction is o
absorbed by rape. P v. Almanzor But there may be a complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. When is it not absorbed? P v. Mojerada: Victim abducted and brought to grassy area near her house, where she was raped.
1. Indispensable 2. Essential element or mode of committing another felony 3. Merged with another crime 4. Felony is committed to conceal another crime Take note: Batulanon v. P [Note for the Bar]: Company officer falsified two private documents to make it appear that there were two extra employees, even if she really just kept the wages for herself. Apply Art. 48(2) for estafa through falsification of private document? o No. There can be no complex crime of estafa through
Abduction was absorbed since it was near her house. P v. Godinez: Brought to place 600m from her house,
falsification of a private document, because the latter must
where she was raped. Abduction was STILL
estafa, the same elements must apply. The moment the
absorbed by rape.
falsification was made with intent to cause damage, the same
have 1. Intent to cause damage, and 2. Damage caused. For
element CAN NO LONGER BE USED to establish estafa. The
52
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo crime instead is falsification of private document. If the estafa can be committed without the falsification, the proper charge is
estafa. Art. 48 DOES NOT apply. If it is falsification of public or mercantile document, can there be complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document? o Yes. [See discussion above on element of falsification of public documents.]
Recits
Does article 48 apply to culpable felonies ex. Reckless imprudence resulting into homicide? o P v. De los Santos – Yes. Because a complex crime involves
felonies. Culpa is a felony. Are aggravating and mitigating circumstances applicable to Art.
365? o No, Art. 365, because it involves negligence, Another principle in De los Santos – can Art. 48 apply if the
constituent acts are less grave felony and light felony? o No, light offenses are not included (see excerpt). If under Art. 48, the maximum of the graver penalty is imposed, is it
a special aggravating circumstance? o No. What if the accused is entitled to a generic mitigating
negligence in view of the definition of felonies in Article 3 as “acts or omissions punishable by law” committed either by means of deceit (dolo) or fault (culpa). In Reodica v. Court of Appeals, we ruled that if a reckless, imprudent, or negligent act results in two or more grave or less grave felonies, a complex crime is committed. Thus, in Lapuz v. Court of Appeals, the accused was convicted, in conformity with Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, of the complex crime of “homicide with serious physical injuries and damage to property through reckless imprudence,” and was sentenced to a single penalty of imprisonment, instead of the two penalties imposed by the trial court. Also, in Soriao v. Court of Appeals, the accused was convicted of the complex crime of “multiple homicide with damage to property through reckless imprudence” for causing a motor boat to capsize, thereby drowning to death its twenty-eight passengers. The slight physical injuries caused by GLENN to the ten other victims through reckless imprudence, would, had they been intentional, have constituted light felonies. Being light felonies, which are not covered by Article 48, they should be treated and punished as separate offenses. Separate informations should have, therefore, been filed.
offender, under the pro reo principle. What does J. Tinga mean by that? o
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides that when the single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period. Since Article 48 speaks of felonies, it is applicable to crimes through
Because even if there are two crimes committed, the law only punishes the offender for one, although it is in the maximum.
circumstance, will it offset? o No, unless it is a privileged mitigating circumstance. De los Santos:
In P v. Comadre, SC said that Art. 48 is for the benefit of the
Because in the eyes of the law, the two crimes stem from one criminal intent – this is less perverse in the eyes of the law
compared to punishing him for two crimes. Does this apply to the second part of Art. 48? o Yes, because the first act was only a means done to commit
the second crime. There is still one criminal resolution. How did the SC reason this out in P v. Hernandez? o Absorption in political crimes.
53
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo o
Read the dissent of J. Montemayor. He said that pro reo should
People v. Paicana, Jr.: the accused stabbed his wife to death, and she
was 6 months pregnant at the time. Is he liable for complex crime? o Yes. Parricide with unintentional abortion, Take note of difference between Ampito and Batulanon cases [for the
not apply to the second paragraph because he committed two o
crimes, unlike in the first paragraph. The majority rejected this by pointing out that both means were
bar]
included in the same provision. If the treatment for the second paragraph must be different, then it should have been placed in
a different provision. How do you define grave and less grave offense? o Defined according to the penalty. o Grave: afflictive or capital o Less grave: corrective Does 48 apply if one crime is under RPC and one is SPL? o No. It mentioned “felonies.” o So punish them separately. Ex. violated estafa and BP 22. If one is under RPC and ordinance? o No. Punished under both the RPC and the ordinance violated. Can there be a complex crime of arson and homicide? o No. It’s either only simple arson or simple homicide. NEVER o
Recits
Can robbery with force upon things be complexed with robbery
with violence against persons? o Yes. The former can be a means to commit the latter. Is coup d’etat a political crime? o Yes. o Political crimes are those directly aimed against the political order. Any common crime committed in furtherance of a o
complex. Look at intent.
o
political crime is absorbed. The common crimes are absorbed because they are necessary to achieve the political purpose. What about illegal possession of firearms? Yes. Absorbed. Ponce Enrile v. Salazar case.
Lecture Lecture
Will Art. 48 apply if the resulting crimes from the single act constitute two different felonies? o Yes. Ex. I threw a grenade at the house of my wife and paramour, and both died. Guilty for complex crime under Art.
48(1) – murder and parricide. P v. Magalona P v. Macasling: Art. 48 will apply even if there is mere abberatio ictus. Ex. I fired my gun at A, but killed B instead. Art. 48 will apply: attempted
homicide with consummated murder. Can one person be liable for homicide and SPI? o P v. Patrolla: Yes.
Article 48 does not apply to special complex crimes o Ex. robbery with homicide, robbery with rape, robbery with o
intentional mutilation Ex. kidnapping with murder, kidnapping with rape, kidnapping with homicide
People v. Ordono – the accused each raped the victim, and one of them killed the victim. Both are guilty of rape with homicide (one each), even if only one killed the victim.
Delito continuado (continuing crime)
54
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
Applied by the SC to the crime of theft: People v. Tomblos, P v. De Leon.
o
There is only one crime of theft even if the accused stole 13 cows
Penalty for the more serious crime, applied in its maximum period.
belonging to two different owners. “Single larceny rule” was applied if a person steals several objects in the same occasion, in the same place,
although belonging to different people Offender stole 6 roosters at same time and place there is only one
Art. 49
crime of theft (Ppl v. Jaranillo) ; Act of taking 2 or more is not susceptible
of division and in the eyes of the law Mallari v. P – Mallari wanted to borrow money P3K, but the lender wanted to give P1,500 only. Mortgaged two lots to secure debt. Went to the aunt to borrow instead, and mortgaged the same two lots. The titles
ended up committing parricide… art 49 applicable? – see Boado p. 260
were falsified. delito continuado: even if there were two transactions, there was a single criminal resolution leading to a single crime of estafa
through falsification of public document. Adultery is not a delito continuado. Each sexual act is an offense. P v. Zapata: adultery is consummated and exhausted at the time of carnal
union. May this apply in special penal laws? Yes. Santiago v Garchitorena –
Skipped 50-60
Memorize Art 50 But take note that the regular provisions on calculation of penalty do not apply for the privileged mitigating circumstance in Art. 68
READ:
extend stay of aliens by virtue of EO. Despite this, she signed several
Ppl v Bonn
orders approving the legalization of 32 aliens violating order of
Ppl v Sarsia
president. Did she commit 32 crimes or only one? HELD: Crime is
Ppl v Jacinto (March 16, 2011)
continuing. Triggered only be single criminal purpose. Intent to borrow from one person but also borrowed from another – this -Mallari case Can you apply Art. 48 to plunder? NO! o J. Regalado: Plunder is unique. Can’t apply Art. 48. Although there maybe some predicate crimes, only ONE CRIME is
might be asked in mids also! N.B.: this provision only applies for error in personae Not to aberratio ictus or praeter intentionem o Because here, Art. 48 applies
Santiago was an immigration commissioner; it was prohibited for her to
is a continuing crime of estafa through falsification of a public document.
Might ask q in midterms – what if A intended to kill B homicide but he
committed. What is the penalty for a complex crime?
Art. 59 – for impossible penalty
There is some commentary that the penalty for impossible crime does not apply for light penalties (or else, the penalty for the impossible crime would be greater than the crime itself)
Art. 67
55
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
Has become inoperative. Apply Art. 365 instead
Art. 64
Art. 61 and 71
MEMORIZE the scale under article 71 so that you can compute
graduation of penalties under ISL Amended by RA 9346. Death penalty should not be taken into account for graduation of
penalties. ONLY reclusion perpetua is indivisible now.
Art. 62
Special aggravating circumstances: o Abuse of public position o Crime committed by organized/syndicated group In this case, conspiracy is assumed What does this mean? o It cannot be offset by generic mitigating circumstances Distinguish habitual delinquency from recidivism and reiteracion.
might be asked! Habitual Delinquency: This provision applies even if robbery is with
homicide (Ppl v Aquino; Ppl v Santiago). If all committed within 10 yrs,
isa lang yan. Conviction of accused for 2nd / 3rd must be after 10 yrs. (read more; I didn’t catch everything he said sa part na to-yas)
aggravating, the court may impose a penalty one degree lower. o Ex. if there are four mitigating circumstances, once you use two to lower the penalty by one degree, the two are useless na.
These have no effect. Basan v. P What if the accused is sentenced to reclusion perpetua, has two generic MC, and no AC. Can it be lowered by one degree? o P v. Tacbojo (June 1993) No. No matter how many MCs there are, RP cannot be reduced by degrees
Penalty of fine
Art. 63
Check paragraph 5. If there are two or more generic mitigating and no
Art. 66 and 75 Study this well What are the scenarios: o Either the law imposes a penalty of fine o OR penalty of fine AND imprisonment o OR penalty of fine or imprisonment If the law provides for a penalty of fine of not less than 50K to 100K the court has discretion to impose a fine within these bounds Will you apply the ISL by analogy? o No. It does not apply here. If the law specifies penalty of fine OR penalty of imprisonment (Ex. BP 22), can the court impose a similar alternative penalty? o NO. The court must make a definite choice. Increase or reduction in the degree of the fine: o Increase or reduce (as the case may be), the maximum by 1/4th
Made inoperative by RA 9346 Then, there are two indivisible penalties (death and RP). But now, only
of the maximum amount o Do not change the minimum P v. Judge: Fine cannot be used as substitute penalty to imprisonment.
RP is indivisible. o Cannot be affected by mitigating circumstances o EXCEPT privileged mitigating circumstances
Penalty of fine is independent from penalty of imprisonment. Lazaro v. P: Accused drew and issued a check to pay for an obligation, but it bounced. Changed for BP 22. During trial, accused paid the
56
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo value of the check. So there was no more damage to the complainant, but the case was already pending. May the accused be convicted for a fine still? o Yes. Penalty of fine does not go to the offended party but the State. Art. 68
Art. 70
Reclusion perpetua shall be considered as 30 years only for the
purpose of service of sentence. What are the penalties that can be served simultaneously with
In conjunction with RA 9344: DP cannot be imposed to a minor AM 02-1-18 note this o 1 Dec 2009: If the minor committed a crime and the time the law took effect, he was already 21, can he enjoy the benefit of
suspension of sentence o Padua v. P RA 9344, Sec. 2 – o Minor 15 or younger: exempt (no discretion to commit a crime) RA 9262 o A woman who is suffering from BWS is exempt from criminal
liability If a minor is charged with a heinous crime punishable by death or RP-
death, is he entitled to suspension of conviction? o Yes. Ubi lex non distinguit, nec non distinguire debemos. o P v. Garcia But if the minor commits a SPL, which does not follow nomenclature of
RPC, the minor is not entitled to privileged MC. o Ex. Life imprisonment in Illegal Recruitment Is the recommendation of the social worker binding on the court? o No. The court must ascertain the basis of the finding of the social worker o P v. Candelario If minor has already reached the age of 21, proceed with enforcement of judgment of conviction.
Art. 69
P v. Bon If the penalty is death, reduced to RP with no parole.
penalty of imprisonment? o 1. Perpetual absolute DQ o 2. Perpetual special DQ o 3. Temporary absolute DQ o 4. Temporary special DQ o 5. Suspension o 6. Public censure o 7. Fine o 8. Bond to keep the peace o 9. Civil interdiction Can destierro be imposed as the same time as imprisonment? o No. Imprisonment must be served by the convict successively, following the order of their severity, as provided for by Art. 71 o 2nd sentence does not commence until after the first expires. Is subsidiary imprisonment included in computing the 40 year period? NO. Do not include subsidiary imprisonment penalty in the computation
of 40 years. It is indeterminate. Accused may be able to pay the fine. ART 70 does NOT apply to life imprisonment. Ex. DDA > highest penalty is life imprisonment / death; specifically provided that RPC provisions will not apply except when accused is a minor such that RPC provisions will apply (ex. death penalty cannot be
imposed on a minor) Accused sentenced to 3 counts RP, so sentence not more than 40 yrs. While in jail, he killed a assaulted n killed a security guard –direct assault with homicide. Will this be included in 40 yr period? NO. Bec this
57
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
happened already AFTER the final judgment. Otherwise he can commit
Art. 87 – Destierro: Memorize
crimes w/ impunity and not serve sentence. If penalties are indeterminate (max,min), basis will be MAXIMUM of the
radius specified – which shall be from 25-250 KM from the place
indeterminate penalty (Desierto case). Despite Art 27 amendment, that the range of rp is now 40 yrs, nevertheless, reference of 30 yrs as basis
for computation for rp under art 70 remains. RA 7659 did NOT amend art 70 of the RPC. Lagran case: when the accused has been sentenced to 2 or more terms of imprisonment, the term should be served successively, NOT
simultaneously, but not to exceed 40 yrs. Ppl v Conte: 11 counts of rape, successive
service as
long as not exceeding 40 yrs
How will accuse pay civil liability if he has been sentenced / serving in
prison? Chronologically. NO COMPUTATION OF PENALTIES IN THE MIDTERMS
Art. 76
Not permitted to enter places designated in the sentence, nor within
specified. It is NOT included in Art 70; however if it is an accessory penalty, it is included in art 70
Art. 89
Is parole a mode of extinguishing criminal liability? Yes, partial extinction
of penalty P v. Bayotas: civil liability of accused extinguished by death includes
duty to restitute the proceeds of the crime But civil liability predicated on a source other than the delict survives. Can be executed against the estate.
No penalty executed except by virtue of final judgment If the person is acquitted, cannot anymore be subjected to public
Absolute pardon and amnesty
censure (P v. Abellera) Judge sentenced accused to 25 years RP; can he be compelled to
serve sentence? o No. There is no such sentence as 25 years of RP; just RP. o Remedy: writ of habeas corpus. Art. 79
If the convict becomes insane or an imbecile: suspend service of
sentence and sent to hospital for necessary treatment Any time convict recovers, his sentence shall be executed But the civil liability should still be enforced in spite of insanity or
Pardon: does not look back; looks to the future and is not retrospective o If he is pardoned and commits a crime of the same title, he is o
still a recidivist Given by president; board of pardons and parole can give
recommendation but president is NOT bound o Civil liability still remains Amnesty: everything is extinguished Pardon is a private act of the President and must be proved by the accused, unlike amnesty, where the court can take judicial notice
because it is a public act with the concurrence of Congress Effects on right to suffrage and right to hold public office:
imbecility of the person
58
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo o
Absolute pardon granted by President to civil rights, but for
o
Supposing there are 3 accused: principal by direct
these two specific rights, it must be specifically granted by the
participation, principal by indispensable cooperation, and
pardon P v. Patriarca
an accomplice – if there is marriage between principal by
TORTURE? may one take advantage of amnesty? NO. It is a limitation
direct participation, does this extinguish liability for the
on the power of Congress.
other accused? Yes, they are benefited. This was the intent of the
How about terrorism? May pardon be granted? (RA 9372) yes, because
Senate when they removed the original proviso stating
rpc applies suppletorily to terrorism
that the co-principal, accomplice, and accessory do
Art. 344
US v. Guarin –the offended party may grant the offenders, in the crime
naturalization. He is found out. He decided to withdraw the
of concubinage and adultery o Offended party may pardon before institution of criminal o
complaint If there is conviction by final judgment, the President may grant
PARDON EVEN IF it is a private crime Service of sentence: amnesty o Kapunan Jr. v. CA: Ramos issued a proclamation granting
petition for naturalization. Does this extinguish liability? o Chua v. P No. This extinguishes merely the application but not
involved in rebellion”)? Yes. But the amnesty does not include any crime not
offended party pertains only to civil liability, even if offended party n accused NOVATE civil action. It does NOT affect criminal liability
Marriage o P v. De Guzman (3 March 2010) – Under 8353, the marriage between offender and offended party in rape or sexual assault will extinguish criminal liability and the penalty already imposed
o
(EXCEPT if the marriage is VOID) So even if the marriage happened during service of sentence, even the penalty already imposed is extinguished
(Diongzon v CA) How about restitution of property subject of offense? Does returning property extinguish criminal liability? No, because criminal act has already happened. It may only be a mitigating circumstance akin to
covered by the proclamation itself. The latter must specify the crimes to which amnesty is extended.
the liability for a crime already committed DOES novation extinguish criminal liability? No. Whatever complaining witness does, it does not affect criminal liability of the accused. Claim of
amnesty to Honasan,, Capunan, etc. Does the proclamation include members of the AFP (“any person who may have been
not benefit (through Sen. Enrile’s statement). Suppose an accused made perjurious statements in petition for
voluntary surrender (Sahot v People). Tan v. Phil Comm intl Bank: For BP 22, when a check was issued, there were no funds. There was a demand, he was given 5 days, he paid w/in 5 days. no liability. o If there were still no funds when presented, there is “amnesty period” for 5 days to pay. If paid no liability. (Tan v PCIB)
Prescription of crimes
59
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
State, by its inaction WAIVES its right to prosecute a person.
Prerogative of the state. If the penalty imposed on the convict is a compound one, what is
the basis for prescription? o The highest penalty. Destierro is correctional: prescribes in 10 years What should be considered to determine whether the crime has prescribed or not? o Romualdez v. PCGG: Consider the FF 1. Period of the offense charged 2. Period when it begins to run 3. Period when it is interrupted o Act 3326 – the law defining how to compute prescription for crimes under SPL But there are SPLs that themselves provide for
But what is the rule for marriage? o Jarillo v. P: Prescriptive period should begin to run from when State or agents or offended party acquired actual knowledge of the second marriage. Unlike property registration, registration
of marriage is not constructive knowledge of marriage. Continuing crime? When is it discovered? From the last act; depends on
the nature of the crime It is NOT the discovery of the identity of the perpetrator but the discovery
of the crime; corpus delicti What if crime is IP crime? When the offended party files a complaint w/ the task force for violation of IP law ; when filed w/ task force,
prescriptive period is suspended How about a document involving the sale / mortgage of real property, the original of which is registered w/ the ROD? Can it be said that filing of doc w/ ROD = crime of perjury should have been discovered? YES.
manner of computing prescription Ex. OEC 5 years What is the rule under Act 3326? o Prescriptive period: from when it is known to the offended party
Reyes) This is dif from bigamy. Registration does NOT constitute constructive
or to the State or agents If not known when committed, when discovered by the
knowledge. Prescription of a light crime – art 9 of rpc will apply
o
Filing of Doc is constructive notice; provided by PD1521. (People v
offended party or the State or its agents RA 9351 > genocide imprescriptible. What do you mean by offended party? o Private party or government or agents When is the period interrupted? o Counted when complaint filed for preliminary investigation with
Prescription of penalties
public prosecutor or the OMB. How about continuing crime? When does period being to run? o Prescription period runs after the occurrence of the LAST act. Supposing a document is executed – ex. REM – and it is falsified.
When does the period run? o For documents required to be filed with the Reg. of Deeds,
Partial extinction, conditional pardon
Luna v. Warden, Del Castillo v. Torrecampo – the prescriptive period for penalties begins to crime when the accused commits the crime of evasion of service of sentence Even a person who violates destierro can be liable for evasion of sentence.
period begins to run upon filing with the ROD (P v. Pacificador)
60
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
Grant of conditional pardon interrupts prescription of penalty upon acceptance of the pardon (ppl v pontillas)
The ff are not entitled to executive clemency: Disqualified from pardon per Board of Pardons and Parole 1. Evade sentence 2. Violated condition of pardon 3. Habitual delinquents / recidivists 4. Kindnapping for ransom 5. DDA 6. Release would pose danger to society 7. Dementia / insanity *PARDON: not effective until accepted; extinguishes crim liability to extent remitted Usual condition not commit another crime during its period If convict violates the condition, president may order re-arrest of pardonee
o Art. 221 otherwise o [NOT SURE] Does a complex crime under Art. 48 automatically mean there is only one civil liability? o No. There is as many civil as crimes pa rin, because Art.48 is strictly a pre reo provision in criminal law and does not extend
to civil liabilities. Is the adopted civilly liable for the damage caused by the adopted
minor? o Yes. What are the requirements for the employer to be civilly liable for
damage caused by their employees? o The employee has to be insolvent. Is a teacher liable for student’s acts? o Only when engaged in industry. Mere consulting doctors in a hospital negligently left gauze in the stomach of a person they operated on. Is the hospital liable? o Respondeat superior because there was control exerted by
bec he commits a crime (violation of conditional pardon) and K between president and pardonee
o
Once commuted, original sentence is NOVATED.
the hospital Are these consultants deemed employees? Yes. Because employer-employee relationship is not determined by the nomenclature of the relationship.
Recitations
Art. 12(1) – in relation to RA 9344 Minor exempt from criminal
liability. Is the minor civilly liable? o The minor is also exempt from civil liability. o Parents/guardians are civilly liable o Relate with Art. 221 in Family Code Supposing the minor acted with discernment, but the minor is criminally liable for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. Is he civilly liable? o Apply 2180 negligence, culpable felony
o
Professional Services v. Natividad For medical negligence cases, an employer-employee relationship exists between hospitals and their attending physicians, including medical consultants. Ratio: performance of these doctors are evaluated by a peer review board based on feedback from patients, mortality statistics. The private hospitals can
hire/fire/exercise control over the consultants. The hospital is owned by a private corporation. Is the private corporation civilly liable for the negligence of the consultantdoctors?
61
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo o
If a private hospital is owned by a private corporation, such corporation may be held liable on the basis of corporate
qualifies is given an indeterminate penalty consisting of maximum and
negligence or corporate responsibility. As the owner of the the hospital meets the needs of the patients, including close
minimum. Service of accused of minimum makes him eligible for parole. If allowed,
supervision over medical staff, including consultants. When can the employer be exempted from subsidiary liability, or
he will be discharged. MAXIMUM will be based on the penalty provided for by law. Penalty will
hospital, the private corporation is duty-bound to see to it that
be reduced by 1 degree. Then minimum will be taken from penalty
have it lessened? o Phil. Rabbit v. P: If there is collusion between employee and
reduced by 1 degree. Whatever aggravating / mitigating circumstances are attendant will be taken into account only in the imposition of the
private complainant, ex. the claim is inflated, in order for the
employer to have more liability. In order for employer to be liable, there must be proof that the employee
this? Upon the submission of the sheriff’s return. If the employee is convicted based on reasonable doubt, is there civil liability for the employer? o Yes. The only time there is no civil liability, is when the court
law.
charge was based on. Regardless as to who the actual owner of the motor vehicle might be,
o
of society as a whole. To give individual a chance to rejoin society and be an asset to
society instead of merely being a fugitive / prisoner What if felony is frustrated? Reduce penalty by one degree. Accomplice only? Reduce penalty by one degree. Ex. Homicide degree lower PC. Maximum will be taken from the RT / PM / PC De Joya v. Jail Warden: The State is concerned not only in protecting also in redeeming the individual for economic usefulness and other
public or third persons. The owner on record is the employer of the
Looks at convict as private individual, and secondly as member
social organization against criminal acts of destructive individuals, but
the registered owner is the operator of the same with respect to the driver; the actual operator and owner are mere agents of the registered
o
punishable by RT reduce to PM ; if accessory only, reduce to another
holds that the accused did not commit the acts on which the
maximum of the indeterminate sentence. PURPOSE OF ISL: For benefit of convict, and to increase economic contribution. Purpose: to individualize the administration of Phil. penal
is insolvent. Proven through returns of the sheriff. o Can the employer challenge the sheriff’s returns? Yes. o At what stage of the proceedings can the employer do
FOR MIDS: Determine who are qualified and who are not. Under ISL, one may enjoy partial extinction of penalty. Convict who
owner of the vehicle. (First Malayan Leasing v. CA) BA Finance v. CA: The registered owner is subsidarily liable (not the lessee), but the registered owner can recover from the lessee.
social ends. Sec. 1: o Court must determine the maximum of the indeterminate o
penalty, and then the minimum Minimum: court has unlimited discretion within the range of the minimum of the penalty one degree lower than the penalty
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
imposed by law Cannot avail of ISL / who are disqualified? 62
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo o
1. Convicted and punished with death, life imprisonment, RP For the purpose of ISL, life imprisonment and RP are
o
synonymous. Serrano v. CA 2. Treason, misprision of treason, proposal to commit treason,
o o o o
rebellion, sedition, espionage; piracy, 3. Habitual delinquents 4. Escaped confinement or evaded sentence 5. Violated conditional pardon 6. If penalty imposed does NOT exceed one year (ex. arresto
mayor) o [7. Those already sentenced by FJ upon passage of Act] PENALTY imposed upon the above will no longer be lowered by one
degree. Bates v. P: If the court imposes a penalty of fine (if alternative between
When the person serves the minimum of the ISL, he may apply for parole. He will be allowed to leave the penal institution under certain
conditions. (Ex. do not commit crime, etc.) This lasts for a certain period of time. If he complies with the conditions of the parole, the Board of Pardons and Parole will give out final release and discharge.
PENALTY FOR COMPLEX CRIME? Maximum period; Ppl v Gonzales 73 PHIL 549; Misurtado v SBN; Santos v SBN Example: homicide w/ frustrated homicide. Conformably w/ art 48, sentenced to ID penalty of (choose from prision mayor) to 17yrs max of RT in its MAXIMUM period.
imprisonment and fine), the ISL does not apply because it applies only
to penalty of imprisonment with divisible penalty. There are laws which expressly provide that the convict is not entitled to
the benefits of the ISL and parole. Ex. terrorism law. Offenders who commit crimes while on parole are DQed from ISL. Consider the criminal as member of society, relationship with
Probation
NUMBER ONE RULE: if you file appeal, you lose probation. If you file
dependents, family, society at large. Is he civic minded? Read Guinhawa v. People when a straight penalty is imposed, and
for probation, you cannot appeal. RA 9344 penalty is suspended. Minor is given a chance to comply
when not o Answer: when BOTH minimum and maximum durations of
with conditions. If he reaches 21, he goes to jail, but with
Probation: if the minor is incorrigible, then he will serve the penalty of
imprisonment. But he is still entitled to probation. RA 9344 is an amendment of the Probation Law. Because normally
if you appeal, you lose probation. But under 9344, allowed. Pablo Francisco v. CA (April 6 1995). Usual rule: if the penalty exceeds
imprisonment are less than 1 year. For instance, in this case, the maximum was four months and one day. The court imposed a straight penalty of 60 days.
Parole
6 years, you lose benefit of probation. He was sentenced for 3 crimes, tried jointly, each having less then 6 year penalty. But if you add them all together, they exceed 6 years. HELD: By a vote of 8-7, the SC said
63
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo he is entitled to probation. The penalty for EACH crime is considered,
o
not all the crimes. P v. Evangelista: Convicted of frustrated homicide (prision mayor).
etc. there can be murder or rape. Nevertheless there is civil
Appealed to CA: affirmed, but with modifications. He filed petition for
o
probation. He claimed he did not appeal from CA decision. HELD: No probation, because “appeal” that matters is appeal from the trial court,
Yes. P v. Hernandez. Ex. political crimes like rebellion, sedition,
liability for these acts. P v. Malngan. Yes, there is criminal liability for homicide, even
if absorbed by arson. Rodriguez v. Pomferada: I issued a post-dated check in payment of a current obligation. It bounced. How many crimes? Two: BP 22 and
not the CA. RA 9372: those who commit terrorism not entitled to probation. If the court denied petition for probation, but there was GADALEJ
remedy is Rule 65 (Certiorari)\ Soriano v. CA: In the probation that was granted, a condition was that
crimes, there is only one check, thus there should only be one payment
he has to submit a program of payment for the civil liability. He did not
estafa. Q: Will the person have to pay twice for the value of the check, considering there is only one check? HELD: Although there are two
pay. The probation was revoked for failure to comply. Went to the CA:
of the check. Damages: o Art. 2202: for crimes and q-delicts liable for all natural and
“unconstitutional because he is being imprisoned for nonpayment of debt” HELD: Wrong contention! Imprisoned for not complying for
o
probable consequences of the act or omission Art 2204: liability may be increased or decreased depending on
o
aggravating or mitigating circumstances 2197 actual or compensatory, moral, exemplary, temperate,
o
nominal, etc. 104: reparation, restitution, indemnification for consequential
condition of probation, not for nonpayment.
CIVIL LIABILITIES
Whether punishable by law or not. (Because it can be based on Ks, or
quasi-delicts). There may be victimless crimes or crimes with victims. The moment the criminal action is instituted, the civil action is instituted
along with it. Crimes defined by SPL can there be civil penalties? o Yes. P v. Pajaro. But there must be evidence that a party, including the government sustained substantial injury so that
the accused may be civilly liable. If a crime is absorbed by another crime, can there be civil liability in the absorbed crime, juridically speaking?
damages o 2200: not only value lost, but also lost profits Moral damages o Macalinaw v. Ong: includes physical suffering, besmirched reputation, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, wounded o
feelings, etc. Under what circumstances may MD be recoverd? Crimes leading to physical injuries Includes death Quasi-delicts Seduction abduction rape or other lascivious acts Adultery concubinage Illegal arbitrary detention, arrest, search Libel slander defamation
64
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
Exemplary damages o Art. 2229: exemplary or corrective damages imposed by
Interest o Art. 2211: right now, 6%
Even with RA 9346, the classification of crimes as heinous and quasi-
way of example or correction. Intended to serve as deterrent to o
serious wrong doings and vindication When a crime has one or more ACs, exemplary damages may
o
be imposed In criminal law, an AC not alleged in the information
heinous still remains (heinous: death; quasi-heinous: RP) o If the crime is heinous: 75,000 indemnity 50,000 moral damages o Quasi-heinous 50,000 indemnity 50,000 moral damages
cannot be considered. Does the same rule apply for ACs, which can be the basis of exemplary damages under the NCC?
P v. Demape: word “aggravating” in NCC should be applied in its generic sense since it does not distinguish. Includes specific aggravating, qualifying
circumstances, etc. These are distinct and separate
Civil indemnity in rape and sexual assault
from penalty of fine in the RPC. Even if not alleged in the complaint or information, if
proven = can lead to exemplary damages. The rule is o
under the NCC and not the RPC, after all. Even if treachery is a qualifying circumstance under AR 248, it can be treated as a generic aggravating circumstance for the
o
purpose of imposing exemplary damages P v. Gonzales: May exemplary damages be awarded in arson?
o
HELD: Yes. “It is an anti-social act.” Relationship may be a basis for granting exemplary damages
even if it is an inherent element of the crime (ex. parricide) Temperate damages o Art 2224: it must be reasonable o The heirs of a deceased in homicide, murder, parricide: entitled to actual damages, as proved by requisite documentary evidence. If the actual damages are not proved, the court may
prove temperate damages. Attorney’s fees o Art 2228: must be reasonable
P v. Jalandoni: simple rape indemnity 50,000; moral damages 50,000 o No need to prove besmirched reputation, mental anguish etc. It goes without saying already. REGARDLESS of sexual
preference, religious orientation, etc.. P v. Santiago P v. Palma: Sexual assault (finger) o 30,000 indemnity o 30,000 moral damages Raped three times: o There must be a separate award for each crime. o It cannot be one award for 150,000. There must be three separate awards for 50,000 each. General rule: for rape support child born out of rape. (Art. 345 “in every case”) o May the offender be compelled to give support to the child born out of rape, although the woman is married? US v. Hernandez: No, not if the woman is already married. Dissent by Justice Regalado: compel offender, provided that the paternity of the child to the
65
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo offender is established. (Basis: Art. 345 of RPC does o
not distinguish) But the offender cannot be obliged to acknowledge offspring in adultery and concubinage, when the offended party is married
and paternity cannot be determined. P v. Hapin: use of woman to rape a woman is aggravating – even special: o 25,000 damages Acts of lasciviousness: o 5,000 moral o 2,000 exemplary for each count Qualified rape: o 75,000 indemnity o 50,000 moral damages Rape with homicide: o 100,000 indemnity o 50,000 moral damages For moral damages on parricide, homicide, rape, etc. No need to allege emotional suffering on information. o But some cases say that in homicide or murder, there must be
Magbanua v. Tabusares THIS PROVIDES FORMULA ON HOW TO COMPUTE
Thus, the formula for the computation of unearned income is: Net living Earning Capacity
life =
expectancy
gross x
annual less income
expenses
Life expectancy is determined in accordance with the formula: 2/3
x
[80 – age of deceased]
Robbery with homicide: o 50,000 indemnity o
50,000 moral damages
Forcible abduction with rape (for each count):
proof that the heirs suffered emotional pain, suffering, etc. Ex.
if they are separated, then they don’t feel anything. Consummated homicide: o 50,000 indemnity o 50,000 moral damages Frustrated homicide: o 30,000 moral damages Attempted homicide: o 30,000 moral damages o Moral v. P: 10,000 lang In reckless imprudence resulting to homicide: o Indemnity o Moral damages
o
75,000 indemnity
o
50,000 moral damages
Kidnapping with rape: o
100,000 for kidnapping
o
25,000 for moral damages
o
50,000 for slight illegal detention
Victim kidnapped was 8 years old:
66
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
o
50,000 indemnity
o
200,000 moral damages
o
100,000 exemplary damages – because demand for ransom was deemed an AC
Qualified carnapping: o o
50,000 moral
If he cannot prove actual value of actual damages, what must one prove to be entitled to temperate damages? Claimant need not prove actual amount, as long as
there is proof that there is loss. Court may grant temperate damages, as long as
reasonable. P v. Billaber: In a charge for illegal recruitment, the money paid by the applicant (placement fee, etc.), o 12% interest on the return of the amount paid from time of filing
75,000 indemnity
Art 105, 106 - restitution and reparation
o
of the case until the amount has been paid. Palana v. P: The petition was convicted for BP 22. Ordered to pay to offended party the amount of check with interest (6%) from filing of information until the finality of the decision + 12% per annum from finality of decision until the amount was paid.
Restitution Order to return ransom: because the father gave ransom to offender. Basis: Art. 105 and 108 of the RPC. What if a third person acquired a property that was subject of crime? o Can still recover the item from that person o But the buyer in GF is entitled to reimbursement from thief or criminal If the stolen property cannot be returned anymore, what is the remedy? o Value of the thing taken. o When do you determine value? At time of commission of crime or upon order of return? Rationale is to bring back the situation to before the crime was committed. Value of the property in the
commission of the crime must be the basis. What other liabilities aside from restitution and reparation? o Under NCC, for one to be able to recover actual damages, he must be able to prove by documentary evidence the actual damages sustained by him
67
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo RPC BOOK TWO
by giving arms. Can there be accomplices or accessories in
I: CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY
treason? Or are they all principals? o As long as you performed an overt act, there is a an act of
TREASON (114) Recits
Is treason delito continuado? o Delito continuado contemplates a series of acts committed over time, but only instigated by a single criminal resolution. Guinto v. De Luz; P v. Victoria: either a single or act, or a series
of acts impelled by one criminal intent. How many ways can treason be done? o 1. Levying war against the Philippines o 2. Adhering to the enemy, by giving aid or comfort D’Aquino v US: o Was a dual citizen (US/Japanese), who worked in a radio show o
treason already. There can be no accomplice or accessory in
o
that discouraged American troops and lowered their morale. “What is punished as an element of treason is unlicensed
adherence, not licensed adherence.” Kawakita v US: o Was a dual citizen (US/Japanese) too. o Sided with Japan in the war. But registering as a Japanese citizen and gaining employment in Japan does not o
notwithstanding Japanese occupation during the war. Their loyalty must still remain with the Philippines.
14, and will just assess the crime, according to its barbarity. Is treason a specific intent crime? o Yes. The specific intent is to deliver the country to the enemy. o If you don’t intend to deliver the country to an enemy, then it is mere rebellion Aliens may also be guilty of treason. Under what circumstances? o If they are residents of the Philippines, because as resident aliens, they owe temporary allegiance to the Philippines. While
they are here, they are under the protection of the Philippines. Treason is a war crime. Explain. o It cannot be committed during time of peace. It may be incubated during time of peace, but once war commences,
treason may blossom into a crime (only then). Is there a complex crime of treason with rape, murder, etc.? o No. It is a political crime, and thus absorbs these other component acts. Remember P v. Hernandez, where there was a heated SC discussion on the nature of political crimes.
prior renunciation of the American citizenship, and this was not
the crime of treason. Are Articles 13 and 14 applicable to treason? o No. The penalty does not depend on 13 or 14, but on the nature of the crime committed. The SC will not apply 13 and
automatically revoke the dual-US citizenship. Dual citizenship is not a defense. There must have been a
done. Laurel v. Misa: o Philippine government was still the de jure government,
There are those who hid the principals in treason or helped them
These are essential elements of the crime of treason; without
these, treason could not be committed. What do you mean by levying war? Is the mere assemblage of armed men with capacity to overthrow the government enough? Or is there a need to strike? o Levying of war means an armed body of men, committing acts of violence for purpose of overthrowing the government. Mere
68
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo conspiracy to overthrow is not enough. There must be an actual assemblage of men for the purpose of executing treasonous design by force. They must be in such a position
Philippines, he can be liable for treason, based on his temporary
that they may overthrow the government. It is not even necessary that they be armed by high powered arms, but it is enough that they constitute enough men to overthrow the
the realm of action. o Does the mere act of Haut of letting his son stay in his house constitute the overt act of giving aid and comfort?
not enough; the witnesses must be credible. Each witness must testify
there is a higher bar. The offenders committed five overt acts. Must the prosecution prove all five with two witnesses? o No. They can prove even just one. o But note that the witnesses must be credible.
Lecture
those not present in the scene but playing just a small part are
considered principals. This is the only provision in the RPC that is based on the constitution of the US (Art 3, Sec 3), and not borrowed from Spain. This includes the
have witnesses prove each component. If there is confession in open court, then no need for two witnesses. P v. Perez: Getting women to satisfy sexual urges of enemy soldiers not giving aid and comfort to the enemy. o J Callejo disagrees. He thinks this is giving aid and comfort
Corpus Juris Secundum: Treason differs from other crimes, because all persons are regarded as principals. Those aiding or abetting, or even
to the same overt act. P v. Deguyo: if the acts are separable, there must be at least two witnesses for each separable act. o No need to have to prove the entire composite act; enough to
because treason is such a heavy crime, in order to prove it,
Yes. (The son here was aligned with Germany.) US v. Kramer: Purpose of two-witness rule – to prevent the possible fabrication of evidence to prosecute a person. Quantity of witnesses is
acts. There is difference in quantum of evidence to prove adherence and to prove the overt act. Explain. o Adherence may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence. o The overt act, however, must comply with the two-witness rule,
allegiance to the Philippines. Haut v. US; requirement of overt act of giving aid or comfort is to make sure that the crime of treason has moved from the realm of thought to
government. What is the second mode? o 1. Adhering to enemy o 2. For giving aid and comfort o N.B. BOTH elements must concur. Without one, there is no treason by the second mode. He must translate this to overt
o Testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act o Or confession in open court Laurel v. Misa: even if the alien is a mere temporary resident of the
to the enemy. P v. Lozano: Sexual and social relations with Japanese soldiers do not materially improve their war effort. o Again, J Callejo disagrees. Dillars v US: Aid and comfort may be made by speech. Article 12 defenses APPLY. (Uncontrollable fear, etc.) Treason absorbs common crimes. (Discussion above) The ISL does not apply to treason. There is a specific provision.
need to either have:
69
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
P v. Nunez: But a minor who committed treason is still entitled to
privileged mitigating circumstance of minority. Use of unlicensed firearms not aggravating.
Offenses: o 1. Without authority, entering warship, fort, etc. to obtain
CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT TREASON (115)
Conspiracy or proposal to commit treason is a crime in itself. But if they actually commit treason, these crimes lose their juridical
personality and become mere modes. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason MAY be committed during time of peace.
MISPRISION OF TREASON (116)
Felony by omission. Elements o 1. Aware of plan to commit treason; o 2. Fails to report it to governor/mayor or fiscal Gravamen of crime; WILLFUL or MALICIOUS concealment. It is a
crime by dolo. How much time? Depends on circumstances. ONLY committed by Filipinos, not a foreigner. Thus, dual citizens, who
are foreigners too, may NOT be liable for misprision of treason. Likewise, the two-witness rule does not apply Misprision of treason is different from being an accessory-after-the-fact.
o
Lecture
waters 2. Seizing the vessel in the vessel whole/part of its cargo, equipment, or personal belongings or complement or
passengers While in the high seas/Phil. waters The offenders must not be members of the complement or passengers MUTINY is also punished – only committed by crew or passengers o unlawful resistance to superior officer o or raising commotions and disturbances on board Qualifying circumstances: o 1. Seized a vessel by boarding or firing upon it o 2. Pirates abandoned victims without means to save themselves o 3. Attended by murder, homicide, PI, or rape P v. Tulin: RA 7659 merely expanded Arts 122 and 123, but under PD 532, there can be a separate crime of Piracy in Phil. waters or high seas
is still a principal of misprision of treason. ESPIONAGE (117)
Two modes of committing piracy: o 1. Attacking or seizing a vessel on high seas or Philippine o
statement is based on a UK case) Punished two degrees lower than treason, since the person who committed misprision is “punished as an accessory to treason.” But he
and disclosing them to foreign representative First mode: as long as there is intent; no need to actually obtain Can be committed even in time of peace
PIRACY (122-3)
The latter hides the principal. Misprision hides the conspiracy. o (Note though: there are no accessories in treason. This
information, etc. of confidential nature Relating to national defense 2. Possessing by reason of public office the information, etc.
from piracy in Phil. waters or high seas in Arts 122 and 123. How to distinguish: P v. Puno –
J. Callejo: “Just study this.” 70
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo o
o
PD 532 – one must prove that the perpetrators were purposely
them to be liable under Art 122 or 123 – they must not be part of the
indiscriminate commissions thereof. There must be evidence
crew or complement. o If they are passengers or crew members, the act is ROBBERY
of similar attempts or takings before. P v. Sandoval – Reiterated the “several indiscriminate
123 or 293, 294 (robbery). Piracy on the high seas: o P v. Lollo: Crime against the law of nations. o Piracy on high seas has two aspects: 1. Violation of common right of nations 2. Criminal liability of the pirates may be imposed by municipal law of the country, where found Arts 122, 123: o Makes mention of complement of vessel. Who are these? Under Art 648 of the Code on Commerce: All o
persons on board, from the captain to the cabin boy Par. 3 of 123 – physical injuries, murder, rape qualify the crime.
must be used in its generic term. For these common crimes to be an element of piracy, they
crime of piracy. It is a single, indivisible offense. Do not apply
Constitution: o High seas: all parts of the sea not included in the EEZ o EEZ: not extend beyond 200 nautical miles from shoreline RA 9372 – terrorism law o Piracy in Phil. waters or high seas are predicate crimes of in the population, then terrorism is committed, with these as
predicate crimes. PD 532 defines a vessel: o To transfer passengers or cargo o Includes boats for fishing P v. Catantan: There is crime under PD 532 even if offender did not seize the vessel, but merely boarded it and inflicted PI on the occupant
or owner. RA 6235 – aircraft hijacking is a predicate crime for terrorism under RA 9372 too.
must accompany the crime of piracy. There is no complex crime of piracy with rape, or murder, or PI. There is only one
under the RPC – Arts 293, 294. Philippine waters is defined differently in PD 532, from that in the
terrorism. If these are committed for purpose of sowing terror
Physical injuries include frustrated or attempted homicide. It o
Taking of the implements or cargo of the vessel or the passengers, for
organized not just for one act of robbery, but several
commissions” doctrine above. If there is only one, either 122,
II: CRIMES AGAINST FUNDAMENTAL LAW
o
Art 48. EVEN IF a lot of people died or were raped, there is still one
ARBITRARY DETENTION (124)
crime of piracy. But if these crimes were committed after the piracy has been
o o
committed, they become separate crimes. RA 8294 – even if they used unlicensed arms or explosives, there is no violation of this statute.
Astorga v. P: Elements of arbitrary detention o 1. Offender is public officer or employee o 2. Detains person o 3. Without legal grounds What is gravamen of the crime? o Detention without legal grounds by public officer or employee, of another person.
71
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
How do you distinguish this from kidnapping? o Arbitrary detention: public officer or employee vested with authority to arrest or detain another person, but detains another o
o
without any lawful cause. Kidnapping: offender is a private person and the purpose is to
deprive the victim of his or her liberty. Who are liable for arbitrary detention: o Public officers or employees authorized to detain another
jurisdiction, in their respective barangays. If they arrest
are composed of civilian volunteers. Under EO 264, they MAY
o
may arrest violators. Forest officers or employees of bureau of forest management –
they do not even need a warrant of arrest to arrest. Sec. 44 of RA 9165 – Dangerous Drugs Law o School heads, supervisors, teachers: they are persons of
whatever length of time. (Ex. keeping a child in the room, while o
official school activity May a private person be liable for arbitrary detention?
sinisindak mo siya with a big gun.) Astorga v. P: Fear has been known to make people immobile. This includes threats to kill, and similar threats. This is
equivalent to using actual physical force to detain. Take note of circumstances where people can be arrested without a warrant (in flagrante delicto, etc.) o Usual cause of Arbitrary Detention charge is arresting a person o
without warrant. Ex. a person evading his sentence may be arrested on the run without a warrant, because he is committing an offense in
flagrante delicto. David v. Arroyo: Mere fact that the accused was wearing a t-shirt saying “oust Gloria now” is not a reason in itself to be arrested for inciting to
sedition. P v. Lozada: Hot pursuit based on actual facts, with the use of the senses of the policemen, with reasonable basis to believe that the
authority, for the purpose of enforcing the Dangerous Drugs Law within school premises or outside school premises in an
arrest. So they can be liable for arbitrary detention. What do you mean by detention? o P v. Oliva: Psychological restraint, and not just physical restraint is enough for this provision, in whatever form, for
beyond their barangay, they are NOT persons in authority under this provision. Art. 152 – o Barangay captain o Barangay councilman o Barrio policeman What about Forestry Code? o District foresters are authorized to enforce Forestry Code and
person in authority. How about the CAFGU. Are they persons in authority? o Yes. P v. Flores: They are authorized to carry firearms, to complement the operations of the regular force of PNP; they
person. o Ex. PNP, NBI, even judges acting in official capacity Milo v. Salangga: Sec 338 of LGC – who are persons in authority, or agents of persons in authority authorized to detain: o Punong barangay o Members of sangguniang barangay o Members of lupong tagapamayapa o N.B. They are persons of authority but limited to their
Yes. US v. Ponte: if the private individual connives with the
person arrested is the author of the crime, etc. RA 9372 – terrorism o May a person be arrested for act of terrorism, and for how long must the arrested person be detained? Three days. Arbitrary detention may be committed by dolo or culpa.
72
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo o
Ex. Re-arresting a person who was released by means of order
of the court. May there be a complex crime of arbitrary detention with PI? o Yes. This happens when there is excessive force in the arrest. The period provided in Art 124 are NOT essential elements of the crime.
These just provide a guide for calculating the sentence. Need not ACTUALLY be convicted as having committed a crime –
o o o
NOT what the crime actually turned out to be. What is delivery to judicial authorities? o Means constructive delivery, which is time the appropriate complaint or information is filed, with the court for appropriate
enough that the nature of his deed, and how the officer at the moment characterized the act.
o o
judicial proceedings. NOTE: Not a PI. Soria v. Desierto: delivery of arrestee to judicial authorities
o
constructively: MTC, RTC, Family Court, Sandiganbayan Not to the CA, not to the SC. They are not trial courts. If there was no warrant of arrest or commitment order, but
DELAY IN DELIVERY OF PRISONERS TO JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES (125) [STILL ARBITRARY DETENTION]
Elements: o 1. Offender is public officer or employee o 2. Detained a person legally o 3. Fails to deliver person to proper judicial authorities within proper time period RA 9372 – what are the duties of those conducting custodial investigation? o More expansive than duties in RA 7438. [Check] o Before detaining a person after warrantless arrest, he MUST first deliver the person to the nearest office OR RESIDENCE of
o
RPC. How do you determine the imposable penalty? o 12 hours – light
the information or complaint was filed is there delivery? Yes. Take note of rules on inquest, under Criminal Pro. Art. 125 talks about those LAWFULLY arrested, but there was no immediate delivery to the courts. o The inquest must be terminated within period stated in Art.
125. Or else, kawawa yung policeman. Alvior v. Auguis: [Context: before, the MTC may still conduct PI, but now they cannot under the amended ROC.] The person was lawfully
a judge, so judge can: Ascertain identity of officer and arrested person Determine circumstances behind arrest Check for torture, or other abuses Then, the judge delivers within 3 days to nearest court with
jurisdiction his report Does the law apply to crimes defined by SPL? o Depends, if the penalties used follow the nomenclature of the
18 hours – correctional 36 hours – afflictive BASIS: what crime as it appears to the arresting officer, and
arrested then delivered to MTC, but the judge was not there. The arresting officer did not release the detainee. He just delivered to the clerk of court. HELD: Liable for failure to deliver, because the clerk cannot conduct PI anyway and the judge was not there. o Note: If the case is cognizable by the OMB or Sandiganbayan there is agreement between OMB and DOJ, where the DOJ
can conduct PI but they have to submit findings to the OMB. Art. 12, par. 7 applies as defense. There can be defense of insuperable
cause for delay in delivery. RA 9372: Art. 125 has been amended. [Take note]
73
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo o
The period for lawful detention prior to reporting is maximum
THREE DAYS Delay in delivery of a prisoner arrested lawfully by a private person
amounts to ILLEGAL DETENTION, not arbitrary detention. Art. 125 only applies to warrantless arrests. Failure of officer to comply with Art. 125 does not affect the legality of
residence? o Yes. Sec. 10. The court may require the probationer to reside in a place designated by court, and may not change residence
without prior notice. Marcos v. Manglapus: Heirs of the late President Marcos are barred
from returning to the Philippines. With respect to aliens, with respect to the Deportation Board, the
President has the power to deport aliens. If the Philippines has an extradition treaty with another country, may
the confinement. DELAY IN RELEASE (126) [STILL ARBITRARY DETENTION]
Another crime by omission (Art. 126). Officer delays release of arrested person (either convict or detention prisoner) beyond period provided. Proceedings mentioned in the article: petition for habeas corpus Offenders: o Heads of jail or penal establishment o Custodial guards Who may order release of prisoner? o Either the courts or the prosecutor, or the director of Bureau of Prisons Same penalty as 124, because failure to release is tantamount to
compel a person in the Philippines to be deported and extradited to that
Can only be done by public officers or employees. o If NOT authorized, then the crime is trespass to dwelling. To be liable: must use force, violence, or other measures to compel another to change his residence against his will Relate to RA 9165, Sec. 31: o In addition to the penalty provided for in the DDA, any alien
other country. RA 9372 – one charged with terrorism may be granted bail, but placed under house arrest under usual place of residence until further order of court.
VIOLATION OF DOMICILE (128)
May be violated through 3 modes: o 1. Entered dwelling o 2. Searched without consent o 3. Entered and refused to leave If all three modes are committed, there is still just ONE CRIME
committed. US v. Dorr May only be committed by public officers or employees with authority to
arrest, or to seize property of another. Is it possible that the consent of the owner of the house is denied
arbitrary detention. EXPULSION (127)
Under Probation Law: may the person be compelled to change his
impliedly, and not expressly? o Yes. It may be implied or express, in spite of the law’s
who violates the provision must be deported immediately o
without further proceedings, except if the penalty is death (although no more DP under RA 9346)
language (“without the previous consent of such owner”) US v. Panes: if entry is made through a way not intended for
ingress, there is entry against will of owner – denial is implied “Owner”: does this include lessee of the house? o Yes. 74
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo o
Arevalo v. Hilatan: Residence under this provision is the place
where the person is habitually present; and from where he
in the enforcement, the officer EXCEEDED his authority. o United Laboratories: the search warrant described property to
departs and intends to return. Art. 128 does not apply to public officer or employee who entered dwelling of another in hot pursuit.
o
(129)
obtains maliciously a search warrant by submitting a perjurious affidavit
o
offense…” P v. Dela Peña: If the officer applied for search warrant without probable
searches in domicile PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION, DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS (131)
Only committed by public officers. If done by a private person, it is
disturbance of public order. Offenses: O 1. Prohibiting/interrupting/dissolving peaceful meeting without
cause, and uses the warrant to extort money. Is the police officer liable for malicious procurement? o Yes. Because he was not acting in GF. There was malice. o If the policeman applied for a warrant in GF, but it was denied,
turning knob, etc. Art. 129 does not apply to searches made by employees of Bureau of Code, in enforcement of customs law. o Papa v. Mango: BOC officials do not possess authority to do
of malicious search warrant Basis of this statement is the phrase “in addition to the liability attaching to the offender for the commission of any other
door. “Breakage”: includes lifting latch, unlocking chair or hatch,
Customs, because authority is based on Art. 2203 of Tariff and Customs
or deposition o There are TWO crimes committed: 1. Perjury, 2. Procurement o
authority. P v. Hua: Office may break open the door, if he is refused entry upon knocking and identifying himself as an officer. o “Knock and announce rule” in warrants, BEFORE breaking a
Acts punishable: o 1. Procuring search warrant without just cause o 2. Exceeding authority or using unnecessary severity in executing legal search warrant Remember: 129 is an EXCEPTION to Art. 48. When a public officer
be seized, but the items seized were not in the warrant. EXCEPTION: “plain view” – ex. seeing drugs out in the open may be seized. But if not in plain view, he exceeded his
SEARCH WARRANT MALICIOUSLY OBTAINED, OR ABUSE IN SERVICE OF WARRANT LAWFULLY OBTAINED
There is also a crime when a search warrant was lawfully obtained, BUT
O
there is no crime committed. If officer knew deposition was false, but still submitted it to obtain
legal ground 2. Hindering persons from joining lawful association or preventing them from attending 3. Prohibiting or hindering persons from petitioning to
warrant, there are two crimes: o 1. Procurement of malicious search warrant o 2. Art. 184 – offering false testimony in evidence The one who made the deposition knew it was false, but still came up
O
with deposition: liable for perjury
authorities for correction of abuses or grievances Must be done by a stranger to the meeting. If done by a member of the
meeting, it is unjust vexation If the meeting is not peaceful, it can be broken up
75
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo CRIMES AGAINST RELIGIOUS WORSHIP (132—3)
Interruption of religious worship Offending religious feelings
III: CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
Rebellion is a crime against public order. What about terrorism? o It is a crime against national security and the law of nations. o There can be a crime of international terrorism; it a crime much
would help sow public disorder.) But what about rebellion? o Rape is absorbed in rebellion. What about murder in coup d’etat? o It can be absorbed, because it helps further the intent. Why is rebellion a predicate crime of terrorism? o Because committing rebellion can sow widespread fear. o In the same way, murder is a predicate crime, because multiple murders or maybe murdering one key person like the President
like international piracy, where anyone may capture the suspected terrorist anywhere. Can there be terrorism complexed with rebellion? o No. Rebellion is simply a predicate crime of terrorism. What is the main difference between terrorism and rebellion? o For terrorism, there must be widespread panic and fear; and
Suppose they commit rape. Is rape absorbed by coup d’etat? o It cannot be absorbed, because it does not help forward the power of diminishing power (unlike in rebellion, where rape
Recits
could cause widespread panic or fear. Is rebellion a continuing crime? o Yes. Is conspiracy to commit rebellion a continuing crime? o Mike: “No. One two or more people come to an agreement to commit a crime, and decide to commit it, the crime is
there must be an unlawful demand against the government. NOTE: terrorism is a specific intent crime, as with o
rebellion – so there is a difference in the In contrast, rebellion is merely a crime against public order. Objectives: 1) remove allegiance to government of the Phil. Territory or any part; 2) or deprive Chief Executive or legislative
of powers/prerogatives What about coup d’etat? It is a crime against public order too. o Again, it is a specific intent crime so the difference lies in the o
consummated, even if the purpose is not achieved. There can be attempted coup d’etat, but not frustrated.
consummated.” But it is, according to Omil v. Ramos. Oh well.
Lecture REBELLION (134)
purpose It is to diminish inherent powers of the State (taxation, eminent
domain, police power) Is there a frustrated crime of coup d’etat? o No. The moment there is intent + swift attack, the crime is o
o
Art. 134 of RPC: distinguish rebellion from insurrection o Rebellion – overthrow government and supersede o Insurrection – minor change as to certain maters in government or to prevent exercise of government authority as
to certain matters P v. Hernandez – rebellion is a vast movement of people; involving multitudes Rebellion o Any part of the country; or whole country o Can be private or public individuals 76
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
Omil v. Ramos – SC declared that rebellion is by nature, a continuing offense, which differentiates it from other offenses. It may be committed by a single or a series of acts for achieving any or all of the purposes stated in the RPC provision. Insurrection and rebellion are both political
crimes. Terrorism is different because the purpose is to achieve the illegal
DISLOYALTY (137)
Acceptance of public position or continuing to discharge functions –
disloyalty Motive of public officer is immaterial; whether it is gratuitous or not But if he commits overt acts of rebellion (for example, he continues discharging his office and he commits murder or malversation to help
demand on the government. It may be political, it may not – it may be
purely monetary. For rebellion to exist there must be intent + overt acts. May there be frustrated rebellion? o No. When the intent + overt acts are present, the crime is consummated. There is no need to achieve the goal. o Likewise, no frustrated coup d’etat. o No need for actual clash US v. Vergara – mere membership in CPP is not rebellion. But being a member of the NPA, the military arm of the CPP, constitutes rebellion. Common crimes are absorbed by the political crime. o But even if the common crime is absorbed by the political crime, there may be civil liability for these predicate crimes.
resist the rebellion within one’s powers o May invoke Art. 12 fear, force, etc. INCITING TO REBELLION OR INSURRECTION (138)
Writings or speech must be done with intent to induce the readers or
listeners to commit rebellion or insurrection If the listeners are not incited, they are not guilty of any crime. But the
person speaking is guilty for inciting. But if the listeners are incited to commit rebellion, all of them, including the inciter, are ALL principals for the crime of rebellion o Inciter PDI o Listeners PDP
The liability under the NCC is apart from liabilities in the RPC. No more crime of subversion.
COUP D’ETAT (134-A)
Also a political crime Intent is to diminish State power (eminent domain, taxation, police
power) Modes: violence, intimidation, threat, strategy, stealth + swift attack Does not absorb all common crimes (ex. Rape is not absorbed) Omil v. Ramos: conspiracy to commit rebellion or coup d’etat is a
continuing crime o “Believe it or not,” according to J. Callejo Use of explosives is absorbed by coup d’etat (RA 8294)
the rebels), then the crime becomes rebellion, not disloyalty One may be liable for crime of omission under this provision: failing to
SEDITION (139)
Key term: “publicly and tumultuously” Motives: o 1. Prevent promulgation or execution of and law, or holding of o
popular election 2. Prevent National, provincial, or municipal government or
o
officer from exercising functions or preventing execution of AO 3. Inflict act of hate/revenge upon person or property of public officer or employee
77
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo o
4. Commit act of hate/revenge against private persons or social
o
class, for political or social end 5. Despoil any person, municipality, or province, or National
those committing sedition – are these absorbed? o NO!!! They are not absorbed. o Neither are these complexed. DO NOT apply Art. 48 o The re are separate and independent crimes o Ex. P v. Cabrera- guilty of sedition, and murder as separate
Government of all its property or part thereof, for political or
social end Sedition is the raising of commotion or disturbance in the state; revolt
against legitimate authority, public corporation, social classes, etc. Ultimate objective: violation of the public peace P v. Camlon: Sedition is a crime against public order and the tranquility
of the general public What laws are included in par. 1? o Laws in general, even political in nature, as well as civil and
criminal laws; ordinances of municipal or provincial boards Who are the officers included in par. 2? o Includes judges and justices, and constitutional officers; o
municipal council, provincial government or board BUT NOT barangay officials or council BUT they are included in par. 3
In both rebellion and sedition, there is a public uprising. o Rebellion to achieve political purpose, they take up arms o Sedition as long as tumultuous; they do not take up arms, because they do not intend to overthrow the government Lig v. P – what is “tumultuously”? o Full of public commotion, or uproar. o Essence: intent + tumultuous uprising P v. Mendoza: when is there public uprising? o “Tumultuous public uprising” – more than three persons who are armed participating therein What are crimes of hate/revenge in the law? o Crimes against persons (murder, etc.) o Crimes against property (arson) o Victim may be private or public officials, whether of national or local government
What about crimes of murder, homicide, PI, arson, committed by
crimes There can be a complex crime of Sedition and Art. 143/144 (prevention
of meeting of board/Congress) Again, the crime is consummated upon concurrence of intent + overt acts.
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SEDITION (141)
No crime of proposal to commit sedition; just conspiracy
INCITING TO SEDITION (142)
Phil. Journalists v. Lee – Freedom of speech does not protect inciting to sedition Punishable acts: O 1. Inciting others to commit acts of sedition O 2. Uttering seditious words or speeches tending to disturb O
public peace 3. Writing, publishing, circulating scurrilous libels and
government or authorities tending to disturb public peace For #2 and 3, no need to have any of the enumerated purposes “Concealing such evil practices” is NOT an act of an accessory in this case, but an act of a principal.
ACTS PREVENTING MEETING OF CONGRESS AND SIMILAR BODIES (143)
Meeting of barangay council is not included here O Liable for grave coercion under Art. 286 May be committed by public officers or employees 78
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo DISTURBANCE OF PROCEEDINGS (144)
Offender must NOT be a member of the body disturbed; he must be a
stranger to the deliberative body If they commit crimes of violence like homicide to disturb the meeting,
there CAN be a complex crime under Art. 48 Barangay council meeting not covered by this provision
VIOLATION OF PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY (145)
Amended by 1987 constitution. Parliamentary immunity only applies up
to prision correctional. If a congressman is in possession of low-caliber gun, he is protected
(since this is up to 6 years only) But if the gun is high caliber, he is not immune (this is prision mayor) They are also immune from searches under this provision. But it is not
o
2. Meeting where audience is incited to commit treason,
rebellion, insurrection, sedition, or direct assault Whether armed or not Under the first form, a meeting with presence of an armed person to achieve a crime in the RPC is proscribed. If they ACTUALLY commit the crime, what happens to illegal assembly? o It loses its juridical existence. It becomes a mere preparatory
act. Second form is a point of disagreement. o Second form: the audience or assembly is incited to commit rebellion, treason, insurrection, sedition, or assault upon o o
in the Constitution. In the deliberations for the Constitution Commission, searches do not prevent their functions. So the Constitution does not protect searches.
person of authority or his agents All authors agree that inciting to commit such crime is an element of the second form But there is disagreement as to the liability of the inciter: Some say the crime is inciting to rebellion or sedition BUT the problem is, it is an element of Art. 146, so
ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES (146)
how can one commit inciting to rebellion or sedition? J. Callejo’s opinion: If the inciter is NOT a member of the assembly (an outsider) – he is liable for
Who are the leaders or organizers of illegal assemblies? o May be determined by their speeches, publications, pamphlets,
has two options: o 1. Charge with illegal assembly o OR 2. Inciting to rebellion or
banners, leaflets indicating roles and responsibilities If there is one with an unlicensed firearm, and he attended an illegal assembly, is he liable for RA 8294? o No, because he is committing another crime. So he cannot be
guilty of violating RA 8294. Two forms: o 1. Meeting conducted for the purpose of committing any crime punishable under RPC AND there were armed persons
inciting. If the inciter is a member – the government
sedition ILLEGAL ASSOCIATIONS (147)
Two types of illegal associations: o 1. Totally or partially organized to commit any of the crimes in the RPC
79
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo o
2. Totally or partially organized for some purpose contrary to
public morals What is “public morality”? o Estrada v. Escritor: those which are detrimental or dangerous to conditions helpful for the advancement of society o NOT religious morality, but secular morality RA 9208 – Law against trafficking or women or children o Also punishes association organized to propagate or promote
o o
immoral doctrines, obscene publications or shows, sex tourism,
sexual exploitation, pornography Anti-terrorism law RA 9372 o Sec. 17 Public officers may petition that an association may be
Intended to protect those exercising official functions and to guarantee dignity and authority It is a FORMAL CRIME. It is not a material crime. o There can be no frustrated direct assault. o It is consummation when a person of authority is attacked with force or met with serious intimidation or resistance Forms: o 1. Without public uprising, use force/intimidation to attain any of o
the purposes in rebellion or sedition 2. Attack, use force, seriously intimidate, or resist a PIA or any
of his agents While in the performance of duties First form rarely occurs (without public uprising, employ force,
intimidation, resistance to achieve purpose of rebellion or sedition) Second form is more common (seriously intimidate or resist any PIA or agent in performance of official duty) o Who may be liable in second form?
or the use force, which only requires a laying of hands Is motive important? Sarsipuedes v. P o For second form, motive is not important o For first form, when one is not performing his duty, then motive comes into play If a public officer goes into a locality to solemnize a marriage, then
solemnizing the marriage, the going back is part of his official
terrorism
person in authority Crime may be committed when PIA or agent is performing duty “Seriously” qualifies only “intimidate” and “resist” but not attack
he is going back to his office. He is assaulted. Is it direct assault? o Yes. When he is going back to his public office after
declared as one composed of those conspiring to commit
DIRECT ASSAULTS (148)
Private individual, person in authority, or agent of
duty. If a mayor is attacked for past performance of duty, is it direct
assault? o Yes. Attacked barangay kagawad, but hit the barangay chief tanod who was just sitting around. Is it direct assault? o P v. Recto: No. He is not performing his duty at the time he
was killed. The person MUST be aware that the person is a PIA or an agent thereof. P v. Reyin o P v. Alviar: Changed the rule a bit: Person must KNOW or OUGHT TO HAVE KNOWN
that the person assaulted is a PIA or an agent P v. Villasenor: An officer in civilian clothes was committing surveillance in public market. Was there direct assault? o No. Because the accused did not know that the accused was
a police officer who was on 24 hour duty. o And the accused killed the victim on a personal grudge. …so what does “ought to have known” mean then? o J. Callejo – does not agree with Reyes who says that there is presumption that people know who PIAs are. 80
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
o But for very popular officials like Mancao, people ought to know “Agent” includes: o Police, municipal treasurer (since he is only a deputy ex-officio
force the law requires, since the law itself defines the force by
of the provincial treasurer), postmaster, rural policemean,
sheriff, agents of BIR, Malacanang confidential agent Husto v. CA – o Husto is an academic supervisor. The victim is an academic
supervisor too; the latter wanted to transfer a favorite teacher to Poblacion. Husto disagreed. They agreed to fight. They were just about to go out, Husto could not wait; he grabbed an o
ashtray and smashed it against the other’s head. Defense of Husto: there is no Direct Assault because they
agreed to fight o SC It was direct assault because they did not fight outside P v. Fook o Fook, a Chinese person, went to the Philippines. He got body
searched immigration. He passed. He went back cause he o o
forgot something. He got body searched again. He got pissed. Fook resisted. He was charged for direct assault. SC No direct assault. The PIA or his agent who exceeds his power is NOT in the exercise of the functions of his office. Here, they body searched Fook TWICE, which is beyond the
o
scope of duty. Resistance is legitimate against exceeding authority of PIA or agent. How much resistance can be done depends on the
extent of excess of authority. What is “lay a hand”? o P v. Monzon, P v. Garcia: To inflict upon PIA or agent a physical attack; holding; shoving; etc. with intent to cause o
evil or injury US v. Gamban – when a person lays a hand over PIA, the crime is direct assault. It is not necessary to ascertain what
providing the term “laying a hand.” When is force or intimidation sufficient? o Depending on circumstances of the particular event. In the following cases, there was direct assault: o Accused punched a police officer several times o Accused struck police officer with pen knife and wounded him o Accused tried to stab the police officer but he missed – still DA o Accused struck judge with dagger, after the judge convicted him of theft Qualified when: o 1. Committed with a weapon o 2. Offender is public officer or employee o 3. Offender lays hands upon PIA If committed with a weapon: o QUALIFIED direct assault (special aggravating circumstance; o
cannot be offset by generic MC) Not enough to merely carry a weapon. He must use the
o
weapon to assault the victim. Mere aiming of a gun to a PIA qualified direct assault
because there is intimidation, with use of weapon RA75, sec. 7 (Assault of diplomat) Special crime o A crime is committed by any person who assaults, strikes, or wounds a public minister or ambassador, contrary to law of
nations There can be a complex crime of direct assault with another felony. But if direct assault is committed and ONLY slight PI results, there is just the
crime of direct assault. A mayor is on the way home or on the way to the office. The accused robbed the mayor and killed him. What is crime? o Robbery with homicide. The direct assault is absorbed by Robbery with homicide, which absorbs crimes committed pursuant to such.
81
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
P v. Ladjalaam – Fired SMG against police officers serving warrant
Direct assault with multiple attempted homicide How do you reconcile this provision with Art 265, which provides a
agent of a PIA. If he himself is attacked, then he becomes an agent of a PIA becomes direct
distinct penalty if the victim is a PIA? o Art. 265 – If there are less serious PI, the crime is less serious
PI. The PIA must not be performing his duties when the less serious PI are inflicted, or it is not by reason of past o
performance of duty. Art 48 – Direct assault with less serious PI if the PIA is in performance of his duty or is attacked for past performance of
duty. Can there be complex crime of DA with serious disturbance under Art. 153? o
Villanueva v. Ortiz: Yes. If election inspectors or watchers are holding a meeting to canvass, and they were assaulted, causing serious disturbance: there is a complex crime of direct
o
take into account RA 1978:
exempt from powers of inquiry If President does not agree with attendance of members of Executive, they cannot be compelled to answer queries of
Guevara and Reyes: WRONG about this Said there is indirect assault if there is a person going assaulted. J Callejo agrees with Regalado: Guevara and Reyes did not
authorized to summon witnesses 2. Refusing to be sworn in 3. Refusing to answer legal inquiry or produce documents 4. Restraining another from attending as a witness therein 5. Inducing disobedience to summons or refusal to be sworn in
(#1 or 2) Relate to Senate v. Ermita: EO 464 case. o The President of the Philippines and members of SC are o
There is disagreement again as to this provision.
to the aid of PIA or agent, and that person is himself
Acts punished: o 1. Refusal to obey summons of Congress, or any commission o o o o
coming to the aid of the agent o
PIAs when performing their duties For one not to be liable for resistance, the resistance must be co-
DISOBEDIENCE TO SUMMONS (150)
Elements: o 1. There is direct assault against an agent of a person in o o
comes to the aid of the agent of the PIA. Lawyers and teachers can be PIAs o Result with RA 9165 (DDAs) – teachers and professors are
excess or abuse
INDIRECT ASSAULTS (149)
authority (under Art. 148) 2. A person came to the aid of the agent 3. The offender uses force or intimidation against such person
assault There is only indirect assault if the private person
extensive with the excess of authority, and just sufficient to repel the
assault with serious disturbance
Agent One who goes the aid of a PIA becomes an
Senate Relate to Sec. 35 of RA 9372 o Any information secured in violation of anti-terrorism law is inadmissible in evidence in any judicial, QJ, legislative, or admin functions
82
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo SERIOUS DISTUBANCE/TUMULTS (153)
Relate to Art. 131. For policemen to be guilty under 131, the person must be a stranger to
the meeting. David v. Arroyo – the policemen should not have acted precipitately in
o
imminent danger posed against the public interest
KMP v. Ermita – o There is need for permit in a rally (BP 880) When can permit be denied? Again, Clear and Present Danger test of substantive evil, with imminent danger posed o o
against public interest But for freedom parks, there is no need for a permit Calibrated preemptive response – maximum tolerance
Recits
Distinguish 131 (Prohibition, interruption, or dissolution of peaceful meetings) from 153? o 131 – Disturbance is caused by a public officer not part of the peaceful assembly So if he is part of the assembly, it can be
153 – (first mode) Serious disturbance in a public place, office or
establishment Can be committed by a public officer part of the assembly
gatherings Can be committed by one not part of the gathering Can be committed by private OR public officers Excludes peaceable assembly under Art. 131 (so just
“normal gatherings”) What is the nature of the crimes? o 131 – crime against the fundamental law of the State o 153 – crime against public order So this really is just for normal gatherings, and not one subject to fundamental rights Distinguish 153 from 155 (Alarms and scandals)? o In both cases, there are both disturbances o 153 – causing of public disturbance, and the offender had the intention to cause such serious disturbance Cannot be created by culpa o 155 – not serious How do you determine if the disturbance is serious or not? o Look at the place, and the facts and circumstances surrounding the causing of disturbance, and effect to people at
that time The locus of the crime is determinative of its nature. What do you mean by this? o The place where it is committed. Public place those which
under 153 o
seriously disturb) 153 – (second mode) Interrupt or disturb public performances, functions,
arresting. They must take into account right to assembly peaceably. o What are the limits to right of assembly? What is the test? Clear and present danger of substantive evil, with
Cannot be committed by culpa (since there is intent to
are open to all, as distinguished from domiciles. What kind of disturbance must be caused in 153? o Serious. Otherwise, it will be alarms or scandals under 155. Under second mode, what are the elements? o 1. There is public performance or function o 2. There is disturbance caused
83
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
Suppose someone disturbs court proceedings, is it covered by the second mode? o Can be charged with Art. 153, because these are open to the
public. o So this covers proceedings, such as those by the COMELEC. Under the second mode of 153, this does not include religious
assembly under 132. There is a presumption under law of tumultuous disturbance.
What is this? o Caused by more than 3 armed men. If there is actually a tumultuous disturbance, does the presumption
need to apply? o No need for the presumption. In the causation of a serious public disturbance, there is SPI or
single act. (Disturbed COMELEC proceeding.) Villanueva v. Ortiz – there was serious disturbance complexed
with direct assault. If there are two modes done, is there a complex crime? o No, there is just one crime, notwithstanding multiple modes. This provision will apply even in a judicial proceeding. Can you
cite to me a decision which supports this stand? o P v. Adugan – the function of proceeding under the second o
mode includes judicial proceedings. P v. ?, junior – Public rally of INC, and there was serious disturbance. Is this covered by 132 or 153? No. This is not a religious ceremony, but a rally (Art.
131) Distinguish inciting to rebellion/sedition from Art. 153 (tending to incite rebellion/sedition)? o Intent controls. For inciting, there has to be intent in the first
place. For 153, there’s just tendency to incite. Does the “burying with pomp” provision still apply?
o o
132) 3. Making outcry tending to incite rebellion or sedition 4. Displaying placards or emblems which provoke disturbance
o
of public place [5. Burying with pomp – not applicable]
ALARMS AND SCANDALS (155)
damage to property. Do you apply Art. 48? o Yes; there are two grave or less grave felonies committed in a o
o No, in light of RA 9346, there is nobody executed. Acts punished as tumults/other disturbances of public order: o 1. Serious disturbance in public place o 2. Interrupting or disturbing gatherings (not included in 131 or
Acts punished: o 1. Discharging firearm, rocket, firecracker, or explosive within o o
any town or public place 2. Charivari or disorderly meetings 3. Disturbing public peace while wandering at night or engaged
o
in nocturnal amusements 4. Causing disturbance or scandal while intoxicated while 153
is n/a Is Alarms and Scandals a specific intent crime? o No. It is the result, not the intent that controls. o “Calculated to cause alarm or danger” is an erroneous o
translation. If there is discharge of firearm but there is no alarm caused,
then there is no crime under Art. 155. If the firearm is unlicensed, can one be convicted under RA 8294? o No. If there is another crime committed (155 here), one cannot be liable for RA 8294.
DELIVERING PRISONERS FROM JAIL (156)
What is punished: o Any person removes from jail or penal establishment and person confined therein 84
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo OR helps him escape by violence, intimidation, or bribery OR through other means Lower penalty o OR taking guards by surprise outside the establishment Lowest penalty Delivery of prisoners – o Applies to BOTH detention prisoners and convicted Is the delivery of prisoners a principal or accomplice? o Principal under Art 156 If the person is a convict, is there a crime when he escapes? o Yes. Evasion of sentence. If the person is a detention prisoner, is there a crime? o No. He is presumed innocent. Is there a crime of frustrated delivery from jail? o No. May they be an attempt? o Yes. When is the crime consummated? o The moment he steps out of the building where the cell is, o o
o Yes, if he was off-duty. If a person delivered a prisoner, and the prisoner had a change of
heart and decided to return, is the principal for delivery still liable? o Yes. If the prisoner who escapes is a detention prisoner, and he is convicted later on for the crime for which he was detained, is he
entitled to ISL? o ??? Is there a provision in the Anti-terrorism law that punishes a custodian who lets his prisoner escape? o Sec. 44. o Can this be committed by culpa? Yes. It can be committed by negligence, as long as it
is inexcusable negligence. If the detention prisoner is charged with parricide, and the person delivered him, can not the person be charged as accessory under Art. 19? o Yes. The law provides that a person who helps escape a person who committed parricide, murder, treason, escape, he
however brief it may be. If a mental retardate is transferred to a hospital, from jail, and he is delivered, is there a crime of delivery from jail? o Yes. The hospital is an extension of prison. If a person is in his house, can there be delivery? o Yes. Because if under arresto menor, there can be house arrest. Who may be liable for delivery? o 1. Those helping a co-prisoner o 2. Employees of penal establishment, if without custody of the prisoner If he has custody, the crime is infidelity in the custody
of prisoners o 3. Private person Is it possible that a person with custody of a prisoner is liable for delivery of prisoners and not infidelity?
o
can be an accessory under Art. 19 to parricide, murder, etc. So what applies now, Art. 19 or 156? Either, the prosecutor has a choice. The prosecutor can choose ONE but not both. N.B. the Art. 19 punishment is heavier than 156 (since
156 is only prision correccional) Under Art. 8 (conspiracy), it can be a crime in itself or a mode. Is it possible that conspiracy or connivance be an aggravating circumstance? What is the effect if a co-prisoner who connives? o For delivery of prisoners from jail, there is connivance. It aggravates the punishment. So note this is a THIRD character of conspiracy – not just mode, not just crime, but also o
aggravating circumstance. What about bribery?
85
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
Bribery in this case can be deemed a means to
o
commit the crime of delivery. If the public officer accepts a bribe to release the prisoner,
o
what are the crimes? One giving money corruption One accepting money 1. Bribery 2. Delivery of prisoners But if the bribery was towards another prisoner, what is
o
the effect? It would be a deemed a means to commit the crime. If a person commits a bribe to a public officer, one crime is
o
a FELONY, what happens? o Art. 48 applies. Example, if there was direct assault, attempted o
homicide, physical injuries, etc. The means provided specifically in Art. 156 (bribery), or fraud (or other means that do not constitute crimes by themselves), etc. do not attract Art. 48.
EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE (157-9)
How is evasion of service committed?
escaped. Is evasion a continuing crime? o Yes, as long as he is escaping, he is committing a crime. o Rule 113, Sec. 5 allows policeman to arrest a person who escaped from jail as long as he is out, since he is continuing to
commit a crime. Can one be guilty of evasion of sentence, although not confined in a prison? o Yes. o Ex. If arresto menor, can spend sentence in house. o If one is sentenced to destierro, how can one commit
and then the officer is bribed, another crime is committed…… we will discuss this soon. Bottom line: do not apply 48. The law is nebulous by stating “other means,” correct? o Example, craft, disguise o What is the effect? Arresto mayor (lower penalty) If the other means used by the principal of delivery of prisoners is
escapes from prison. When is prescription of penalties suspended? o When one escapes from jail If a person escapes from jail, and he is arrested without warrant, would the policeman be charged with arbitrary arrest? o No, because warrantless arrest is allowed for those who
being done as a means to commit another does Art. 48 apply? No. Because under Art. 210, if a crime is committed
Committed by one convicted by final judgment, and one
evasion of sentence? Entering into the prohibited place. o Ex. Hospital, which is an extension of the penal institution. Tanega v. Masacayan- elements of evasion o 1. Convict by FJ o 2. Serving of sentence which consists of deprivation of liberty o 3. Escaping during sentence Del Castillo v. Torrecampo – escape is the unlawful departure from the limits of his custody. One not arrested for service of FJ cannot be held
to have evaded service of sentence. Is a person serving sentence for an SPL be liable for evasion
(meaning, even if it is not a felony under the RPC)? o Yes. As long as serving sentence, whether RPC or SPL. Under what circumstances may a prisoner be not liable for evasion of service of sentence? o 1. Detention prisoner
86
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo 2. Deportee who violated deportation order 3. Youthful offender under 9344 Because rehab center is not a penal institution US v. Hoe – supposing one is convicted for violating of DDL, and is o o
ordered to suffer imprisonment, and then deported after serving sentence, but then he escapes, he is liable for evasion of service. If after serving sentence, but before deportation, he escapes – it is NOT
evasion of service, but just a violation of deportation order. If one uses violation or intimidation, it is absorbed. But if one commits a
crime to evade, then Art. 48 can apply. A convict was granted conditional pardon. The usual condition is
there can only be conviction under Art. 159 after conviction. QUASI-RECIDIVISM (160)
o
violation of the conditional pardon a felony? o Yes, it is a felony. o P v. Jose stating it is not a felony, has been overruled by Torres
o
v. Gonzales What is the period for the condition? o Remaining period of the sentence if the penalty remitted is
o
circumstance will result into the maximum of the
o
maximum. He commits another penalty. Is he a quasi-recidivist again? Justice Regalado: He is a quasi-recidivist again and
through Board of Pardon and Parole. Is a violator of the conditions of pardon entitled to ISL? o No. It is provided in the ISL. Circumstances qualifying offense: o 1. Unlawful entry (by scaling) o 2. Breaking doors, windows, etc. o 3. Using picklocks, false keys, disguise, deceit, violence, intimidation 4. Through connivance with other convicts or employees of
of the second crime.) Does the first crime have to be a felony? No. It can be an SPL. If the second crime has an aggravating circumstance, what is the effect to the penalty? Since it is in the maximum, then the aggravating
greater than 6 years o If less than 6 years, prision correccional in minimum period Is it necessary for the prosecution for violation of conditions of
o
another crime. Does the second crime have to be a felony? Yes. It cannot be an SPL. The law uses nomenclature of penalties in RPC. (Maximum period
pardon upon violation? o No. The C.E. can order the immediate arrest of the person
Is quasi-recidivism (160) a crime? o No, it is a special aggravating circumstance. It is committed only by a person convicted by FJ for a crime, and he commits
not committing another crime during conditional pardon. Is the
o And caught again, increase penalty by 1/5 o If he returns within 48 hours, decrease penalty by 1/5 For violation of conditional pardon through commission of the crime,
again. If he is not a quasi-recidivist for the second o
time, he can commit another crime with impunity. What if he is a recidivist AND a quasi-recidivist? Since recidivism is an A.C. too – it leads to the
maximum of the maximum. But the law makes mention of Art. 62, par. 5. What is this? o One is a habitual offender.
penal institution If the convict evaded on circumstances of a catastrophe: 87
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
Can you make quasi-recidivism an aggravating circumstance,
signature or seal – deemed to be the one who committed the
again? o Anj: “Yes. Purpose of law is to punish repeated criminality.” One who escapes from jail, is he automatically a quasi-recividist? o Justice Regalado: No. Because the very act of evasion of
forgery.
quasi-recidivism. Under Art. 62, par. 1 – if the aggravating circumstance in itself constitutes a crime punishable by law, it
USE OF FORGED GREAT SEAL, PRESIDENT’S SIGNATURE OR STAMP (162)
Can only be committed with criminal intent, because the law uses the
word “knowingly.” Offender here is not the forger.
is not taken into account. o Anj disagrees. o J Callejo: “This still bothers me.” No clear answer. Can one be a quasi-recidivist or recidivist at the same time? o Yes. Only difference: recividism can be offset by generic
MAKING, IMPORTING, AND UTTERING FALSE COINS (163)
mitigating, quasi-recidivism cannot. While serving sentence, a convict commits a complex crime. What
is the effect? o Maximum of the maximum of the more serious crime. What is the best evidence to prove prior conviction? o Court judgment. What is the difference between reiteraction and quasi-recidivism? o Reiteracion: needs final service of two or more lesser crimes, or one graver or equal crime
IV: CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST
(161)
coin, which is not out of circulation can still be punished) May be frustrated. If the imitation is so imperfect, although all acts were committed. o Attempted, if failed to perform all acts of execution, except for
spontaneous desistance To import: to bring into port these coins. There is consummation when the boat enters port or the plane enters airspace. EVEN IF they are not
unloaded or brought to customs. Importation may be frustrated, if before they cross territorial waters of
Philippines, they are caught. How many crimes are committed if the offender makes 1,000
counterfeit 10 centavo coins, and a few US coins? o Two: a) coins of one currency, b) and another, by the US o So the test is number of currencies involved N.B. this crime can be prosecuted abroad, under Art. 2 The coins subject matter of the crime must be legal tender in the
Can forgery of signature or great seal be committed by culpa? o No. There must be knowledge and intent to use the signature or great seal.
How many means to commit this crime? o Three: make, import, utter o Note: if foreign currency, amount is immaterial. P v. Rion: If it was legal tender at that time, but it is not legal tender anymore, there can still be violation of Art. 163. (Ex. Using a 1-centavo
FORGING THE GREAT SEAL OR THE SIGNATURE OR STAMP OF THE PRESIDENT
Presumption: possession of a document bearing the forged
given that both have the same element of committing a crime
sentence is an element of the aggravating circumstance of
o
Philippines, and are still in circulation.
88
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo o
Mutilation of coins of other countries: not punished under this
provision. Damage is not an essential element of utterance
MUTILATION OF COINS (164)
Amended by PD 247, which punishes: o 1. Willful defacement o 2. Mutilation o 3. Tearing o 4. Burning o 5. Or destroying currency notes or coins Must be of legal tender o ONLY provision in this part that requires legal tender [though
must be of legal tender too] Coins of foreign currency are not included
payable to bearer o 2. Importing false or forged bank notes o 3. Uttering these in connivance with forgers or importers To utter is to offer the forged document, knowing it to be false, whether
purported to win attempted estafa, because he was not able
Possession includes constructive or physical possession of counterfeit or mutilated coins There must be knowledge Two acts punished: o 1. Possession of false/mutilated coin with intent to utter o 2. Actual utterance of the coin If the one possessing is also the counterfeiter, this crime is absorbed
under 163
FORGING TREASURY OR BANK NOTES OR DOCUMENTS PAYABLE TO BEARER; OR IMPORTING OR UTTERING SUCH FALSE OR FORGED NOTES/DOCUMENTS
Three acts: o 1. Forging or falsification of treasury/bank notes/documents
the accused bore a PCSO ticket and wrote in ink the number
knowledge of person making it so payable 4. Name of payee is not the name of any person 5. Last indorsement in blank
defraud o P v. Balmores – a PCSO ticket is a government obligation. If
SELLING OF FALSE OR MUTILATED COIN (165)
1. Payable to bearer 2. Payable to person named or bearer 3. Payable to fictitious or non-existent person +
accepted or not, with representation that it is genuine, with intent to
this conflicts with J. Callejo’s statement in 163 that the coins
(166)
to encash it before being caught Blank forms of postal money orders are not official forms. o UNLESS filled up P v. Samson – treasury warrant is a government obligation and is therefore covered by Art. 169 of RPC
COUNTERFEITING, IMPORTING, UTTERING INSTRUMENTS PAYABLE TO ORDER (167) Again, utterance here must be in connivance with forgers or importers. Otherwise, see 168. ILLEGAL POSSESSION AND USE OF FALSE TREASURY OR BANK NOTES AND OTHER CREDIT INSTRUMENTS
Take note of modes to commit forgery of bank notes or treasury notes,
etc. o
(168)
Tecson v. CA – elements of crime under Art. 168
Sec. 9 of NIL when payable to bearer or order
89
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo o
1. Treasury/bank note/ security payable to bearer or order is
o
forged or falsified by another person 2. Offenders knows it was falsified 3. Used OR possessed with intent to use Possession must be with intent to use. P v. Liboro One may be liable under this provision of fake dollar bills, but it must be
coupled with either actual use or intent to use the fake dollar bills Possession alone, without use or intent to use, is NOT a crime under
o o
168 RA 8484 (Access devise law) o Sec. 17 – any prosecution under this law shall be without prejudice for liabilities for violations of RPC o So one can be charged under both RPC and 8484 RA 8239 – forgery of passports o If it is also punishable under RPC, and the RPC crime has o
higher penalty, IMPOSE higher penalty. But only ONE CRIME is committed.
HOW FORGERY IS COMMITTED (169)
How is forgery committed under 169? o The ways of committing forgery: o 1. Giving a treasury or bank note or instrument payable to
o
P v. Alacris – SC ruled that false bank notes are included in the phrase “and other representatives of value of whatever
domination” in 166 However, blank forms of postal money orders are not official, public documents, or treasury/bank notes. They are not certificates of obligations until filled up. Possession of genuine treasury notes of the Philippines with any figures, letters, or words altered or erased with full knowledge of such alteration
is punishable under 168, in relation to 166. Art. 167 – o For one to be guilty of uttering an instrument payable to order, o
there must be connivance with others Connivance is an ESSENTIAL element of the crime
FALSIFICATION OF LEGISLATIVE DOCUMENTS (170)
Resolution, ordinance, or bill referred to must be a genuine one The alteration must be to the substance of that bill, resolution, or
ordinance There must be a deliberate intent (malice) May a private person be liable under Art 170? o Yes. The law does not distinguish.
order or bearer the appearance of a true and genuine
FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC OFFICER, EMPLOYEE, NOTARY, ECCLESIASTIC MINISTER
document 2. Erasing, substituting, or counterfeiting, or altering figures,
(171)
letters/words, or designs in said instrument What do you mean by utter? o To offer a forged document or instrument, knowing that instrument to be false, with representation of genuineness o There must be intent to defraud How about a false bank note? Is it included in 169 or 166 of RPC?
If the person committing the crime is a public officer with custody of such document, he may be liable under Art 171 – committing the crime with abuse of public position (Opinion of Sen. Padilla – J Callejo
concurs) If falsification of the document is done through simulation or other means other than alteration, it may be falsification under Art. 171 of the code.
90
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
The RPC does not define a document. But P v. Andaya defines a document covered by Art. 171. How is it defined? o It is a deed or instrument or other authorized paper by which
something is proved, established, or set forth. What documents are covered by 171 and 172? o Legislative, official, commercial, private? In Batulanon v. P, was it a public, official, commercial, or private? o What was falsified here was a cash voucher. o But it was not a commercial document, although connected to o
business transactions. Commercial document – used by merchants or businessmen to
o
promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions It was a private document – executed by private person without
o
make it seem that a non-existent position appeared to exist. Barometer: if he uses influence, prestige, or ascendancy of his
office to commit the crime. If a public officer or employee falsifies a document, and it is not part of
his duties, he did not abuse his public position. May falsification of public or commercial document be committed
by culpa? o Yes. Samson case – he endorsed checks without knowing the o
identity of the persons who were recipients of the checks. He did NOT alter the document, he merely endorsed without
due diligence. How about a private document? Can it be falsified by culpa? o No. There has to be intent to damage or damage caused. It cannot be committed by culpa.
(falsification of private individuals) If a notary public falsifies a document outside his territorial jurisdiction, did he abuse his public position? o NO. He is not a notary public outside his jurisdiction. Do 171 or 172 apply to electronic documents? o Yes, by specific provision of Sec. 6(h). o In fact, a document may be notarized electronically and considered a public document. If it is falsified, 171 comes into
for intent to damage If a public officer or employee falsifies a document, but in so doing did not abuse his public position, he is guilty NOT under 171, but under 172
intervention of public notary or person legally authorized When is there falsification with taking advantage of public position? o 1. Has official custody of the document o 2. When he intervenes in preparation of the document In Siquian v. P, was there taking advantage of public position? o Yes. Mayor, was in public position and he used this position to o
But not for commercial, public, or official document no need
play. A document incapable of producing legal effects cannot be foundation of a right and thus CANNOT be subject of falsification. Public document – o When an authorized person not a party thereto intervenes in a document o Reports made by officials in their official duty Official document – o Public officer takes part by virtue of official position, or any document which has become part of the public records Is a passport an official document? o Yes. RA 8239. What is a commercial document? o Used by merchants or business to promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions Is a cash disbursement receipt a commercial document? o No. Batulanon – it is a private document. Merely a receipt issued. Is a sales invoice a commercial document? o Yes. Monteverde. A document notarized by a notary public without a commission – is it a public document still? 91
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
o No. It is a private document. How about a private document that is falsified before being
national high school. He said in his record that he went to
submitted to the government, as required? o The falsification of a private document before submission –
time, he spent in the library. He was charged for falsification,
class and taught from 8:30-11:30, 1:30-4:30. But some of the because he said in his time record that he taught in certain
may nevertheless be falsification of public or official document
times, but he was just in the library. No question, the time
because it is destined to be such. o Read Monteverde v. P for the bar. When one takes a civil service examination, are the exams official
record is a public document. He was charged for falsification of a public document ELEVEN times. But he did not get his salary for the time he was not teaching. QUESTION: Is he
documents? o The booklets or papers submitted to the CSC are official
guilty for falsification of public document even if there is no damage to the government? HELD: Layug was acquitted. In the prosecution of
documents. P v. Leonidas How about pleadings of parties and papers submitted to the court
cases involving falsification of time records, there
in the course of official judicial proceedings? o Vermejo v. Bayus – the pleadings of parties and papers filed by
must be proof of damage to the government (e.g. salary paid for services not rendered). BUT this is
them which are involved in actions and submitted to the
weird, because usually, damage is not an element of
custody of the court are public documents How about a personal data sheet submitted to the CSC for o
appointment to public position? o It is a public document. Because such document is required by o
results in financial losses to the government because it enables the employee to be paid salary and earn leave credits for
law. CVC v. Acevedo The mere fact of preparation occurred before submission does
services never rendered. Contrast: In Flores, damage is not an element,
not affect its status because the document is destined to be
part of public record. You apply for a driver’s license and prepare an application. You
falsify your age in the application, prior to submission. Is that
because potentially, the government can be damaged. Beragio v. CA: J Callejo agrees with this o A COMELEC registrar, who was also a lawyer, was allowed by COMELEC to appear for poor litigants. He submitted a DTR
falsification of public document? o Yes. Daba v. P: the blank form becomes a public document the
saying that he was in the office, but he was actually in court
moment it is accomplished and submitted to LTO. The roll of attorneys is also a public document. “Very interesting case”: Layug v. Sandiganbayan vis-à-vis Flores v.
o
attending to poor litigants. He was charged with falsification. HELD: Even if he was not in the office at that time, the COMELEC allowed him to appear for poor litigants. He was
Layosa. o Layug: an ordinary government employee has a time record measured through Bundy clock. Layug is a teacher in Davao
falsification of public document. Flores: The falsification of a daily time record automatically
performing a duty authorized by the COMELEC. There was no
falsification. XXX v. CA–
92
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo o
Spouse is a janitor, but before the janitor died, he received his
o
check. Before the check became due, the janitor died. The
the asst. book keeper did not include in the ledger things or
widow already received it. She cashed it, thinking it was leave
properties purchased by him as such. He committed estafa
credits value. The check was worth X amount, though the
through falsification by omission by not indicating in the ledger
janitor had leave credits exceeding the amount of the check. o
She was charged with falsification. HELD: Acquitted. She was acting in good faith. There was no
his purchase of goods. May someone be convicted based solely on presumptions? o Yes. One found in possession of falsified document is
damage to government; in fact, the government owed the
janitor pa. P v. Coral – o Got a warrant of arrest, falsified signature of the judge, and had his wife arrested. He claimed he was not guilty of falsification o
because it was a spurious document in the first place. HELD: Convicted. There can be falsification even if it is a
o
defense against prosecution. Heck v. Santos and Buzon v. Baltazar o The notarization of a lawyer by a private document without
Counterfeiting or imitating handwriting, signature, rubric (171 ¶1)
P v. Dizon
falsification of public or official document UNLESS the falsification is imperfect.
Feigning means the forgery of a signature that does not in fact exist. P v. Rampas – for one to be guilty for falsification under this provision, it is not necessary that the imitation of writing, handwriting, or signature be perfect. It is only necessary that the two writings bear some
resemblance to each other US v. Femur (?) – there can be no falsification of public document
unless there is an attempt to imitate the genuine signature of another P v Isla – one is guilty of falsification even if he did not imitate the signature of the person in the document, as long as there is a DIFFERENCE between the genuine signature of another and the falsification.
document is altered, or the moment the false document is executed Even if the document is not put to illegal use THUS there can be no attempted or frustrated
In the provision, the word “imitating” is an inaccurate translation of the Spanish penal code. It does not mean “imitating” but “feigning.”
requisite commission [meaning, it does not become a public document] is still liable for falsification of public document. o So to simplify: 1. The document remains private 2. But the crime is F of public document Can there be an attempt or frustration of falsification? o Consummated the moment the genuine public or official
presumed to be the author. Caubang v. P In the absence of a saifactory explanation, one in possession of such is presumed to be the author thereof. Alarcon v. CA
spurious document. Cannot use own acts of falsification as a
The crime of falsification can be committed by omission. Here
Causing to appear that persons participated, etc (171 ¶2)
P v. Bernardino – elements: o 1. Offender is public officer or employee or NP o 2. Takes advantage of official position
93
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo o
3. Falsifies a document by causing it to appear that a person or
o
persons participated in any act or proceeding when in fact, they
did not. Lastrilla v P – o He had an uncle and auntie. By 2000, his auntie and uncle
exam, when he did not. Mallari v. P – favorite case o Delito continuado – he falsified two documents over two parcels of land as security for loans from two people. He made
died. He executed three documents (deed of sale, deed of
it appear that the owners of the land mortgaged the property to
conveyance) – all in the same occasion. In each document,
the two people from whence he got the loan. There is only ONE crime – delito continuado. [He explained it
the dead spouses sold to the vendee parcels of land. Then,
o
better in the Art. 48 discussion]
Lastrilla signed the signature of his dead uncle and auntie, and o
antedated the deed. Is this falsification? Yes, under this paragraph. The uncle and auntie are both dead. So this provision applies even if those who were made to appear to
Persons in fact participated in proceedings, but accused make it seem that they said/did some things they did not do (171 ¶3)
modes. Abubakar v. P – accused was a COMELEC registrar. He made it were not, and that they voted, when they did not. o Guilty under this same provision o + Liable under Omnibus Election Code Can this crime be committed to conceal another crime? o Yes. P v. Villanueva. Villanueva was an accountable officer; he
P v. Stella Romualdez – she changed the answers of a Bar examinee, when in fact he did not. Then she corrected the answers. o The examinee was guilty as an accomplice, by knowing that
participate are already dead. But there is only one crime, even if there were several
appear in the list of voters that certain voters were listed, when they
Romualdez committed the crime. Making untruthful statements in narration of facts (171 ¶4)
Siquin v People – what are the requirements: o 1. Offender is a public officer or employee o 2. Untruthful statements in narration of facts o 3. The facts must be absolutely false If there is color of truth in it, he is not liable under this
misappropriated funds of government. To conceal malversation, he falsified receipts to show that people received some amounts, when they did not. Guilty of two crimes: Malversation Falsification under this paragraph P v. Leonidas – o He was paid by examinee in CSC to take the exam on his
paragraph
Go Kiok to – o Petitioner was Chinese, but he declared himself as Filipino. o
The clerk wrote down “Filipino” in the residence certificate. Clerk is NOT guilty – he had no criminal intent and relied on the
o
Petitioner. Petitioner is guilty under this paragraph as Principal by Direct
o
Yes. He made it appear that another person participated in the
behalf and pose as him. Is he guilty of falsification?
Inducement.
94
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
If there is colorable truth to the statement, one is not criminally liable. If there is a color of truth to it, there can be no criminal intent. Jamora v. Sandiganbayan – there is no F of public document if acts of accused are consistent with GF, even if it may be false. Color of truth
indicates GF. A government altered for it to speak the truth there is no falsification (e.g. there is error in cedula, then altered to speak the truth. There is
alteration, but no falsification) What is legal obligation? o The legal obligation may spring not only from a law or a
when obligation is due, date when persons were married. Making alteration or intercalation to genuine document which changes its meaning (171 ¶6)
regulation/rule promulgated by authorities (e.g. CSC, o
COMELEC) E.g. Guilty of F under this provision, if she falsified a personal data sheet, which is a document required to be submitted to
the CSC under rules. (Lamancas v. Inta) Mere fact that she was not hired is inconsequential. The duty to make truthful statements, what is it based on? o Law o Or an ordinance, as long as it requires such making of truthful o o
statement Or one issued by a government agency (see Siquian) P v. Manalo – may also be based on R&R of constitutional
Altering true dates (171 ¶5)
May this crime be committed by culpa?
statement therein B) The alteration or intercalation was made in a genuine
o
document C) Alteration or intercalation made in document to speak of
something that is false Crime may be committed by a private individual o If committed on a private document falls under Art. 172 There must be independent proof of damage cause or intent to cause the same to another person If committed on a commercial, public, or official under Art.
171 Alterations or intercalations on the face of a document are, in the prior to the execution of a document. One making the alteration must
that he can pay less taxes: the government employee is guilty of falsification of official document. There must be deliberate intent to make a false narration of facts
o
absence of evidence relating to them, are presumed to have been made
falsely stated in ITR that he has 2 dependents, when just has one, so
Garcia v CA – Elements: o A) a person changes a document or intercalates an entry or
o
body like a CSC, which requires prospective employees to submit employee’s data sheet o Basis in Go Kiok To case: CA 465 Concerned Employee v. Generoso – A government employee who
o No. Intent is essential to the crime. “Dates” referred to here are those that have legal efficacy; ex. Date
explain the same. What alterations consist of: o Erasure o Interlineations o Additions o Substitution of any material matter in a document or instrument If the alteration or intercalation was made to make the document speak the truth, it is not a crime. And the intercalation or intercalation must
change the substance of the document. There must be criminal intent. It cannot be committed by culpa. Good faith is a proper defense. 95
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
Garcia v. CA – facts: o Garcia had agreement with Quejada, to purchase from the latter a parcel of land. Garcia made down payment of P5K.
Lastrilla v. CA – there are as many crimes of falsification as the number
of documents falsified If there is only one document falsified, but under multiple modes, there
is only one crime of falsification P v. Pomferada – someone falsified the roll of attorneys, by inserting
Quejada made two copies: gave one to Garcia, and kept one with her. When the sale was aborted and Garcia wanted the
o
payment returned, it was made to appear that the amount
three persons there; he committed three counts of falsification, even if
actually paid was P55K instead of P5K. Garcia charged with
made on the same roll of attorneys
falsification for changing the amount from 5 to 55K. SC HELD: Garcia guilty of falsification for intercalating in a genuine document a bigger amount.
Issuing copies (171 ¶7)
Art. 172 – Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents by private individuals
Two modes of committing this crime o 1) there is no genuine original of the copy of the document o
issued in an authenticated form 2) there is a genuine document Done with dolo or with deliberate intent Alteration of the copy of the genuine document –
o
changes character of genuine document Public officer or notaries-public. Sec. 19, Rule 132 of Rules of Evidence enumerates these documents.
Intercalating instrument or note (171 ¶8)
Two modes under paragraph 1: o Private individual falsifying a public, commercial, or official document no need for damage or intent to damage Private individual falsifying a private document there is need
for damage caused or intent to cause damage If a public officer falsifies a document, without abuse of official position, he can be liable under Art. 172 Dizon v. P – o Damage includes material damage and damage to the credit or honor of a private person o So it is not confined to mere material damage The offender did not gain any profit from the falsification of private document. But intent is an internal act. How does one establish this intent? o
Intercalated document must be false and change the sense of the document or official book.
o
There must evidence independent of the falsification to establish intent. P v. Paraiso – may consist in an attempt to encash or use the document, or verbal or physical acts indicating intention behind
Number of crimes of falsification committed:
Flores v. Layosa – one may be liable for estafa through falsification of a public or official document
falsification Batulanon v. P – o Read the facts o As to the three private individuals, he committed falsification of a private document. The same essential element of damage or 96
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
o
intent to cause damage cannot be used to establish estafa,
Art. 174, 175 – just rely on commentaries of Reyes
since this has been used in falsification But the mother saying she received the money “for an on
Art. 176 – INTRODUCTION OF PHILIPPINES ANY INSTRUMENTS INTENDED TO BE
behalf of my son,” when she actually did herself, she did not
USED IN COUNTERFEITING
commit falsification but the crime of estafa, since there was
nothing falsified Under paragraph 2, how is the crime committed? o 1. Person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in any o
In a situation where the instruments imported could not be used for the intended purpose, is it an impossible crime or a crime under Art. 176? o Still 176. As long as there was intent to use and there was
judicial proceeding 2. or using a falsified document, to cause damage or with intent
o
import a complete set. It is necessary that the implements
to cause damage A private individual who falsified a document, and also used the
brought into the country cannot be used by themselves, but can be used alongside other instruments, there is violation of
document under a judicial proceeding, is he liable under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2? o Under the 2nd paragraph, the person using the document is
o
the law Spanish SC – if impossible to use these for the crimes of counterfeiting mentioned, it is not a crime if it is impossible to
other than the author of falsification. If the falsifier himself uses
use
the document in a judicial proceeding, he is liable for
importation. P v. Santiago – For one to be liable under 176, no need to
falsification (par. 1) and not for use If a government employee falsifies his personal data sheet by making it
Art. 177 – Usurpation of authority or official functions
appear that he passed the CSC exam, when in fact he did not, and he
used the personal data sheet to apply for a position with the government (therefore, not in a judicial proceeding); how many crimes of falsification did he commit? o Two crimes: o Falsification of the personal data sheet o Use of such document in a proceeding other than a judicial
proceeding Is a falsified document was used in a judicial proceeding, is there need
to establish damage caused or intent to cause damage? o No. If it was used in some other purpose or proceeding, is there need to establish damage caused or intent to cause damage? o Yes.
2 modes of committing the crimes: o 1. Usurpation of authority o 2. Usurpation of official functions When a public officer or employees has already retired or resigned but continues to do his duties, is he liable for usurpation of functions? o Yes. Usurpation of authority – prosecution must prove: o 1. Accused is aware he is not a public officer o 2. He falsely represents himself to be such o 3. Such person has performed pertaining to an act of person in authority or agent of PIA Felony here is committed by dolo. GF is a defense. Can be committed by a private individual
97
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
P v. Baltazar – a notary public who notarizes a document when his commission has expired violated this provision A private person may be guilty of usurpation of public authority complexed with seduction o (seduced a minor) Usurpation of authority complexed with falsification – o when one pretended to be a BIR agent, and showed falsified BIR ID Take note of Art. 299-A(4) o Robbery may be committed through pretense of exercise of o
here is not to a particular person but to public interest. Public interest is something in which the public, community at large, has some pecuniary interest by which some legal rights are
affected. If one uses a fictitious name to defraud another, what crime is
committed? o Estafa. Art. 315-2(A) Under Art. 299(A)-4, robbery may be committed through use of fictitious
public authority It is NOT a complex crime. Usurpation is an essential element
under this mode. Art. 267. If a person kidnaps another to deprive another of her liberty,
name to gain entry into the house of another. o Again, the use of fictitious name here is mode to commit
by pretending to be a public officer. Is he liable for complex crime of Art. 177 and 267? o No. Usurpation of authority is a mode of committing crime of
kidnapping. Person pretending to be authorized to issue passports: o Liable under RA 8239. (Phil. Passport Law)
Art. 178 – PUBLIC USE OF FICTITIOUS NAME I. Fictitious name – purposes: o 1. To conceal a crime o 2. To escape judgment o 3. To cause damage II. Person who conceals his true name or other personal circumstances Elements under first par.: o 1. Publicly uses fictitious name o 2. With any of the mentioned purposes Here, motive is essential element If a person uses a fictitious name publicly, but without these purposes,
o Same crime, but under Par. II. What is meant by publicly? o Includes use in an official or public document What is meant by damage? o Not equivalent in falsification of private document. “Damage”
robbery. If one uses a fictitious name in a narration of facts in a public or official document, what crime is committed? o Falsification of public, commercial, or official document, because penalty for use of fictitious name is already integrated
in the former. What is meant by evasion of judgment? o Includes criminal or civil. Law does not distinguish. One is a convict serving sentence, and another person in jail substitutes for the former, to allow him to escape. The other prisoner took his place and claimed to be the escapee by stating his name. What crime did the first person commit? o Evasion of sentence, complexed with use of fictitious name (?
– confirm with Abu If the security guard noticed that the first person was gone, but did not ask the name of the replacement. What crime? o Different opinions
what crime is committed?
98
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo o
Justice Albert: replacement is guilty of use of fictitious name
o
under this provision Justice Reyes: replacement guilty with delivery of prisoners
o
from jail AND of use of fictitious name to conceal the escape of the prisoner Person who escaped: evasion plus use of fictitious o
name to evade service Justice Regalado: replacement is guilty of delivery of prisoners
service of sentence, but not use of fictitious name. J. CALLEJO – if the replacement did not use a fictitious name prisoners (since he did not say a fake name). There was NO
proof of motive to lie, and objective falsity itself (if the statement
use of fictitious name; Escapee: evasion of service of
sentence complexed with use of fictitious name There are as many crimes as the number of fictitious names used If a person uses a fictitious name to obstruct justice – o Violated PD 1829 (“knowingly uses a fictitious name to delay apprehension of suspects”)
Art. 179 – see author’s comment
testimony directly affects the decision. It just needs to affect a material
fact. There must be judgment of conviction or acquittal, because penalty
depends on the penalty imposed on the convict. Does this provision include testimony on qualifying and aggravating
circumstances? o Yes. It does not matter whether the accused is convicted or acquitted. It the
intention of the accused that suffices. Will not apply if accused in main case is convicted and is convicted for a penalty less than correctional, or a fine. o The liar may not be prosecuted under 180, but can be
Art. 180, 181, 182 – FALSE TESTIMONIES
False testimony against a defendant (Art. 180) o Justice Albert: this only applies if the charge against defendant is under the RPC, because the penalty for false testimony is dependent on the RPC graduation of penalties
is egregiously false), or proof from other facts. False statement must be related to the subject of inquiry, which legitimately affects the defendant. Not necessary that the witness’s
overt act of using publicly a fictitious name. If the person uses a fictitious name, art. 48 will apply – Replacement: delivery of prisoners complexed with
defense The testimony must be complete o Must have been subjected to direct and cross examination o Unless other party waved right to cross-examination Villanueva v. SOJ – witness must be aware that his testimony is false. false is internal act. How can you establish this? o State of mind may be determine by things he states or does,
absorbed by crime of delivery. Escapee is guilty of evasion of
to help the convict escape, he is ONLY guilty for delivery of
nomenclature of RPC There must be criminal intent – only committed through dolo. GF is a
Unless he is aware, he may invoke GF. Knowledge that his testimony is
from jail. Use of fictitious name by the replacement is
o
J. CALLEJO – the basis must be whether the SPL uses
prosecuted under perjury. “Witness”? o Includes injured party or any witness o And even one of the accused, as long as he testified for the prosecution
99
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
If the accused gave false testimony in favor of himself, is he liable under
181 (favorable false testimony)? o No. o Unless, P v. Soliman – “Hindi ko pinatay yan. Siya po ang pumatay!” This was a lie. He is liable under Art. 181.
Measuring stick: not just disclaiming guilt, but pinning it upon
another. It is a formal crime. The crime is committed as soon as the false testimony is given. o Thus, retraction does not extinguish the crime already o
committed. UNLESS it was spontaneously done in the same testimony –
there is GF Relate to RA 6981 – witness protection program: o Person in WPP who testifies falsely loses immunity and can be liable for perjury o But NOT art. 180-182 of the RPC RA 9372, sec. 47 – o Any person knowingly furnishing false testimony in any
party o Ark Travel Express v. Judge – might be given in the bar Elements of 182: o 1) False testimony given in civil case o 2) relating to issues raised o 3) Must be false o 4) witness knows it is false o 5) Must be malicious and given with intent to affect the issues in the case The retraction of a witness under 182 does not extinguish criminal
prohibition) How about false testimony in special proceedings? o Does not apply to special proceedings. Neither does it apply to naturalization proceedings. Covers testimony in a petition to annul judgment Unlike Art. 180, penalty does not depend upon outcome of the case.
Art. 183 – PERJURY
proceeding involving terrorism is liable not under 180-182 but for the crime committed Art. 182 – false testimony in a civil case o Here, the offender may be a party litigant, or a witness for a
“civil case” o Includes ordinary action o Includes supplementary proceedings (Execution of judgment,
Definition, see Art. 183 Villanueva v. SOJ – o Applies for: o 1. Light penalties o 2. Other proceedings (ex. Special proceedings) o 3. Etc. etc. Elements: o Perjury is a felony by dolo. It cannot be done by culpa. o There must be malice. Mere assertion of false, objective fact not enough. o There must be criminal intent. Must be on a material matter How about petitions? o Petition for habeas corpus is a public document. If the o
allegations are false, crime is F of a public document. Padua v. Paz – a complaint for damages filed with MTC which
o
contains false allegations perjury Asturias v. Serrano – petitioner filed petition to annul judgment
o
and made false assertions crime is perjury too J. CALLEJO – In light of these, a petition filed in court where false statements are made, the crime is perjury.
liability. 100
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
It is not necessary that the proceeding where the false statements were
How about actual exhibition of sexual intercourse in public? It is a crime
made must terminate first. Subornation _-> PDP, PDI The party who is liable is the party who OFFERS the document n
under this provision. There is no art here. P v. Tinpongco – it must be distributed widespread or to many people,
because if it is isolated, then it does not disturb the law RA 9995 – law punishing video and photo voyeurism (amended Art.
evidence o Must know that the document is false Malicious procurement of search warrant and use perjured document –
201) o
what crimes are committed? o Malicious procurement of search warrant o Perjury o NOT complexed.
o
V: CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS
Must be in a public place. Must be in public view US v. Samaniego – unless there is an element of publicity, there can be
of privacy? Yes. That is why they went to the motel. 3. To sell, copy, or cause distribution of the video or photos –
o
even when there is consent by the persons involved 4. To broadcast in print, radio, or video these sexual acts (even in VCD or DVD) What covers the “female breast”? Any portion.
no grave scandal. Here, the accused and her paramour were doing adultery in a private place (kitchen of woman’s house)
privacy without being concerned that she would be
US v. Cutingger – What is the test of obscenity? Whether it shocks the
o o
ordinary and common sense of men. Whether the tendency of the matter is the deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to those
obscene since this can be a work of art. If the nude representations are sold for commercial purposes and not
“Private area?” – covered or naked What is “Reasonable expectation of privacy?” The person concerned believes that she can disrobe in
Art. 201 – IMMORAL DOCTRINES, OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS, ETC.
immoral influences. o P v. Apparachi – f Mere nudity in art or sculpture is not
expectation of privacy If a couple goes to a motel, is there an expectation
o
Art. 200 – GRAVE SCANDAL
person 2. Capture image of body parts (breast, buttocks, private parts, etc.) without consent of the person NOTE: For above, there must be reasonable
Art. 185, 186 – MONOPOLIES, ETC
1. Taking a video or photo of sexual act without consent of
captured in photo or video This photo or video is inadmissible for evidence. Exception: police can apply to court for an order to take a photo or video of a couple for investigation and apprehension of
those committing this crime. Relate to RA 7610 - Child abuse law o Those who coerce or induce a child (person under 18, or over 18 but suffering from mental or physical defect) – hired to
the sake of art, it may fall under this provision. o
perform in indecent shows or obscene publications Here, the child is EXEMPT because the child is a victim.
101
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo o
Who are liable? Ascendant, guardian, any person entrusted with care
of child Person who induces or coerces the child
VII: CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS Art. 203 – WHO ARE PUBLIC OFFICERS?
Embraces all public servants, from highest to lowest. Removes
Art. 202 – VAGRANTS AND PROSTITUTES
distinction between officers and employees. Definition includes those
Amended by RA 9344, Sec. 58 o Persons below 18 are exempt from criminal liability from prosecution for vagrancy or prostitution o Or mendicancy under PD 1563 RA 7610 – o Pimps are liable, and those other persons that procure child prostitutes or encourage them, and those who engage in
occupying positions in government, highest to lowest, permanent or temporary. Includes those with positions in GOCCs, including GSIS,
Postal Service. Agbayani v. Sayo – Includes subsidiaries of GOCCs, whether created
under Corporation Code or original charters. P v. Sandiganbayan – Whether stock or non-stock, vested with functions relating to public needs (governmental or proprietary), owned by
sexual intercourse with children, and those deriving profit or
advantage (e.g. owners of establishment) Further amended by RA 9208 – anti-trafficking of persons act of 2003 o Covers sex-tourism, qualified trafficking of persons, etc. o If the trafficked person is a child (under 18 or over 18 but has o
mental or physical defect), the crime is qualified Also qualified if offender is in military or law enforcement
o
agencies If the offended person dies, becomes insane, gets AIDS/HIV, is
o
mutilated, it is also qualified What are the civil liabilities? Offender liable to trafficked person – from personal
o o
government either wholly or partially Crimes committed by judgment Art. 204 – KNOWINGLY RENDERING AN UNJUST DECISION
Applies to the judges of the first and second levels (MTC, RTC) But not justices of appellate courts, SC, or Sandiganbayan (those who
render collective judgment after due deliberation) Judge must commit breach of positive statutory duty or performance of
discretionary act with improper or corrupt motive Valdez v. Judge A judgment is unjust – contrary to law, not supported by evidence, made
with conscious and deliberate intent to do injustice o Must be intent + overt act It is not enough that the judgment is contrary to law or that the judgment
properties If insolvent, take value from those proceeds and instruments derived from trafficking, that are
is not supported by evidence – there MUST be intent on the part of the
confiscated THERE CAN BE INDEPENDENT ACTION for civil liabilities under this law Also, exempt from filing fees
P v. Maniego – definition in 203 is extensive and comprehensive.
judge to do the injustice. A judge renders a decision that is not based on evidence on record, and he is aware of it. He still renders the decision. Is he ipso facto criminally liable? 102
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo o
No. The judgment of the court must become final and
executory before he can be charged of a violation of Art. 204. What proceedings are contemplated? De Vela v. Pelayo o There must be a decision of an appellate court, in prohibition/certiorari/appeal impugning the validity of the o
decision OR there is an administrative charge against the judge for
promulgating the unjust order This crime is malum in se. It cannot be committed by culpa.
CONTRAST TO ART. 205 –MANIFESTLY UNJUST JUDGMENT THROUGH INEXCUSABLE NEGLIGENCE
There is inexcusable negligence if the mistake of the judge and cannot be explained; there is a manifest injustice that cannot be explained by a
reasonable explanation. When is a judgment unjust? o When it is contrary to evidence on record or the law. Unlike Art. 204, a judge may be liable by culpa. Attachment of liability? o Not only erroneous, but motivated by dishonestly, hatred, or some other evil motive What can the judge invoke as a defense against ignorance of the law? o 1. Good faith o 2. Absence of malice o 3. Improper consideration
Art. 207 – MALICIOUS DELAY IN ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Elements of this crime? o 1. Judge performs any of these acts: Renders manifestly unjust IO or decree through o
inexcusable negligence or ignorance 2. Either by dolo or culpa
Felony by dolo. Must be committed with corrupt motives or malice, by a judge in delaying the administration of justice.
Mere delay is not enough. There must be intent to deliberately delay. Magdango v. Judge
Art. 208 – PREVARICACION
Very important Public officer who in dereliction of his duties, maliciously refrains from instituting prosecution for violation of laws, or tolerates commission of
these acts Who are the officers liable here? o Those charged in institution or filing of criminal complaints against violators of the law Ex. Agents of the NBI, PDEA, prosecutors, OMB, o
special prosecutor, etc. Those charged with enforcement of internal revenue laws are
NOT included This is malum in se. Although the crime may be committed by tolerance, however, the law expressly requires that the public officer/employee MALICIOUSLY
refrains from instituting or prosecuting violations of the law. US v. Mendoza – Before a public officer or employee may be charged and convicted of prevaricacion, the offender whom the public officer
Art. 206 – UNJUST INTERLOCUTORY ORDER
An IO does not finally dispose of the case
refused to charge/prosecute must FIRST be prosecuted and convicted
for that crime whose prosecution was omitted by the public officer o This is a condition sine qua non to prevaricacion Refers to both RPC and SPL crimes What about public officers and employees not tasked with instituting criminal actions or prosecuting them?
103
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
o They are liable under PD 1829 – obstruction of justice o May also be held as accessories under Art. 19 of RPC Liable for other crime? o Violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices law, in addition to liability under Art. 208. Prevaricacion is a constituent element of qualified bribery (Art. 211-A).
Art. 209 – BETRAYAL OF TRUST BY ATTORNEY OR SOLICITOR
Can only be committed by attorney-at-law (no more procurador judicial
anymore) First form of violation: o Client must suffer prejudice due to malicious breach of lawyer o o
of professional duty, or inexcusable negligence, or ignorance What is “prejudice”? Material or moral damage Where else is the lawyer liable under? Sec. 4B of RA 3019 – Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Law if the lawyer knowingly induces or
o in connection with official duties, o in consideration of any offer, promise, gift, or present o received by him or mediation of another o whether the crime is committed by him or another 2. Acceptance of gift, etc. for a non-criminal act, whether the act is done
or not 3. Acceptance of gift, etc. in consideration for refraining from doing
something which is his duty to do Crime of bribery is committed by the public officer. Giver of the gift
o
o
provision, if he connives with a public officer. SAN YUNG SECOND FORM? Third form: no liability for lawyer if the client accedes to the lawyer representing another
Bribery (very important) Art. 210 – DIRECT BRIBERY Three forms:
1. Public Officer: o agrees to perform a criminal act,
etc. 3. Gift, etc. was given in consideration of commission of commission by the P.O. of some crime in connection with
causes public official to commit any of the offenses under Sec. 3 of the RA 3019 Practicing lawyer may also be liable for bribery under this
commits corruption of public officer. What are the elements of the first mode? Garcia v. SB o 1. Accused is a P.O. o 2. Receives directly or through mediation of another some gift,
performance of his duties Second mode? o 1. Act in consideration for which the gift, etc. was given does not constitute a crime o 2. The act or crime relates to P.O.’s exercise of functions Maamba v. Judge – For the public officer to be liable for direct bribery under the 2nd form, although the act of the P.O. does not constitute a
crime, the act must be unjust If the act is ENTIRELY outside his official functions, not liable for direct
bribery. If a public officer represents to an individual that he can issue a permit, but he cannot issue it in actuality, he is not liable for direct bribery. He is
liable for estafa. When is bribery consummated under form 1? o If the gravamen of the crime is the offer or promise and the acceptance, the crime is consummated upon acceptance of the offer/promise.
104
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
o
NOTE: If the act was done prior to acceptance, the act
him and charging him for violation of ordinance. Policemen
consummates the crime already [I spaced out and
refused to accept the money. What crime? Attempted bribery. But NOTE: the one guilty of bribery is the public officer, but why
thought I heard this. CONFIRM first] It does not matter whether the offered thing is actually given to
o
is it that in these three cases, there was attempted bribery? It
the officer – as long as there is offer and acceptance, there is
must have been attempted CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC
consummation Pelegrino v. P – The offered money was left on the table. The public officer gets the envelope and says “ano to?” HELD: Mere physical
promise to give the gift or present. But the act to be committed must be
receipt without any other act or sign showing acceptance cannot lead the court to conclude that bribery has been committed. There must be
physical act indicating acceptance. What constitutes “gift or present”? Can it be services? o Yes. The gift or present may be in the form of services to be
a crime. The present or gift may be solicited by the public officer or employee. If does not distinguish whether offered by the bribe giver or solicited by the officer o o
rendered by the bribe giver. A promise to do an act that would o
OFFICER. Under Mode 1, the officer must receive the gift or present OR accept the
have pecuniary gain to the PO is a present. It is enough if a reward or personal advantage would accrue to
guilty of two crimes: direct bribery + that crime. Article 48 does
the PO from the performance of an act by the bribe giver, and
he values it highly Can there be attempted or frustrated bribery? o De Los Angeles v. P – lawyer promised and actually delivered
o
smuggling of aliens. NBI agent accepted the money, but the
o
smuggler. What crime was committed? Attempted bribery. US v. Te Tong – Appellant offered money to Chief of Police for the latter to release certain merchandise seized from appellant in gambling. The police accepted it, but to use it as evidence
o
against appellant. What crime? Attempted bribery as well. P v. Ng Pek – Appellant convicted of attempted bribery when
not apply. May he be charged simultaneously for these two crimes?
Yes. Merencillo case Supposing he received the bribe to commit a criminal act, but the officer did not commit the criminal act? o He is liable for bribery under the first mode. It does not matter
to NBI money to spare his client from investigation for agent gave it to his superior to use as evidence against the
Whether the act was done, it does not matter. In fact, if the criminal act was actually done by the PO, he is
if he actually commits the crime or not. There are as many crimes of direct bribery as the number of times a bribe is offered and received/accepted. o Ex. LTO inspector – every time he checked and he was offered
money and he accepts/receives it to do a criminal act Mode 2: Mariposque case – a robbery was committed, and Mariposque told the victim: “I will recover your property, but you have to give me PHP 5,800.” Private complainant agreed. Mariposque recovered it. He did not deliver it. There was an entrapment.
he offered money to the police to dissuade them from arresting
105
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo o
o
SC HELD: The recovery of the property was not a crime.
PO is not required to do anything in particular. Enough that he
complainant was unjust. J CALLEJO: There was an obligation to return the property. It
received the gift/present by reason of his office
is unjust. May a private individual be liable for bribery? o Asejas III v. P – Asejas was a practicing lawyer. His Japanese
Art. 211-A – QUALIFIED BRIBERY
complaint against you.” Immigration agents told client: “Give P25K so we won’t investigate you.” Lawyer connived with the
public officers and encouraged his client to give money. He o
did. HELD: Private person (lawyer) was liable for bribery for acting
o
in conspiracy with the public officers. J CALLEJO: The Japanese client gave money because he was afraid to be charged for any irregularity in the VISA/ violation of DDA. Shouldn’t they have been charged for robbery/extortion??? Bribery must be given voluntarily. That is the difference between bribery (voluntary giving) and robbery/extortion (involuntarily, through
The act of offering or giving to the public officer gifts, presents, etc. [Note: the public officer is liable for bribery] It must be by reason of his public office Can there be attempted corruption of public officers under Art. 212? o
In some cases, the CA said there can be an attempt of this crime. P v. Elago – CA said there can be frustrated corruption of public officers. This has not been affirmed by the SC, and J
for illegal possession Judge was PDP when he acted as the broker in bribery
Given gifts by reason of his office Distinguish from direct bribery:
perpetua. o Include SPLs that use the nomenclature of the RPC penalties. US v. Mendoza – The officer must first be convicted for prevaricacion,
Art. 212 – CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
threat) Judge was an accomplice when he allowed his chambers to be used for
Art. 211 – INDIRECT BRIBERY
and in consideration of offer, promise, gift, etc. Must it be RPC or can it be SPL? o In general, must be RPC because the term used is reclusion
prior to conviction for qualified bribery.
the bribery transaction between the police and the suspected criminal
Relate with Art. 208 For PO entrusted with law enforcement and he refrains from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has committed crime punishable by RP
client came to the Philippines. He told his client “there is a
Indirect – no such agreement to perform or not perform an act.
Nevertheless, failure to deliver the goods to the private
was his duty to do so! His refusal to do so is not a crime, but it
o
CALLEJO doubts it would ever be affirmed. Art. 213 – FRAUDS AGAINST PUBLIC TREASURY, ETC.
Par. 1 – crime by dolo
106
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo o
Consummated by mere entering into agreement by public
private individuals resulting to loss of public funds and property
officer/employee with interested party or speculator – no need
for damage to be proven Par. 2 – mere demand of sums different or mere failure to issue receipts o Par. 2 is mala prohibita o Not required for State to suffer damage o If accountable officer demands amount in excess of what is
due to the government, the amount due to the government is
still public property but the excess is private property May private individuals be liable under Art 213? o Yes. US v. Ponte – if there is conspiracy with public officer
due to corruption or neglect of duty How committed? o Misappropriation of public funds o OR the taking of such property o OR by consenting another to take such property, whether o
duty, to take such public funds or property Elements? o 1. Offender is a public officer o 2. He has custody or control of funds by reason of duties of
Art. 217 – MALVERSATION (very impt)
By dolo or culpa What are the described public properties or funds here? o 1. Public funds owned by national government or any of its
o
seized, or deposited with private individuals or public authorities under the law or by orders of the courts or executive o
officers even if such funds belong to public individuals 3. Funds and properties of public corporations or special instrumentalities such as the PCSO as well as the PNRC are
government and penalize erring public officers conspiring with
o
accountable 4. He appropriates, takes, misappropriates, consents, or
same What is “to appropriate? o To use public funds or property for himself or convert the same for his personal advantage Includes any attempt to dispose of public funds or property
without any legal right What is “taking”? o Concept of taking in malversation is the same concept as o
individuals by GOCCs are private loans and are therefore not public property or funds What is the purpose of Art. 217? o The SC ruled that the law is designed to protect the
office 3. Those funds/property are public funds for which he is
o
public funds/properties Mariano Ocampo v. P – amounts loaned to private
o
through abandonment/negligence, permits another to take the
agencies, including LGUs, GOCCs, under the custody of the accountable officers 2. Funds or property under custodia legis which are attached,
wholly or partially OR permitting another due to negligence or abandonment of
taking in theft or robbery Once a public officer has possession of public property, however brief as may be, and disposes of the same, he is
liable for Malversation Who is an accountable officer? o By reason of office, is accountable for public funds or property o Every officer of government agency whose duties permit or require the possession or custody of government funds or
107
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
o
property and who shall be accountable therefore and for
o
Yes, because those taken under official duties are in custodia
safekeeping thereof in conformity with law What about donations made by private individuals to
o
legis Ex. Received money from execution sale and misappropriates
government, are they public funds/property? Yes, whether domestic or foreign source, when duly
o
accepted by government (because these are remitted to the national treasury and for which a general fund
destined for a private person, since it is momentarily
is provided for). Even the proceeds are public funds o
or property. 1987 revised administrative code – except as provided otherwise, all money or property officially received by a public officer in any capacity or in any occasion must be accounted
o
for as government funds or property LGC – any officer of the local government whose duty permits or requires possession/custody of public funds are accountable
o
officers To determine who is accountable – the nature of the duties
o
CONTROLS and not the nomenclature of the office Frias v. P – Frias is a municipal mayos; he went to Manila on official business. He got a cash advance. Under the LGC, if you are given a cash advance, you have to account for this
o
is an accountable officer, because under the Government
official judicial processes RA 9165, DDL – any public officer or employee who is accountable for imprisonment to death Is the decision of the SC is Diego v. SB still true today? o The crime should be 9165, since it is SPL. o Art. 217 cannot anymore apply for drugs under custodia legis o
Auditing Code, he was obliged to account for the cash advance. Fact of lack of benefit does not exempt him from
entrusted to the one conducting public auction Money and property is under custodia legis if taking through
seized/surrendered dangerous drugs is liable under the law: life
when you return from your destination. If he fails to account for it, although he was not benefited. HELD: The municipal mayor
it What are the fiduciary funds of the courts? Ex. Bail bonds Ex. Funds from extrajudicial foreclosure, even if
that is misappropriated. J CALLEJO’s opinion: charge under 9165 alone, not 217, and
not concurrent If a private individual profits from the fruits of malversation, since he cooperates as an accessory? o He can be liable for malversation as an accessory. There must be concrete evidence that: o 1. He received public funds/property o 2. There is a shortage of such Government Auditing Code – you cannot give “vale” to a co-government
liability. There are two officers: one accountable, one not. They use public funds
employee. To tolerate such a practice is to sanction every public officer
to drink beer. HELD: Accountable officer liable for malversation. Non-
ALLOWED. [Situation here: public officer using public funds to give
accountable cannot; he is liable for theft. Can a sheriff be liable for malversation?
to turn public funds into a lending business. So giving “vale” is NOT
advances to fellow employees.] Demand is NOT an element of the crime.
108
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
If one misappropriates different types of property: guns, money, etc.? o o
If he did everything in one occasion, just one crime If multiples times, as many crimes of malversation as the
number of times he misappropriated San Jose v. Karunungan – Clerk of court has custody of 100K consigned with court. The sheriff stole it when the clerk went out for lunch. Is the sheriff guilty of malversation? o No. He is not the accountable officer. If the clerk is negligent, he is liable for malversation through negligence. The sheriff is
o o
surrender. If person is charged with dolo, can he be found to have committed
it by culpa? o Yes. Tabuena v. SB Abuse of confidence and taking advantage of public position are
Campomanes v. P – elements o 1. Public officer o 2. Accountable officer o 3. Required by law or regulation to render accounts to o
government or provincial auditor 4. Fails to make account within 2 months
Elements? o 1. Public officer o 2. Has public fund or property under administration
217 If appropriated by the provincial board, but he uses it for a purpose
Art. 231 – OPENLY REFUSE TO EXECUTE JUDGMENT OF SUPERIOR COURT, ETC.
What is openly refusing? o Promptly and unreservedly refusing to execute judgment… clear and manifest refusal o There must be criminal intent to defy superior authority Disobedience to void or invalid decision is not a crime
Art. 235 – MALTREATMENT OF PRISONERS
Art. 220 – TECHNICAL MALVERSATION
purpose than that provided for by law or ordinance Is this included in malversation in 217? o No, this is separate and independent from malversation in Art.
include appropriations even by boards
INHERENT in crime of malversation. Art. 218 – FAILURE TO ACCOUNT
that for which it has been appropriated for So he did not get it for himself Gravamen of crime: use or application of funds/property for some other
other than that provided for by the board? o J CALLEJO: thinks this is included, because “ordinance” can
liable for theft. Restitution does not exempt him from criminal liability, o At best it is a mitigating circumstance analogous to voluntary
3. Has been appropriated by law or ordinance 4. Applies such fund or property for public use OTHER THAN
See RA 9745 – law on torture Who are the public officers? o Those with custody of or in charge of the prisoner o Custody must be actual and not just by fiction of law Who is the victim? o The prisoner, the detention prisoner, or convict who was subjected to maltreatment If he inflicts physical injuries without intent to kill or he kills the prisoner, he may be guilty for maltreatment of prisoners and either PI or homicide/murder
109
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo Art. 236 – 238 – ANTICIPATION, PROLONGATION, ABANDONMENT OF DUTIES
Judge who continues to exercise functions of an abolished position, in
GF, is a de facto officer Abandonment must be total and under such circumstances indicating absolute relinquishment
110
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
[THE FOLLOWING NOTES ARE CARE OF JENNIFER REYES. THANK YOU!] Art 239-241 USURPATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS / EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS/ LEGISLATIVE FUNCTIONS
Usurpation of one department of the powers of another does not cover usurpation within the same department. Different provision covers such usurpation
If there is Rape and torture is committed is there a special complex crime? Justice says no decision yet in SC. Check Section 14 of the law R.A. 7080 Only have to show a series or pattern of acts that proves plunder Anti-Graft and Corruption Court must first determine the validity of the information before there can be suspension of the public officer.
Art. 244 – UNLAWFUL APPOINTMENTS
VIII: CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
Must be aware that the person nominated or appointee does not have the
Art. 246 – PARRICIDE
legal qualifications. good faith is a defense Nominating v Recommending Merely recommending is not a crime under this provision. To be liable must nominate someone not qualified
Father, mother, child or spouse of the accused legitimacy is not an issue but if between ascendant and descendant other than the parent or child should be legitimate If child is less than 3 days old the crime is parricide
Art. 245 – ABUSES AGAINST CHASTITY
May it be committed by Culpa?
If crime against chastity or person is committed then art. 245 is absorbed. Public Authority is an aggravating Circumstance
Amnesty Law is not applicable
Can it be complexed with unintentional abortion? Yes. Appellant stabbed his wife to death the wife was pregnant at the time (P v Paykana April 16, 2008) Robbery with homicide homicide used in its generic terms it includes parricide and infanticide Muslim Code of the Philippines can marry more than once as long as can provide equal companionship????? Can be committed by Culpa (P v Paykana) They were quarreling the husband drove with recklessness
Applies to officers who can arrest and investigate violators of the law
If did not die - frustrated or attempted
Art. 248 – MURDER relate to R.A. 9745 Penalty provided for in the Crime against torture and RPC may be applied suppletorily
111
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo Must the court take into consideration mitigating and aggravating No intent to kill - physical injuries, serious or less serious Art. 247 – UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES Defines a Felony but there is an absolutory cause Example of an exempting circumstance A crime is committed but not criminal liability No Civil liability because of the absolutory cause P v Kurikur P v Uyanid 406 p 651 - no civil liability imposed on the offender. Sir does not completely agree H Stabbed the paramour. The paramour tried to strike back. W tried to save P. H stabbed W to death. SC said art 247 to both attacks. Callejo: Art. 247 must not be applied because the reason H killed W is because W was protecting P. P v Rabandaban 85 P 636 Told his W to leave. W went inside the bedroom to take her jewelries. H said W should just leave and not take the jewelry. W tried to stab H, H stabbed W. NOT Art. 247 because he was protecting himself. Killing must be the direct by-product of the outraged suffered by the offending party In order to apply Art. 247 when the killing was done after the sexual intercourse. Sexual Intercourse must be consensual Even if not consensual can still apply Art. 247 if husband acted due to MISTAKE OF FACT
circumstance? Yes. The reason behind destierro is twisted logic possible only from a twisted mind. He thinks no logic with the provisions - says one justice Does not apply Sexual Assault Can only be invoked by the Offended Spouse Relative may invoke Art. 11, but the act must be reasonable. R.A. 8353 punishes sexual assault Assume husband saw wife completely naked, paramour clothed but the finger was inserted. -- not sexual intercourse Special Law did not amend Art 247 Can the husband use Art. 11? Callejo: can be applied Art. 248 – MURDER Torture and Cruelty are different Cruelty refers only to Physical Outrage to subject to gross insult to scuff - to show contempt by _____ acts and language Killed the Victim and threw the body in the river = scuffing P v Pugay - Guilty of homicide by culpa and one by dolo but one victim R.A. 9745 Physical and mental torture P v Commadre -
112
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo Art. 253 – ASSISTANCE TO SUICIDE Art. 249 – HOMICIDE P v Lazaro No frustrated homicide through reckless imprudence Homicide means there is intent Euthanasia _____ Sec. 10 RA 7610 victim of violence is a child the penalty is reclusion perpetua of under 12 VAWC If there is intent to kill but the victim does not die apply RPC Section 6 of the Code
Person trying to commit suicide does not commit a crime, even if fails to kill himself. If S jumps to kill himself, lands on another and kills that other person S can be liable for the death of the other person Others belive not liable Art. 254 – DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS Elements 1. Offender discharges a firearm against or towards another 2. no intention to kill or injure but only to scare
Art. 251 – DEATH IN TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY
If with intent to kill then Murder or homicide at any of its stages
Does not define a crime only provides penalty Elements: 1 Several persons - more than 2 in each group 2. Do not compose groups organized for the purpose of attacking another 3.Persons attack one another is a tumultous manner 4.cannot determine who killed the disease 5.person who inflicted physical injuries to the disease can be identified
If fires in the air can be Art 153 or Alarm
Neither Art 251 or 252 apply if the Person who committed can be ascertained They will also not apply if there is only one victim Not apply if the one group so organized attacked another group and the other group only defended themselves all of the members of the attacking group are liable for all injuries on the basis of Art. 8 RPC conspiracy
No distinction between an unlicensed or licensed firearm if another crime is committed not guilty under RA 8294 This article can be complexed with serious and less serious Physical Injuries Art. 255 – INFANTICIDE Elements: 1. Child born alive and 2. be viable - capable of independent existence Fetus with intra uterine line of 6 months not viable Child expelled prematurely the crime is abortion not Infanticide Treachery is inherent in infanticide P v Corales 121 S 426 113
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
Raped pregnant daughter daughter delivered her child. The father took the child after delivery and burried the child alive SC: rape and infanticide and abuse of superior strength in infanticide. Callejo: abuse of strength inherent in infanticide
Arts. 256/7 – ABORTION
so long as the fetus dies due to violence or drug administered even if fetus is in full term. Can be intentional or unintentional;
Art. 257 – UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION May be committed by Culpa P v lopez accused stabbed wife 9 mos pregnant - parricide with unintentional abortion There can be a complex crime of Unintentional Abortion and Parricide May there be Frustrated abortion YES. According to Justice Regalado. Home Work Art 262- 282 anti graft Art. 262.Mutilation There must be intent to mutilate Serious physical injuries if there is no direct intent to mutilate if intention is to kill then frustrated homicide or parricide Relate to Sec. 6 RA 9262
The offender shall be punished under the RPC and not under this special law
Art. 263 Par.1 Impotence - loss of the power to procreate and not only copulation If castration was done solely to deprive the victim the power of generation then the law violated is Art. 262 Deformity means disfigurement Blindness must be complete P v. Guttierez Med Cert issued by the doctor states that the healing period is one month the crime is less serious physical injuries. When we speak of month it is understood to mean 30 days Relate RA 7610 prision mayor in its minimum period
Art. 264 Important Injurious substances must be introduced or injected into the body of the victim. There must be NO intent to k ill if there is intent to kill it can be murder, homicide, parricide etc. If the substance is poisonous Murder CanNOT be committed by CULPA Intentionally introduced the substance If offender not aware that the substance is injurious = serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence
114
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
There was intent to kill but the qty was not enough to kill NOT an impossible crime Serious or less serious physical injuries Art. 265 - Art. 266 Slapped the victim. Victim did not sustain any physical injury or medical
1. 2.
rape sexual assault
Sodomy criminal act can be committed against a man or a woman
attendance crime is slight physical injuries If purpose is to humiliate the crime is slander by deed
May a woman be guilty of rape or sexual assault may be guilty as accomplice or principal by indispensable cooperation
If there is intent to kill Parricide, murder homicide
Sexual assault may be committed by a man or a woman Inserts finger and organ one count of sexual assault and one count of rape
Rivera v People and Lazaro v P Injury may not be serious at the onset but later on becomes serious the crime committed can change depending on the ultimate injury caused. Frustrated -> Consummated Physical Injuries => Homicide or murder Art 266-A and Art 266-B Crime against person the charge may be filed now by the public prosecutor consent of the offended party is no longer needed Husbands may now be liable of sexual assault of their lawful wives has the right to use the power of persuasion but he cannot use force, violence, or intimidation. Sexual relations must always be consensual Ex. H and W have been legally separated - more reason for the wife to refuse Ex. H has AIDS Lewd design is inherent in both crimes. Inherent is the desire of the offender to get sexual gratification by the insertion of his organ or any instrument Sex is now classified
NO FRUSTRATED RAPE OR SEXUAL ASSAULT only attempted or consummated stage Enough that a part of the object or organ pass through the genital, anal orifice, mouth "Instrument" can be a part of the human body. Ex. finger, tongue other things Under 12 Statutory rape no need for violence or intimidation Par. 1 Force, threat, intimidation Force can be actual or constructive what is pivotal is the offender was able to achieve his purpose. Fear includes fear of death, bodily harm Intimidation 115
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
viewed in the eyes of the victim must be of such as to cause fear on the part of the victim
Father raped his daughter, he claims the daughter did not resist moral ascendancy and parental authority over the daughter substitutes for violence same rule if uncle, common law husband of mother Girl Over 12 but mental age of 12 not statutory rape because beyond 12 years old but the crime is still rape Deprived of Reason intellectually weak to the extent that she is not capable of giving consent to sexual intercourse Act is done w/o her consent Mental retardate Mental abnormality Deprive of reason need not be complete borderline mental deficiency is enough The woman was sleeping. The accused went on top of her they had sex. Woman says rape because she was half asleep SC convicted the man. Callejo does not agree. Cannot imagine the situation. when a woman is asleep (natural and regular suspension of unconsciousness) Drug was injected into her body then raped ability to resist was taken away by the administration of drugs even if the woman was awake at the time of intercourse. Rape may now be committed by machinations and grave abuse of authority. Ex. if the offender succeeds by pretending to be the twin brother that is fraudulent machinations
Gave abuse of authority employer or superior - employee teacher - student
Doctor – patient
Qualifying circumstances only one circumstance is needed to qualify. Do not use the others as a generic aggravating 1. Use of a weapon - weapon means any instrument made or designed for the infliction of injury or is likely to produce death of physical harm. Meer possession is not enough. It must be used to intimidate the woman. Whether licenced firearm. SUPPOSING NO LICENSE CAN IT BE A QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE. NOT AGGRAVATING OR QUALIFYING OR SEPARATE because rape was committed (p v almanzor) 2. RA 83 53 are in addition to the aggravating circumstances to art 14 of rpc 3. Permanent Physical mutilation 4. Know that the victim is pregnant at the time of the commission there can be rape with unintentional abortion Special Complex Crime Homicide committed on occasion of rape or sexual assault Homicide is used in its generic term No such thing as Murder with rape or sexual assault "On the occasion" logical connection between homicide and rape no appreciable amount of time intimate relation between the two crimes Abduction with rape if original intention is rape then the crime is rape To prove age can still be stipulated in the pre trial guardian refers to legal or judicial Victim is below 7
116
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
qualifying death
Offender with AIDS/HIV/STD to be qualifying offender must be aware Pardon relate with 345 RPC affects not only the crime but also the penalty RA 7610 Sec 5 the child victim is under 12 accused prosecuted under RPC statutory rape
IX: CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY OR SECURITY [Thanks to JD dela Cuesta for the following notes in red] Art. 267 – KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION
PP v. Bisda 406 S 454 – Elements: Essence of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of victim’s liberty Offender (a private individual) intends to deprive the victim of their liberty and there is actual deprivatio Lack of consent of victim is fundamental; presumed if a minor Pp v. Picarrel 414 S 19 – if at the onset, the victim agreed to go with the offender, but is thereafter prevented with use of force from leaving the place, and there was deprivation of liberty, there is kidnapping Pp v. Baldogo, Pp v. Pabillara 5 April 2000, Pp v. Castillo 425 S 136 Pp v. Astorga 283 S 420 Deprivation not only includes lock-up or imprisonment, but deprivation of liberty in whatever form for whatever length of time Duration or length of time is irrelevant if any of the circumstance in par. 2 to last par. of Art. 267 If the private individual pretended to be a police officer, not a complex crime with usurpation as the usurpation is a mode of committing the kidnapping
No crime of serious PI and kidnapping as infliction of serious PI is a mode of kidnapping RA 9745 – if victim in crimes persons and crimes against liberty is tortured, penalty to be imposed in the maximum If kidnapped and killed, special complex crime of kidnapping with homicide If kidnapped and raped, then killed, special complex crime of kidnapping with rape, don’t use the killing Pp v. Larranaga 421 S 530 – special complex crime of kidnapping with rape or homicide is committed if there is a logical connection or intimate relation between the kidnapping and the rape, homicide, or torture (but torture now under RA 9745); even if rape or killing is merely an afterthought, the special complex crime of kidnapping with rape of homicide is committed Pp v. Job 384 P 241 If two or more persons were killed by reason or on the occasion of kidnapping, there are as many crimes as there are the number of persons kidnapped, so two special complex crimes of kidnapping with homicide Pp v. Muit 8 Oct 2008 – kidnappers kidnapped victim, took his car, demanded ransom, failed to get ransom, killed the victim, offender charged with two separate crimes of special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with homicide and carnapping, CA said kidnapping for ransom and homicide, SC Second Division said guilty of kidnapping for ransom and carnapping, homicide is an aggravating circumstance, ransom as a qualifying circumstance was already proved so no need to use homicide as qualifying aggravating; applied Pp v. Reynes o Justice Callejo’s view – can’t use the homicide as an aggravating circumstance as there is no law allowing it; crime is kidnapping with homicide for ransom (Pp v. Deang, En Banc decision) But for there to be a special complex crime, all the component crimes must be consummated Dehumanization – removing qualities of human passion
117
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo Ex. handcuffing them, gagging and blindfolding them, forcing them to dance, Mere demand for ransom is enough, no need that it be paid Ransom includes not only money but also things of value, price or condition, may include benefits not necessarily pecuniary which may accrue to the kidnapper May one be liable for murder and kidnapping and serious illegal detention with murder? Yes Pp v. Delim – primary purpose of the offender is material in determining the crime; if primary purpose is killing, murder; if deprivation of liberty then killed victim, kidnapping with homicide Pp v. Nuguit 420 P 530 – accused accosted victim, abused and kept her in the room for an hour, then raped her, crime is rape and not kidnapping as the original purpose is to rape the victim Distinguish this from Grave Coercion – Pp v. Astorga 22 Dec 1997 – accused and victim where strolling in school grounds where accused led victim to another town, child wanted to leave but accused did not let her, parents saw them, not kidnapping but grave coercion PD 532 – if kidnapping is committed here, penalty is death *Pp v. Mendoza 254 S 61 – for the kidnapping of a person on the highway to be a crime under PD 532, the seizure must be directed not only against specific or preconceived victims, but against anyone; of specific, kidnapping Prosecution must prove that offenders are organized for committing kidnapping indiscriminately o
21 September 2010
Art. 267
“Minor” means minor as defined by special laws Kidnapping and serious illegal detention are two separate concepts
Kidnapping denotes a taking of the victim Serious illegal detention consists in mere deprivation of liberty There is a specific intent, which is deprivation of liberty No need for actual deprivation of liberty, even if free to roam around, but cannot go home or go anywhere, there is still deprivation of liberty (Pp v. Castillo 425 S 136) If there is a logical connection between the killing/raping of victim of kidnapping and the kidnapping, there is a special complex crime of kidnapping with homicide/rape o Not even required that another person do the killing o Pp v. Job – victim was killed by police officers who tried to rescue him in the course of a crossfire, accused guilty of kidnapping with homicide o Pp v. Larranaga – death if there is torture, which is analogous too dehumanizing acts This has been amended by RA 9745, which considers torture as distinct from dehumanizing acts Illegal detention v. coercion o *Pp v. Astorga 22 December 1997 Special Complex Crime of Kidnapping with Rape/Homicide o If both raped and killed, kidnapping with rape, homicide not an aggravating circumstance but may be used as basis of civil liability o If there was ransom, it is kidnapping with homicide for ransom If victim subjected to attempted or frustrated homicide/murder, this is separate from the crime of kidnapping, do not use Art. 48 For rape/homicide/murder to be a constituent element of the special complex crime, it must be consummated FINALS QUESTION: What if kidnapped and raped a pregnant woman, and she had an abortion? What crime/s were committed? Pp v. Nuguit 420 S 433 – if the intention of the offender was to rape the victim but the victim was detained before she was raped, the crime is rape, and not kidnapping with rape, as the original intention o o
118
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
was to rape the victim and the detention was only incidental, the purpose was not deprivation of liberty Murder and kidnapping with murder as two separate crimes? Yes, Pp v. Baldugo – killed son of employer then kidnapped and killed the other child, 2 crimes: murder and kidnapping with murder, as the killing of the first child was already consummated at the time the second was kidnapped and killed If the purpose is to kill the victim and the deprivation of liberty is only an incident, the crime is homicide/murder Ransom – anything required or demanded by the offender as a consideration for the release of a person kidnapped; may include benefits, not necessarily pecuniary, that may accrue to the offender as a condition for the release of the victim
Art. 268
Slight illegal detention Elements o Offender is a private individual o Kidnaps or detains another or otherwise deprives him of liberty o Detention is illegal o None of the circumstances in Art. 267 Day = 24 hours from deprivation Escape or rescue of victim is not an exempting circumstance Voluntary release of victim is not an exempting circumstance, only serves to reduce the penalty Person who furnishes place of detention is an accomplice
Art. 269
Arrest another for delivery to authorities but without lawful cause “Proper authorities” are those authorized to arrest another and file the appropriate charges
Art. 270
Pp v. Ty 263 S 635 o Offender entrusted with custody of minor o Deliberately fails to restore said minor to his parents or guardian Does not amend Art. 267 as the intent is different Essential element here is the deliberate failure or refusal to restore minor to parent or guardian, this is the intent here o Must be premeditated, intentional, malicious Pp v. Pastrana 436 P 127 – Parents may be liable for this
Art. 280
Trespass to dwelling Accused enters the dwelling of another without the latter’s consent But if enters dwelling to commit a crime, and commits such crime, no trespass to dwelling, dwelling is aggravating If enters house not for the purpose of committing a crime, but once entered commits a crime, 2 crimes Refusal of consent need not be express Even if occupant only an tenant or lessee, still trespass Pp v. Medina 55 P 134
Art. 281 Unlawful arrest May be committed by private individuals and public officers other than law enforcement agents
119
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo Art. 282
Grave threats Those made with deliberate purpose of creating in the mind of the victim a belief that the threat will be carried out Intimidation here is conditional, and not necessarily personal, may be caused by an intermediary If no condition, threat must be serious and deliberate If the threats form part of the element of violence or intimidation in the commission of the crime intended to be committed, said threats are absorbed (ex. threatening to kill unless she gave in to sexual advances of accused, the crime is rape) o EXC. Art. 312 – if grave threats constitute force or intimidation in vacating property, not grave threats but usurpation of real rights over property Distinguished from robbery/extortion o Grave threats depends upon moral pressure o If crime consists of securing on the spot the property of the victim, robbery *READ: Pp v. Osorio 21 P 237 Fortono v. Pp As many counts of grave threats as the number of people threatened
Coercions
Barbasa v. Tuquero 28 Dec 2008 Elements of grave coercion o A person is prevented from doing something not prohibited by law
120
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo Art. 292 – REVELATION OF SECRETS Art. 286 – GRAVE COERCION
Distinguish between grave coercion and SID/K? o Grave coercion – there is no intent to deprive another of his o
liberty SID – while there is also intimidation, there is deprivation of
liberty If used to prevent people from seeking grievance or peacefully assembling, violation is under Art. 131 (disturbance or prevention of
peaceful meeting.) Threatened the owner of a property, intending to take his property from
X: CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY Art. 293 – ROBBERY
him. (Ended up killing him.) o Art. 312 – Usurpation of real rights over real property o May be liable for grave threats or homicide, as the case may
But may be absorbed by the “violence” provision in
Art. 312 Forcible abduction will result, not grave coercion, if there is lewd design. Distinguish between grave coercion and robbery. o See above. (Jaja’s notes)
consummated Elements: o 1. Personal property of another o 2. Unlawful taking o 3. Intent to gain o 4. Violation or intimidation against persons OR force upon Relied on US SC decisions P v. Tan: o “Taking” in theft and robbery – taking of another’s property, depriving the latter of possession of property, through force, violation, or intimidation, or force upon things, with intent to o
Art. 287 – UNJUST VEXATION/LIGHT COERCIONS
Valenzuela v. P – no more frustrated robbery, just attempted or
things
be.
Includes trade secrets (Air Phil. v. Pennswell) Not patented but known only to a few individuals
gain ESSENCE: taking of personal property out of possession of another without privity or consent and without animus
Maderazo v. P – Crime of other light coercion and unjust vexation includes human conduct while not leading to physical harm or without
use of force or intimidation. o TEST: Annoyance, irritation, disturbance to victim Crime of dolo Unjust vexation or acts of lasciviousness – may be deemed preparatory
revertendi (intent to return) Must concur: o 1. Taking (physical act) o 2. AND intent to gain (mental act) Taking need not be permanent. (Salvilla – even brief possession
consummates the crime) What do you mean by personal property? Does it include
acts for the crime of rape o Ex. Vexed the woman first, then kissed her all over first. This
services?
all depends on the accused person’s intent
121
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo o
Yes. Laurel v. Judge. Placed overseas call to Japan,
from theft or robbery, even if it turned out not to be his. If the
connected through Philippines (ex. PLDT). The accused set up a corporation and put implements on the underground cables to divert the call, so they wouldn’t pass through the PLDT, and o
instead pass through the corporation. What is taken here are services provided by PLDT. The
o
deprivation is for services to collect cost of calls. Any act to transfer possession, which can be done through the
o o o
hands of the offender, or through any mechanical device such as access devise cards, which controls destination of the property stolen, or meter tampering, fraudulent obtaining of
gas, or diversion of overseas calls Wire-tapping of electricity: must tap between area of entrance of wire up
the meter of the consumer. Intent to gain can be established through overt acts of offender before or
claim is made in BF, then it is theft or robbery. At best, it is just coercion. Property – o Includes any property NOT included in the enumeration of real
theft/robbery? Yes. US v. Albao When is it robbery or theft? o The crime is robbery, not theft, if there are acts of violence, or intimidation before asportation, to enable the person to take the o
after the taking of personal property. Intent to gain presumed from
injuries as the case may be. Exception: Robbery with homicide, and robbery with
be presumed only if there is evidence to the contrary. o Not necessary that the offender ACTUALLY gains, because
Gain – o o
Not limited to just pecuniary benefit, but also utility, satisfaction, enjoyment, and pleasure Ex. Gasoline boy took a parked car and went on a joy ride. He claimed that he did not intend to take it. But here, there was
gain because there was enjoyment, utility, satisfaction, and o
pleasure. Even mere use of property taken is already “gain” under the
o
law. “Gain” rebutted by evidence that he took property because he claims to be the owner of the property. The person is exempt
property. If violence or intimidation was done after possession was taken, he is only liable for theft, grave coercion, or physical
taking another person’s property without consent. Intent to gain cannot
intent to gain is enough.
properties And capable of appropriation N.B. Includes electricity, phone services, and the like Can contraband property (ex. Drugs) be subject to
rape “Intimidation” o Unlawful coercion, duress, putting owner/possessor in fear o Attempt to take property of another with threats of bodily harm o No requirement of material violence – it is NOT indispensable for there to be intimidation Is it possible that one is guilty BRD of theft/robbery even if thing stolen is not offered in evidence? o Yes. P v. De Jesus. Because the person may have destroyed o
the property, thrown it away, etc. As long as the corpus delicti is proved, the unlawful taking of
personal property, there can be proof BRD. Is snatching theft or robbery?
122
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo o
Depends. If the victim is not subject to violation or intimidation,
it is just theft. If the owner is wounded through violence or
there is intimidation, it is robbery. One in possession of recently stolen property is presumed to be the
infanticide, parricide, murder, etc. There is no robbery with multiple
author of the crime of theft/robbery. (Mabunga v. P) How recent is recent – case-to-case. o Possession may be actual or constructive. The property may
“Homicide” is used in its generic term. There is no robbery with
homicide. DO NOT use the 2nd or 3rd killing as aggravating. It’s just robbery or homicide. What do you mean “by reason of the crime of robbery”? o The homicide/other constituent crime was not committed in the course of robbery, or shortly thereafter, but there is a LEGAL
be in the actual physical control of the offender or in the
connection, intimate relation in the commission of robbery Ex. Killing the victim to prevent the person from
possession of another, but under the control of the offender. Ex. I stole something but pinatago ko sa kaibigan ko o Accused must not be able to explain his possess satisfactorily. When is the presumption conclusive? o If the accused fails to explain any innocent origin of his
possession, and the possession is fairly recent, and it is
o o
exclusive.
without intent to kill, he accidentally killed a hiding person.
/ ROBBERY WITH INTENTIONAL MUTILATION
HELD: Robbery with homicide. (Not robbery with homicide through reckless imprudence – even if it is by mere accident, it
RA 7659 – There is now a special complex crime of robbery with intentional mutilation There is also robbery with arson Art. 48 will not apply for crimes here in Art. 294 Can there be robbery with homicide through reckless imprudence? o No. The other crime must be consummated. May Art. 48 apply if the constituent elements are not
o
consummated? o Yes. If one crime is done to commit another, or a single act
o
crime.
is robbery with homicide) What if the person killed is one of the robbers himself? Doesn’t matter. It’s still robbery with homicide. Even if the guy who shot a robber is also a fellow
robber. Is there robbery with homicide AND rape? o No. As long as there is homicide, it is ALWAYS just robbery o o
resulting into two or more grave or less grave offenses, and one constituent crime is not consummated. Otherwise, if both consummated, then it’s a special complex
“magnanakaw!” It doesn’t matter if it happens before, during, or after P v. Mangulabnan – Person was robbing a house. Heard rumbling noises in the attic. Shot a gun at the ceiling, and even
Art. 294 – ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE / ROBBERY WITH RAPE / ROBBERY WITH ARSON
reporting to the authorities Ex. Killed noisy neighbor who shouted
with homicide. But the rape still has corresponding civil liabilities. If a house is burnt to kill another, it is robbery is homicide, not
robbery with arson or robbery with homicide and arson Irrespective of number of people killed or rape, it is just robbery with homicide or robbery with rape.
123
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
If the original intent is to kill or to rape, but as an afterthought, he stole from the person he killed or raped, then there are TWO CRIMES. o Separate crimes of homicide and robbery o Separate crimes of rape and robbery Can there be robbery with homicide, if aside from intent to gain,
there is another motive (ex. He wanted to kill the guy)? o Yes. As long as there is intent to rob, even if there are other
o
o Yes. May there be a crime of robbery with force upon things with robbery with rape or robbery with homicide? o No. Robbery with force upon things cannot be complexed with
motives, it is robbery with homicide. (P v. Tidula) BUT: P v. Tidong (J. CALLEJO does not agree) – X is
robbery with rape (or homicide) Robbery with rape: must be accompanied by rape. o AS LONG AS THE ORIGINAL intent is to rob o Even if the rape was committed even before asportation o The intention to rob must precede the rape, even if the actual
employee of Juan, who fired him. X seeks to recover unpaid o
wages; Juan refused. X said “kung di mo ako bayaran,
jewelry as a memento, there are two crimes of robbery and
sasaksakin ko anak niyo.” X got the money, then killed the child. HELD: Robbery with homicide, because there was intent to rob. J CALLEJO does not agree because the wages are
his in the first place. P v. De Jesus – A group of robbers were robbing in Makati. One of the
rape. Even if there are multiple rapes, it is just robbery with rape. o P v. Bercelles – Even if each of the accused raped the victim, o
woman. HELD: Robbery with rape. The second rape and
shoot out happened. Another robber got shot by the police. HELD:
insertion of the finger are absorbed. Even the insertion of a
Robbery with homicide. EVEN IF the shoot out happened in some other place, it was intimately connected to the robbery. Also, it does not
o
matter that it was a robber that got killed. If a homicide is committed by one robber, ALL of them are liable for
o
o
finger was absorbed! P v. Angeles – Three robbers took victim of robbery in a taxi, went to Quiapo. One robber made the other two go down, then he took the woman to a motel. HELD: All of them were guilty
robbery with homicide. (“One merges his will into the common intent.”) o Pagalasan – any crime committed by the conspirator incidental to execution of common design in included in the crime. EXCEPT: when one of the robbers overtly attempts to prevent
there is only one crime of robbery with rape. P v. Suyo (“a very special case”) – accused robbed the victim, raped her twice, then he inserted his finger in the vagina of the
robbers was shot. There was a chase all the way to Laguna, where a
robbery comes after. Thus, if the accused raped the victim and just he took the
of robbery. The other one is also liable for rape, separately. If the place of the rape is far from the situs of the robbery, there are TWO crimes, but not robbery with rape. [separate crimes.] Robbery with arson – arson must be contemporaneous to robbery
the homicide. He is just liable for robbery, even if he is
unsuccessful. Even a look-out is a PDP, because the conspirators are given
Art. 295 & 296 – ROBBERY WITH PHYSICAL INJURIES, COMMITTED IN AN
specific tasks to further the crime. P v. Escober There is no special complex crime of theft with homicide. Robbery with homicide – does it absorb physical injuries?
UNINHABITED PLACE, AND BY A BAND
124
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
“Band” here is in the nature of a SPECIAL aggravating circumstance
o
and cannot be offset by a generic MC. o BUT for robbery with homicide/rape/intentional mutilation/arson
ONLY just a generic aggravating circumstance Art. 296 provides that if any of the firearms used is unlicensed, the penalty is the maximum period. Was this amended by RA 8294? o Yes. Art. 296 has been amended by RA 8294. Here, the
find any property there. It is NOT frustrated robbery but attempted robbery. EXECUTION OF DEEDS BY MEANS OF VIOLENCE OR INTIMIDATION (298)
Here, an offender uses force or violence to execute a document.
What kind of document is referred to in 298? o Public documents only. It does not include private documents. If it is a void document, will that be robbery under 298? Robbery
unlicensed firearm will NOT increase the penalty to its
maximum period anymore. Art. 296 – “Firearm” here can be licensed or unlicensed. o Arms can includes bolos and clubs. If one is a member of a band, may he be not liable for crime of robbery, if he tries to prevent it? o Yes. Even if he is a member of a band, if he prevents the
robbery or tries to, he is not liable. PD 532 – highway robbery or brigandage o P v. Puno – there must be evidence of indiscriminate
presuppose damage caused to the victim, but since the document is void, this means he does not lose anything. Can it still be
Has this provision been nullified by P v. Valenzuela? o Yes. It is rendered nugatory as far as FRUSTRATED robbery is concerned.
robbery? o No, it is grave coercion. The offender compels by violence or intimidation the victim to execute a document but he died due to heart attack. What is the crime, 298 or 294? o 298, but even so, the penalty is still governed by 294 par. 1, as
commission of the crime of robbery for PD 532 to apply ATTEMPTED AND FRUSTRATED ROBBERY (297)
P v. Dagundung – Offender entered the property but he did not
provided in the last sentence. ROBBERY IN AN INHABITED HOUSE, PUBLIC EDIFICE, OR DEDICATED TO RELIGIOUS WORSHIP
(299)
There is a provision here about use of fictitious name to rob. How
Homicide in 297 is used in its generic term. The homicide must be
does this differ from Art. 178, where there is also use of fictitious
consummated. If the crime of homicide was committed with treachery. Can
name? o Here, to enter the house, with intent to rob. In 178, to conceal
treachery be used as a generic aggravating circumstance? o Yes. In other situations, if there is treachery, it becomes murder. But there is no such thing as robbery with murder. So it is robbery with homicide, with the generic aggravating circumstance of treachery. (P v. Escote)
crime, etc. Do you apply Art. 48? o No, because use of fake name is an element of the crime. Same as with simulation of public authority.
ROBBERY OF AN UNINHABITED PLACE (302)
125
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
What is an uninhabited place? o Synonymous to an “uninhabited house” If committed by a band, what is the effect to the robbery to an
still taking without consent even if the original owner is
uninhabited palce? o Maximum penalty. (?)
dead). There are two crimes here: homicide and theft How many modes to commit theft? o 1. Take another person’s property without his consent o 2. Offender finds lost property and he does not return it to the owner or the authorities Local authorities Can this be committed by culpa? No. There must be DELIBERATE refusal to
BRIGANDAGE (306-7) Were article 306 and 307 of the RPC amended by PD 532 (Anti piracy and anti highway robbery law)?
No, it did not. The crime in PD 532 is a separate crime from Arts. 306 and 307. Art. 306 – o there must be three or more armed robbers here o mere conspiracy to form a band of brigands is already a crime o particular robbery against particular victim PD 532 – o even just one person can commit the crime o the act must be committed by the person o There must be indiscriminate highway robbery, and must be organized to do so;
o
o
of taking the theft. Ex. When a person was killed first, then as an
hunt or fish, or gather crops May stolen property be the subject of theft? (Nanakaw na nga,
community and the violation of personal rights How do you establish intent to gain? o Acts preceding, contemporaneous, or subsequent to taking. Can there be intent to gain if the purpose is to conceal a crime? o Yes. Benefit is not always material, it can be any kind of benefit to amount to gain. Is there presumption of theft? o Yes, when a personal is found in possession of recently stolen property and he cannot explain how he came into possession
force upon things. Exception: When the violence committed was not for the purpose
by him 4. Enter enclosed property where trespass is prohibited, then
ninakaw pa ulit) o Yes. The law does not distinguish. o P v. De Leon – what is punished is the alarm caused to the
May a crime be theft even if there is violence used to take away personal property of a victim? o Generally, no. There must be no violence or intimidation or
return or deliver to authorities. 3. A person who malicious damaged property of another, shall remove or make use of fruits or object of the damage caused
THEFT
o
of such. Then it will become conclusive. How recent is recent? Case by case. If a person is given property for a particular purpose, and that o
afterthought, the criminal took the property. (P v. Dela
person took or misappropriate the property, would it be estafa or
Cruz – the property goes to the heirs, so there was
theft? 126
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo o
Theft; when only physical possession is given but juridical
o
property, under Sec Trans, where he can sell it if he is not
possession is kept by the transferor. o What is given here is just DE FACTO possession, not juridical. A bank teller, after receiving deposit, instead of giving it to the
paid?
bank, she takes it. What is committed? o Theft, not estafa. o The bank teller is a mere employee of the bank. As an employee of the bank, she only get de facto possession of the
deposit. So it is theft. (Galang v. People) Laurel v. Judge – there can be theft of services. Under Code of Commerce, services are personal property. Can gas or electricity be stolen? o Yes, using jumpers. So even intangible property can be
subject to taking. RA 7832 also punishes theft of electrical property. So which is applicable, 308 or RA 7832? o Either under Art. 308 or RA 7832. Can commercial documents, PNs, etc. be subject to theft? o Yes, these have value. In a case, the sheriff stole evidence stored in the vault of the court
the vault open. What crime was committed? o Sheriff: theft o Clerk or court: Malversation by culpa, since he has custody of documents I own a car. I delivered it to the repair shop. I left it, and the owner of the shop sold my car. What crime was committed, theft, estafa, or carnapping? o Theft. To determine between theft and estafa, ask: was the possession de facto or juridical? Here, it was merely de facto/material possession.
It does not apply here, because he hasn’t even tried
o
repairing the car. The SC had a decision saying this is estafa (Laura Santos
o
case). But J. Callejo does not agree with this. When this case was decided, there was no carnapping law
yet. Should it apply now? [No ?] I think yes. What do you mean by “lost” in Par. 1 of Art. 308? o The property must have an owner and is not yet res nullius. If property is stolen and the thief’s identity cannot be deciphered, can you consider the property lost? o Yes. Can loss stem from one’s own faults? o Yes. I saw property and did not know who owns it. I gave it to the police and he stole the property. What is the crime of the cop? o P v. Avila – said this is theft. o But isn’t he an accountable officer under Art. 217? It can be argued that it is in custodia legis and he is
(ex. Gun, money, whatever), when the clerk of court mistakenly left
But doesn’t the repair shop acquire a lien over the
an accountable officer, and it can be MALVERSATION. “I like this” (J. Callejo) QUALIFIED THEFT (310)
What are the grounds to qualify? o 1. Grave abuse of confidence o 2. By a domestic servant o 3. Stealing large cattle o 4. Theft of mail matter o 5. Coconuts o 6. Fish from fishpond/fishery
127
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
Was this amended by PD 533, the anti cattle rustling law and RA 6539, the anti-carnapping law? o No; these are SPL, according to the SC Grave abuse of confidence? o It must be a special relation of intimacy. o Ex. Branch manager stole the jewelry under his custody. If there is conspiracy, but one is trusted and the other is not, what is the crime? o Two crimes: qualified theft for the former, simple theft for the
o o
months if committed without violence, intimidation, or force o
latter (P v Saranilla) How about a commission salesman of a corporation? o P v. Maglaya: Just simple theft, because there is no evidence
o
the owner, driver, or occupant of the car is killed or raped. “If committed on the occasion of the carnapping,”
matters, parcels, money orders, printed materials, etc. Regardless if it is a postal corporation or a private corporation.
the case may be. There are two kinds penalties provided, following RPC nomenclature and not
crime. (Ex. Bystander) For this to committed, the homicide, murder, or rape must be CONSUMMATED. If the homicide or murder is merely
CARNAPPING
even if the principal crime here is an SPL crime If the person killed is anyone other than the owner, driver, or occupant of the car, then it is a separate
What matters is that it is MAIL MATTER
Taking with intent to gain a motor vehicle o Without latter’s consent o Or force upon things o Or violence/intimidation upon persons How does it differ from theft/robbery? o It addresses theft of motor vehicles belonging to another o It deals EXCLUSIVELY with motor vehicles o Without this law, the taking of motor vehicle is theft/robbery as
QUALIFIED carnapping There is special complex crime of carnapping with homicide or rape or murder. It is a single and indivisible offense. Here,
which are delivered through postal service. Includes mail
carnapping] May there be qualified carnapping? o If there is no person killed or raped, and there is only PI or attempted/frustrated homicide or murder or rape – the crime is
reposed confidence on him What does mail matter include? o Any matter that is deposited with the Phil. Postal Corporation
o
upon things 17 years and 4 months to not more than 30 years if with violence, intimidation, or force upon things [penalty for qualified
except that he was a commission salesman that the employer
RP to death if there is homicide, rape, etc. 14 years and 8 months to not more than 17 years and 4
attempted or frustrated, then the crime is
qualified carnapping. o DO NOT apply Art. 48 of the RPC. Someone committed qualified carnapping (14 y 7 – 17 y 4 penalty) and then sold the car to another person. Is he an accessory under
Art 19 of the RPC? o NO. The nomenclature does not follow the RPC. o But he can be a principal for FENCING. What is a motor vehicle? o Propelled by any power apart from muscular power
128
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo o
So a motorcycle is included. A bicycle is not. A
tricycle is included. A pedicab is not. Using public highways, but exempted bulldozers, etc. which are
not considered motor vehicles The latter are just subject to theft/robbery P v. Calabroso o If initial intent is to kill the driver, but stole the car as an afterthought, there are two crimes committed. Homicide and
carnapping. If the initial possession is lawful (since they rented the car), by killing the
FORESTRY CODE
driver of the car and then taking it for their own, it still became
time. He did not return it. The taxi was found abandoned in a place. HELD: Although there was initially lawful possession, it transformed to
Theft of coconuts: o If the coconuts are taken when they are still on the tree, or o
carnapping with homicide. Even if the car was taken from the driver and not the owner, it is still taking because there is no consent by the owner. P v. Bustinera – hired as a taxi driver to drive the car for a fixed period of
How can the Forestry Code by violated? o Merida v. People o Mustang Lumber v. CA o Tigoy v. CA Violation of Forestry Code is malum prohibitum.
deposited on the ground the crime is qualified theft. If any other place, simple theft.
USURPATION OF REALRIGHTS OVER PROPERTY (312)
It is a single and indivisible offense. It is possible that a single and indivisible offense is committed, but there are as many penalties as how many acts of violence are committed.
illegal possession when he abandoned it in a secluded place: carnapping. o Crime is consummated even if the carnappers abandoned the
car after. The offenders stole a truck and the personal effects contained
SWINDLING/ESTAFA (315)
therein. What is the crime? o Two crimes: Carnapping as to the truck Theft as to the personal effects o The SC was wrong here, because it said qualified theft.
ESTAFA WITH UNFAITHFULNESS OR ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE (¶1)
based on an obligation o The law applies even if the property the offender is bound to deliver is opium or something illegal/obscene But he is also liable under Dangerous Drugs Act, or
CATTLE RUSTLING (PD 533)
May there be cattle rustling even if cattle is not taken? o Even if large cattle is not taken, there can be cattle rustling if it is killed and its meat is taken. There may be a special complex crime of cattle rustling with homicide if
1. Altering substance of anything with value that offender should deliver
immorality provision in RPC, etc. 2. Misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods, etc. o 1. Goods were assigned
a person is killed on the occasion of cattle rustling. 129
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo o
2. Misappropriation or conversion; or a denial by him of such
o o o
receipt is also a violation 3. To the prejudice of another 4. Demand by offended party to return the money or property What is “any other obligation to make delivery or to
o
borrower is required to produced “show money” to establish that she can repay the loan. But in a case, she borrowed the “show money” from someone else. She used it for her own benefit. HELD: Guilty of estafa. It was received in trust for a
return?” It refers to contracts of bailment, lease of personal property, deposit, commodatum – because under any of these provisions, there is JURIDICAL o
POSSESSION by the depositary In estafa, both MATERIAL and JURIDICAL
particular purpose, and there is obligation to return. By o o
possession is transferred to the offender What is the difference between material and juridical possession? Possession which gives to the transferee a right over
o
offender and offended party The transaction involved must not transfer ownership
to the offender There must be a FIDUCIARY relationship between offender and offended party. There must be an agreement to return the same thing
o
or money It doesn’t matter if the obligation is guaranteed by a
bond or not Without this relationship, there is no estafa The duty to return the same thing or money is based
on MUTUAL AGREEMENT by the parties or BY LAW When does fraud come into play? When there is conversion or misappropriation.
misappropriating it, she is guilty of estafa. Salazar v. P: Even a temporary disturbance constitutes misappropriation. No need to be permanent. What does “prejudicial to another” mean? It need not be the owner of the property himself. It can be another person, as long as there is damage
o
caused. Manahan: An owner of a truck pledged it to another as security for a loan contract. But then, he leased it to another and it was
the thing/property which he may set-up against the transferor Theft or robbery; there is NO transaction between
(“Very nice case”) In bank loan transactions, usually, the
stolen from the lessee’s possession. HELD: There was no estafa, because there was no intent to misappropriate or convert. J. CALLEJO: Disagreed. The petitioner could not have acted in GF, because he had already pledged it to o
another as security for a loan. When the Can there be estafa when there is no gain on the part of the offender? Case: a person was assigned jewelry to sell, with commission. He was not prohibited from appointing a sub-agent, so he got one. The sub-agent stole the jewelry. HELD: The agent was acquitted because he
did not convert or misappropriate the jewelry. Lim v. CA – petitioner was assigned jewelry to sell by commission again. He asked a friend to sell jewelries to act like a sub-agent. The sub-agent stole the
130
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo jewelry. HELD: The agent was acquitted because he
o
did not profit or gain. But is it possible that the agent is liable? He is liable if he CONSPIRED with the sub
agent. The agent cannot be liable for mere
travels? No estafa. Because this is in the nature of a loan, and o
it. HELD: there is obligation to return after repair. There was
another because there is no such thing as
o
but NOT the monthly amortizations from the lot buyers.
be liable. May there be estafa in a loan transaction? No. Because owner of the money loaned is
However, he received these and worse, he failed to remit these. HELD: Accused is guilty of two sets of estafa: As regards the lot buyers, he committed estafa
transferred to the borrower, even if the borrower can o
o
through fraud or misrepresentation because he
pay back. What about money market placement? Sesbreno v. CA – No estafa because it partakes the nature of a loan. What about bank deposits? Can there be estafa if the
o
money deposited is used by the bank? None. Deposits are treated as loans to the bank, and o
is covered by the nature of loans. A teller of a bank receives deposits and misappropriates these. What is the crime? Theft, not estafa, because the bank teller is merely an
juridical possession, and thus, estafa. Ilagan v. CA – Ilagan was a sales agent selling residential lots on behalf of a corporation. He was authorized to sell the lots,
sub-agent, but the agent still does, then the agent can o
the employee obtains juridical possession of such. Libuit v. CA – the private respondent delivered his car to a motor shop for repairs. The owner of the shop misappropriated
negligence in entrusting the jewelry to estafa through negligence BUT: if there is prohibition to entrust the jewelry to a
An employee who fails to account for cash advances for
confidence, because he did not remit. How many counts of estafa? Depends on how many offended parties/victims. But if committed on different dates or occasions – there are as many counts of estafa as the number of
o
transactions. PD 155 – Trust receipt transaction A trust receipt transaction imposes upon trustee to give the price sold if sold, or if the goods are not sold,
employee of the bank and only gets material o
possession of the money. In a sale of property and earnest money is given and the money is used by the seller. Is there estafa? No. Down-payment or earnest money forms part of the purchase price. The seller can use this money, even if the sale eventually does not push through.
claimed that he could receive monthly amortizations. As regards the employer, estafa with abuse of
return them to the entrustor. Is a violation of PD 155
estafa under Art. 315 par. 1(b) Violation of this constitutes estafa. It is malum prohibitum. The only thing to be established: prejudice caused to another. Mere failure to deliver already constitutes the criminal offense.
131
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
When a person participates in the commission of a
o
crime, he CANNOT escape liability due solely to the fact that he was acting as an agent of another party.
The NCC provisions on agency do not apply to
criminal cases. 3. Taking undue advantage of signature of offended party in blank
Distinguish between estafa through fraud from estafa through abuse of confidence? o Abuse of confidence – conversation or misappropriation o Fraud or false pretenses – fraudulent acts simultaneous or
preceding In illegal recruitment, can one be liable under both the Labor Code
establishment without paying “Fraud”: o Anything calculated to deceive o Ex. Falsely representing that property used as security had o
ESTAFA THROUGH FRAUD (¶2)
induced to part with his money or property o 4. Thus causing damage 1. Using fictitious name, falsely pretending to possess power, influence,
qualifications, etc. 2. Altering quality, fineness, weight of anything pertaining to his art or
business 3. Pretending to have bribed any government employee 4. Post-dating a check, or issuing a check knowing that he does not
have enough to fund the check, and without informing the payee 5. Obtaining food or accommodation at a hotel, restaurant, etc. without paying therefor, with intent to defraud o Or obtaining credit through false pretense or fraud
mangoes, when it was really barren (Vasquez v. P) Ex. “I will sell you my property.” But it really wasn’t his.
(Arecheta v. P) Caveat emptor doctrine does not apply. You cannot invoke the fact that the victim was himself negligent. It doesn’t apply to criminal cases. Post dating a check: o Can a person other than a drawer be liable? Yes. Indorser or a co-conspirator. o Elements: 1. Post-dating or issuance of check contracted at the
or Estafa under this provision? o Both the Labor Code AND estafa. There is no double jeopardy because the Labor Code is an SPL. Essential elements: o 1. False pretense, fraudulent act or means o 2. Such must be made or exhibited prior to or simultaneously o 3. Offended party must have relied on such and was thus
Or surreptitiously abandoning or removing luggage from
time the check was issued 2. Lack or insufficiency of funds to cover it 3. Knowledge of the drawer of this lack 4. Damage capable of pecuniary estimation to the
o
payee The fraud must be committed PRIOR or UPON the issuance of
o
the check. The check MUST NOT BE for paying a pre-existing obligation, because there is no more deceit in this case. The drawer obtains no gain here, because the
o o
consideration has already been delivered to him. The date of the obligation, being the very date of the check, is a MATERIAL INGREDIENT of the crime. Must the check be negotiable? Negotiability of a check is NOT the gravamen of the crime, but the fraud or deceit in knowingly issuing a
o
worthless check. Post-dating of a check, as long as when it is due, there are funds, even when there are no funds at the time it was issued. 132
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo o o o
If the check is issued as a guaranty to secure a loan, there is no estafa. Issuing a check in exchange for cash: Estafa, because you received something in exchange How do you prove knowledge that there were no funds? Direct evidence Notice of dishonor from drawee bank duly received by
the drawer of the check and failure to deposit money to cover the amount Depositing required amount within 3 days of
notice of dishonor – you escape liability What is the effect of failure to deposit within 3 days? Failure to deposit the
amount will give rise to presumption of
deceit. P v Oheda: o The accused drew and delivered several post-dated checks in payment of the goods, at that time that the check was issued, the account was closed but didn’t disclose this. There was a notice of dishonor, the accused paid the amount by installment (Ninoy died, so the economy was crazy), charged w/ estafa o Defense: acted in good faith, because paid on installment, said not receive any notice of dishonor as required by law and which deprived of opportunity to pay w/in 3 days o SolGen: even if this is a closed account, there is no more need for the bank to issue a notice of dishonor o SC: the accused acted in good faith, from date of check, tried to pay by installment, though not able to complete the same, because of the havoc on the economy. Also said there was no notice of dishonor and this failure of the bank deprived the petitioner of the chance to pay the amount of the check. Since deprived because of absence of notice, there can be deceit under the circumstances.
SC: even if the account is closed, still need to issue notice of dishonor to allow person to pay, if not give notice, fatal! Accused was acquitted. Lopez v P: o Check bounced, closed account, is the bank required to issue a notice of dishonor considering the account was closed at the time the check was issued? o SC: if the account is already closed there is no more need to issue a notice of dishonor, based on the NIL The drawer of the check had no right to be given a copy of notice of dishonor because there was no use of giving it since there was no deposit in the first place Callejo: which do we follow? Division SC binding on other divisions SC. Callejo said should have referred case to SC en banc. This problem was given in the last bar! May a person other than drawer be liable for estafa? YES if there was conspiracy 484 SCRA 611 o
BP 22
Even the issuance of the worthless check as a deposit, guaranty or preexisting obligation, not estafa but BP 22 Charged w/ both if issued b/c of current obligation Navarro v CA 234 SCRA 639: under BP 22 the drawer of the check has a period of 5 days from notice of dishonor (unlike RPC 3 days) Under NIL check is stale after more than 6 months (180 days) is there a need to issue a notice of dishonor at the time it was presented for payment? o Bautista v P 351 SCRA 111: only consequence is no prima facie presumption of knowledge of no funds, still be held liable if able to prove had knowledge Velasco v P January 18 2008: Velasco went to Shangri-la, ordered food for 4, didn’t pay for food estafa Other forms of swindling Mallari v P Dec 13 1988 (delito continuado)
133
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
398 SCRA 364 – gravamen of the crime is disposition of legally encumbered property w/ express representation that property was not encumbered o remember there must be express representation o if no representation, no estafa
ADULTERY
Ginhawa v P 468 SCRA 278 other deceit: owner of an establishment that sells cars (read this case!) What do the words deceit include? o Includes concealment of the fact that the car was not brand new!
318
don’t take finals w/o studying arsons!!
P v Soriano 407 SCRA 667 o Only one crime of arson no matter how many houses were burned P v Malnan 503 SCRA 294 No arson w/ homicide If purpose to kill, and burned in order to kill murder If purpose is to burn, but when burn someone inside died arson! Homicide is absorbed, but there is civil liability for death If kill person, brought to house, burned house to conceal murder AND arson Supposing he burns his own property is he liable? o He may be liable if other people’s property is damaged P vs Bueno (103 Phil 183) there can be reckless imprudence resulting to arson (in relation to Art 365 RPC) P vs. Valdez: is there frustrated arson? Burned sacks, soaked in kerosene, fire extinguished before burned. BUT ACCDG TO CUELLO, NO FRUSTRATED. Only consummated or attempted! Arson is consummated no matter how small burned portion could be.
Beltran v. PP 389 Phil 447 Married woman may be liable for adultery even if marriage is declared null and void after commission of adultery bec nullity of marriage afer adultery does not affect crim liab of accused. By time judgment final, already done. Adultery not continuing crime. Each sexual intercourse consummates crime. Single impulse test NOT applicable. Sex 5 times, adultery 5 times. Every sex, 1 adultery. Can there be frustrated adultery? Accdg to Pacheco, there can be NO attempted adultery. BUT prevailing opinion in Spain says there can be attempted adultery. Caught in hotel in act of undressing, about to have sex. There can be attempted, but there can be NO frustrated adultery.
CONCUBINAGE
Arcaba v. Bataocael 421 Phil 1096: cohabitation means living together as husband and wife, not merely living together under 1 roof, but also sexual intercourse. Merely visit, NOT concubinage
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
distinguish from attempted rape Lizada v P 396 scra 62: depends on specific intent, intent to lie with woman? Woman sleeping, he disrobed, then went on top of woman, brother of woman arrived, so he ran. NOT acts of L, but attempted rape! He was already naked. Intent to lie. In lizada, what are overt acts? (element of felony)
134
Criminal law review | Glenn Tuazon edited by Y. Sanchez | Justice Callejo
Not resistance, not voluntary, because he stopped bec brother came. Attempted already. Must be lewd design 457 Scra 282 Aployo vs. P: lewd is something indecent or obscene, designed to incite crude sexual design lewd design may be inferred from nature of act committed and occasion acts were committed. P v Olivares 465 scra 465: relate to RA 7610: lascivious conduct may be committed under RA 7610, victim of child abuse.
years, said already dead, must there be a declaration of presumption death? o There must be a declaration of the death! Abunado v P 426 SCRA 562: had a spouse, married again, to avoid being prosecution for bigamy, filed petition for annulment of first marriage, granted o Still liable for bigamy! There must be judgment of nullity first Genebro v CA 423 SCRA 272: UNTIL 352, NO Libel NO INTLLECTUAL PROP, NO DANGEROUS
QUALIFIED SEDUCTION Abuse of confidence is inherent, not aggravating circumstance Study forcible abduction. Distinguish arbitrary detention Art 124; kidnapping Art 267 diff lies in specific intent Abduction: lewd design Abduction may be absorbed by rape if intention was to rape. If bring woman a bit far, then abduction. 30M away, Rape because abduction absorbed. Forcible abduction w/ rape: 2nd rape is a second separate crime from forcible abduction
DRUGS 9362 9354 ETC…
Study adultery and concubinage very well!
Did RA 8353 completely repeal Art 344 RPC? NO. only AMENDED, not repealed. Art 345: what are the civil liabilities of the offender/offenders? o Several principals by direct participation of rape, if woman liable for rape, who is liable? 393 Phil 878 P v Magtibay August 6 2002
349 Bigamy
Manuel v People 476 SCRA 461 (Callejo decision): manuel invoked the presumption of absence of the absent spouse, because absent for 12
135
View more...
Comments
