CRIM : OTAZA notes
Definitions
Criminal Law- is a branch 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 the Criminal Law
A. The Revised Penal Code and it
Amendments;
B. Special Penal Laws passed by the
Philippine Commission, Philippine
Assembly, Philippine legislature,
National Assembly, the Congress of
the Philippines and the batasang
Pambansa
C. Penal Presidential decrees during
Martial Law.
Powers and Authority of the State to Punish Crimes
The State has the authority, under its police power,
to define and punish crimes and to lay down the
rules of criminal procedure. States, as a part of their
police power, have a large measure of discretion in
creating and defining criminal offenses. (People vs.
Santiago, 43 Phil. 120, 124)
The right of prosecution and punishment for a crime
is one of the attributes that by a natural law
belongs to the sovereign power instinctively
charged by the common will of the members of
society to look after, guard and defend the interests
of the community, the individual and social rights
and the liberties of every citizen and the guaranty
of the exercise of his rights. (U.S. vs. Pablo, 35 Phil.
94, 100)
People Vs Santiago
FACTS: Having caused the death of Porfirio
Parondo, a boy 7 years old, by striking him with
automobile that he was driving, the herein
appellant was prosecuted for the crime of
homicide by reckless negligence and was
sentenced to suffer one year and one day of prision
correccional, and to pay the costs of the trial.
Not agreeable with that sentence he now comes
to this court alleging that the court below
committed four errors, to wit:
1. The trial court erred in not taking judicial notice of
the fact that the appellant was being prosecuted
in conformity with Act No. 2886 of the Philippine
Legislature and that the Act is unconstitutional and
gave no jurisdiction in this case.
2. The lower court erred in not dismissing the
complaint after the presentation of the evidence in
the case, if not before, for the reason that said Act
No. 2886 is unconstitutional and the proceedings
had in the case under the provisions of the Act
constitute a prosecution of appellant without due
process of law.
3. The court a quo erred in not finding that it lacked
jurisdiction over the person of the accused and
over the subject- matter of the complaint
LEGAL ISUUE: whether or not Act No. 2886, under
which the complaint in the present case was filed, is
valid and constitutional.
HELD: For practical reasons, the procedure in
criminal matters is not incorporated in the
Constitutions of the States, but is left in the hand of
the legislatures, so that it falls within the realm of
public statutory law.
As has been said by Chief Justice Marshall:
A constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all
the Subdivisions of which its great powers will admit,
and of all the means by which they may be carried
into execution, would partake of a prolixity of a
legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by
the human mind. It would probably never be
understood by the public. (M'Culloch vs. Maryland
[1819], 4 Wheat., 316, 407; 4 L. ed., 579.)
That is why, in pursuance of the Constitution of the
United States, each States, each State has the
authority, under its police power, to define and
punish crimes and to lay down the rules of criminal
procedure.
The states, as a part of their police power, have a
large measure of discretion in creating and defining
criminal offenses. . . .
A Statute relating to criminal procedure is void as a
denial of the equal protection of the laws if it
prescribes a different procedure in the case of
persons in like situation. Subject to this limitation,
however, the legislature has large measure of
discretion in prescribing the modes of criminal
procedure.
This power of the States of the North American
Union was also granted to its territories such as the
Philippines:
The plenary legislative power which Congress
possesses over the territories and possessions of the
United States may be exercised by that body itself,
or, as is much more often the case, it may be
delegated to a local agency, such as a legislature,
the organization of which proceeds upon much the
same lines as in the several States or in Congress,
which is often taken as a model, and whose powers
are limited by the Organic Act; but within the scope
of such act is has complete authority to legislate, . .
. and in general, to legislate upon all subjects within
the police power of the territory. (38 Cyc., 205-207.)
The powers of the territorial legislatures are derived
from Congress. By act of Congress their power
extends "to all rightful subjects of legislation not
inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the
United States;" and this includes the power to define
and punish crimes. (16 C. J., 62.)
And in the exercise of such powers the military
government of the army of occupation, functioning
as a territorial legislature, thought it convenient to
establish new rules of procedure in criminal matters,
by the issuance of General Orders No. 58, the
preamble of which reads:
In the interests of justice, and to safeguard the civil
liberties of the inhabitants of these Islands, the
criminal code of procedure now in force therein is
hereby amended in certain of its important
provisions, as indicated in the following
enumerated sections. (Emphasis ours.)
Its main purpose is, therefore, limited to criminal
procedure and its intention is to give to its provisions
 CRIM : OTAZA notes
the effect of law in criminal matters. For that reason
it provides in section 1 that:
The following provisions shall have the force and
effect of law in criminal matters in the Philippine
Islands from and after the 15th day of May, 1900,
but existing laws on the same subjects shall remain
valid except in so far as hereinafter modified or
repealed expressly or by necessary implication.
From what has been said it clearly follows that the
provisions of this General Order do not the nature of
constitutional law either by reason of its character
or by reason of the authority that enacted it into
law.
It cannot be said that it has acquired this character
because this order was made its own by the
Congress of the United States for, as a mater of
fact, this body never adopted it as a law of its own
creation either before the promulgation of Act No.
2886, herein discussed, or, to our knowledge, to this
date.
US Vs. Pablo
FACTS: : In compliance to an order from his chief,
Andres Pablo, a policeman of the municipality of
Balanga, went to the barrio of Tuyo to raid a
jueteng game; but before the said officer arrived
there the players left and ran away. He was able to
recover on his arrival a low table, a tambiolo
(receptacle) and 37 bolas (balls). Said officer also
saw the men Maximo Malicsi and Antonio Rodrigo
left but only Francisco Dato was arrested. This
information was contained in his report to his chief
who immediately filed a complaint in the court of
justice of the peace against Rodrigo, Malicsi, and
Dato for illegal gambling in violation of municipal
ordinance No. 5.
LEGAL ISUUE: Whether or not the police has
authority to Conduct ?
HELD: The right of prosecution and punishment for a
crime is one of the attributes that by a natural law
belongs to the sovereign power instinctively
charged by the common will of the members of
society to look after, guard and defend the interests
of the community, the individual and social rights
and the liberties of every citizen and the guaranty
of the exercise of his rights.
The power to punish evildoers has never been
attacked or challenged, as the necessity for its
existence has been recognized even by the most
backward peoples. At times the criticism has been
made that certain penalties are cruel, barbarous,
and atrocious; at other, that they are light and
inadequate to the nature and gravity of the
offense, but the imposition of punishment is
admitted to be just by the whole human race, and
even barbarians and savages themselves, who are
ignorant of all civilization, are no
exception.lawphil.net
Limitations
1987 Constitution Article III
Due Process Sec 1
No person shall be deprive of life, liberty and
property without due process of the law, nor shall
any person be denied the equal protection of the
law.
Equal Protection Clause Sec 14
) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal
offense without due process of law.cralaw
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and
shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and
counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation against him, to have a speedy,
impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses
face to face, and to have compulsory process to
secure the attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence in his behalf. However,
after arraignment, trial may proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the
accused: Provided, that he has been duly notified
and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
C. Non imposition of cruel and Unusual Punishment
or Excessive Fines Sec 18
(1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of
his political beliefs and aspirations.cralaw
(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist
except as a punishment for a crime whereof the
party shall have been duly convicted.cralaw
Bill Of attainder Sec 19
(1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel,
degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither
shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for
compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the
Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death
penalty already imposed shall be reduced
to reclusion perpetua.cralaw
(2) The employment of physical, psychological, or
degrading punishment against any prisoner or
detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate
penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be
dealt with by law.cralaw
Ex Post Facto Law Sec 20 to 22
Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt
or non-payment of a poll tax.cralaw
Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy
of punishment for the same offense. If an act is
punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or
acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to
another prosecution for the same act.cralaw
Section 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder
shall be enacted.
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure Rule 115
Rights of Accused
Section 1.Rights of accused at the trial. In all
criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled
to the following rights:
(a) To be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proved beyond reasonable
doubt.
(b) To be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation against him.
(c) To be present and defend in person and
by counsel at every stage of the
proceedings, from arraignment to
 CRIM : OTAZA notes
promulgation of the judgment. The accused
may, however, waive his presence at the
trial pursuant to the stipulations set forth in
his bail, unless his presence is specifically
ordered by the court for purposes of
identification. The absence of the accused
without justifiable cause at the trial of which
he had notice shall be considered a waiver
of his right to be present thereat. When an
accused under custody escapes, he shall
be deemed to have waived his right to be
present on all subsequent trial dates until
custody over him is regained. Upon motion,
the accused may be allowed to defend
himself in person when it sufficiently appears
to the court that he can properly protect his
right without the assistance of counsel.
(d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf
but subject to cross-examination on matters
covered by direct examination. His silence
shall not in any manner prejudice him.
(e) To be exempt from being compelled to
be a witness against himself.
(f) To confront and cross-examine the
witnesses against him at the trial. Either party
may utilize as part of its evidence the
testimony of a witness who is deceased, out
of or can not with due diligence be found in
the Philippines, unavailable or otherwise
unable to testify, given in another case or
proceeding, judicial or administrative,
involving the same parties and subject
matter, the adverse party having the
opportunity to cross-examine him.
(g) To have compulsory process issued to
secure the attendance of witnesses and
production of other evidence in his behalf.
(h) To have speedy, impartial and public
trial.
(i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the
manner prescribed by law. (1a)
Civil Code Art 2
Cases
Pesigan Vs Angeles
1984
FACTS: Anselmo L. Pesigan and Marcelo L. Pesigan,
carabao dealers, transported in an Isuzu ten-
wheeler truck in the evening of April 2, 1982 twenty-
six carabaos and a calf from Sipocot, Camarines
Sur with Padre Garcia, Batangas, as the destination.
They were provided with (1) a health certificate
from the provincial veterinarian of Camarines Sur,
issued under the Revised Administrative Code and
Presidential Decree No. 533, the Anti-Cattle Rustling
Law of 1974; (2) a permit to transport large cattle
issued under the authority of the provincial
commander; and (3) three certificates of
inspection, one from the Constabulary command
attesting that the carabaos were not included in
the list of lost, stolen and questionable animals; one
from the LIvestock inspector, Bureau of Animal
Industry of Libmanan, Camarines Sur and one from
the mayor of Sipocot.
In spite of the permit to transport and the said four
certificates, the carabaos, while passing at Basud,
Camarines Norte, were confiscated by Lieutenant
Arnulfo V. Zenarosa, the town's police station
commander, and by Doctor Bella S. Miranda,
provincial veterinarian. The confiscation was basis
on the aforementioned Executive Order No. 626-A
which provides "that henceforth, no carabao,
regardless of age, sex, physical condition or
purpose and no carabeef shall be transported from
one province to another. The carabaos or
carabeef transported in violation of this Executive
Order as amended shall be subject to confiscation
and forfeiture by the government to be distributed
... to deserving farmers through dispersal as the
Director of Animal Industry may see fit, in the case
of carabaos" (78 OG 3144).
Doctor Miranda distributed the carabaos among
twenty-five farmers of Basud, and to a farmer from
the Vinzons municipal nursery (Annex 1).
The Pesigans filed against Zenarosa and Doctor
Miranda an action for replevin for the recovery of
the carabaos allegedly valued at P70,000 and
damages of P92,000. The replevin order could not
be executed by the sheriff. In his order of April 25,
1983 Judge Domingo Medina Angeles, who heard
the case at Daet and who was later transferred to
Caloocan City, dismissed the case for lack of cause
of action.
The Pesigans appealed to this Court under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court and section 25 of the Interim
Rules and pursuant to Republic Act No. 5440, a
1968 law which superseded Rule 42 of the Rules of
Court.
LEGAL ISSUE: At issue in this case is the
enforceability, before publication in the Official
Gazette of June 14, 1982, of Presidential Executive
Order No. 626-A datedOctober 25, 1980, providing
for the confiscation and forfeiture by the
government of carabaos transported from one
province to another.
HELD: We hold that the said executive order should
not be enforced against the Pesigans on April 2,
1982 because, as already noted, it is a penal
regulation published more than two months later in
the Official Gazette dated June 14, 1982. It
became effective only fifteen days thereafter as
provided in article 2 of the Civil Code and section
11 of the Revised Administrative Code.
The word "laws" in article 2 (article 1 of the old Civil
Code) includes circulars and regulations which
prescribe penalties. Publication is necessary to
apprise the public of the contents of the regulations
and make the said penalties binding on the persons
affected thereby. (People vs. Que Po Lay, 94 Phil.
640; Lim Hoa Ting vs. Central Bank of the Phils., 104
Phil. 573; Balbuna vs. Secretary of Education, 110
Phil. 150.)
The Spanish Supreme Court ruled that "bajo la
denominacion generica de leyes, se comprenden
tambien los reglamentos, Reales decretos,
Instrucciones, Circulares y Reales ordenes dictadas
 CRIM : OTAZA notes
de conformidad con las mismas por el Gobierno en
uso de su potestad (1 Manresa, Codigo Civil, 7th
Ed., p. 146.)
Thus, in the Que Po Lay case, a person, convicted
by the trial court of having violated Central Bank
Circular No. 20 and sentenced to six months'
imprisonment and to pay a fine of P1,000,
was acquitted by this Court because the circular
was published in the Official Gazette three months
after his conviction. He was not bound by the
circular.
That ruling applies to a violation of Executive Order
No. 626-A because itsconfiscation and forfeiture
provision or sanction makes it a penal
statute.Justice and fairness dictate that the public
must be informed of that provision by means of
publication in the Gazette before violators of the
executive order can be bound thereby.
The cases of Police Commission vs. Bello, L-29960,
January 30, 1971, 37 SCRA 230 and Philippine
Blooming Mills vs. Social Security System, 124 Phil.
499, cited by the respondents, do not involve the
enforcement of any penal regulation.
Commonwealth Act No. 638 requires that all
Presidential executive orders having general
applicability should be published in the Official
Gazette. It provides that "every order or document
which shag prescribe a penalty shall be deemed to
have general applicability and legal effect."
Indeed, the practice has always been to publish
executive orders in the Gazette. Section 551 of the
Revised Administrative Code provides that even
bureau "regulations and orders shall become
effective only when approved by the Department
Head and published in the Official Gazette or
otherwise publicly promulgated". (See
Commissioner of Civil Service vs. Cruz, 122 Phil.
1015.)
In the instant case, the livestock inspector and the
provincial veterinarian of Camarines Norte and the
head of the Public Affairs Office of the Ministry of
Agriculture were unaware of Executive Order No.
626-A. The Pesigans could not have been expected
to be cognizant of such an executive order.
It results that they have a cause of action for the
recovery of the carabaos. The summary
confiscation was not in order. The recipients of the
carabaos should return them to the Pesigans.
However, they cannot transport the carabaos to
Batangas because they are now bound by the said
executive order. Neither can they recover
damages. Doctor Miranda and Zenarosa acted in
good faith in ordering the forfeiture and dispersal of
the carabaos.
WHEREFORE, the trial court's order of dismissal and
the confiscation and dispersal of the carabaos are
reversed and set aside. Respondents Miranda and
Zenarosa are ordered to restore the carabaos, with
the requisite documents, to the petitioners, who as
owners are entitled to possess the same, with the
right to dispose of them in Basud or Sipocot,
Camarines Sur. No costs.
TANADA vs TUVERA
FACTS: Lorenzo Tanada together with some lawyers,
Due process was invoked by petitioners in
demanding disclosure of a number of presidential
degrees which they claimed had not been
published as required by the law. Petitioners
maintain that since the subject of the petition
concerns public right and its object is to compel the
performance of a public duty, they need not show
specific interest for their petition to be given due
process.
Ruling: you already know the ruling.
People Vs Ferrer
1972
FACTS: On March 5, 1970 a criminal Complaint for
violation of the Anti-Subversion act was filed against
respondent Feliciano Co. On March 10 Judge Jose
De Guzman conducted a preliminary investigation
finding Prima Facie case against Co, Directed the
government prosecution to file an information that
the accused, feloniously become an officer and a
ranking leader if a communist Party of the
Philippines.
Thus Co moved to quash on the ground that the
anti subversion law is a bill of attainder.
Legal Issue: Whether or not the Anti-Subversion Act
is a Bill of Attainder.
Held
A Bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts
punishment without Trial.
Sec 11 Art III of the Constitution States That No Bill
Of attainder or ex post Facto law shall be enacted
it s essence is the substitution of a legislative for the
judicial determination of guilt. The constitutional
ban against bill of attainder serves to implement
the principle of separation of power by confining
legislative usurpation of Judicial Function.
In the Case at bar, the Anti- Subversion act was
condemned by the court quo as a bill as a
attainder because It fasrs and feathers the
communist party of the Philippines as a continuing
menace of the freedom and security of the
country, its existence is clear, present and grave
danger of the security of the Philippines By means
of the act the Trial Court said congress usurped the
power of the judge and assumed judicial Ministry by
Pronouncing guilty of the CPP without any forms of
safeguard of judicial Trial.
In Re: Kay Villegas
FACTS: Kay Villegas filed a declaratory relief
claiming to be a duly recognize non-stock and non-
profit corporation created under the laws of the
land and praying the for determination of the
validity of Sec 8 of RA 6132 in Paragraph 7 of its
petition, petitioner avers that it has printed material
design to propagate its ideology and program of
the government.
 CRIM : OTAZA notes

Petitioner in paragraph 7 impugns, because it
quoted only Sec 8 on the ground that it violated
the Due process clause, right to association and
Freedom of expression and it is an ex post facto
law.
Legal Issue: Whether RA no 6132 is an Ex post Facto
Law.
contract is legal upon its inception it cannot be
rendered illegal by any subsequent legislation.
Ex post Facto laws, unless they are favorable to the
defendant are prohibited. Every law that makes an
action done before the passage of the law and
which was innocent at the time it is done, Criminal
and punishment is an Ex post Factor law.

Held: HELL NO! In the Present case Act No 2655 made an act
which had been done before the law was
An Ex post Facto law is adopted, a criminal act and to make said act
1. An Ex Post Facto law are acts done before applicable to the act complied of would be to give
the passage of the law which was innocent an ex post facto operation.
when done and punishes such action.
2. Aggravates crime, or makes it greater than
it was committed.
3. Changes punishment and inflicts a greater
punishment than the law annexed to the
crime when committee.
4. Alters the legal rules of evidence and
authorize conviction upon less or different
testimony than the law required at the time
of the commission of the offense
5. Assuming to regulate Civil rights and
remedies only
6. Deprives person accused of a crime of
some unlawful protection to which he has
become entitled, such as protection of the
former conviction.
From the aforesaid definition as well as the
clarification of the ex-post facto law the
constitutional inhibition refers only to criminal law
which are given retroactive effect.

While it is true that Sec 18 penalize a violation of RA

6132 including Sec 8 the penalty thereof it imposed
only for acts committed after the approval of the
and not those perpetrated prior thereto there is
nothing in the law that remotely insinuate that Sec 8
and 18 or any provision thereof shall apply to acts
carried prior its approval.

US vs Diaz Conde

FACTS: On the 6th day of may 1921. A complaint

was presented in the CFI charging defendants (
Apolinar De Conde) With violation of the Usury law.
Upon said complaint they where each arrested and
arraigned and pleaded not guilty. The cause was
finaly brought n for trial on September 1, 1921. At
the Trial and after consideration of the evidence
adduced. The judge found that the defendants
where guilty of the crime charged by complainant
and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of 120.
Appellant now contends 1. That the said time the
contract was made there was no usury law enforce
2. that the said law could have no retroactive
effect.

Legal Issue: Whether or not Usuary law have

Retroactive effect.

Held: Law imposing a new penalty or disability or

giving a new right of action, must not be
constructed as having retroactive effect. Laws are
construed prospectively and not retroactively. If the