criminal law

1

 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER  SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS

enforcement of individual measures in each particular case.

BOOK ONE CRIMINAL LAW, defined. It is that branch or division of municipal law which defines crimes, treats of its nature, and provides for their punishment. Nature of Criminal Law: 1. SUBSTANTIVE LAW---it defines the states right to inflict punishment and the liability of the offenders. 2. PUBLIC LAW---it deals with the relation of the individual with the state. CRIME, defined. It is an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or committing it. •

The state has the authority, under its POLICE POWER, to define and punish crimes and to lay down the rules on procedure.

PHILOSOPHIES CLASSICAL POSITIVIST 1. the basis of criminal liability is human fee will and the purpose of the penalty is retribution

2. that man is essentially a moral creature with an absolute free will to choose between good and evil, thereby placing more stress upon the effect or result of the felonious act done upon the man, the criminal himself.

1. that man is subdued occasionally by a strange a morbid phenomenon which constrains him to do wrong in spite of or contrary to his volition. 2. that crime is essentially a social and natural phenomenon, and as such, it cannot be treated and checked by the application of abstract principles of law and jurisprudence nor by the imposition of a punishment, fixed and determined a priori; rather through the

MIXED/ ECLECTIC 1. this combines both positivist and classical thinking.

2. crimes that are economic and social in nature should be dealt with in a positivist manner, thus the law is more compassionat e.

3. it has endeavored to establish a mechanical and direct proportion between crime and penalty. 4. there is a scant regard to the human element.

3. heinous crimes should be dealt with in a classical manner, thus capital punishment.

LIMITATIONS IN THE ENACTMENT OF PENAL LAWS: 1. Penal laws must be general in application. Otherwise, it would violate the equal protection clause of the constitution. 2. Penal laws must not partake of the nature of an ex post facto law. • Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when done, and punishes such an act. • Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. • Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed. • Alters the legal rules on evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense. • Assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful • Deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a proclamation of amnesty. 3. Penal laws must not partake of the nature of a bill of attainder. • BILL OF ATTAINDER. It is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial. Its essence is the substitution of a legislative for a judicial determination of guilt.

 Prepared by the CRIMINAL LAW SECTION  Chief ALEC ANTHONY PENA Assistant Chief CRYSTAL VEMIL LAMMAWIN Members LOVILYN ANIBAN, MATHEW DATI, JOHN LABSKY MAXIMO, JOEL PASIWEN, NOELLE DIZON, YZANNE MERCED, ROSANNE RARANG and ENGELBERT SORIANO. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS  2003.

 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER 

2 4. Penal laws must not impose cruel and unusual punishment nor excessive fine. CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW 1. GENERALITY “Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public international law.” Article 14, NCC.

SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS

that it can effectively exercise control thereof. 3. ABSOLUTE THEORY---the subjacent state has complete jurisdiction over the atmosphere above it subject only to innocent passage by aircraft of foreign country.

•

ARCHIPELAGO DOCTRINE OR ARCHIPELAGIC RULE. Under this doctrine, we connect the outmost points of our archipelago with straight baselines and waters enclosed thereby as internal waters. The entire archipelago is regarded as one integrated unit instead of being fragmented into so many thousand islands. As for our territorial seas, these are more defined according to the Jamaica Convention on the Law of the Seas, concluded in 1982, in which the Philippines is a signatory.

•

EXCEPTION: Article 2, RPC

•

It applies to all persons within the country regardless of their race, belief, sex, or creed. • EXCEPTION: 1. by virtue of the principles of public international law • sovereign and other chief of state. • Ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, ministers resident, and charges d’afaires. N.B. Consuls are not diplomatic officers. This includes consul general, vice-consul or any consul in a foreign country, who are therefore not immune to the operation or application of the penal law of the foreign where they are assigned. 2. Law of Preferential Application • It is not applicable when the foreign country adversely affected does not provide similar protection to our diplomatic representatives. PRINCIPLE OF RECIPROCITY. 2. TERRITORIALITY Criminal laws undertake to punish crimes committed within Philippine territory. Penal laws of the country have force and effect only within its territory. It cannot penalize a crime committed outside the country. • Composition of territory: 1. TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION---the jurisdiction exercised of a country over bodies of land, defines in the constitution. 2. FLUVIAL JURISDICTION---the jurisdiction over maritime and interior waters. 3. AERIAL JURISDICTION---the jurisdiction over the atmosphere. Three Theories on Aerial Jurisdiction: 1. OPEN SPACE THEORY---that the atmosphere over the country is free and not subject to the jurisdiction of the subjacent state except for the protection of its national security and public order. 2. DELATIVE THEORY---the subjacent state exercises jurisdiction only to the extent

3. PROSPECTIVITY A penal law cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when committee. “Without prejudice to the provisions contained in Article 22 of this Code, felonies and misdemeanors, communicated prior to the date of effectivity of this Code shall be punished in accordance with the Code or Act in force at the time of their commission.” Article 366, RPC. •

PROSPECTIVITY is the equivalent of IRRETROSPECTIVITY.

•

EXCEPTION: Whenever a new statute dealing with the crime establishes conditions more lenient or favorable to the accused, it can be given a retroactive effect.

• EXCEPTION to the EXCEPTION: 1. where the new law is expressly made inapplicable in pending actions or existing cause of action. 2. where the offender is a habitual delinquent.

REPEAL Kinds of Repeal:

 Prepared by the CRIMINAL LAW SECTION  Chief ALEC ANTHONY PENA Assistant Chief CRYSTAL VEMIL LAMMAWIN Members LOVILYN ANIBAN, MATHEW DATI, JOHN LABSKY MAXIMO, JOEL PASIWEN, NOELLE DIZON, YZANNE MERCED, ROSANNE RARANG and ENGELBERT SORIANO. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS  2003.

 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER 

3

SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS

1. ABSOLUTE

•

OR TOTAL REPEAL--when the crime punished under the repealed law has been decriminalized by the same. CONSEQUENCES: 1. Cases pending in court involving the violation of the repealed law, the same shall be dismissed, even though the accused may be a habitual delinquent. This is so because all persons accused of a crime are presumed innocent until they are convicted by final judgment. Therefore, the accused shall be acquitted. 2. In cases already decided and as to those already serving sentence by final judgment, if the convict is not a habitual delinquent, then he will be entitled to a release unless there is a reservation clause in the penal law that it will not apply to those serving sentence at the time of the repeal. But if there is no reservation, those who are not habitual delinquents even if they are already serving their sentence will receive the benefit of the repealing law. They are entitled to release.

2. PARTIAL OR RELATIVE REPEAL---

•

3.

when the crime punished under the repealed law continues to be a crime inspite of the repeal, so this means the repeal merely modified the conditions affecting the crime under the repealed law. CONSEQUENCES: 1. Pending prosecution---if the repealing law is more favorable to the offender, it shall be the one applied to him. So whether he is a habitual delinquent or not, if the case is still pending in court, the repealing law will be the one to apply unless there is a saving clause in the repealing law that it shall not apply to pending causes of action. 2. As to those already serving sentence in jail---even if the repealing law is partial, then the crime still remains to be a crime. Those who are not habitual delinquents will benefit on the effect of that repeal, so if the repeal is more lenient to them, it will be the repealing law that will henceforth apply to them. EXPRESS---takes place when a subsequent law contains a provision that such law repeal was earlier enactment.

4.

Significance: if the repeal was express, the repeal of the repealing law will not survive the first law, so the act or omission will no longer be penalized. IMPLIED---takes place when there is a law on a particular subject matter but is inconsistent with the first law, such that the two laws cannot stand together one of the two laws must give way. IT IS NOT FAVORED. Significance: If a penal law is impliedly repealed, the subsequent repeal of the repealing law will revive the original law. So the act or omission which was punished as a crime under the original law will de revived and the same shall again be crimes although during the implied repeal they may not be punishable.

MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA Mala In Se---the act is inherently or evil or bad per se wrongful. Malum Prohibitum---the act penalized is not inherently wrong, it is wrong only because a law punishes the same. •

Violations of special laws are mala prohibita. If the crime is punished under a special law, if the act punished is one which is inherently wrong, the same is malum in se, and therefore, good faith and lack of criminal intent is a valid defense unless it is the product of criminal negligence or culpa.

MALA IN SE 1. Criminal liability Is based on the moral trait of the offender, that is why liability would only arise when there is dolo or culpa in commission of the punishable act. 2. Good faith or lack of criminal intent is a valid defense, unless the crime is the result of culpa. 3. the degree of accomplishment of the crime is taken into account in punishing the offender. Thus, there are attempted, frustrated, and consummated stages in the commission of a crime.

MALA PROHIBITA 1. The moral trait of the offender is not considered, it is enough that the prohibited act be voluntarily done. 2. Good faith is not a defense.

3. The act gives rise to a crime only when it is consummated.

 Prepared by the CRIMINAL LAW SECTION  Chief ALEC ANTHONY PENA Assistant Chief CRYSTAL VEMIL LAMMAWIN Members LOVILYN ANIBAN, MATHEW DATI, JOHN LABSKY MAXIMO, JOEL PASIWEN, NOELLE DIZON, YZANNE MERCED, ROSANNE RARANG and ENGELBERT SORIANO. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS  2003.

4 4. When there are more than one offender, the degree of participation of each in the commission of the crime is taken into account of imposing the penalty. Thus offenders are classified as principals, accomplice, and accessory.

4. Mitigating and aggravating circumstances are not taken into account in imposing the penalty, because the moral trait of the offender is not considered.

5. The degree of participation of any offender is not considered. EXTRATERRITORIALITY [ARTICLE 2] -application of the Revised Penal Code outside Philippine territory. Instances when Penal Laws are applicable if the felony is committed outside the Philippines: 1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship; 2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the government of the Philippine Islands. 3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into the islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number. 4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; or 5. Should commit any of the crimes against National Security and the Law of the Nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code. Situations where a foreign may not apply its criminal law even if a crime was committed on board a vessel within its territorial waters: a. when the crime is committed in a war vessel of a foreign country, because war vessels are part of the sovereignty of the country to those naval force they belong; b. when the foreign country in whose territorial waters the crime was committed adopts the FRENCH RULE, which applies only to merchant vessel, except when the crime committed affects the national security or public order of such foreign country. FRENCH RULE---the nationality of the vessel follows the flag which the vessel flies, unless the crime committed endangers the national

 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER  SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS

security of a foreign country where the vessel is within jurisdiction in which case such foreign country will never lose jurisdiction over such vessel. ENGLISH/ ANGLO-SAXON RULE---this rule strictly enforces the territoriality of criminal law. The law of the foreign country where a foreign vessel is within its jurisdiction is strictly applied, except if the crime affects only the internal management of the vessel in which case it is subject to the penal law of the country where it is registered.

Title 1 FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABITY FELONIES, defined. Are acts or omissions punishable by the Revised Penal Code. Elements of Felonies in general: 1. that there must be an act or omission. 2. that the act or omission must be punishable by the RPC. 3. that the act is performed of the omission incurred by means of dolo or culpa. Act- any bodily movement tending to produce some effecting the external world, it being unnecessary that the same be actually produced as the possibility of its production is sufficient. Omission- inaction, the failure to perform a positive duty one is bound to do. There must be a law requiring the doing or performance of an act. Dolo- is equivalent to malice which is the intent to do injury to another. Elements: 1. criminal intent on the part of the offender. 2. freedom of action in doing the act on the part of the offender. 3. intelligence on the part of the offender in doing the act. -

the acts or omissions are voluntary. Intent presupposes the exercise of freedom and the use of intelligence. The existence of intent is shown by the overt acts of the person. Criminal intent is presumed from the commission of an unlawful act, but not from the proof of the commission of an act which is not unlawful.

 Prepared by the CRIMINAL LAW SECTION  Chief ALEC ANTHONY PENA Assistant Chief CRYSTAL VEMIL LAMMAWIN Members LOVILYN ANIBAN, MATHEW DATI, JOHN LABSKY MAXIMO, JOEL PASIWEN, NOELLE DIZON, YZANNE MERCED, ROSANNE RARANG and ENGELBERT SORIANO. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS  2003.

5 Criminal Intent, categorized into two: 1. General Specific Intent---is presumed from the mere doing of a wrong act. So this does not require proof, the burden is upon the wrongdoer to prove that he acted without such criminal intent. 2. Specific Criminal Intent---it is not presumed because it is an ingredient or element of a crime, like intent to kill in the crimes of attempted or frustrated homicide/parricide/murder. The prosecution has the burden of proof. INTENT vs. DISCERNMENT: INTENT is the determination to do a certain thing; an aim or purpose of the mind. It is the design to resolve or determination by which a person acts. DISCERNMENT is the mental capacity to tell right from wrong. It relates to the moral significance that a person ascribes to his act and relates to the intelligence as an element of dolo, distinct from intent.

 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER  SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS

3. intelligence on the part of the offender in performing the negligent act. MISTAKE OF FACT Misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused injury to another. He is not, however, criminally liable because he did not act with criminal intent. Requisites of mistake of fact as a defense: 1. that the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be. 2. that the intention of the accused in performing the act be lawful. 3. that the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused. -

MOTIVE Reason/ moving power which impels one to commit an act for a definite result When there is motive in the commission of a crime, it always comes before intent. But a crime maybe committed without motive.

INTENT Purpose to use a particular means to bring about a desired result (not a state of mind, not a reason for committing a crime) If intentional, a crime cannot be committed without intent. Intent is manifested by the instrument used by the offender.

Motive is relevant if: 1. the identity of the accused is in question 2. for purposes of defense 3. in determining the sanity of the accused 4. indirect assault (Art. 249) 5. in determining in whether the shooting is intentional or not 6. defense of strangers (Art. 11, par. 3) 7. in determining the specific nature of the crime. Culpa- imprudence or negligence. Elements: 1. criminal negligence on the part of the offender—the crime was the result of negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill. 2. freedom of action in doing the act on the part of the offender—he was not acting under duress.

-

the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused. The mistake of the accused in performing the act must be lawful. No crime of resistance when there is mistake of fact. When the accused is negligent, mistake of fact is not a defense.

Mistake of Fact vs. Mistake of Identity In mistake of fact, there is no criminal intent: while in mistake of identity, there is criminal intent, only it is directed at the wrong person in the belief that he was the proper object of the crime. Where an unlawful act is willfully done, a mistake in the identity of the intended victim cannot be considered exempting, nor can it be considered reckless imprudence. Article 4 Criminal liability Criminal liability shall be incurred: 1. by any person committing a felony(delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended; 2. by any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, where it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of an inadequate or ineffectual means. PROXIMATE CAUSE, defined. Is that cause which sets into motion other caused and which unbroken by any efficient supervening cause produces a felony without which such felony could not have resulted. • A proximate cause is not necessarily the immediate cause. This may be a cause which is far and remote from the consequence which sets into motion

 Prepared by the CRIMINAL LAW SECTION  Chief ALEC ANTHONY PENA Assistant Chief CRYSTAL VEMIL LAMMAWIN Members LOVILYN ANIBAN, MATHEW DATI, JOHN LABSKY MAXIMO, JOEL PASIWEN, NOELLE DIZON, YZANNE MERCED, ROSANNE RARANG and ENGELBERT SORIANO. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS  2003.

 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER 

6

•

other causes which resulted in the felony. In criminal law, as long as the act of the accused contributed to the death of the victim, even if the victim is about to die, he will still be liable for the felonious act of putting to death that victim.

Felony is the proximate cause when: 1. there is an active force that intervened between the felony committed and the resulting injury, and the active force is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused; or 2. the resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the offended party. Wrongful act done be different from what was intended: Aberratio Ictus/ Mistake in the Blow •

• •

•

A person directed the blow at an intended victim but because of poor aim, that blow landed on somebody else. The intended victim as well as the actual victim are both at the scene of the crime. It generally gives rise to a COMPLEX CRIME, that being so, the penalty for the serious crime is imposed on the maximum period. The only time when complex crime may not result is when one of the resulting felonies is LIGHT FELONY.

Error in Personae/ Mistake in Identity •

•

The intended victim was not at the scene of the crime, it was the actual victim upon whom the blow was directed, but he was not the intended victim, there was really a mistake in identity. It is mitigating if the crime committed is different from that which is intended. If the crime committed is different from that which was intended, error in personae does not affect the criminal liability of the offender.

Praeter Intentionem/ Consequence went beyond the Intention • •

It is mitigating, particularly covered by par. 3, Art. 13. There must be a notable disparity between the means employed and the resulting felony.

SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS

•

•

•

•

criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony not merely performing an act. the person is still criminally liable even if there is a mistake in the identity of the victim(error in personae) Pp vs. Oanis 74 Phil 257; when there is mistake in the blow(aberration ictus); the injurious result is greater than that intended(praeter intentionem) any person who creates in another’s mind an immediate sense of danger, which causes the latter to do something resulting in the latter’s injury, is liable for the resulting injuries. the felony committed must be the proximate cause of the resulting injury. Proximate cause is that cause, which in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.( Bataclan vs. Medina 102 Phil 181) Requisites of paragraph 1: a. an intentional felony has been committed, b. the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the felony committed by the offender.

IMPOSSIBLE CRIME, defined. Is as act which would be an offense against person or property where it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. Requisites: 1. the act performed would be an offense against persons or property; 2. the was done with evil intent; 3. its accomplishment is inherently impossible or that the means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual; 4. the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the RPC. Is there really a crime? Objectively, the offender has not committed a felony. Subjectively, however, he is a criminal; hence, the law punished the impossible crime because of criminal propensity or tendencies. Nature of Impossibility: 1. Legal Impossibility

 Prepared by the CRIMINAL LAW SECTION  Chief ALEC ANTHONY PENA Assistant Chief CRYSTAL VEMIL LAMMAWIN Members LOVILYN ANIBAN, MATHEW DATI, JOHN LABSKY MAXIMO, JOEL PASIWEN, NOELLE DIZON, YZANNE MERCED, ROSANNE RARANG and ENGELBERT SORIANO. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS  2003.

7 •

It would apply to those circumstances where: the motive, desire, and expectation is to perform an act in violation of the law. 1. There is an intention to perform the physical act. 2. There is a performance of the intended physical act. 3. The consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a crime. 2. Physical Impossibility • occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime. Article 5 Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed but which are not covered by the law, and in cases of excessive penalties. Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to repress and which is not punishable by law:  it shall render the proper decision, and  shall report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice,  which induce the court to believe that said act should be made the subject of litigation. In the same way the court shall:  submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice,  such statement as may be deemed proper,  without spending the execution of the sentence,  when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty.  Taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense. Article 6 Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. Consummated felonies, as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable. A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produced the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of



CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER 

SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS

causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.

Elements of Attempted felony: a. the offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts; b. he does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony; c. the offender’s act be not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance; d. the non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause or accident other than his spontaneous desistance. Elements of Frustrated felony: a. the offender performs all the acts of execution; b. all the acts performed would produce the felony as a consequence; c. but the felony is not produced; d. by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. Consummated felony: -

all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishments are present. Every crime has its own elements which must all be present to constitute a culpable violation of a precept of law.

Frustrated felony Attempted felony.

distinguished

from

1. In both, the offender has accomplished his criminal intent; 2. While in frustrated felony, the offender has performed all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence, in attempted felony the offender merely commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution. In other words, in frustrated felony, the offender has reached the objective phase; in attempted felony, the offender has not passed the subjective phase.

 Prepared by the CRIMINAL LAW SECTION  Chief ALEC ANTHONY PENA Assistant Chief CRYSTAL VEMIL LAMMAWIN Members LOVILYN ANIBAN, MATHEW DATI, JOHN LABSKY MAXIMO, JOEL PASIWEN, NOELLE DIZON, YZANNE MERCED, ROSANNE RARANG and ENGELBERT SORIANO. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS  2003.

 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER 

8 3. In frustrated felony, there is no intervention of a foreign or extraneous cause between the beginning of the consummation of the crime and the moment when all of the acts have been performed which should result in the consummated crime; In attempted felony there is such intervention and the offender does not arrive at the point of performing all of the acts which should produce the crime. Attempted or frustrated felony distinguished from impossible crime. 1. In attempted or frustrated felony and impossible crime, the evil intent of the offender is not accomplished. 2. But while in impossible crime, the evil intent of the offender cannot be accomplished, in attempted or frustrated felony the evil intent of the offender is possible of accomplishment. 3. In impossible crime, the evil intent of the offender cannot be accomplished because it is inherently impossible of accomplishment or because the means employed by the offender is inadequate or ineffectual; in attempted or frustrated felony, what prevented its accomplishment is the intervention of certain cause or accident in which the offender had no part.

SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS

felony.

Conspiracy and proposal to commit

Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefore. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons. Kinds of Conspiracy: 1. Conspiracy as a crime 2. Conspiracy as a manner or incurring criminal liability a. Express---conspirators meet and plan prior to the execution; participants are conspirators prior to the commission of the crime. b. Implied---did not meet prior to the commission of the crime; they participated in such a way they are acting in concert. Conspiracy is deduced from the manner of commission. As a crime Mere agreement is sufficient to incur criminal liability. Punishable only when the law expressly so provides.

Means to commit a crime Overt acts are necessary to incur criminal liability. Offenders are punished for the crime itself.

Article 7 When light felonies are punishable. Light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated, with the exception of those committed against persons or property. -

-

Article 8

light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or both, is provided. The light felonies punished by the RPC are: slight physical injuries(art. 266), theft(art. 309 pars. 7 and 8), alteration of boundary marks(art. 313), malicious mischief(art. 328 par. 3; art. 329 par. 3), intriguing against honor(art. 364)

•

•

• •

conspiracy to commit a felony is punishable in; conspiracy to commit treason(art. 115); rebellion or insurrection(art. 136); and sedition(art. 141). Treason, rebellion or insurrection, and sedition need not be actually committed proposal to commit a felony is punishable in treason and rebellion or insurrection. Treason or rebellion need not be actually committed.

Requisites of conspiracy: 1. that two or more persons come to an agreement; 2. that the agreement concerned the commission of a felony; 3. that the execution of the felony be decided upon

 Prepared by the CRIMINAL LAW SECTION  Chief ALEC ANTHONY PENA Assistant Chief CRYSTAL VEMIL LAMMAWIN Members LOVILYN ANIBAN, MATHEW DATI, JOHN LABSKY MAXIMO, JOEL PASIWEN, NOELLE DIZON, YZANNE MERCED, ROSANNE RARANG and ENGELBERT SORIANO. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS  2003.

 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER 

9 Requisites of proposal: 1. that a person has decided to commit a felony; 2. that he proposes its execution to some other person or persons There is no criminal proposal when: 1. the person who proposes is not determined to commit the felony. 2. there is no decided, concrete and formal proposal. 3. it is not the execution of the felony that is proposed •

It is not necessary that the person to whom the proposal is made agrees to commit treason or rebellion.

•

The crimes in which conspiracy and proposal are punishable are against the security of the state or economic security.

Article 9 Grave felonies, less grave felonies, and light felonies. Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with article 25 of this code. Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are correctional, in accordance with the above-mentioned article. Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or both, is provided. The afflictive penalties in accordance with article 25 of the code are: Reclusion perpetua Reclusion temporal Perpetual or temporary disqualification Perpetual or temporary disqualification Prision mayor

Article 10

Offenses not subject to the provisions of this code. Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this code. This code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary. The first clause should be understood to mean only that the penal code is not intended to supersede special penal laws. The latter are controlling with regard to offenses therein specially punished. Said clause only restates the elemental rule of statutory construction that the special legal provisions prevail over general ones. The second clause contains the soul of the article. The main idea and purpose of the article is embodied in the provision that “ the code shall be supplementary” to special laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary. CIRCUMSTANCES LIABILITY: there are only provided for:

AFFECTING five

(5)

CRIMINAL specifically

1) JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES-those

2)

3)

4)

absolute special

The following are correctional penalties; Prision correctional Aresto mayor Destierro

SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS

5)

wherein the acts of the actor are in accordance with the law, and hence, he incurs no criminal liability. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES-those wherein there is an absence of voluntariness, and hence, though there is crime, there is no criminal liability. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES-those that have the effect of reducing the penalty because there is a diminution of any of the elements of DOLO or CULPA which makes the act voluntary or because of the lesser perversity of the offender. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCESthose which serve to increase the penalty without exceeding the maximum provided by law because of the greater perversity of the offender as shown by the motivating power of the commission of the crime, the time and place of its commission, the means employed or the personal circumstances of the offender. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCESthose which are either aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and other conditions attending its commission.

There are two (2) others which are found in the provisions of the RPC:

 Prepared by the CRIMINAL LAW SECTION  Chief ALEC ANTHONY PENA Assistant Chief CRYSTAL VEMIL LAMMAWIN Members LOVILYN ANIBAN, MATHEW DATI, JOHN LABSKY MAXIMO, JOEL PASIWEN, NOELLE DIZON, YZANNE MERCED, ROSANNE RARANG and ENGELBERT SORIANO. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS  2003.

 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER 

10

SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS

1) ABSOLUTORY CAUSE-that which has

2)

the effect of absolving the offender from criminal liability, although not from civil liability. It has the same effect as exempting circumstances. EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCESthat which has the effect of mitigating the criminal liability of the offender.

Article 11 Justifying circumstances. The following do not incur criminal liability: Paragraph 1. Self defense Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur: First. Unlawful aggression; Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Elements: 1) Unlawful aggression 2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel it 3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself Kinds of Unlawful Aggression: a. ACTUAL-an attack with physical force or with a weapon. It is a material aggression, an offensive act which positively determines the intent of the aggressor to cause an injury. It is a physical assault, coupled with a willful disregard of an individual’s personality. b. IMMINENT-an attack that is impending or at the point of happening. It must not consist in a mere threatening attitude nor must it be merely imaginary. The intimidating attitude must be offensive and positively strong. • •

•

•

unlawful aggression is an indispensable requisite. Aggression must be unlawful Paramour surprised in the act of adultery cannot invoke self-defense if he killed the offended husband who was assaulting him.(US vs. Merced 39 Phil 198) Unlawful aggression is equivalent to assault or at least threatened assault of

• •

• •

• •

•

• •

• •

• • •

•

• • •

an immediate and imminent kind(Pp vs. Alconga 78 Phil 366). The danger or peril to one’s life or limb must be present, that is, must actually exists. There must be actual physical force or actual use of weapon. “foot-kick greeting” is not an unlawful aggression(P/P vs. Sabio 19 SCRA 901) No unlawful aggression when there is no imminent and real danger to the life and limb of the accused. A strong retaliation for an injury or threat may amount to an unlawful aggression(US vs. Carerro 9 Phil 544) The attack made by the deceased and the killing of the deceased by the defendant should succeed each other without appreciable interval of time. (P/P vs. Arellano C.A 54 O.G. 7252) The unlawful aggression must come from the person who was attacked by the accused. A public officer exceeding his authority may become unlawful aggressor.(P/P vs. Hernandez 59 Phil 343) Nature, character, location and extent of wound of the accused allegedly inflicted by the injured party may belie claim of self defense.(P/P vs. Tolentino 54 Phil 77) Improbability of the accused being the aggressor belies the claim of self defense.(P/P vs. Diaz 55 SCRA 178) The fact that the accused declined to give any statement when he surrendered to a policeman is inconsistent with the plea of self defense.(P/P vs. Manansala 31 SCRA 401) When the aggressor flees, unlawful aggression no longer exists.(P/P vs. Alconga 78 Phil 366) No unlawful aggression when there is agreement to fight. One who voluntarily joined a fight cannot claim self defense. There is unlawful aggression even if the aggressor used a toy pistol, provided that the accused believed it was a real gun.(P/P vs. Boral 11 CA Rep. 914) Mere threatening attitude is not unlawful aggression.(US vs. Guy-sayco 13 Phil 292) The reasonableness of the necessity depends upon the circumstances. The person defending is not expected to control his blow.

Paragraph 2 Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants,

 Prepared by the CRIMINAL LAW SECTION  Chief ALEC ANTHONY PENA Assistant Chief CRYSTAL VEMIL LAMMAWIN Members LOVILYN ANIBAN, MATHEW DATI, JOHN LABSKY MAXIMO, JOEL PASIWEN, NOELLE DIZON, YZANNE MERCED, ROSANNE RARANG and ENGELBERT SORIANO. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS  2003.

11 descendants, or legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or sisters or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite , in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.

•

relatives can be defended. Spouse, Ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity in the same degree and relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree.

Paragraph 3 Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first and second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this article are present and that the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive. •

• •

Any person not included in the enumeration of relatives mentioned in paragraph 2 of this article is considered a stranger for the purpose of paragraph 3. Includes only up to first cousin. Distinction must be made between relative and stranger is important because of the element of evil motive.

Paragraph 4 Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes injury to another, provided that the following requisites are present: First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists; Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; Third. That there be no other practical or less harmful means of preventing it. •

•

•

The greater evil should not be brought about by the negligence or imprudence of the actor. When the accused was not avoiding any evil, he cannot invoke the justifying circumstance of avoidance of a greater evil or injury.(P/P vs Ricohermoso 56 SCRA 431). The evil which brought about the greater evil must not result from a violation of law by the actor.

 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER  SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS

Paragraph 5 Any person who acts in the fulfillment of duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. Requisites: 1. That the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or duty. 2. That the injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office. Paragraph 6 .Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose. Requisites: 1. That an order has been issued by a superior. 2. That such order must be for some legal purpose. 3. That the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful. Article 12 EXEMPTING CICUMSTANCES Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. The following are exempt from criminal liability: Paragraph 1 An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval. When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a felony(delito), the court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court. Two (2) tests for exemption on the ground of Insanity: 1. the test of COGNITION or whether the accused acted with complete deprivation of intelligence in committing said crime. 2. the test of VOLITION or whether the accused acted in the total deprivation of freedom of will.

 Prepared by the CRIMINAL LAW SECTION  Chief ALEC ANTHONY PENA Assistant Chief CRYSTAL VEMIL LAMMAWIN Members LOVILYN ANIBAN, MATHEW DATI, JOHN LABSKY MAXIMO, JOEL PASIWEN, NOELLE DIZON, YZANNE MERCED, ROSANNE RARANG and ENGELBERT SORIANO. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS  2003.

 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER 

12 •

•

•

•

• •

an imbecile is exempt in all cases from criminal liability, the insane is not so exempt if it can be shown that he acted during a lucid interval. An imbecile is one who while advance in age has a mental development comparable to that of children between two and seven years of age. To constitute insanity, there must be complete deprivation of intelligence or that there be a total deprivation of the freedom of the will. The defense must prove that the accused was insane at the time of the commission of the crime, because the presumption is always in favor of sanity. If the accused becomes insane at the trial and not during the commission of the crime, he is still liable. Epilepsy may be covered by the term insanity. Feebleminded is not imbecility.

Paragraph 2 and 3 2. A person under nine years of age. 3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has acted with discernment, in which case, such minor shall be proceeded against in accordance with article 192 of PD 603. When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in conformity with the provisions of this and the preceding paragraph, shall commit him to the care and custody of his family who shall be charged with his surveillance and education; otherwise, he shall be committed to the care of some institution or person mentioned in article 192 of PD 603. Periods of human life under the RPC: Absolute 9 years and below irresponsibility Conditional >9, 9,