Keij Notes. Pointers in Criminal Law - Justice Tang

POINTERS IN CRIMINAL LAW JUSTICE AMPARO CABOTAJE-TANG 

mere silence and failure to give the alarm, without evidence of agreement or conspiracy, is not punishable.

CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW 1. GENERAL – binding on all persons who live or sojourn in Philippine territory (Art. 14, NCC) 2. TERRITORIAL – undertake to punish crimes committed within Philippine territory. 3. PROSPECTIVE – cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when committed.

o

Recit Question: Differentiate Ex Post Facto Law and Bill of Attainder 

APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE RPC (ART. 2) o Recit Question: In what cases are the provisions of the RPC applicable even if the felony is committed outside the Philippines?



o Favorite nya ung questions regarding crimes committed on board a ship / vessel - US v. Look Chaw : Possession of opium aboard a foreign merchant vessel is not triable in Philippine Courts, because that fact alone does not constitute a breach of public order - US v. Ah Sing : When a foreign merchant vessel is NOT IN TRANSIT because the Philippines is its terminal port, the person in possession of opium on board that vessel is liable, because he may be guilty of importation of opium - People v. Wong Cheng : Philippine courts have jurisdiction over crimes constituting a breach of public order aboard merchant vessels anchored in Philippine jurisdictional waters. - US v. Fowler: Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over offenses committed on board foreign warships in territorial waters. o Midterm Question: A foreign vessel docks in one (1) of the Philippine ports en route to Japan. While the said vessel is docked, A seriously physically injures passenger B. Which court has jurisdiction to try the serious physical injuries case against A? Explain. 

ART. 3- FELONIES o Midterm Question: What are the felonies and how are they committed? o Art 3. Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos). Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa). There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent; and there is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill. o People v. Silvestre & Atienza - mere passive presence at the scene of another’s crime, 1

MISTAKE OF FACT (favourite nya ‘to) o Ignorance or mistake of fact relives the accused from criminal liability. (ignorantia facti excusat) o Requisites:  That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be;  That the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful;  That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused. o

o



THREE CLASSES OF CRIMES: INTENTIONAL FELONY (the act is performed with deliberate intent); CULPABLE FELONY (the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill); CRIMES PENALIZED BY SPECIAL LAWS (include crimes punished by municipal or city ordinances).  Imprudence – deficiency of action  Negligence – deficiency of perception  Requisites of Malice (dolo) – Freedom; Intelligence; Intent.  Requisites of Culpa (negligence) – Freedom; Intelligence; Fault

US v. Ah Chong – there is an innocent mistake of fact without any fault or carelessness on the part of the accused because having no time or opportunity to make any further inquiry, & being pressed by circumstances to act immediately, the accused had no alternative but to take the facts as they then appeared to him, and such facts justified his killing the deceased. People v. Oanis – the accused found no circumstances whatever which would press them immediate action. The person in the room being asleep, the accused had ample time & opportunity to ascertain his identity without hazard to themselves.

MALA IN SE v. MALA PROHIBITA o MALA IN SE – those so serious in their effects on society as to call for almost unanimous condemnation of its members; generally felonies defined & penalized by RPC; there must be a criminal intent o MALA PROHOBITA – violations of mere rules of convenience designed to secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs of society; generally the acts made criminal by special laws; it is sufficient if the prohibited act was intentionally done o Dolo is NOT required in crimes punished by special laws. The act alone, irrespective of its motives, constitutes the offense. Good faith and absence of criminal intent NOT valid defenses.

KEIJ EJERCITO NOTES | SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW: CRIMINAL LAW - JUSTICE AMPARO CABOTAJE-TANG



INTENT v. MOTIVE  MOTIVE is the moving power which impels one to action for a definite result; INTENT is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result.  People v. Aposaga – Motive is NOT an essential element of a crime, and hence need not be proved for purposed of conviction.



ART 4. CRIMINAL LIABILTY o People v. Ural – he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused. o Under par. 1, Art 4, a person committing a felony is still criminally liable even if – o Error in Personae – there is a mistake in the identity of the victim (People v. Oanis) o Aberratio Ictus – there is mistake in the blow (People v. Mabugat) o Praeter Intentionem – the injurious result is greater than that intended. (People v. Cagoco). o People v. Toling – 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 injuries is liable for the resulting injuries. o Wrong done must be the direct, natural & logical consequence of felonious act.  Toling case relying on US v. Valdez – if a person against whom a criminal assault is directed reasonably believes himself to be in danger of death or great bodily harm & in order to escape jumps into the water, impelled by the instinct of self-preservation, the assailant is responsible for homicide in case death results by drowning. o But, where it clearly appears that the injury would not have caused death, in the ordinary course of events, & where it is shown beyond all doubt that the death was due to the malicious or careless acts of the injured or a third person, the accused is not liable for homicide.

o

PROXIMATE CAUSE- 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 v. Medina) o The felony committed must be the proximate cause of the resulting injury. o The felony is NOT the proximate cause when 1. There is an active force that intervened between the felony committed and the resulting injury; 2. The active force is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused; 3. Resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim.

2

o

Midterm Question: A & B engage in a fist fight. After receiving multiple blows, B runs away. While running, B gets chased and bitten by a German Shepherd causing him to suffer serious physical injuries. B now sues A for all the injuries he sustained.  As a prosecutor, what do you need to prove to establish A’s criminal liability?  As a defense counsel, what legal grounds can invoke to defeat A’s successful prosecution?  If you were the judge, how will you decide the case. Explain.

o

IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES (Second par of Art 4) 1. Requisites: 1. That the act perfomed would be an offense against persons or property 2. That the act was done with evil intent 3. That its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that the means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual; 4. That the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the Revised Penal Code. Examples: When one tries to kill another by putting in his soup a substance which he believes to be arsenic when in fact it is common salt; when one tries to murder a corpse (People v. Balmores).

o

ART 6. CONSUMMTED, FRUSTRATED, & ATTEMPTED FELONIES 1. In determining the stage of the crime committed, the nature of the offense; elements constituting the felony; manner of committing the same, must be considered. o

Midterm Question: 1. What are the different stages of execution of a felony? Define each. 2. One night, A enters the yard of his neighbour B and steals one of B’s car tires. As he is about to step out of the yard, A gets intercepted by B who demands the return of his car tire. A complies. What stage of the felony did A commit? Explain.

o

Recit: Anong crime 1. pag tinutukan ka ng baril? 2. pagtinutukan ka tapos pinutok pero hindi ka tinamaan? 3. pag tinutukan ka ng baril, pinutok sayo, tinamaan ka, pero hindi ka namatay. 4. pag pinutok lang sa ere sa harap mo?

PREPARATORY v. OVERT ACTS o People v. Tabago – Drawing or trying to draw a pistol is NOT an overt act of homicide. o Raising a bolo as if to strike the offended party with it is NOT an overt act of homicide. But if a blow with the bolo was struck and there was intent to kill on the part of the accused, the act of striking the offended party

KEIJ EJERCITO NOTES | SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW: CRIMINAL LAW - JUSTICE AMPARO CABOTAJE-TANG

with the bolo would be an overt act of the crime of homicide. Only offenders who personally execute the commission of a crime can be guilty of attempted felony. o If A induced B to kill C, but B refused to do it, A cannot be held liable for attempted homicide, because although there was an attempt on the part of A, such an attempt was not done directly with physical activity. The inducement made by A to B is in the nature of a proposal, not ordinarily punished by law. o But if B pursuant to his agreement with A, shot C, with intent to kill, but missed and did not injure C, both A & B are guilty of attempted felony, because of conspiracy. FRUSTRATED CRIME o People v. Guihama - In crimes against persons, as homicide, which requires the victim’s death to consummate the felony, it is necessary for the frustration of the same that a MORTAL WOUND be inflicted, because then the wound could produce the felony as a consequence. o People v. Adiao (Theft) – actual taking with intent to gain of personal property, belonging to another, without the latter’s consent, is sufficient to constitute consummated theft. It is NOT necessary that the offender carries away or appropriates the property taken. o People v. Dominguez (Estafa) – the accused performed all the acts of execution. However, the crime was not consummated as there was no damage caused in view of timely discovery of the felonious act.

* In the Diño case, it was held that the crime committed is that of frustrated theft, because the fact determinative of consummation in the crime of theft is the ability of the offender to dispose freely of the articles stolen, even if it were or less momentarily. 

General Rule: Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are NOT punishable. Exception: They are punishable only in the case in which the law specially provides a penalty therfor. o Art. 115 – Conspiracy to commit treason o Art. 136 – Conspiracy to commit coup d’etat, rebellion, or insurrection o Art 141 – Conspiracy to commit sedition Requisites of Conspiracy 1. That the two or more persons came to an agreement; 2. That the agreement concerned the commission of a felony; 3. That the execution of the felony be decided upon o

o

*No conflict in the rulings of the Adiao & Dominguez case. Apparently, they should both be either consummated or frustrated. However, the difference lies in the elements of the two crimes. FRUSTRATED THEFT (Favorite recit din nya ‘to) o People v. Diño – A truck loaded with stolen boxes of rifles was on the way out of the check point when an MP guard discovered the boxes on the truck. It was held that the crime committed was frustrated theft, because of the timely discovery of the boxes on the truck before it could pass out of the check point. o People v. Espiritu – In the Supply Depot, the accused removed from the pile nine pieces of hospital linen and took them to their truck where they were found by a corporal when they tried to pass through the check point. It was held that the crime committed was consummated theft. * In the Espiritu case, it was held that the crime of theft was consummated because the thieves were able to take or get hold of the hospital linen and that the only thing that was frustrated, which does not constitute any element of theft, is the use or benefit that the thieves expected to derive from the commission of the offense. 3

ART. 8 – CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT FELONY o Midterm Question: Are conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony per se punishable? When is there conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony?

o o

People v. Monroy – Conspiracy arises on the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the felony and forthwith decide to pursue it. People v. Buntag – Conspiracy renders all the conspirators as co-principals regardless of the extent and character of their participation because in contemplation of the law, the act of one conspirator is the act of all. People v. Damaso – Conspiracy is implied when the accused had a common purpose and were united in its execution. People v. Fernandez – But in multiple rape, each rapist is equally liable for the other rapes.

STUDY AND MEMORIZE BY HEART: Article 11 - Justifying Circumstances Article 12 - Exempting Circumstances Article 13 - Mitigating Circumstances Article 14 - Aggravating Circumstances Article 15 – Alternative Circumstances 

ART 11. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES o Midterm Question: What are the justifying circumstances? o A & B are husband and wife respectively. One day, A leaves for the province on an official assignment from work. After seven years, A fails to return home. B then petitions to court to have A declared presumptively dead which is granted. B subsequently marries C. One night, A arrives home and finds B and C in the room doing the carnal act. Blinded by fury, A kills both B and C. A now gets prosecuted for the

KEIJ EJERCITO NOTES | SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW: CRIMINAL LAW - JUSTICE AMPARO CABOTAJE-TANG

killing of B and C. A maintains, however, that his act was justified because he merely acted in defense of his rights. Will A’s claim prosper? o A is a thin, aging and 5’3 tall policeman. He is ordered by his superior to implement the warrant of arrest against B, a notorious gangster with a built and height like Mike Tyson. On his way, A sees B from a distance of 10 meters. He tells B to stop and shouts to B that he is placing him under arrest waving the arrest warrant in his hand. B continues to advance to A who then shoots B resulting in the latter’s death. A gets prosecuted for homicide but pleads the justifying circumstance of fulfilment of duty. Will A’s claim prosper? SELF DEFENSE – anyone who acts indefense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances are present: (U-R-L) o Unlawful aggression;  There must be actual physical force or with actual use of weapon. Insulting words, no matter how objectionable could not constitute unlawful aggression.  People v. Sabio – Slap on the face is an unlawful aggression. Since the face represents a person and his dignity, slapping is a serious personal attack.  When the aggressor flees, unlawful aggression no longer exists. o Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;  Perfect equality between the weapon used is NOT required because the person assaulted does not have sufficient tranquility of mind to think, to calculate and to choose which weapon to use. What the law requires is rational equivalence.  While the law on self defense allows a private individual to prevent or repel an aggression, the duty of the peace officer requires him to overcome his opponent. o Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.  It is present when: 1) no provocation at all; 2) even if a provocation was given, it was not sufficient; 3) even if the provocation was sufficient, it was not given by the person defending himself.  US v. Laurel – the kissing of the girlfriend of the aggressor was a sufficient provocation to the latter, but since the kissing of the girl took place on Dec 26 and the aggression was made on Dec 28, the provocation was disregarded by the SC.  Battered Women Syndrome as a Defense (Sec. 26, RA 9262) – Victimsurvivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from BWS do not incur criminal & civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for 4

justifying circumstances of self-defense under the RPC. (See People v. Genosa) o o



Midterm Question: In People v. Genosa, 419 SCRA 537 (2004), how did the SC define the concept of battered woman syndrome? In the said case, did the SC accept Genosa’s claim that she was suffering from the BWS when she killed her husband thereby justifying her act? Why or why not? Explain.

ART. 12 CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY o

Midterm Question: A husband comes home one (1) night and finds the door of the bedroom locked. He opens the door with his key and finds a man mounted on his wife. Enraged, he draws a gun from his waist and shoots his wife and the man. It turns out that the man is an escaped rape convict. A gets prosecuted for parricide for the death of his wife. Will A’s prosecution prosper? Explain.

o

A is outside a store in Manila trying to buy some items when he is approached by B, C, D, & E. B orders A to go with them, otherwise, they will kill him. A is then brought to a van where he notices a crying boy whose hands are tied. B tells A that they kidnapped the boy for ransom and to guard him. B drives the van bound for Batangas. On their way, B stops at several gas stations where his group alights to answer the call of nature. When the group reaches Batangas, it is intercepted by a throng of policemen. A, B, C, D & E now get prosecuted for kidnapping with ransom. A claims exemption from criminal liability asserting that he merely acted under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury. Is A’s claim correct? Explain.

o

Any of the circumstances is a matter of defense and the same must be proved by the defendant to the satisfaction of the court. Technically, one who acts by virtue of any of the exempting circumstances commits a crime, although by the complete absence of any of the conditions which constitute free will or voluntariness of the act, no criminal liability arise.  People v. Gimena - Somnanmbulism or sleepwalking, where the acts of the person afflicted are automatic, is embraced in the plea of insanity & must be clearly proven. See also People v. Taneo, a man sleeping attacked his wife with a bolo, is not criminally liable, it appearing that the act was committed while in a dream.

o

o

Period of Criminal Responsibility (under the Code as amended by RA 9344)  Absolute irresponsibility – 9 years old and below (infancy)

KEIJ EJERCITO NOTES | SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW: CRIMINAL LAW - JUSTICE AMPARO CABOTAJE-TANG

  

Conditional responsibility – between 9 & 15 years; Full responsibility – 18 or over (adolescence) to 70 (maturity); Mitigated responsibility – over 9 and under 15, offender acting with discernment; 15 or over but less than 18; over 70 years of age.

o

o

o Absolutory causes – those where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy & sentiment there is no penalty imposed.  Instigation – a public officer or a private detective induces as innocent person to commit a crime & would arrest him upon or after the commission of the crime by the latter. It is an absolutory cause.  Entrapment – a person has planned, or is about to commit, a crime and ways and means are resorted to by a public officer to trap and catch the criminal. It is NOT an absolutory cause. 

ART. 13 - MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES o Midterm Question: A & B live together as husband and wife, respectively, without the benefit of marriage. B’s beauty is so compelling that she would draw attention from male specie wherever she goes. One night, A arrives from home and sees C, a male visitor, engaged in a serious conversation with B with their hands clasped together. Infuriated, A boxes C who suffers serious physical injuries as a result. A gets prosecuted for serious physical injuries. To mitigate his criminal liability, A contends that he acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation. Is A’s contention tenable? o Ordinary Mitigating – those enumerated in the subsections 1 to 10 of Article 13. o Privileged Mitigating – Art. 68; Art. 69, Art.64 o Circumstances of justification or exemption which may give place to mitigation are:  Self-defense (Art. 11, par 1);  Defense of relatives (Art. 11, par 2);  Defense of stranger (Art. 11 par 3);  State of necessity (Art, 11 par 4);  Performance of Duty (Art. 11 par 5);  Obedience to order of superior (Art. 11, par 6);  Minority over 9 & under 15 years of age (Art. 12, par 3);  Causing injury by mere accident (Art. 12 par 4); and  Uncontrollable fear. (Art 12, par 6). o Art. 13 par. 3 of the RPC addresses itself to the intention of the offender at the particular moment when he executes or commits the criminal act; not to his intention during the planning stage. 5



People v. Galacgac – In crimes against persons who do not die as a result of the assault, the absence of the intent to kill reduces the felony to mere physical injuries, but it does not constitute a mitigating circumstance under Art 13, par 3. People v. Pugay – As part of their funmaking, the accused merely intended to set the deceased’s clothes on fire. Burning of the clothes of the victim would cause at the very least some kind of physical injuries on this person. The accused is guilty of the resulting death of the victim but he is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.

o

VINDICATION v. PROVOCATION – greater leniency in the case of vindication is due undoubtedly to the fact that it concerns the honor of the person, an offense which is more worthy of consideration than mere spite against the once giving the provocation or threat.

o

REQUISITES OF THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF PASSION OR OBFUSCATION (not planned / not premeditated)  That there be an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce a condition of mind; and  That said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of crime by a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity.

ART. 14 – AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES o Final Exam Question: What are the alternative circumstances? o A, B, C, & D, armed with bolos, about one o’clock in the morning rob a house at a desolate place where E, his wife, and three (3) daughters are living. While the four (4) were in the process of ransacking E’s house, D, noticing that one (1) of E’s daughters was trying to get away, run after her and finally catch up with her in a thicket somewhat distant from the house. D, before bringing back the daughter to the house, rapes her first. Thereafter, the four (4) cart away the belongings of E and his family. Under the facts, what aggravating circumstances may be appreciated against the four (4)? o

FOUR KINDS OF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES  GENERIC – generally apply to all crimes. (e.g. dwelling, nighttime, recidivisim)  SPECIFIC – apply only to particular crimes (e.g. ignominy in crimes against chastity or cruelty; treachery in crimes against persons)

KEIJ EJERCITO NOTES | SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW: CRIMINAL LAW - JUSTICE AMPARO CABOTAJE-TANG





QUALIFYING – those that change the nature of the crime (e.g. alevosia (treachery) or evident premeditation qualify the killing of person to murder. INHERENT – those that must of necessity accompany the commission of the crime.

convicted by final judgement of another crime embraced in the same title of the RPC. o

o Public Authority – “person in authority”, is a public officer who is directly vested with jurisdiction, a public officer who has the power to govern and execute laws. o Dwelling – sanctuary worthy of respect  People v. Talay - The aggravating circumstance of dwelling should be taken into account, although the triggerman fired the shot from outside the house, while the victim was inside.  US v. Lastimosa - Even if the killing took place outside the dwelling, it is aggravating provided that the commission of the crime was begun in the dwelling.  People v. Ruzol – Although nocturnity and abuse of superior strength are ALWAYS included in the qualifying circumstances of treachery, dwelling CANNOT be included therein. o Nighttime – it is aggravating when it is “especially sought for” or when the offender “took advantage thereof”.  Nighttime need not be specially sought for when 1) it facilitated the commission of the offense; 2) the offender took advantage of the same to commit the crime. o

Recit Question: Pano pag ginawa yung crime while inside a movie house? During solar eclipse? Ans: Not considered as an aggravating circumstance. Nighttime is already defined in the NCC as “that period of darkness beginning at the end of dusk and ending at dawn.” (Art 13, Civil Code).

Recit question: Distinguish Recidivism It is enough that a final judgment has been rendered in the first offense Requires that the offenses be included in the same title of the Code

o

Price, Reward, Promise – for this aggravating circumstance to be considered against the person induced, the said inducement must be the primary consideration for the commission of the crime.

o

Premeditation – there must be evidence showing that the accused meditated and reflected on his intention between the time when the crime was conceived by him and the time it was actually perpetrated,  The premeditation must be EVIDENT.  Requisites of Evident Premeditation 1. The time when the offender determined to commit the crime; 2. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination; 3. A sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution, to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will.  Sufficient time is required – an interval long enough for his conscience and better judgment to overcome his evil desire and scheme (People v. Mendoza)

o

Craft – involves intellectual trickery and cunning on the part of the accused.

o With the aid of armed men – present even if one of the offenders merely relied on their aid, for actual aid is not necessary.

6

Reiteracion Offender shall have served out his sentence for the first offense

The previous & subsequent offenses must NOT be embraced in the same title of the Code Always to be taken into Not always an consideration in fixing aggravating circumstance the penalty to be imposed upon the accused.

o Band – whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of an offense, it shall be deemed to have committed by a band.  People v. Corpus - In the crime of rape committed by four armed persons, this circumstance was not considered.  People v. Manolo - “stone” is included in the term “arms”.

o Recidivist – one who, at the time of trial for one crime shall have been previously

US v. Sotelo – Pardon does not obliterate the fact that the accused was a recidivist; but amnesty extinguished the penalty and its effects. Therefore, pardon does not prevent a former conviction from being considered as an aggravating circumstance.  Four forms of repetition 1. Recidivism (Art. 14, par 9) 2. Reiteracion or habituality (Art 14, par 10)  Multi-recidivism or Habitual delinquency (Art 62, par 5) 1. Quasi-recidivism (Art. 160)

KEIJ EJERCITO NOTES | SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW: CRIMINAL LAW - JUSTICE AMPARO CABOTAJE-TANG

o Fraud – the insidious words or machinations used to induce the victim to act in a manner which would enable the offender to carry out his design.



o Disguise – resorting to any device to conceal identity o Superior Strength – to use purposely excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to person attacked.  absorbed and inherent in treachery o Treachery – deliberate, sudden and unexpected attack of the victim from behind, without any warning and without giving him an opportunity to defend himself or repel the initial assault.  Treachery cannot be presumed.  Rules regarding treachery: 1. Applicable only to crimes against person 2. Means, methods or forms need not insure accomplishment of crime 3. The mode of attack must be consciously adopted  Requisites of treachery: 1. That at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; 2. That the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him. 

ART. 15 – ALTERNATE CIRCUMSTANCES o Relationship – spouse; ascendant; descendant; legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister; or relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender o Intoxication – even if intoxication is not habitual, it is aggravating when subsequent to the plan to commit the crime o Degree of Instruction and education of the offender  Study when these alternative circumstances mitigating, when aggravating

Final Exam Question: What are the alternative circumstances? When shall they be considered as declared under the same Article? o A manages to graduate from grade school because of his parents' power & influence. A commits homicide. After undergoing mental exam, A was diagnosed as possessing such intelligence that he does not fully realize the consequences of his criminal act. May A successfully invoke lack of instruction to mitigate his criminal liability.

7



ART. 16 – PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE o Final Exam Question: After their duty, Security Guards A, B, C & D pass by a videoke bar. Thereafter, they leave the place together. On their way, they meet E, a long time mortal enemy of Security Guard A. Seeing E, Security Guard A immediately draws his gun and shoots E who falls to the ground almost lifeless. Security Guards B, C, and D also draw their gun and pumped a bullet each on the body of E after which, they all leave the incident scene. Security Guard A, B, C, and D now get prosecuted for the crime of homicide as principals based on the allegation of conspiracy. Will their prosecution prosper. o

Criminally liable for grave and less grave felonies: 1. Principals 2. Accomplices 3. Accessories

o

Criminally liable for light felonies 1. Principals 2. Accomplices

ART. 17 – PRINCIPALS o Principals by direct participation - Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act. Requisites 1. That they participated in the criminal resolution; 2. That they carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution by acts which directly tended to the same end. o

Principals by induction - Those who directly force or induce others to commit it Two ways of becoming a principal by induction 1. By directly forcing another to commit a crime; 2. By directly inducing another to commit a crime.

o

Principals by indispensable cooperation – Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished 1. Participation in the criminal resolution, that is, there is either anterior conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and intention immediately before the commission of the crime charged; 2. Cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing another act, without which it would not have been accomplished

o

Midterm / Final Exam Question: For a handsome fee, A induces B to kill C. At the date & time specified for the killing, B gets sick. Fearing that A might get back the money, B

KEIJ EJERCITO NOTES | SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW: CRIMINAL LAW - JUSTICE AMPARO CABOTAJE-TANG

hires C to do the killing. Who are criminally liable for the death of C? Answer: According to Justice Tang, A is NOT criminally liable. Inducement must be DIRECT. o A, B & C are in a beach resort for a weekend vacay. The 3 saw a very beautiful young lady, D, walking along the shore. They followed the lady and at knife point, they succeeded in bringing her to a deserted place where several boats are docketed. They hire E as boatman to bring them to a nearby island. There A, B, & C ravish the lady. A, B & C get prosecuted for rape as principals by direct participation & E as principal by indispensable cooperation. Is E's prosecution proper? Explain. 

ART. 18 – ACCOMPLICES o Final Exam Question: Who are accomplices and accessories? o A, B, and C are in A’s house where they conspire to rob the store of D, a wealthy Chinese businessman. Along the way, the three (3) meet E, their common friend, whom they invite to join them. E obliges. They then proceed to D’s store. A, B, & C destroy the store’s lock to gain entry therein while E remains outside. A, B and C cart away all the valuable items they could get. Does E incur any criminal liability under the obtaining facts? If so, what is the degree of participation? Explain. o Accomplices are the persons who, not being included in Article 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. o When the participation of an accused is not disclosed, he is only an accomplice.

Conspirators Know the criminal intention because they themselves have decided upon such course of action

Accomplices Come to know about it after the principals have reached the decision, and only then do they agree to cooperate in the execution Decide that a crime Merely assent to the plan should be committed and cooperate in its accomplishment Authors of a crime Merely instruments who perform acts not essential to the perpetration of the offense 

ART. 19 – ACCESSORIES o Those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the following manners:  By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime;

8



By concealing or destroying the body if the crime or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery;



ART. 20 – ACCESSORIES WHO ARE EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY o An accessory is exempt from criminal liability, when the principal is his –  Spouse, or ascendant, or descendant, or, legitimate, natural or adopted brother, sister or relative by affinity within the same degree. PENALTY – the suffering that is inflicted by the State for the transgression of a law. RA 9364 – enacted on June 24, 2006 prohibited the imposition of the death penalty. o It was given a retroactive effect. o People v. Quiachon – Penal laws shall have retroactive effect insofar as they favour the persons guilty of a felony, who is not habitual criminal.. although at the time of the publication of such laws, a final sentence has been pronounced and convict is serving the same. 

ART. 23 – EFFECT OF PARDON – pardon by the offended party does not extinguish criminal action, except as provided in Art 344, but civil liability with regard to the interest of the injured party is extinguished by his express waiver. o Compromise does not extinguish criminal liability o Art 344 – the offended party in the crimes of adultery and concubinage cannot institute criminal prosecution, if he shall have consented or pardoned the offenders. o the pardon may be IMPLIED as continued inaction of the offended party after learning the offense. o People v. Infante – it requires that both offenders must be pardoned by the offended party. o In the crimes of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness, there shall be no criminal prosecution if the offender has been expressly pardoned by the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or guardian, as the case may be. The pardon here must be EXPRESS. o Pardon under Art 344 must be made before institution of criminal action.

NOTE: Republic Act No. 8353, known as the AntiRape Law of 1997, expanded the definition of the crime of rape and re-classified it as a crime against persons. Previously, it was classified as a crime against chastity, and belonged to the group of crimes that include adultery, concubinage, acts of lasciviousness, seduction, corruption of minors and white slave trade. As a crime against persons, the law no longer considers it as a private crime. Anyone who has knowledge of the crime may file a case on the victim's behalf. Prosecution continues even if the victim drops the case or pardons the offender.

KEIJ EJERCITO NOTES | SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW: CRIMINAL LAW - JUSTICE AMPARO CABOTAJE-TANG



guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.

ART. 48 - PENALTY FOR COMPLEX CRIMES o Final Exam Question: What is a complex crime? How is it different from a special complex crime? o Penalty for Complex Crimes - When a 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. (As amended by Act No. 4000) o People v. Hernandez - In a complex crime, although two or more crimes are actually committed, they constitute only one crime in the eyes of the law as well as in the conscience of the offender. The offender has only one criminal intent.

o

Offenses Estafa Robbery Theft Falsification Serious Physical Injuries Less Physical Injuries

CONTINUED CRIME o A continued (continuous or continuing) crime is a single crime consisting of a series of acts but all arising from one criminal resolution. o A continued crime is NOT a complex crime. HABITUAL DELINQUENT o Final Question: Who is a habitual delinquent? o A person is a habitual delinquent if within a period of ten years from the date of his last release or last conviction of the crimes of (1) serious or less serious physica injuries, (2) robo, (3) hurto, (4) estafa, or (5) falsification, he is found 9

Date of Conviction October 1990 December 1990 March 2000 December 2000 December 5, 2001 December 8, 2001

THREE FOLD RULE o Final Exam Question: What is the three-fold rule present in Article 70 of RPC? Give an example. o

Special Complex Crime – component crimes constituting a single indivisible offense, and are penalized under one article of the RPC

PLURALITY OF CRIMES o Consists in the successive execution by the same individual of different criminal acts upon any of which no conviction has yet been declared. o In recidivism, there must be conviction by final judgement of the first or prior offense; in plurality of crimes, there is no conviction of any of the crimes committed.

Date of Commission January 1989 August 1990 January 1999 February 2000 November 2, 2001 November 2, 2001

Is he a habitual delinquent or not? Explain.

o TWO KINDS OF COMPLEX CRIMES  Compound Crime – When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies  Complex Crime Proper - When an offense is a necessary means for committing the other

o Final Exam Question: A, armed with a gun, goes to the house of B upon learning that B physically abused his (A's) mom. When he reaches B's house, A pulls the trigger in rapid succession. All the bullets hit B and three other members of B's family who were standing in the same line of direction of the bullets. Did A commit a complex crime? Explain.

Final Exam Question: The accused has the following criminal record:

o o

According to the three-fold rule, the maximum duration of the convict’s sentence shall not be more than three times the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him.  Example: A person is sentenced to suffer – 14 years, 8 months and 1 day for homicide; 17 years, 4 months and 1 day in another case; 14 years and 8 months in the third case; and in a case of frustrated homicide, he is sentenced to 12 years, or a total of 59 years, 8 months and 2 days. The most severe of those penalties is 17 years, 4 months and 1 day. Three times that penalty is 52 years and 3 days. But since the law has limited the duration of the maximum term of imprisonment to not more than 40 years, the accused will have to suffer 40 years only. The three fold rule applies only when the total of all the penalties imposed exceeds the most severe multiplied by 3. Torres v. Superintendent - The three fold rule applies although the penalties were imposed for different crimes, at different times, and under separate informations.

ACT NO. 4103 AS AMENDED BY ACT NO. 4225: INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW o

Final Exam Question: A, B, C commit a crime of homicide which is punished by reclusion temporal. A was a principal, B accomplice, & C accessory. a) Assuming that there are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances present, what is the proper indeterminate penalty for each of them? b) Assume 2 mitigating in their favor without aggravating? c) 1 ordinary aggravating & 1 privilege mitigating obtained in favor of A, what should be his indeterminate penalty?

PROBATION LAW o Final Exam Question: What is probation and who are the offenders disqualified from being placed on probation?

KEIJ EJERCITO NOTES | SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW: CRIMINAL LAW - JUSTICE AMPARO CABOTAJE-TANG

PROBATION – is a disposition under which a defendant, after conviction and sentence, is released subject to conditions imposed by the court and to the supervision of a probation officer. Offenders disqualified from being placed on probation 1. Those sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six years; 2. Those convicted of subversion or any crime against the national security or public officer; 3. Those who were previously convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of not less than one month and one day and/or a fine of not more than two hundred pesos; 4. Those who have been once on probation under the provisions of the Decree; 5. Those who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive provisions of the Decree became applicable pursuant to Sec 33 thereof. Probation shall be denied if the court finds that: 1. the offender is in need of correctional treatment that can be provided most effectively by his commitment to an institution; or 2. there is an undue risk that during the period of probation, the offender will commit another crime; or 3. probation will depreciate the seriousness of the offense committed. EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY o Final Exam Question: How is criminal liability totally extinguished? o Art 89: Criminal liability is totally extinguished when: 1. By death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgement; 2. By service of the sentence; 3. By amnesty, which completely extinguished the penalty and all its effects; 4. By absolute pardon; 5. By prescription of the crime; 6. By prescription of the penalty; 7. By marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Art 344 of this Code. o Personal Penalties – the prison term that the convict is about to undergo o Pecuniary Penalties – Art. 38. In case the property of the offender should not be sufficient for the payment of all his pecuniary liabilities, the same shall be met in the following order: 1. The reparation of the damage caused; 2. The indemnification of the consequential damages; 3. The fine. 4. The costs of the proceedings. 10

FINAL JUDGMENT - Judgment beyond recall DEATH OF THE CONVICT o The death of the convict whether before or after final judgment, extinguishes criminal liability, because one of the juridical conditions of penalty is that it is personal. CIVIL LIABILITY IS EXTINGUISHED ONLY WHEN DEATH OCCURS BEFORE FINAL JUDGMENT o The death of the convict also extinguishes pecuniary penalties only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. o Hence, if the offender dies after final judgment, the pecuniary penalties are not extinguished. EFFECT OF DEATH OF THE ACCUSED PENDING APPEAL ON HIS CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LIABILITY o General Rule: Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability based solely on the offense committed o Exception: The claim of civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict, such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts and quasi-delicts. (People v. Bayotas) PARDON o It is an act of grace proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for the crime he has committed. o Kinds of Pardon  Absolute Pardon  Conditional Pardon Recit Question: Distinguish Amnesty and Pardon Barrioquinto v. Fernandez Amnesty Pardon It is a blanket pardon to Includes any crime and is classes of persons or exercised individually by communities who may be the President guilty of political offenses. May be exercised even Exercised when the before trial or person is already investigation is had convicted Looks backward and Looks forward and abolishes and puts into relieves the offender oblivion the offense itself from the consequences of an offense of which he has been convicted; abolishes and forgives the punishment Makes an ex-convict no Does not alter the fact longer a recidivist, that the accused is a because it obliterates the recidivist, because it last vestige of the crime produces the extinction only of the personal effects of the penalty Being a Proclamation of Private act of the

KEIJ EJERCITO NOTES | SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW: CRIMINAL LAW - JUSTICE AMPARO CABOTAJE-TANG

the Chief Executive with the concurrence of the Congress is a public act of which the courts should take judicial notice. Both do not extinguish offencder (Art. 113)

President; must be pleaded and proved by the person pardoned the civil liability of the



Conditional Pardon delivered and accepted is considered a contract between the sovereign power of the executive and the convict that the former will release the latter upon compliance with the condition.



Commutation of sentence is a change of decision of the court made by the Chief Executive by reducing the degree of the penalty inflicted upon the convict, or by decreasing the length of the imprisonment or the amount of time.  Specific cases where commutation is provided for by the Code: - When the convict sentenced to death is over 70 years of age (Art. 83) - When eight justices of the SC fail to reach a decision for the affirmance of the death penalty.



Allowances for good conduct are deductions from the term of the sentence for good behaviour. (Art 97)



Parole consists in the suspension of the sentence of a convict after serving the minimum tern of the indeterminate penalty, without granting a pardon, prescribing the terms upon which the sentence shall be suspended.  The mere commission, not conviction by the court, of any crime is sufficient to warrant parolee’s arrest and reincarceration.

BY PRESCRIPTION OF CRIME & BY PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTY o Prescription of the crime is the forfeiture or loss of the right of the State to prosecute the offender after the lapse of a certain time. o Prescription of the penalty is the loss or forfeiture of the right of the Government to execute the final sentence after the lapse of a certain time. 

ART. 90– PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES o Final Exam Question: How is the period of prescription of offenses computed?  Crimes punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or reclusion temporal shall prescribe in twenty (20) years  Afflictive penalties – fifteen (15) years  Correctional penalty – ten 10 years; with the exception of those punishable by arresto mayor, which prescribes in five (5) years;  Libel and other similar offenses – one (1) year;  Oral defamation and slander by deed – six (6) months;  Light offenses – two (2) months o In computing the period of prescription, the first day is to be excluded and the last day included. o If the contract is void ab initio, there is NO prescription.



ART. 91– COMPUTATION OF PRESCRIPTION OF OFFENSES o Commences to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents. o It is interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information. o It commences to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason imputable to him. o The term of prescription shall not run when the offender is absent from the Philippines.



ART. 94 – PARTIAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY o Final Exam Question – How is criminal liability partially extinguished? 1. By conditional pardon; 2. By commutation of the sentence; 3. For good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while he is serving his sentence 4. Parole (under Indeterminate Sentence Law) 11

CIVIL LIABILITY o Final Exam Question: What does the civil liability arising from the commission of a crime include? 

ART. 100 – CIVIL LIABILITY OF A PERSON GUILTY OF FELONY o Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. o Civil liability under the RPC includes (1) restitution; (2) reparation of the damage caused; and (3) indemnification for consequential damages. (Art. 104, RPC) o The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil. However, the civil action based on delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist. (Sec. 2, par 4, Rule III, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure) o Institution of criminal and civil actions – (a) when a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately, or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.

KEIJ EJERCITO NOTES | SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW: CRIMINAL LAW - JUSTICE AMPARO CABOTAJE-TANG

CRIMINAL LAW 2 (Pointers from Kent Limpot) READ AND STUDY o Treason, rebellion, sedition, piracy, qualified piracy, death under exceptional circumstances, rape, anti-plunder law, Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan  (Sa estrada vs sandigan tanong nya jan voidfor-vagueness doctrine) direct assault, indirect assault, bribery.  May view siya about can rebellion be committed through rape? Pweds daw. o Sedition, persons in authority, agents of persons in authority, commission of another crime during service of penalty imposed for another previous offense, falsification by public officer, employee; or notary or ecclesiastical minister  (Note: intent to gain is not required because what is punished here is the violation of public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed), false testimony in other cases and perjury in solemn affirmation, knowingly rendering unjust judgment  (Justice Tang: This does not apply to collegiate courts such as SC, CA, and Sandiganbayan) o Malversation  Does the presumption of malversation in Art. 217 violate the constitutional right of presumption of innocence? o Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons. Justice Tang: "by reason" – because "on occasion" - during/in the course of  Determine intention of the offender - to rob - to kill o

Who are brigands (Justice Tang: mere formation consummates the crime)

o

Theft (may kaso po sa theft kung kailan nakoconsummate, pag naitakas na ba or pag nakuha na mismo)

o

Adultery, concubinage, qualified seduction, acts of lasciviousness with the consent of the offended party (JT: A male cannot be an offended party in this crime)

o

Difference between Forcible Abduction and Kidnapping) FA: lewd design K: No lewd design FA: Crime against chastity K: Crime against personal liberty and security

o

Master Art. 315 (estafa)

o

Difference between Art. 315 and Bouncing Checks Law. In BP Blg. 22, there is presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds

o

Art. 326-A. In cases where death resulted as a consequence of arson. 12



o o

Justice Tang: Death is merely treated as an aggravating circumstance. There is no special complex crime of arson with homicide.

Art. 365, imprudence and negligence (see Ivler case) May tinali raw sa puno sa gubat tapos iniwan mo dun, what is the crime committed?

SAMPLE FINAL EXAM 1. A Filipina doctor went to Vietnam for a vacation. There, she contracted marriage with a Vietnamese Army Officer. She also sought for and was granted with dual citizenship. War broke out between Vietnam and the Philippines. During the war, she treated the injuries of the wounded members of Vietnamese Army. Is she liable for treason? 2. A vessel was sailing from the Philippines to Japan. During its trip, A seized the belongings of other passengers within the ship. Is A liable for any crime? What crime and under what law? 3. While the Congress was in session, X disrupted the meeting of one its committees by attacking one of its members. An information charging X of sedition was filed. Will the action prosper? 4. Distinguish rebellion from sedition. 5. Distinguish rebellion from treason. 6. Distinguish rebellion from coup d’etat. 7. X had knowledge that a group of Filipinos in Hongkong were conspiring to overthrow the Government. After 3 days of acquiring such knowledge, he reported such knowledge to the proper authorities. On the same day, the group took arms against the government. Is he liable for misprision of treason? 8.

X, a police officer, was informed by his informant, that Y is carrying shabu. Upon arrival of Y on the pier after boarding a ship, the informant pointed to X the identity of Y. X then approached Y and conducted a search, which was made without warrant. X found a shabu. Y then filed a case for arbitrary detention. Is X liable for arbitrary detention? What are the rights of a detained person?

9. Is there a complex crime of rebellion with murder? How about with rape and arson? 10. In a municipality, the Mayor did not agree to the demands of the rebels who were occupying the municipal hall. As a consequence, the rebels kidnapped the daughter of the mayor and raped her. What crime was committed by the rebels? 11. Who are persons in authority?

KEIJ EJERCITO NOTES | SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW: CRIMINAL LAW - JUSTICE AMPARO CABOTAJE-TANG