Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 22

Criminal Law 1

Criminal Law is that branch or division of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for their punishment.
Crime is an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or commanding it.
Sources of Criminal Law
1. RPC
2. Special Penal Laws
3. Penal Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law
Common law crimes, known in the US and England, as the body of principles, usages and rules of action which do not rest for
their authority upon any expres s and positive declaration of the will of the legislature are not recognized in the Philippins.
Court decisions are not sources of criminal law.
The State has the authority, under its police power, to define and punish cromes and to law down the rules of criminal procedure.
Limitations on the power of the lawmaking body to enact penal legislation:
1. No passing of ex post facto law or bill of attainder

No 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;

aggraves a crime, or makes it greater that 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 of evidence, and authorizes conviction upol less or different testimony than the law
required at the time of the commission of the offense;

assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for
something which when done was lawful; and

deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection to which he has become entitle, such as the
protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty.

No bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial. Its essense is the substitution of a legislative
act for a judicial determination of guilty.

To give a law retroactive application to the prejudice of the accused is to mae it an ex post facto law.
2. Criminal laws must be of general application and must clearly define the acts and omissions punished as crimes.
Characteristic of Criminal Law
1. General Criminal law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in Philippine territory.

As a general rule, jurisdiction of civil courts is not affected by the military character of the accused.

Civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction with general courts-martial over soldiers of the AFP.

The RPC or other penal law is not applicable when a military court takes cognizance of the case.

The prosecution of an accused before a court-martial is a bar to another prosecution for the same
offense.

Offenders accused of war crimes are triable by military commission.

Exceptions to the general application of Criminal Law

Treaties or treaty stipulations

Law of preferential application (diplomatic representatives and their domestic servants)

Sovereigns and other chief of state

Ambassadors, ministers plenipontentiary, ministers resident, and charges d'affaires.

A consul is not entitled to the privileges and immunities of an ambassador or minister.


2. Territorial Criminal laws undertake to punish crimes committed within Philippine territory. Covers Article I of the 1987
Philippine Constitution.

Foreign Merchant Ship an extension of the territory of the country to which it belongs to.

Exceptions to the territorial application of Criminal Law

should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;

ship or airship must be in international waters


should forge or counterfiet any coin or currency note of the Philippines or obligations and
securities issued by the Government of the Philippines;
should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into the Philippines of the obligations
and securities mentioned in the preceding number;
while being public officers or employees, should commit and offense in the exercise of their
functions; or

Direct Bribery

Indirect Bribery

Frauds against public treasury

Possession of prohibited interest

Malversation

Falsification
should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title
One of Book Two of the RPC

Treason

3.

Espionage
Piracy

Prospective A penal law cannot make an act punishable in amanner in which it was not punishable when
committed.

No law = no crime = no liability

Exceptions to the prospective application of criminal laws

whenever a new statute dealing with crime established conditions more lenient or favorable to the
accused, it can be given a retroactive effect.(when the new law is favorable to the accused)

But this exception has no application when;

where the offender is a habitual criminal under Rule 5, Article 62, RPC.(habitual
criminal)
Different effects of repeal on penal law

If the repeal makes the penalty lighter in the new law, the new law shall be applied, except
when the offender is habitual delinquent or when the new law is made not applicable to pending
action or existing causes of action.(exception, retroactive, favorable)
If the new law imposes a heavier penalty, the law in force at the time of commission of the
offense shall be applied.(General Law, no retroactive effect, not favorable)

If the new law totally repeals the existing law so that the act which was penalized under the
old law is no longer punishable, the crime is obliterated. (Exception, retroactive, favorable)
When the new law and the old law penalize the same offense, the offender can be tried under the old law.
When the repealing law fails to penalize the offense under the old law, the accused cannot be convicted under
the new law.
A persons erroneously accused and convicted under a repealsed statute may be punished under the repealing
statute.
A new law which omits anything contained in the old law dealing on the same subject, operates as a repeal of
anything not so included in the amendatory act.
Self-repealing law
Construction of penal laws

where the new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing
causes of action(express prohibition)

Penal laws are strictly construed against the Government and liberally in favor of the
accused. The rule that penal statutes should be strictly construed against the State may be invoked
only where the law is ambigous and there is doubt as to its interpretation.
In the construction or interpretation of the provision of the Revised Penal Code, the Spanish text is
controlling because it was approved by the Philippine Legislature in its Spanish text.

Article 1

The Classical Theory

The basis of criminal liablity is human free will and the purpose of the penalty is retribution.

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

It has endeavored to establish a mechanical and direct proportion between crime and penalty.

There is a scant regard to the human element.

The Positivist Theory

That man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon which constrains him to do wrong, in
spite of or contrary to his volition.

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 jurisprudent nor by the imposition of a punishment, fixed and
determined a priori; but rather through the enforcement of individual measures in each particular case after a
through, personal and individual investigation conducted by a competent body of psychiatrists and social
scientists.
Article 2 The scope of the application of the provisions of the revised penal code.
Scope

Applicable within the territory of the Philippine Archipelago as defined in Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution

Applicable also outside of the Philippine jurisdiction in these cases;

should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;

A Philippine vessel, although beyond three miles from the seashore, is considered part of the
national territory.

Any person who committed a crime on board a Philippine ship or airship while the same is outside of
the Philippine territory can be tried before our civil courts for violation of the Penal Code.

But when the Philippine vessel or aircraft is in the territory of a foreign country, the crime committed
on said vessel or aircraft is subject to the laws of that foreign country.

A Philippine vessel or aircraft must be understood as that which is registered in the Philippine
Bureau of Customs.

It is the registration of the vessel or aircraft in accordance with the laws of the Philippines, not the

citizenship of its owner, which makes it a Philippine ship or airship. A vessel or aircraft which is
unregistered or inlicensed does not come within the purview of paragraph No. 1 of Article 2.

should forge or counterfiet any coin or currency note of the Philippines or obligations and securities issued by
the Government of the Philippines;

should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into the Philippines of the obligations and securities
mentioned in the preceding number;

while being public officers or employees, should commit and offense in the exercise of their functions; or

should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book
Two of the RPC
Crimes punishable in the Philippines under Article 2 are cognizable by the Regional Trial Court in which the charge was
filed.
Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application

Treaties or treaty stipulations

Law of preferential application (diplomatic representatives and their domestic servants)

Sovereigns and other chief of state

Ambassadors, ministers plenipontentiary, ministers resident, and charges d'affaires.

A consul is not entitled to the privileges and immunities of an ambassador or minister.


Crimes committed on board a foreign metchant ship or airship committed on the high seas is not triable by our
courts.
But a continuing crime committed on board a foreign vessel and and its final destination is a port in the
Philippines is within the jurisdiction of the courts of the Philippines.
Offenses committed on board a foreign merchant vessel while on Philippine waters is triable before our court
unless they merely affect things within the vessel or they refer to the internal management thereof.
Rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard foreign merchant vessels

French rule such crimes are not triable in the courts of that country, unless their commission affects
the peace and security of the territory of the safety of the state is endangered.

English rule such crimes are triable in that country, unless they merely affect things within the vessel
or they refer to the internal management thereof. (Observed by the Philippines)
Crimes not involving a breach of public order committed on board a foreign merchant vessel in transit not triable by our
courts.

Smoking opium constitutes a breach of public order.


Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over offenses committed on board foreign warships on territorial waters.

Article 3

Felonies are acts and omissions punishable by the RPC

Elements of felonies(API)

that there must be an Act or omission

act must be understood any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the external
world, it being unnecessary that the same be actually produced, as the possibility of its production is
sufficient.

Acts, Overt = done openly, external (not internal), must have a direct connection
with the felony committed.
the act must be one which is defined the RPC as constituting a felony
the act must be external, because internal acts are beyond the sphere of penal law
omission is meant inaction, the failure to perform a positive duty which one is bound to do.
There must be a law requiring the doing or performance of an act.

that the act or omission must be Punishable by the RPC

There is no crime when there is no law punishing it


that the act is performed or the omission Incurred by means of dolo or culpa

Intentional Felonies (dolo)

the act or omission of the offender is malicious, has the intention to cause injury to another

Culpable Felonies (culpa)

the act or omission of the offender is not malicious

Dolo = deceit/malice; deliberate intent

When the offender, in performing an act or in incurring an omission, has the intention to do an injury to the
person, property, or right of another, such offender acts with malice. If the act or omission is punishable by the
RPC, he is liable for intentional felony.

An intentional felony is committed when the act is performed with deliberate intent, which must necessarily be
voluntary.

Requisites of dolo or malice(FII)

FREEDOM

INTELLIGENCE

INTENT
Intent presupposes the exercise of freedom and the use of intelligence
The existence of intent is shown by the overt acts of a person.
Criminal intent is presumed from the commission of an unlawful act.
But the presumption of criminal intent does not arise from the proof of the commission of an act which is not
unlawful.
Distinction between general intent and specific intent (Intent as an element of dolo is a general intent)

In felonies committed by dolus, the third element of voluntariness is a general intent; whereas, in
some particular felonies, proof of particular specific intent is required. (Specific Intent eg. Intent to
gain in theft, itent to kill in homicide)
There is no felony by dolo if there is no intent
When the accused is charged with intentional felony, absence of criminal intent is a defense.
Mistake of Fact

Mistake of fact is a 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.

Requirements of mistake of fact (LIN)

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 with no fault or carelessness on the part of the accused
In mistake of fact, the act done would have been lawful, had the facts been as the accused believed
them to be.
In mistake of fact, the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused.
Lack of intent to kill the deceased, because his intention was to kill another, does not relieve the
accused from criminal responsibility.
In mistake of fact, the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful.
No crime of resistance when there is a mistake of fact. (arrest by a peace officer)
When the accused is negligent, mistake of fact is not a defense.

Culpa = fault; no deliberate intent but there is imprudence(lack of skill) or negligence(lack of foresight)

An act performed without malice, but at the same time punishable, though in a lesser degree and with an equal
resultm an intermediate act which the Penal Code qualifies as imprudence or negligence.

A person who caused an injury, without intention to cause an evil, may be held liable for culpable
felony.

Imprudence indicates a deficiency of action. Imprudence usually involves lack of skill.

Negligence indicates a deficiency of perception. Negligence usually involves lack of


foresight.

Requisites of Culpa(FII)

FREEDOM

INTELLIGENCE

IMPRUDENT, NEGLIGENT or LACKS FORESIGHT or SKILL

A culpable felony, which is committed when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of
foresight or lack of skill, the act is also voluntary.

Criminal inent is replaced by negligence and imprudence in felonies committed by means of culpa.
The only difference between intentional felonies and culpable felonies is that, in the first, the offender acts with malice,
whereas, in the second, the offender acts without malice.
Reason why the act or omission in felonies must be voluntary

Basis of criminal liability is human free will

acts or omissions punished by law are always deemed voluntary, since man is a rational being.

In felonies by dolo, the act is performed with deliberate intent which must necessarily be voluntary; and in
felonies by culpa, the imprudence consists in voluntarily, but without malice, doung or failing to do an act from
which material injury results
Third class of crimes are those punished by special laws.

DOLO is not required in crimes punished by special laws.

When the crime is punished by a special law, as a rule, intent to commit the crime us not necessary.

Intent to commit the crime means there must be criminal intent (mala in se)

Intent to perpetrate the act means it is enough that the prohibited act is done freely and consiously
(mala prohibita)
In those crimes punished by special laws, the act alone, irrespective of its motives, constitutes the offense.
When the doing of an act is prohibited by a special law, it is considered that the act is injurious to
public welfare and the doing of the prohibitaw act is the crime itself. (Good faith or absence of intent is
not a valid defense)

Mala in se and mala prohibita distinguished

MALA IN SE are those so serious in their effects on society as to call for almost unanimous
condemnation of its members

MALA PROHIBITA are violations of mere rules of convenience designed to secure a more orderly
regulation of the affairs of society. Acts generally made criminal by special laws.

When the acts are inherently immoral, they are mala in se even if punished under special law.
Intent distinguished from 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.

Motive is not an essential element of a crime, and hence, need not be proved for purposes of conviction

Motive, when relevant

Where the identity of a person accused of having committed a crime is in dispute, the motive
that may have impelled its commission is very relevant.
Motive is important in ascertaining the truth between two antagonistic theories or versions of
killing.
Where the identification of the accused proceeds from an unreliable source and the testimony
is inconclusive and not free from doubt, evidence of motive is necessary.
Where there are no eyewitnesses to the crime, and where suspicion is likely to fall upon a
number of persons, motive is relevant and significant.

If the evidence is merely circumstantial, proof of motive is essential.


Motive, when need not be established

Generally, proof of motive is not necessary to pin a crime on the accused if the commission of the
crime has been proven and the evidence of identification is convincing.

Motive is essential only when there is doubt as to the indentity of the assilant. It is immaterial when
the accused has been positively identified.

Where the defendant admits the killing, it is no longer necessary to inquire into his motive for doing
the act.

Proof of motive is not indispensable where guilt is otherwise established by sufficient evidence.

While the question of motive is important to the person who committed the criminal at, yet when
there is no longer any doubt that the defendant was the culprit, it becomes unimportant to know the
exact reason or purpose for the commission of the crime.
Motive is established by the testimony of witnesses on the acts or statements of the accused before or
immediately after the commission of the offense.
But proof of motive alone is not sufficient to support a conviction.
Lack of motive may be an aid in showing the innocence of the accused.

Article 4

Criminal Liability

A person who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the consequences which may
naturally and logically result therefrom, whether foreseen or intended or not.

Felony here is defined as dolo.

The act or omission should not be punished by a special law, because the offender violating a
special law may not have the intent to do an injury to another.

A person committing a felony is still criminally liable even if

Requisites of Paragraph 1 of Article 4(IW)

there is a mistake in the blow aberratio ictus.

the inurious result is greater than that intended praeter intentionem.


A person committing a felony is criminally liable although the consequences of his felonious act are
not intended by him.

there is a mistake in the identity of the victim error in personae.

that an Intentional felony has been committed(If culpable, this article does not apply)

No felony is committed when

when the act or omission is not punishable by the RPC

when the act is covered by any of the justifying circumstances enumerated in


Article 11

that the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural and logical consequence of
the felony committed by the offender.(Proximate cause)
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.
The wrong done must be the direct, natural and logical consequence of felonious act.
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 have not occurred.

Efficient Intervening Cause

Active force that intervenes between the felony and the resulting injury

Active force must be a distinct act

A fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act

The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim

The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the resulting injury when:

there is an active force that intervened between the felony committed and the resulting injury, and
the active firce us a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused; or

the resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim

The following are not efficient intervening causes:

the weak or diseased physical condition of the victim

the nervousness or temperament of the victim, as when a person dies in consequence of an internal
hemorrhage brought on by moving about against the doctor's orders, because of his nervous
condition due to the wound inflicted by the accused.

Causes which are inherent in the victim, such as (a) the victim not knowing how to swim, etc.

neglect of the victim or third person, such as the refusal by the injured party of medical attendance or
surgical operation, or the failure of the doctor to give anti-tetanus injection to the injured person.

Erroneous or unskilled medical or surgical treatment, as when the assault took place in an outlying
barrio where proper modern surgical service was not available.

When death is presumed to be the natural consequence of physical injuries inflicted

that the victim at the time the physical injuries were inflicted was in normal health

that death may be expected from the physical injuries inflicted

that death ensued within a reasonable time

If the consequences produced have resulted from a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the
criminal act, the offender is not responsible for such consequences.

Where the charge contained in the original information was for slight physical injuries because at that time the
fiscal believed that the wound suffered by the offended party would require medical attendance for a period of
only 8 days, but when the preliminary investigation was conducted, the justice of the peace found that the
wound would heal after a period of 30 days, the act which convereted the crime into a more serious one had
supervened after the filing of the original information and this supervening event can still be the subject of
amendment or of a new charge without necessarily placing the accused in double jeopardy.
Impossible Crimes

The felony intended by the offender is not achieved due to to

Inherent Impossibility

Employment of inadequate or ineffectual means

The commission of an impossible crime is indicative of criminal propensity or criminal tendency on the part of
the actor.

Requisites of impossible crime: (PIES)

that the act perfomed would be an offense against persons or property

in committing an impossible crime, the offender inteds to commit a felony against persons
or felony against property
that the act was done with evil Intent
that its accomplishment is Inherently impossible, or that the means employed us either inadequate
or ineffectual

that the act performed should Not constitute a violation of another provision of the Revised
Penal Code
There is still Criminal Liability (Criminal Propensity)

Article 5 (Alternative Penalties not allowed)

In connection with acts which should be repressed but which are not covered by the law

the act committed by the accused appears not punishable by any law

the court deems it proper to repress sych act

the court must render the proper decision by dismissing the case and acquitting the accused

the judge must make a report to the Chief Executive through the Secretart of Justice

In cases of excessive penalties

the court after trial finds the accused guilty

the penalty provided by law and which the court imposes for the crime committed appears to be
clearly excessive, because
the accused acted with lesser degree of malice

there is no injury or the injury caused is of lesser gravity

the court should not suspend the execution of the sentence

the judge should submit a statement to the Chief Executive through the Secretary of Justice

Executive clemency recommended for the wife who killed her husband
Executive clemency recommenedy because of the severity of the penalty of rape
The penalties are not excessive when inteded to enforce a public policy

the rampant lawlessness against property , person and the very security of the Government, directly traceable
in large measure to promiscuous carrying and use of powerful weapons, justify imprisonment which in normal
circumstances might appear excessive

Congress consider repressing profiteering that would take advantage of critical conditions
Courts have the duty to apply the penalty provided by law
Judge has the duty to apply the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court

Article 6 (Stages of Execution)

If the offender has performed all acts of execution consummated or frustrated

Consumated Felony

A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are
present.

When not all the elements of a felony are proved

the felony is not shown to have consumated

the felony is not shown to have been committed

another felony is shown to have been committed

Frustrated Felony

It is frustrated felony when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the
felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent
of the will of the perpetrator.
Elements(PPFI)

Offender Performs all the acts of execution


All the acts performed would Produce the felony as a consequence
But the Felony is not produced

By reason of causes Independent of the will of the perpetrator


Desistance after performing all acts

If he has performed all of the acts which should result in the consumation of the crime and
voluntarily desists from proceeding further, it can not be an attempt.

Is there frustration due to inadequate or ineffectual means?

Such a frustration is placed on the same footing as an impossible attempt.


Attempted Felony

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.

In attempted felony, the offender never passes the subjective phase of the offense.

Elements of attempted felony(CADD)

the offender Commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts

Overt Acts this element requires that the offender personally execute the
commission of the crime.

that there be external acts

overt act is some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a
particular crime

such external acts have direct connection with the crime intended to be
committed(Overt Acts)
he Does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony

If there is still sometinh to be done


the offender's act is Not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance

the Nonperformance of all acts of execution was due to cause or accident other than his
spontaneous desistance

Exception: Does not perform all acts of execution due to his own spontaneous
desistance; no criminal liability

Spontaneous Desistance

Absolves one from the crime he intended to commit NOT from the crime
actually committed before that desistance.
Overt act may not be by physical activity
An indeterminate offense is one where the purpose of the offender in performing an act is not certain. Its
nature in relation to its objective is ambiguous.
The intention of the accused must be viewed from the nature of the acts executed by him, and not from his

admission.
The desistance should be made before all the acts of execution are performed.
Subjective Phase

It is that portion of the acts constituting the crime, starting from the point where the offender
begins the commission of the crime to the point, where he has still control over his acts,
including their natural course.

Objective Phase

If the accussed is not stopped but continues until he performs the last act, it can either be
frustrated or consumated.
Difference between frustrated felony and attempted felony

In both, the offender has not accomplished his criminal purpose.


In frustrated felony, the offender has performed all the acts of execution which would produce the
felony.

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.
Attempted or frustrated felony distinguished from impossible crime

in attempted or frustrated felony and impossible crime, the evil intent of the offender is not accomplished.

In impossible crime, the evil intent of the offender cannot be accomplished, while in attempted or frustrated
felony, the evil intent of the offender is possible of accomplishment

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.
How to determine whether the crime is only attempted, or frustrated, or it is consummated (NEM)

nature of the offense

elements constituting the felony

manner of committing the same


Development of Crime

Internal Acts, such as mere ideas in the mind of a person, are not punishable even if, had they been carried
out, they would constitute a crime.

Intention and effect must concur

Mere intention producingno effect is no more a crime than a mere effect without the
intention is a crime
External Acts covers preparatory acts and acts of execution

Preparatory acts ordinarily are not punishable. Hence, proposal and conspiracy to commit a
felony, which are only preparatory acts, are not punishable, except when the law provideds for their
punishment in certain felonies.

But preparatory acts which are considered in themselves, by law, as independent crimes
are punishable.
Acts of Execution are punishable under the Revised Penal Code

The stages of acts of execution attempted, frustrated, and consummated are


punishable.

The first stage of the acts of execution of a felony is attempted; the second stage, the
frustrated; and the last stage, the consummated.
Manner of Committing the crime

Formal Crimes consummated in one instant, no attempt

Slander

False Testimony

As a rule, there can be no attempt at a formal crime, because between the thought and the deed
there is no chain of acts that can be severed in any link.

Crime consummated by mere attempt or proposal or by overt act

Flight to enemy's country

Corruptionof minors

There is not attempted crime of treason, because the overt act in itself consummates the crime.

Felony by omission

There can be no attempted stage when the felony is by omission, because in this kind of felony the
offnder does not execute acts. He omits to perform an act which the law requires him to do.

Crimes requiring the intervention of two persons to commit them are consummated by mere agreement

Betting in Sports Contests

Corruption of a Public Officer

Material Crimes must be done in three stages of execution or not in a single act or in one instant

Consummated Rape

Frustrated Rape(stray decision)

Attempted Rape

Consummated Homicide

Frustrated Murder

Attempted Homicide
There is no attempted or frustrated impossible crime

In impossible crime, the person intending to commit and offense has already performed the acts for the
execution of the same, but, nevertheless the crime is not produced by reasons of the fact that the act intended
is by its nature one of impossible crime.

There is no frustrated impossible crime, because the acts performed by the offender are considered as
constituting a consummated offense.

Article 7

Light Felonies

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.

Slight Physical Injuries

Theft

Alteration of Boundary Marks

Maliscious Mischief

Intriguing against Honor

General Rule

Light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated.

Exceptions

Light felonies committed against person or property, are punishable even if


attempted or frustrated
Article 8

Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty
therefor.

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony
and decide to commit it. (Conspiracy is an accepted proposal.)
The essence of conspiracy is the unity of action and purpose. Its element, like the physical acts constituting the
crime itself, must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. When there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.
There is proposal when the person who was decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other
person or persons.(Proposal is before acceptance)
General Rule

Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are not punishable

Conspiracy and proposal to commit a crime are only preparatory acts, and the law regards them as
innocent or at least permissible

Exception

Cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor.(Conspiracy is a crime)

Treason

Coup d'etat

Rebellion

Sedition

If they commit the crime, they will be held liable for the crime and the conspiracy which they
had before committing the crime is only a manner of incurring criminal liability.
Conspiracy as a felony, distinguished from conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability.

When the conspiracy relates to a crime actually committed, it is not a felony but only a manner of
incurring criminal liability. The act of one is the act of all.

Even if the conspiracy relates to any of the crimes under the exception, but any of them is actually
committed, the conspiracy is not a separate offense; it is only a manner of incurring criminal liability.

When conspiracy is only a manner of incurring criminal liability, it is not punishable as a separate
offense.
Indications of conspiracy

When the defendants by their acts aimed at the same object, one performing one part and the other
performing another part so as to complete it, with a view to the attainment of the same object, and their
acts, though apparently independent, were in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of
personal association, concerened action and concurrence of sentiments, the court will be justified in
concluding that said defendants were engaged in a conspiracy.
The acts of the defendants must show a common design

It is fundamental for conspiracy to exist that there must be unity of purpose and unity in the execution
of the unlawful objective.
Period of time to afford opportunity for meditation and reflection, not required in conspiracy

Unlike in evident premeditation, where a sufficient period of time must elapse to afford full opportunity for
meditation and reflection and for the perpetrator to deliberate on the consequences of his intended deed,
conspiracy arises in the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the felony
and forthwith decide to pursue it.

Requisites of Conspiracy(TEA)

the Agreement concerned the commission of a felony

the agreement must refer to the commission of a crime. It must be an agreement to act,
to effect, to bring about, what has already been conceived and determined

the Execution of the felony be decided upon.

The conspirators have made up their minds to commit the crime. There must be a
determination to commit the crime of treason, rebellion or sedition.
Direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy as long as the necessary requisites are fulfilled.
Exception to crime of one is crime of all.

One stops the act of another

There is an expressed restriction between parties on any additional act


Quantum of proof required to establish conspiracy.

Similar to the physical act constituting the crime itself, the elements of conspiracy must be proven
beyond reasonable doubt. Settled is the rule that to establish conspiracy, evidence of actual
cooperation rather than mere cognizance or approval of an illegal act is required.

Requisites of Proposal (HP)

a person Has decided to commit a felony

that he Proposes its execution to some other person or persons


If the crime is actually committed, proposal becomes a manner of incurring liability.
Acceptance of the proposal is not necessary.
There is no criminal proposal

the person who proposes is not determined to commit the felony

there is no decided, concrete and formal proposal

it is not the execution of a felony that is proposed


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

What constitutes the felony of proposal to commit treason or rebellion is the making of proposal.
Proposal as an overt act of corruption of public officers

one who offers money to a public officer to induce him not to perform his duties, but the offer is rejected by the
public officer, is liable for attempted bribary.
Crimes in which conspiracy and proposal are punishable are against the security of the state or economic security
Reasons why conspiracy and proposal to commit a crime is punishable in crimes against external and internal security of
the State

In ordinary crimes, the State survives the victim, and the culprit cannot find in the success of his work any
impunity. Whereas, in crimes against the external and internal security of the State, if the culprit succeeds in
his criminal enterprise, he would obtain the power and therefore impunity for the crime committed.

Article 9

Two or more persons come to an agreement

agreement presupposes meeting of the minds of two or more persons

Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of there
periods are afflictive, in accordance with Article 25 of the RPC.

Reclusion Perpetua

Reclusion Temporal

Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification

Perpetual or temporary special disqualification

Prision Mayor
Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximun period are
correctional, in accordance with the above mentioned article.

Prision Correccional

Arresto Mayor

Suspension

Destierro
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.

Article 10

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 provided the contrary.

The provision of the Revised Penal Code on penalties can not be applied to offenses punishable under special laws.

Where the special law adopted penalties from the Revised Penal Code, the rules for graduating penalties by degrees or
determining the proper period should be applied.

Article 6 of the RPC cannot be applied to offenses punished by special laws.

Offenses under special alws, not subject to the provisions of this Code relating to attempted and frustrated crimes.

Attempted or frustrated stage of the execution of an offense penalized by a speical law is not punishable,
unless the special law provides a penalty therefor.

The special law has to fix penalties for attempted and frustrated crime.
When a special law covers the mere attempt to commit the crime defined by it, the attempted stage us
punishable by the same penalty provided by that law.

Article 10 is not applicable to punish accomplish under the special law.


This Code considered supplementary to special laws.

Suppletory Application of the RPC

Subsidiary Penalty

Civil Liability

Rules on Service of Sentence

Definition of Principals, Accomplices and Accessories

Princple of Conspiracy
RPC, not suppletory when the penalties under the special law are different from those under the Revised Penal Code.
Aggravating circumstances cannot be appreciated, in offenses punished by special laws.
Special laws amending amending the RPC are subject to its provision.
1st clause: The RPC is not intended to supersede SPL's.
2nd clause: The RPC is supplementary to special laws, unless the special law provides otherwise.
Provisions of the RPC not applicable.

Article 71 of the RPC scale of penalties


Special Laws

punishes only consummated acts

no definition of accessories or accomplices

no formula for graudation of penalties

terms, i.e. penalties are not the same

mitigating/aggravating circumstances cannot be considered, no graduation of penalties.

Imputability is the quality by which an act may be ascribed to a person as its author or owner. It implies that the act
committed has been freely and consciously done and may, therefore, be put down to the doer as his very own.
Responsibility is the obligation of suffering the consequences of crime. It is the obligation of taking the penal and civil
consequences of the crime.
While an act may be imputable to a person, it may not necessarily mean that he would be responsible for the same.
Imputability distinguished from responsibility

While imputability implies that a deed may be imputed to a person, responsibility implies that the person must take the
consequences of such a deed.
Guilt is an element of responsibility, for a man cannot be made to answer for the consequences of a crime unless he is guilty.
Article 11

Justifying circumstances (NANA)

In accordance with the law

The actor is not considered to have violated the law

No criminal or civil liability

No crime committed
In justifying circumstances, the actor admits to the commission of the act but interposes a justifying
circumstance. He, therefore, has the burden of proving the existence of such circumstance.
Justifying Circumstances are those where the act of a person is said to be in accordance with law, so that such person is
deemed not to have transgressed the law and is free from both criminal and civil liability.

The person does not incur any criminal liability. Article 11 recognizes the acts of such persons as justified.
Such person are not criminals, as there is no crime committed.

The circumstances mentioned in Article 11 are matters of defense and it is incumbent upon the accused, in
order to avoid criminal liability, to prove the justifying circumstance claimed by him to the satisfaction of the
court.
Self Defense

In defense of his person or rights

Basis:

State cannot protect all of his citizens all of the time

It is a natural reaction to resist any invasion of a person or his rights

Defense of person or rights

Person includes danger to one's

Life

Limb

Rights includes

Right to property

Well-entrenched is the rule that where the accused invokes self-defense, it is incumbent upon him to prove by
clear and convincing evidence that he indeed acted in defense of himself. He must rely on the strength of his
own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution.

The nature, character, location and extent of the wound

Wounds/injuries on the victim would usually indicate whether self-defense is credible or not.

Wound/injuries on the accused are not determinative as the injuries on the victim.

Age and condition of alleged aggressor matters.


Requisites(URL)

Unlawful Aggression(Indispensable)

This is a condition sine qua non. An essential and indispensable requisite.

No unlawful aggression, no self-defense whether complete or incomplete.

The aggression must be unlawful and actual.

Unlawful aggression must exist at the time of the act constituting self-defense.

Unlawful aggression is an indispensibale requisite.

Aggression must be unlawful.

Two kinds of aggression

Lawful

The fulfillment of a duty or the exercise of a right in a more or less


violent manner is an aggression, but it is lawful.

A person may use force or violence to protect his property; and if in


protecting his property such person uses force to prevent its being
taken by another, the owner of the property is not an unlawful
aggressor, because he is merely exercising a right. A paramour
surprised in the act of adultery cannot invoke self-defense if he killed
the offended husband who was assaulting him.

Unlawful

There must be an actual physical assualt upon a person, or at least a


threat to inflict real injury.

Peril to one's life

Actual that the danger must be present, that is,


actually in existence.

Imminent that the danger is on the point of happening.


It is not required that the attack already begins, for it
may be too late.

Aggression must be actual

An actual assault

Threat of an assault of an

immediate and imminent

offensive and positively strong showing the


wrongful intent to cause an injury
The person defending himself must have been attacked with actual physical force or with
actual use of weapon.
Mere belief of an impending attack is not sufficient.
Retaliation is not self-defense.

The settled rule in jurisprudence is that when unlawful aggression ceases, the
defender no longer has the right to kill or even wound the former aggressor.
In order to justify homicide on the ground of self-defense, it is essential that the killing of
the deceased by the defendant be simultaneous with the attack made by the deceased, or
at least both acts succeeded each other without appreciable interval of time.
The unlawful aggression must come from the person who was attacked by the accused.
A public officer exceeding his authority may become an unlawful aggressor.
Improbability of the deceased being the aggressor belies the claim of self-defense.
The fact that the accused declined to give any statement when he surrendered to a
policeman is inconsistent with the plea of self-defense.
Physical fact may determine whether the accused acted in self-defense.
When the aggressor flees, unlawful aggression no longer exists.
Retreat to take more advantageous position.

If it is clear that the purpose of the aggressor in retreating is to take a more


advantageous position to insure the success of the attack already begun by him,
the unlawful aggression is considered still continuing, and the one making a
defense has a right to pursue him in his retreat and to disable him.
No unlawful aggression when there is agreement to fight.

No unlawful aggression is concerted fight.

There is agreement to fight in the case.

The challenge to the fight must be accepted.

Aggression which is ahead of the stipulated time and place is unlawful.

One who voluntarily joined a fight cannot claim self-defense.


Stand Ground When In the Right
Unlawful aggression in defense of other rights

Right to Chastity

Jaurigue incomplete

Dela Cruz - complete

Right to Property

Actual attack on the person in lawful possession of the property


The belief of the accused may be considered in determining the existence of unlawful
aggression.

There is self-defense even if the aggressor used a toy pistol, provided the
accused believed it was a real gun.
Threat to inflict real injury as unlawful aggression.

A mere threatening or intimidating attitude, not preceded by an outward and


material aggression, is not unlawful aggression, because it is required that the
act be offensive and positive strong, showing the wrongful intent of the
aggressor to cause an injury.
When intent to attack is manifest, picking up a weapon is sufficient unlawful aggression.
Aggression must be real, not merely imaginary.
Aggression that is expected.

An aggression that is expected is still real, provided it is imminent.

Reasonable Necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it

Reasonable necessity in the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful


aggression.

Elements

There must be reasonable necessity in both

Course of action taken by the person defending

Means used

Determined by

Existence of unlawful aggression

The nature and extent of the aggressor

Reasonable necessity in the means used

Rational necessity to employ the means used

Perfect e quality is not required

Rational equivalence is what is required

Nature and quality of the weapon used

Physical condition, character and size

One is not required, when hard pressed, to draw fine


distinction as to the extent of the injury which a
reckless and infuriated assailant might probably inflict
upon him

Other circumstances of both aggressor and person defending


himself

Place and occasion of the assault

Rational equivalence, rationale

Because this justifying circumstance is borne by necessity and is


resorted only in extreme situations or emergencies, the person
defending himself is not expected to think coolly and clearly. The
person defending is, therefore, not expected to control his blow
or draw a distinction as to the injury that would result after he
delivers his blow.

Weapons

Using more dangerous weapons would not preclude reasonable necessity,


if it can not be shown that

Other means were available

If there were other means, he could coolly chose the less deadly
weapon to repel the assault

When attacked by an unarmed assailant/s

there may be other circumstances, such as the very violence of the attack
or a great disparity in the age or physical ability of the parties, which give
accused reasonable ground to apprehend danger of death or great bodily
harm and justify him in employing a deadly weapon in self-defense.

There must be a necessity of the course of action taken by the person making a defense,
and there be a necessity of the means used. Both must be reasonable.

The reasonableness of the necessity depends upon the circumstances

Necessity of the course of action taken

Place and occasion of the assault considered

The darkness of the night and the surprise which characterized the
assault considered.

When the aggresor is disarmed.

Refusal to fight means no need to kill the person.


If there is a chance that the other party can kill you, there is
a reasonable necessity to prevent her from doing so.

The person defending is not expected to control his blow.

Defense of person or rights does not necessarilty mean the killing of


the unlawful aggresor. But the peson defending himself cannot be
expected to think clearly so as to control his blow. The killing of the
unlawful aggresor may still be justified as long as the moral wounds
are inflicted at a time when the elements of complete self-defense are
still present.

When the aggresion is so sudden that there is no time life to the one
making a defense to determine what course of action to take.

Necessity of the means used

The means employed by the person making a defense must be


rationally necessary to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression.

The test of reasonableness of the means used

the nature and quality of weapons

deemed reasonable if had no other available


means

if there were other means, he could colly choose


the less deadly weapon

Physical condition, character and size

Other circumstances considered

Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel unlawful


aggression to be liberally construed in favor of law-abiding citizen.

The peace officer, in the performance of his duty, represents the law which he
must uphold. While the law on self-defense allows a private individual to prevent
or repel an aggression, the duty of a peace officer requires him to overcome his
opponent.
Private Individual vs Law enforcement Officer

Private Individual prevent or repel aggression

Law Enforcement Officer overcome his opponent

Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself

The person defending himself must not have by his unjust conduct provoked the
aggression sought to be repelled or prevented.

When the person defending himself from the attack by another gave sufficient provocation
to the latter, the former is also to be blamed for having given cause for the aggression.

The third requisite of self defense is present when:

No provocation at all

Provocation was not sufficient

Was not given by the person defending himself

Was not immediate or proximate

Need not be an act of violence to be provocation

Self-defense includes not only the defense of the person or body of the one assaulted but also that of his
rights, that is, those rights the enjoyment of which is protected by law.

Flight incompatible with self-defense.

Behaviour immediately after the incident

Failure to interpose self-defense after

Surrendering

Confession
Defense of Relatives

Relatives that can be defended

Spouse

Ascendants

Descendants

Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity in the same degrees

Relative by affinity, because of marriage, are parents-in-law, son or daughter-in-law,


and brother and sister-in-law

Relatives by consanguinity within fourth civil degree


The justification of defense of relatives by reason of which the defender is not criminally liable, is founded not
only upon a humanitarian sentiment, but also upon the impulse of blood which impels men to rush, on the
occasion of great perils, to the rescue of those close to them by ties of blood.
Requisites(URL)

Unlawful aggression

Unlawful aggression can exist as a matter of fact and it can be made to depend upon the

honest belief of the one making a defense.

Reasonable Necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it

In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making a defense had no
part therein(Lack of Provocation from the defending party)

The clause, in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, used in stating the
third requisite of the defense of relatives, does not mean that the relative defended should
give provocation to the aggressor.

There is still a legitimate defense of relative even of the relative being defended has given
provocation, provided that the one defending such relative has no part in the provocation.

That although the provocation prejudices the person who gave it, its effects do not reach
the defender who took no part therein, because the latter was prompted by some noble or
generous sentiment in protecting and saving a relative.

The fact the the relative defended gave provocation is immaterial.


Defense of Strangers

Requisites(URN)

Unlawful aggression

Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it


The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive

This Code requires that the defense of a stranger be actuated by a disinterested or


generous motive, when it puts down revenge, resentment, or other evil motive as
illegitimate.

What one may do in his defense; another may do for him. Persons acting in defense of others are in the same
condition and upon the same planse as those who act in defense of themselves. The ordinary man would not
stand idly by and see his companion killed without attempting to save his life.

Who are deemed strangers

Any person not included in the enumeration of relatives mentioned in paragraph 2 of this article.

Paragraph 3 of Article 11 uses the phrase be not induced Hence, even if a person has a standing grudge
against the assailant, if he enters upon the defense of a stranger out of generous motive to save the stranger
from serious bodily harm or possible death, the third requisite of defense of stranger still exists. The third
requisite would be lacking if such person was prompted by his grudge against the assailant, because the
alleged defense of the stranger would be only a pretext.

Furnishing a weapon to one in serious danger of being throttled is defense of stranger.


Avoidance of greater evil or injury

Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which cause damage to another.

Requisites

That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists

The evil must actually exist. If the evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or
anticipated or may happen in the future, paragraph 4 of Article 11 is not applicable.

That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it

That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it

Exemptions

Negligence

No evil to be avoided

Violation of law by the actor

Damage to anothere covers injury to persons and damage to property.

The greater evil should not be brought about by the negligence or impurdence of the actor

When the accused was not avoiding any evil,he cannot invoke the justifiying circumstance of avoidance of a
greater evil or injury.

The evil which brought about the greater evilmust not result from a violation of law by the actor.

There is civil liability under this paragraph.

Although, as a rule there is no civil liability in justifying circumstances, it is only in paragraph 4 of


Article 11 where there is civil liability, but the civil liability is borne by the persons benefited.
Fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful execise of a right or office

Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.

Requisites

the accused acted in the performace of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office

the injury caused or the offense commited be the necessary consequences of the due
performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office

Prevaling jurisprudence is in favor of policemen and guards who shoot prisoners who attempt to
escape

Shooting an offender who refused to surrender is justified but shooting a thief who refused to be arrested is not
justified.

Distinguised from self-defense and from consequence of felonious act

Fulfillment of duty to preven the escape of a prisoner is different from self-defense, because they are
based on different principles.

The public officer acting in the fulfillment of a duty may appear to be an aggressor but his aggression

is not unlawful, it being necessary to fulfill his duty.


Lawful exercise of right or office

Of right

The owner orlawful possesor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the
enjoyment and disposalthereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be
reasonable necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical
invasion or usurpation of his property.

Obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose

Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose

Requisites

That an order has been issued by a superior

That such order must be for some lawful purpose

That the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful

Illegal orders, the subordinate is liable except

He is not aware that the order is illegal

He is not negligent

When the order is not for a lawful purpose, the subordinate who obeyed it is not criminally liable

The subordinate is not liable for carrying out an illegal oder of his superior, if he is not aware of the illegality of
the order and he is not negligent

Battered Woman Syndrome

Victim-survivors who are found by the court to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not
incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying
circumstances of self-defense under the RPC.
Exempting Circumstances

Definition

Exempting circumstances(non-imputability) are those grounds for exemption from punishment because there
is wanting in the agent of the crime any of the conditions which make the act voluntary or negligent.

Basis

The exemption from punishment is based on the complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent,
or on the absence of negligence on the part of the accused.
Article 12

In exempting circumstances the act does not result in criminal liability because the act is not voluntary or
negligent

There is absence of

Intelligence

Freedom of Action

Intent

Negligence

In exempting circumstances, there is a crime committed but no criminal liability arises

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

Burden of Proof

Any of the cicumstances mentioned in Article 12 is a matter of defense and the same must be proved by the
defendant to the satisfaction of the court.

An imbicle or an insane person, unless the later has acted during a lucid interval

Imbecility distinguished from insanity

Imbecile is exempt in all cases from criminal liability

Insane is not so exempt if it can be shown that the acted during a lucid interval. During lucid
interval, the insane acts with intelligence.

An insane person may have lucid intervals but an imbecile does not.

Rule on imbeciles and insane person

Imbecile he must be deprived completely of reason or discernment and freedom of the will
at the time of committing the crime.

Insanse complete deprivation of intelligence in the commission of the act or that the
accused acted without the least discernment

Crazy vs Insane

There is a vast difference between an insane person and one who has worked himself into a
frenzy of anger that fails to use reason or good judgement in what he does.

The fact that a person acts crazy is not conclusive that he is insane. The popular meaning of
the word crazy is not synonymous with the legal term insane, non compus mentis, unsound
mind, idiot or lunatic.

To constitute insanity, there must be complete deprivation of intelligence or that there be a total deprivation of
the freedom of the will.

Thus, mere abnormality of mental faculties is not enough, especially if the offender has not lost
consciousness of his act. At most, it is only a mitigating circumstance.

Procedure when the imbecile or the insane committed a felony

The court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons
afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the court.

But the court has no power to permit the insane person to leave the asylum without first obtaining the
opinion of the Director of Health that he may be released without danger.

Who has the burden of proof to show insanity?

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.

Insanity at the time of the commission of the felony distinguished from insanity at the time of the trial

When a person was insane at the time of the commission of the felony, he is exempt from criminal
liability.

When he was sane at the time of the commission of the crime, but he becomes insane at the
time of the trial, he is liable criminally. The trial, however, will be suspended until the mental
capacity of the accused is restored to afford him a fair trial.

The law presumes that every person is of sound mind, in the absence of proof to the
contrary, the law always presumes all acts to be voluntary. It is impropert to presume that all
acts were executed unconsiously.

Evidence of insanity

The evidence of insanity must refer to the time preceding the act under prosecution
or to the very moent of its execution. If the evidence points to insanity subsequent
to the commission of the crime, the accused cannot be acquitted. He is presumed
to be sane when he commited it.

Insanity as a defense is a confession and avoidance and as such must be proved beyond reasonable
doubt. When the commission of the crime is established, and the defense of insanity is not made out
beyond a reasonable doubt, conviction follows.

Establishing insanity is a question of fact and may be established by:

a witness who is intimately acquainted with the accused

a witness who has a rational basis to conclude that the accused was insane based on the
witness own perception of the accused

expert testimony

Dementia praecox is covered by the term insanity.

Thus, when a person is suffering from a form of psychosis, a type of dementia praecox, homicidal
attack is common, because of delusions that he is being interfered with sexually, or that his property
is being taken.

The unlawful act of the accused may be due to his mental disease or a mental defect, producing an
irresistible impulse, as when the accused has been deprived or has lost the power of his will which
would enable him to prevent himself from doing the act.

Schizophrenia, formerly called dementia praceox.

Epilepsy may be covered by the term insanity

If it can be shown that he was not under the influence of an epileptic fit when he commited the
offense, he is not exempt from criminally liability.

Feeblemindedness is not imbecility.

Pedophilia is not insanity.

Amnesia is not proof of mental condition of the accused.

Amenisa, in and of itself, is no defense to a criminal charge unless it is shown by competent proof
that the accused did not know the nature and quality of his action and that it was wrong.

Other cases of lack of intelligence

Committing a crime while in a dream

Hypnotism

Commiting a crime while suffering from malignant malaria

The exempting circumstance of insanity or imbecility is based on the complete absence of intelligence, an
element of voluntariness.
A person under nine years of age

Age of absolute irresponsibility raised to fifteen years of age.

RA 9433 raised the age of absolute irresponsibility from nine to fifteen years of age.

Under Section 6 of the said law, a child fifteen years of age or under at the time of the commission of
the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subject to an
intervention program as provided uder Section 20 under RA 9344.

RA 9344

New Concepts

Age of criminal responsibility

A child fifteen years of age and under at the time of the commission of the
offense is exempt from criminal liability.

Child is subject to intervention. Intervention refers to a series of activities


which are designed to address issues that caused the child to commit an
offense.

Section 3[1], RA 9344

Intervention refers to a series of activities which are designed to


address issues that caused the child to commit an offense. It may

take the form of an individualized treatment program which may


include counseling skills, training, education, and other activities
that will enhance his/her psychological, emotional and psychosocial well-being.

Child 15 or below, initial contact with child must

Release parents, guardians or nearest relative

Notify LSWDO, determine the appropriate programs

O/W

NGO

Barangay

Local SWD officer or DSWD


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 the provision of Article 80 of this Code.

Above 15 but below 18

Without discernment child is exempt but subject to intervention

With discernment subject to appropriate proceedings

No exemption from civil liability

Discernment is the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong.

It may be shown by

Manner of committing the crime

Conduct of offender

Appearance of the minor

Attitude

Comportment

Behavior, before, during and after the trial

Paragraph 3, Article 12 of the RPC impliedly repealed by RA 9344.

Children above fifteen but below eighteen years of age who acted without discrenment exempt from
criminal liability.

A minor under eighteen but above fifteen must have acted with discernment to incur
criminal liability. The minor is presumed to have acted without discrenment since the
phrase unless he/she acted with discrenment indicates an exception to the general rule
that a minor under 18 but above 15 has acted without discrenment.

Thus, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that a minor who is over 15 but under
18 years of age has acted with discrenment, in order for the minor not to be entitled to this
exempting circumstance.

Periods of criminal responsibility

The age of absolute irresponsibility 15 years and below (infancy)

The age of conditional responsibility 15 years and 1 day to 18 years (CICL)

The age of full responsibility 18 years or over(adolescent) to 70(maturity)

The age of mitigated responsibility 15 years and 1 day to 18 years, the offender acting with
discrenment; over 70 years of age.

Hence, senility which is the age over 70 years, although said to be the second childhood,
is only a mitigated responsibility. It cannot be considered as similar to infancy which is
exempting.

Discernment means the capacity of the child at the time of the commission of the offense to understand the
differences between right and wrong and the consequences of the wrongful act.

The determination of discernment shall take into account the ability of a child to understand the moral and
psychological components of criminal responsibility and the consequences of the wrongful actl and whether a
child can be held responsible for essentially antisocial behavior.

Discernment and Intent distinguished

Intent refers to the desired act of the person

Discernment relates to the moral significance that a person ascribes to the said act.

Discernment may be shown

Manner of committing the crime

Conduct of offender

Presumption of Minority

The child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the presumption of minority and shall enjoy the rights of
a child in conflict with the law until proven to be eighteen years old or older at the time of the
commission of the offense.

In case of doubt as to the age of the child, it shall be resolved in his/her favor.

Determination of Age

Birth Certificate

Baptismal Certificate

Other pertinent document

In the absence of the document mentioned

Testimony of the child or other persons

Physical appearance


Other relevant evidence
Burden of Proof of Age

Any person allegin the age of the child in conflict with the law has the burden of proving
the age of such child.

If the age of the child is contested prior to the filing of the information in court, a case for
determination of age under summary proceeding may be filed before the Family Court
which shall render its decision within 24 hours from receipt of the appropriate pleadings of
all the parties.

The allegation of with intent to kill in the information is sufficient allegation of discernment.

The exempting circumstance in paragraph 3 of Article 12 is based also on the complete absence of
intelligence.

Imposable penalties

Not more than 6 years

Mediation, family conferencing and concilation if appropriate

In victimless crimes, diversion or rehabilitation

More than 6 years

Diversion by the court

Kinds of Diversion (Barangay)

Restitution

Reparation

Indemnification

Written or Oral Apology

Care, Guidance and supervision orders

Counseling

Trainings, seminars and lectures

Anger management

Problem solving

Values formation

Other skills to aid the child

Participation in community based programs

Participation in education, vocation, and life skills programs

Kinds of Diversion (Courts)

Court

All programs at barangay and law enforcement

Written or Oral reprimand

Fine

Payment of the cost of the proceedings

Institutional care and custody

Offense not applicable to children (Section 58)

Vagrancy and Prostitution

Mendicancy

Sniffing of Rugby

Shall undergo appropriate counseling and treatment


Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or
intention of causing it

Elements

A person is performing a lawful act

Striking another with a gun in self-defense, even if it fired and seriously injured the
assailant, is a lawful act
With due care

He causes an injury to another by mere accident

An accident is something that happens outside the sway of our will, and although it
comes about through some act of our will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly
foreseeable consequences.

If the consequences are plainly foreseeable, it will be a case of negligence.

Accident presupposes lack of intention to commit the wrong done.

Case of negligence, not accident.

Without fault or intention of causing it


The exempting circumstances in paragraph 4 of Article 12 is based on lack of negligence and intent. Under
this circumstance, a person does not commit either an intentional felony or a culpable felony.
Criminal liability does not arise in case a crime is committed by any person who while performing a
lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it. The
exemption from criminal liability is based in the lack of criminal intent.
Performance of a lawful act

For an accident to become an exempting circumstance, the act has to be lawful. The act of
firing a shotgun at another is not a lawful act.

Intent is a mental state

It connotes the absence of criminal intent, Intent is a mental state, the existence of which is
shown by a person's overt acts.

Thus in determining whether an accident attended the incident, courts must take into account the dual
standards of lack of intent to kill and absence of fault or negligence.
Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force

Elements

That the compulsion is by means of physical force


That the physical force must be irresistible

That the physical force must come from a third person


No compulsion of irresistible force
Passion or obfuscation cannot be irresistible force
The exempting circumstance in paragraph 5 of Article 12 is based on the complete absence of freedom, an
element of voluntariness.
Any persons who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.

Elements

That it promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary man would have
succumed to it.

Requisites

Existence of an uncontrollable fear

The fear must be real and imminent

The fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that committed

Duress as a valid defense should be based on real, imminent or reasonable fear for one's life or lim and should
not be speculative, fanciful or remote fear

The accused must not have opportunity for escape or self-defense

Speculative, fanciful and remote fear is not uncontrollable fear

A threat of future injure is not enough.

Distinction between irresistible force and uncontrollable fear

In irresistible force, the offender uses violence or physical force to compel another person to commit
a crime; in uncomtrollable fear, the offender employs intimidation or threat in compelling another to
commit a crime.

The exempting circumstance in paragraph 6 of Article 12 is also based in the complete absence of freedom.
Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause.

Requisites

An act is required by law to be done


A person fails to perform such act

His failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause
Example:

Person A confessed to a Filipino priest that he and several other persons were in conspiracy against
the Government. Under Article 116, a Filipino citizen who knows of such conspiracy must report the
same to the governor or fiscal of the province where he resides. If the priest does not disclose and
make known the same to the proper authority, he is exempt from criminal liability, because under the
law, the priest cannot be compelled to reveal any information which he came to know by reason of
the confession made to him in his professional capacity.

Insuperable cause

Distance and available means of transportation (Vicentillo)

Severe dizziness and extreme debility (Bandian)

The circumstance in paragraph 7 of Article 12 exempts the accused from criminal liability, because he acts
without intent, the third condition of voluntariness in intentional felony.

Intent presupposes the exercise of freedom and the use of intelligence. Hence, in paragraphs 1,2 and 3 of
Article 12, the imbecile, insane, or minor, not having intelligence, does not act with intent. The person acting
under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Article 12, not having freedom of action,
does not act with intent. In paragraph 4 of Article 12, it is specifically stated that the actor causes an injury by
mere accident without intention of causing it.
Distinction between justifying and exempting circumstances

In justifying circumstances, there is neither a crime nor a criminal. No civil liability, except in paragraph 4.

In exempting circumstances, there is a crime but no criminal liability. The act is not justified, but the actor is not
criminally liable.There is civil liability, except in paragraph 4 and 7 of Article 12.
Absolutory Cause

That the threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater than or at least equal to, that which he is
required to commit

Absolutory causes are those where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment
there is no penalty imposed.
Other absolutory causes

Article 6 The spontaneous desistance of the person who commenced the commission of a felony before he
could perform all acts of execution.

Article 20 Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability

Article 124, last paragraph- The commission of a crime, or violent insanity or any other ailment requiring the
compulsory confinement of the patient in a hospital, shall be considered legal grounds for the detention of any
person.

Article 247, paragraph 1 and 2 Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances

Article 280, paragraph 3 exception to trespass to dwelling

Article 332 exempt from theft, swindling and maliscious mischief

Article 344, paragraph 4 marriage of the offended and offender party in SARA
Instigation is an absolutory cause

In instigation, the law enforcer conceives the commission of the crime and suggests to the accused who
adopts the idea and carries it into execution.

In instigation, a public officer or a private detective induces an innocent person to commit a crime and would
arrest him upon or after the commission of the crime by the latter.

A sound public policy requires that the courts shall condemn this practice (instigation) by directing the acquittal
of the accused.

In instigation, the crime would not have been committed if it were not for the inducement of the
instigator.

Such inducement must be of such nature that the instigator himself becomes a co-principal.

In instigation, it is necessary that the instigator is a public officer or one who is performing public
functions.

If the instigator is a private individual, both the instigator and the person instigated are criminally
liable.
Entrapment is not an absolutory cause

In entrapment, ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping or capturing the lawbreaker
in the execution of his criminal plan. The means of committing the crime originates from the mind of
the criminal.
Buy-bust operation

A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which in recent years has been accepted as valid means
of arresting violators of Dangerous Drugs Law. It is commonly employed by police officers as an
effective way of apprehending law offenders in the act of commiting a crime. In a buy-bust operation,
the idea to commit a crime originates from the offender , without anybody inducing or prodding him to
commit the offense.
Instigation vs Entrapment
Instigator induces accused into commission of crime Ways and means are resorted to trap and capture
lawbreaker in the execution of the offense

The accused must be acquited

Is not a bar to prosecution

It is the law enforce who conceives the commission


of the crime and suggests to the accused

The means originate from the mind of the


criminal

There is neither instigation nor entrapment when the violation of the law is simply discovered.
Assurance of immunity by a public officer does not exempt a person from criminal liability.
Complete defense in criminal case

Any essential elements of the crime charged is not proven by the prosecution and the elements proved do not
constitute any crime.

Justifying circumstances

Exempting circumstances

Absolutory causes

Spontaneous desistance during the attempted stage (Article 6)

Light felony is only attempted or frustrated, and is not against persons or properly (Article 7)

The accessory is a relative of the principle (Article 20)

Legal grounds for arbitrary detention (Article 124)

Legal grounds for trespass (Article 280)

The crime of theft, swindling or maliscious mischief is commitetd against a relative(Article 332)

When only slight or less serious physical injuries are inflicted by the person who surprised his
spouse or daughter in the act of sexual intercourse with another persons (Article 247)

Marriage of the offender with the offended party when the crime committed is rape, abduction,
seduction, or acts of lasciviousness (Article 344)

Instigation

Guilt of the accused not established beyond reasonable doubt

Prescription of Crimes

Pardon by the offended party before the institution of criminal action in crime against chastity

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi