Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 22

SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW Art. 2, RPC. ―Except as provided in the


treaties or
This is a compilation of all the cases
laws of preferential application xxx‖
assigned by Prosecutor Victoria Garcia
You can add additional annotations for
improvement of this material. Sources
include reviewers from various schools and
books, from Boado, Paras etc. a. Treaty Stipulations

Examples:
Bases Agreement entered into by the
I. BASIC PRINCIPLES
Philippines and the US on Mar. 14, 1947
Characteristics and
expired on Sept. 16, 1991.
1. Generality Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA)2
2. Territoriality signed on
3. Prospectivity Feb. 10, 1998.

1. GENERALITY
b. Laws of Preferential Application
Art. 14, NCC. The penal law of the country
Examples:
is
binding on all persons who live or sojourn in
Members of Congress are not liable for libel
Philippine territory, subject to the principles
or slander for any speech in Congress or in
of
any committee thereof. (Sec. 11, Art. VI,
public international law and to treaty
1987 Constitution)
stipulations
Any ambassador or public minister of any
foreign State, authorized and received as
Generality of criminal law means that the
such by the President, or any domestic or
criminal law of the country governs all
domestic servant of any such ambassador or
persons within the country regardless of
minister are exempt from arrest and
their race, belief, sex or creed. However, it is
imprisonment and whose properties are
subject to certain exceptions brought about
exempt from distraint, seizure and
by international agreement. Ambassadors,
attachment.3 (R.A. No. 75)
chiefs of states and other diplomatic officials
are immune from the application of penal
Warship Rule – A warship of another
laws when they are in the country where
country, even though docked in the
they are assigned.
Philippines, is considered an extension of
the territory of its respective country. This
Note that consuls are not diplomatic
also applies to embassies.
officers. This includes consul-general, vice-
consul or consul in a foreign country, who
b. Principles of Public International
are therefore, not immune to the operation or
Law
application of the penal law of the country
where they are assigned.
Art. 14, NCC. ―xxx subject to the
principles of
Generality has no reference to territory.
public international law and to treaty
Whenever you are asked to explain this, it
stipulations.‖
does not include territory. It refers to
persons that may be governed by the penal
law.
The following persons are exempt from the
[Take note of the Visiting Forces provisions of the RPC:
Agreement, Art. V, which defines Criminal (1) Sovereigns and other heads of state
Jurisdiction over United States military and (2) Ambassadors, ministers, plenipotentiary,
civilian personnel temporarily in the minister resident and charges d‘ affaires.
Philippines in connection with activities (Article 31, Vienna Convention on
approved by the Philippine Government (see Diplomatic
attached supplement).] Relations)
Note: Consuls and consular officers are
NOT
Limitations:

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW Page 1


SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

exempt from local prosecution. (See Article territory (Art. 2, RPC) (ASKED 4 TIMES
41, IN BAR
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations) EXAMS)

Public vessels of a friendly foreign power Art. 2 embraces two scopes of applications:
are not
subject to local jurisdiction. General rule - Intraterritorial refers to the
application of the RPC within the Philippine
territory
2. TERRITORIALITY (land, air and water).

GENERAL RULE: Penal laws of the Exception - Extraterritorial refers to the


country have application
force and effect only within its territory. of the Revised Penal Code outside the
Philippine
It cannot penalize crimes committed territory.
outside its
territory.
The territory of the country is not limited The Archipelagic Rule
to the
land where its sovereignty resides but All bodies of water comprising the
includes maritime zone and interior waters
also its maritime and interior waters as well abounding different islands comprising the
as Philippine Archipelago are part of the
its atmosphere. (Art. 2, RPC) Philippine territory regardless of their
breadth, depth, width or dimension.
Territoriality means that the penal laws of
the country have force and effect only On the fluvial jurisdiction there is presently
within its territory. It cannot penalize crimes a departure from the accepted International
committed outside the same. This is subject Law Rule, because the Philippines adopted
to certain exceptions brought about by the Archipelagic Rule as stated above.
international agreements and practice. The In the International Law Rule, when a strait
territory of the country is not limited to the within a country has a width of more than 6
land where its sovereignty resides but miles, the center lane in excess of the 3
includes also its maritime and interior waters miles on both sides is considered
as well as its atmosphere. international waters.
 Terrestrial jurisdiction is the
jurisdiction exercised over land. Three international law theories on aerial
jurisdiction
 Fluvial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction
exercised over maritime and interior 1. The atmosphere over the country is
waters. free and not subject to the
jurisdiction of the subjacent state,
 Aerial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction except for the protection of its
exercised over the atmosphere. national security and public order.

(1) Terrestrial jurisdiction is the Under this theory, if a crime is committed


jurisdiction on board a foreign aircraft at the atmosphere
exercised over land. of a country, the law of that country does not
(2) Fluvial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction govern unless the crime affects the national
exercised security.
over maritime and interior waters. 2. Relative Theory- The subjacent state
(3) Aerial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercises jurisdiction over the
exercised atmosphere only to the extent that it
over the atmosphere. can effectively exercise control
thereof.

EXCEPTIONS Under this theory, if a crime was committed


(1) Extraterritorial crimes, which are on an aircraft that is already beyond the
punishable control of the subjacent state, the criminal
even if committed outside the Philippine law of the state will not govern anymore.
But if the crime is committed in an aircraft

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW Page 2


SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

within the atmosphere over a subjacent state (1) The new law is expressly made
that exercises control, then its criminal law inapplicable to
will govern. pending actions or existing cause of actions;
3. Absolute Theory (adopted by the or
Philippines) - The subjacent state (2) The offender is a habitual criminal.
has complete jurisdiction over the
atmosphere above it subject only to Effects of repeal of penal law
the innocent passage by aircraft of a (1) If the repeal makes the penalty lighter in
foreign country. the
new law,
Under this theory, if the crime is committed (a) The new law shall be applied,
in an aircraft, no matter how high, as long as (b) EXCEPT when the offender is a habitual
it can be established that it is within the delinquent or when the new law is made
Philippine atmosphere, Philippine criminal not applicable to pending action or existing
law will govern. causes of action.

(2) If the new law imposes a heavier penalty


3.PROSPECTIVITY (a) Law in force at the time of the
commission
This is also called irretrospectivity. of the offense shall be applied.

GENERAL RULE: Acts or omissions will (3) If the new law totally repeals the existing
only be law so
subject to a penal law if they are committed that the act which was penalized under the
AFTER old
a penal law has taken effect. law is no longer punishable,
(a) The crime is obliterated.
Conversely, acts or omissions which have (b) Pending cases are dismissed.
been (c) Unserved penalties imposed are remitted.
committed before the effectivity of a penal
law (4) Rule of prospectivity also applies to
could not be penalized by such penal law. judicial
decisions,7
EXCEPTION: administrative rulings and circulars.
Art. 22 RPC. Penal laws shall have a
retroactive Acts or omissions will only be subject to a
effect, insofar as they favor the person penal law if they are committed after a penal
guilty of a law had already taken effect. Vice versa, this
felony who is not a habitual criminal, as act or omission which has been committed
this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 before the effectivity of a penal law could
of this Code, although at the time of the not be penalized by such penal law because
publication of such laws a final sentence penal laws operate only prospectively.
has been pronounced and the convict is
serving the same. In some textbooks, an exemption is said to
exist when the penal law is favorable to the
offender, in which case it would have
retroactive application (RPC Art. 22);
Art. 62(5) RPC. xxx For the purpose of this provided that the offender is not a habitual
article, a delinquent and there is no provision in the
person shall be deemed to be a habitual law against its retroactive application.
delinquent,
if within a period of 10 years from the date The exception where a penal law may be
of his given retroactive application is true only
release or last conviction of the crimes of with a repealing law. If it is an original penal
serious or law, that exception can never operate. What
less serious physical injuries, robo(robbery), is contemplated by the exception is that
hurto(theft), estafa, or falsification, he is there is an original law and there is a
found repealing law repealing the original law. It is
guilty of any crimes a third time or oftener the repealing law that may be given
retroactive application to those who violated
the original law, if the repealing penal law is
EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION: more favorable to the offender who violated

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW Page 3


SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

the original law. If there is only one penal turn was copied from the French Code of
law, it can never be given retroactive effect. 1810 which is classical in character, it is
said that our Code is also classical. This is
no longer true because with the American
Underlying Philosophies occupation of the Philippines, many
Classical or Juristic Philosophy provisions of common law have been
Best remembered by the maxim “An eye for engrafted into our penal laws. The Revised
an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” [Note: If you Penal Code today follows the mixed or
want to impress the examiner, use the latin eclectic philosophy. For example,
version- Oculo pro oculo, dente pro dente.] intoxication of the offender is considered to
The purpose of penalty is retribution. The mitigate his criminal liability, unless it is
offender is made to suffer for the wrong he intentional or habitual; the age of the
has done. There is scant regard for the offender is considered; and the woman who
human element of the crime. The law does killed her child to conceal her dishonor has
not look into why the offender committed in her favor a mitigating circumstance.
the crime. Capital punishment is a product
of this kind of school of thought. Man is
regarded as a moral creature who
understands right from wrong. So that when
he commits a wrong, he must be prepared to
accept the punishment therefore. MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA

Positivist or Realistic Philosophy Violations of the Revised Penal Code are


referred to as malum in se, which literally
The purpose of penalty is reformation. There means, that the act is inherently evil or bad
is great respect for the human element or per se wrongful. On the other hand,
because the offender is regarded as socially violations of special laws are generally
sick who needs treatment, not punishment. referred to as malumprohibitum.
Cages are like asylums, jails like hospitals.
They are to segregate the offenders from the Note, however, that not all violations of
“good” members of society. special laws are mala prohibita. While
intentional felonies are always mala in se, it
From this philosophy came the jury system, does not follow that prohibited acts done in
where the penalty is imposed on a case to violation of special laws are always mala
case basis after examination of the offender prohibita. Even if the crime is punished
by a panel of social scientists which do not under a special law, if the act punished is
include lawyers as the panel would not want one which is inherently wrong, the same is
the law to influence their consideration. malum in se, and, therefore, good faith and
the lack of criminal intent is a valid defense;
Crimes are regarded as social phenomena unless it is the product of criminal
which constrain a person to do wrong negligence or culpa.
although not of his own volition. A tendency
towards crime is the product of one’s Likewise when the special laws require that
environment. There is no such thing as a the punished act be committed knowingly
natural born killer. and willfully, criminal intent is required to
be proved before criminal liability may
This philosophy is criticized as being too arise.
lenient.
For example, Presidential Decree No. 532
punishes piracy in Philippine waters and the
Eclectic or Mixed Philosophy special law punishing brigandage in the
highways. These acts are inherently wrong
This combines both positivist and classical and although they are punished under
thinking. Crimes that are economic and special laws, the act themselves are mala in
social by nature should be dealt with in a se; thus good faith or lack of criminal intent
positivist manner; thus, the law is more is a defense.
compassionate. Heinous crimes should be
dealt with in a classical manner; thus, capital Distinction between crimes punished under
punishment. the Revised Penal Code and crimes punished
under special laws
Since the Revised Penal Code was adopted
from the Spanish Codigo Penal, which in 1. As to moral trait of the offender

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW Page 4


SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

In crimes punished under the Revised Penal


Code, the moral trait of the offender is Doctrine of Pro reo/Lenity Rule
considered. This is why liability would only Doctrine of Pro Reo
arise when there is dolo or culpa in the
Whenever a penal law is to be
commission of the punishable act.
construed or applied and the law
admits of two interpretations - one
In crimes punished under special laws, the
lenient to the offender and one strict
moral trait of the offender is not considered;
it is enough that the prohibited act was to the offender- that interpretation
voluntarily done. which is lenient or favorable to the
offender will be adopted.
2. As to use of good faith as defense This is in consonance with the
In crimes punished under the Revised Penal fundamental rule that all doubts
Code, good faith or lack of criminal intent is shall be construed in favor of the
a valid defense; unless the crime is the result accused and consistent with the
of culpa. presumption of innocence of the
accused. This is peculiar only to
In crimes punished under special laws, good criminal law.
faith is not a defense.
Basis: The fundamental rule that all doubts
3. As to degree of accomplishment of shall be construed in favor of the accused
the crime and presumption of innocence of the
In crimes punished under the Revised Penal accused.
Code, the degree of accomplishment of the
crime is taken into account in punishing the Art. III, Sec. 14(2), 1987 Const. In all
offender; thus, there are attempted, criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be
frustrated and consummated stages in the presumed innocent until the contrary is
commission of the crime. proved.

In crimes punished under special laws, the Note: This is peculiar only to criminal law.
act gives rise to a crime only when it is
consummated; there are no attempted or
frustrated stages, unless the special law
expressly penalizes a mere attempt or
frustration of the crime. Equipoise Rule

4. As to mitigating and aggravating When the evidence of the prosecution and


circumstances the defense are equally balanced, the scale
In crimes punished under the Revised Penal should be tilted in favor of the accused in
Code, mitigating and aggravating obedience to the constitutional presumption
circumstances are taken into account since of innocence.
the moral trait of the offender is considered.
Utilitarian Rule
In crimes punished under special laws, Utilitarian Theory or Protective
mitigating and aggravating circumstances Theory
are not taken into account in imposing the The primary purpose of the
penalty. punishment under criminal law is
the protection of society from actual
5. As to degree of participation or potential wrongdoers. The courts,
In crimes punished under the Revised Penal therefore, in exacting retribution for
Code, when there is more than one offender, the wronged society, should direct
the degree of participation of each in the the punishment to potential or
commission of the crime is taken into actual wrongdoers, since criminal
account in imposing the penalty; thus, law is directed against acts and
offenders are classified as principal, omissions which the society does
accomplice and accessory. not approve of. Consistent with this
theory, the mala prohibita principle
In crimes punished under special laws, the
which punishes an offense
degree of participation of the offenders is
regardless of malice or criminal
not considered. All who perpetrated the
intent, should not be utilized to
prohibited act are penalized to the same
apply the full harshness of the
extent. There is no principal or accessory to
special law.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW Page 5


SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

In Magno vs. CA, decided on June


26, 1992, the Supreme Court Extraterritorial application of the Revised
acquitted Magno of violation of Penal Code on a crime committed on board
Batas PambansaBlg. 22 when he a Philippine ship or airship is not within the
acted without malice. The territorial waters or atmosphere of a foreign
wrongdoer is not Magno but the country. Otherwise, it is the foreign
lessor who deposited the checks. He country’s criminal law that will apply.
should have returned the checks to
Magno when he pulled out the However, there are two situations where the
equipment. To convict the accused foreign country may not apply its criminal
would defeat the noble objective of law even if a crime was committed on board
the law and the law would be a vessel within its territorial waters and
tainted with materialism and these are:
opportunism. 1. When the crime is committed in a
war vessel of a foreign country,
because war vessels are part of the
sovereignty of the country to whose
navel force they belong;
II. THE REVISED PENAL CODE 2. When the foreign country in whose
A. Territorial and Extra-Territorial territorial waters the crime was
Jurisdiction committed adopts the French Rule,
The provisions in Article 2 embraces two which applies only to merchant
scopes of applications: vessels, except when the crime
committed affects the national
1. Intraterritorial- refers to the security or public order of such
application of the Revised Penal foreign country.
Code within the Philippine territory;
The French Rule
2. Extraterritorial- refers to the
application of the Revised Penal The French Rule provides that the
Code outside the Philippines nationality of the vessel follows the flag
territory. which the vessel flies, unless the crime
committed endangers the national security
Intraterritorial application of a foreign country where the vessel is
within jurisdiction in which case such
In the intraterritorial application of the foreign country will never lose
Revised Penal Code, Article 2 makes it clear jurisdictionover such vessel.
that it does not refer only to the Philippine
archipelago but it also includes the The American or Anglo-Saxon Rule
atmosphere, interior waters and maritime
zone. So whenever you use the word This rule strictly enforces the territoriality of
territory, do not limit this to land area only. criminal law. The law of the foreign country
where a foreign vessel is within its
As far as jurisdiction or application of the jurisdiction is strictly applied, except if the
Revised Penal Code over crimes committed crime affects only the internal management
on maritime zones or interior waters, the of the vessel in which case it is subject to the
Archipelagic Rule shall be observed. So the penal law of the country where it is
three-mile limit on our shoreline has been registered.
modified by the rule. Any crime committed
in the interior waters comprising the Both the rules apply only to a foreign
Philippine archipelago shall be subject to merchant vessel if a crime was committed
our laws although committed on board a aboard that vessel while it was in the
foreign merchant vessel. territorial waters of another country. If that
vessel is in the high seas or open seas, there
A vessel is considered a Philippine ship only is no occasion to apply the two rules. If it is
when it is registered in accordance with not within the jurisdiction of any country,
Philippine laws. Under international law, as these rules will not apply.
long as such vessel is not within the
territorial waters of a foreign country,
Philippine laws shall govern. B. Felonies- Definition and Kinds
Felony
Extraterritorial application

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW Page 6


SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

A crime under the Revised cause. This may be a cause which is far and
Penal Code is referred to as a felony. remote from the consequence which sets
Do not use this term in reference to into motion other causes which resulted in
a violation of special law. the felony.
The term felony is limited only to
violations of the Revised Penal Code. An impossible crime is an act which would
When the crime is punishable under be an offense against person or property
a special law you do not refer to this were it not for the inherent impossibility of
as a felony, it is to be understood as its accomplishment or on account of the
referring to crimes under the employment of inadequate or ineffectual
Revised Penal Code. means.

This is important because Purpose of punishing impossible crimes: To


there are certain provisions in the suppress criminal propensity or criminal
Revised Penal Code where the term tendencies. Objectively, the offender has not
“felony” is used, which means that committed a felony, but subjectively, he is a
the provision is not extended to criminal.
crimes under special laws. A specific
instance is found in Article 160- Requisites:
Quasi-Recidivism, which reads: (1) That the act performed would be an
offense against persons or property.
A person who shall commit a felony
(2) That the act was done with evil intent.
after having been convicted by final
judgment, before beginning to serve
The offender intends to commit a felony
sentence or while serving the same,
against persons or against property, and the
shall be punished under the
act performed would have been an offense
maximum period of the penalty.
against persons or property.
It must be shown that the actor performed
the act with the intent to do an injury to
another.
Offense However, it should not be actually
A crime punished under a performed, for otherwise, he would be liable
special law is called a statutory for that felony.
offense.
(3) That its accomplishment is inherently
Misdemeanor impossible, or that the means employed is
A minor infraction of the law, either inadequate or ineffectual.
such as a violation of an ordinance,
is referred to as a misdemeanor. Inherent impossibility: The act intended by
the offender is by its nature one of
Crime impossible accomplishment.
Whether the wrongdoing is
punished under the Revised Penal There must be either (1) legal impossibility
Code or under a special law, the or (2) physical impossibility of
generic word crime can be used. accomplishing the intended act.

Legal impossibility: The intended acts,


C. Proximate cause theory and even if completed, would not amount to a
Impossible crimes crime. Legal impossibility would apply to
those circumstances where:
Proximate cause is that cause which sets
into motion other causes and which a. the motive, desire and expectation is to
unbroken by any efficient supervening cause perform an act in violation of the law;
produces a felony and without which such
felony could not have resulted. He who is b. there is intention to perform the physical
the cause of the cause is the evil of the act;
cause. As a general rule, the offender is
criminally liable for all the consequences of c. there is a performance of the intended
his felonious act, although not intended, if physical act; and
the felonious act is the proximate cause of
the felony or resulting felony. A proximate d. the consequence resulting from the
cause is not necessarily the immediate intended act does not amount to a crime.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW Page 7


SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

(Intod v. CA)
Until the Intod case, the prevailing attitude
Physical or factual impossibility: Extraneous was that the provision of the Revised Penal
circumstances unknown to the actor or Code on impossible crime would only apply
beyond his control prevent the when the wrongful act, which would have
consummation of the intended crime. constituted a crime against persons or
property, could not and did not constitute
Note: In the Philippines, impossibility of another felony. Otherwise, if such act
accomplishing the criminal intent is not constituted any other felony although
merely a defense but an act penalized by different from what theoffender intended, the
itself. criminal liability should be for such other felony and
not for an impossible crime. The attitude was so
because Article 4 of the Code provides two situations
(4) That the act performed should not where criminal liability shall be incurred, to wit:
constitute a violation of another provision of
the RPC. Article 4. Criminal liability—Criminal
liability shall be incurred:
Modified Concept of impossible crime 1. By any person committing a
felony (delito) although the
In a way, the concept of impossible crime wrongful act done be different
has been modified by the decision of the from that which he intended.
Supreme Court in the case of Intod vs. CA,
et. al., 285 SCRA 52. In this case, four 2. By any person performing an act
culprits, all armed with firearms and with which would be an offense
intent to kill, went to the intended victim’s against persons or property, were
house and after having pinpointed the it not for the inherent
latter’s bedroom, all four fired at and riddled impossibility of its
the said room with bullets, thinking that the accomplishment or on account of
intended victim was already there as it was the employment of inadequate or
about 10:00 in the evening. It so happened ineffectual means.
that the intended victim did not come home
on that evening and so was not in her Paragraph 1 refers to a situation where the
bedroom at that time. Eventually the culprits wrongful act done constituted a felony
were prosecuted and convicted by the trial although it may be different from what he
court for attempted murder. The Court of intended. Paragraph 2 refers to a situation
Appeals affirmed the judgment but the where the wrongful act done did not
Supreme Court modified the same and held constitute any felony, but because the act
the petitioner liable only for the so-called would have given rise to a crime against
impossible crime. As a result, petitioner- persons or against property, the same is
accused was sentenced to imprisonment of penalized to repress criminal tendencies to
only six months of arresto mayor for the curtail their frequency. Because criminal
felonious act he committed with intent to liability for impossible crime presupposes
kill: this despite the destruction done to the that no felony resulted form the wrongful act
intended victim’s house. Somehow, the done, the penalty is fixed at arresto mayor or
decision depreciated the seriousness of the a fine from P200.00 to P500.00, depending
act committed, considering the lawlessness on the “social danger and degree of
by which the culprits carried out the criminality shown by the offender”(Article
intended crime, and so some members of the 59), regardless of whether the wrongful act
bench and bar spoke out against the was an impossible crime against persons or
soundness of the ruling. Some asked against property.
questions, was it really the impossibility of
accomplishing the killing that brought about There is no logic in applying paragraph 2 of
its non-accomplishment? Was it not purely Article 4 to a situation governed by
accidental that the intended victim did not paragraph 1 of the same Article, that is,
come home that evening and, thus, unknown where a felony resulted. Otherwise, a
to the culprits, she was not in her bedroom at redundancy or duplicity would be
the time it was shot and riddled with bullets? perpetrated.
Suppose, instead of using firearms, the
culprits set fire on the intended victim’s In the Intod case, the wrongful acts of the
house, believing that she was there when in culprits caused destruction to the house of
fact she was not, would the criminal liability the intended victim; this felonious act
be for an impossible crime? negates the idea of an impossible crime. But

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW Page 8


SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

whether we agree or not, the Supreme Court (a) Preparatory Acts


has spoken, we have to respect its ruling. Acts tending toward the crime.
Ordinarily not punished except when
considered by law as independent crimes
D. Stages in the Commission of (i.e. Art. 304 – possession of picklocks)
Felony Proposal and conspiracy to commit a
Preliminaries felony are not punishable except when the
law provides for their punishment in certain
felonies.
Classification Under Art. 6 These acts do not yet constitute even the
a. Consummated Felony first stage of the acts of execution.
When all the elements necessary for its Intent not yet disclosed.
execution and accomplishment are present; Illustration: Ernie goes to the kitchen to get
the felony is produced. a knife.

b. Frustrated Felony (b) Acts of Execution


When the offender performs all the acts of Usually overt acts with a logical relation
execution which would produce the felony to a particular concrete offense.
as a consequence but which, nevertheless, Punishable under the RPC.
do not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator.
ATTEMPTED FRUSTRATED
c. Attempted Felony Acts Overt acts of All acts of
When the offender commences the Performed execution are execution are
started finished
commission of a felony directly by overt
BUT BUT
acts, and does not perform all the acts of Not all acts of Crime sought to
execution which should produce the felony execution are be committed is
by reason of some cause or accident other present not
than his own spontaneous desistance. achieved
Why Due to reasons Due to intervening
other than the causes
a. Overt act spontaneous independent of
A commission of the felony is deemed desistance of the will of the
commenced when the following are present: the perpetrator
(1) There are external acts. perpetrator
(2) Such external acts have a direct Position in Offender still in Due to intervening
the subjective phase causes
connection with the crime intended to be because he still independent of
committed. Timeline has control of the will of the
his perpetrator
Overt act: Some physical activity or deed acts, including
(but not necessarily physical, depending on their natural
cause.
the nature of the felony) indicating the
intention to commit a particular crime, more
The difference between the attempted stage
than a mere planning or preparation, which
and the frustrated stage lies on whether the
if carried to its complete termination
offender has performed all the acts of
following its natural course, without being
execution for the accomplishment of a
frustrated by external obstacles nor by the
felony. Literally, under the article, if the
voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will
offender has performed all the acts of
logically and necessarily ripen into a
execution which should produce the felony
concrete offense.
as a consequence but the felony was not
realized, then the crime is already in the
b. Development of a crime
frustrated stage. If the offender has not yet
performed all the acts of execution—there is
(1) Internal acts
something yet to be performed—but he was
Intent, ideas and plans; generally not
not able to perform all the acts of execution
punishable.
due to some cause or accident other than his
own spontaneous desistance, then you have
The intention and act must concur.
an attempted felony.
Illustration: Ernie plans to kill Bert
You will notice that the felony begins when
the offender performs an overt act. Not any
(2) External acts
act will mark the beginning of a felony, and
therefore, if the act so far being done does

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW Page 9


SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

not begin a felony, criminal liability desistance will NOT negate criminal
correspondingly does not begin. In criminal liability.
law, there is such a thing as preparatory act.
These acts do not give rise to criminal b. Frustrated Stage
liability.
Elements
a. Attempted Stage (1) The offender performs all the acts of
execution;
Elements: (2) All the acts performed would produce
(1) The offender commences the the felony as a consequence;
commission of the felony directly by overt (3) But the felony is not produced;
acts; (4) By reason of causes independent of the
(2) He does not perform all the acts of will of the perpetrator.
execution which should produce the felony;
(3) The non-performance of all acts of The end of the subjective phase and the
execution was due to cause or accident other beginning of the objective phase.
than his ownspontaneous desistance.
Objective phase – the result of the acts of
Marks the commencement of the subjective execution, that is, the accomplishment of the
phase: crime.

Subjective phase - That portion of the acts If the subjective and objective phases have
constituting a crime, starting from the point been passed there is a consummated felony.
where the offender begins the commission
of the crime to that point where he still has Crimes which do not admit of frustrated
control over his acts including their (act‘s) stage
natural course
(a) Rape
If between those two points, the offender is Theessence of the crime is carnal
stopped by reason of any cause outside of knowledge.
his own voluntary desistance, the subjective No matter what the offender may do to
phase has not been passed and it is merely accomplish a penetration, if there was no
an attempt. penetration yet, it cannot be said that the
offender has performed all the acts of
Illustration: The subjective phase for Ernie execution.
was from the moment he swung his arm to
stab Bert up until he finished his stroke. This We can only say that the offender in rape
is the interim where he still has control of has performed all the acts of execution when
his actions. he has effected a penetration.
Once there is penetration, no matter how
Desistance – is an absolutory cause which slight it is, the offense is consummated
negates criminal liability because the law
encourages a person to desist from (b) Arson
committing a crime One cannot say that the offender, in the
crime of arson, has already performed all the
But, it does not negate all criminal liability, acts of execution which could produce the
if the desistance was made when acts done destruction of the premises through the use
by him already resulted in a felony, of fire, unless a part of the premises has
begun to burn.
The offender will still be criminally liable The crime of arson is therefore
for the felony brought about by his act. consummated even if only a portion of the
wall or any part of the house is burned. The
What is negated is only the attempted stage, consummation of the crime of arson does
but there may be other felonies arising from not depend upon the extent of the damage
his act. caused. (People v. Hernandez)

Note: Desistance is true only in the (c) Bribery and Corruption of Public
attempted stage of the felony. Officers
Themanner of committing the crime
If the felony is already in its frustrated stage, requires the meeting of the minds between
the giver and the receiver.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW Page 10


SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

If there is a meeting of the minds, there is offender does not execute acts, he omits to
consummated bribery or consummated perform an act which the law requires him to
corruption. do.
If there is none, it is only attempted.
(4) Crimes requiring the intervention of two
(d) Adultery persons to commit them are consummated
This requires the sexual contact between by mere agreement.
two participants. (a) In bribery, the manner of committing the
If that link is present, the crime is crime requires the meeting of the minds
consummated; between the giver and the receiver.
(b) When the giver delivers the money to the
(e) Physical Injuries supposed receiver, but there is no meeting of
Under the Revised Penal Code, the crime the minds, the only act done by the giver is
of physical injuries is penalized on the basis an attempt.
of the gravity of the injuries.
Thereis no simple crime of physical (5) Material Crimes – have three stages of
injuries. There is the need to categorize execution Thus, in determining the stage of
because there are specific articles that apply some crimes, the manner of execution
whether the physical injuries are serious, becomes pivotal in determining the end of
less serious or slight. the subjective phase, i.e. once the offender
Thus, one could not punish the attempted performs the act in the manner provided for
or frustrated stage because one does not in the law, HE IS ALREADY DEEMED TO
know what degree of physical injury was HAVE PERFORMED EVERY ACT FOR
committed unless it is consummated. ITS EXECUTION.

(f) Theft
Once there is unlawful taking, theft is b. The Elements of the Crime
consummated.
Either the thing was taken or not. (1) Along with the manner of execution,
Disposition of the stolen goods is not an there are crimes wherein the existence of
element of theft under the RPC. certain elements becomes the factor in
determining its consummation.
Rule of thumb: Felonies that do not require (2) In the crime ofestafa, the element of
any result do not have a frustrated stage. damage is essential before the crime could
be consummated. If there is no damage,
Factors in Determining the Stage of even if the offender succeeded in carting
Execution of a Felony away the personal property involved, estafa
a. The manner of committing the crime; cannot be considered as consummated.
b. The elements of the crime; and (3) On the other hand, if it were a crime of
c. The nature of the crime itself. theft, damage or intent to cause damage is
not an element of theft.
These three factors are helpful in trying to (4) What is necessary only is intent to gain,
pinpoint whether the crime is still in its not even gain is important.
attempted, frustrated or consummated stage. (5) In the crime of abduction, the crucial
element is the taking away of the woman
a. The Manner of Committing the Crime with lewd designs.

(1) Formal Crimes - consummated in one c. The Nature of the Crime Itself
instant, no attempt.
(a) Ex. Slander and false testimony In defining of the frustrated stage of crimes
(b) There can be no attempt, because involving the taking of human life
between the thought and the deed, there is (parricide, homicide, and murder), it is
no chain of acts that can be severed. indispensable that the victim be mortally
wounded.
(2) Crimes consummated by mere attempt or
proposal by overt act. Hence, the general rule is that there must be
(a) Ex. Flight to enemy‘s country (Art. 121) a fatal injury inflicted, because it is only
and corruption of minors (Art. 340) then that death will follow.

(3) Felony by omission


(a) There can be no attempted stage when E. Conspiracy- Kinds and Distinctions
the felony is by omission, because the Two ways for conspiracy to exist:

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW Page 11


SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

There is NO crime committed, the act being


1. There is an agreement. justified. Thus, such persons cannot be
2. The participants acted in concert or considered criminals.
simultaneously which is indicative of
a meeting of the minds towards a Basis: Lack of criminal intent
common criminal goal or criminal
objective. When several offenders G.2. Exempting Circumstances
act in a synchronized. Coordinated Relate to: R.A. No. 9344- The Juvenile
manner, the fact that their acts Justice &Welfare Act
complimented each other is
indicative of the meeting of the SIX TYPES of exempting circumstances:
minds. There is an implied 1. Imbecility/Insanity
agreement. 2. Minority
3. Accident
Two kinds of conspiracy: 4. Compulsion of irresistible force
1. Conspiracy as a crime; and 5. Impulse of uncontrollable fear
2. Conspiracy as a manner of incurring 6. Insuperable or lawful cause
criminal liability.
IMPORTANT POINTS:
When conspiracy itself as a crime, no overt The reason for the exemption lies in the
act is necessary to bring about the criminal involuntariness or lack of knowledge of the
liability. The mere conspiracy is the crime act:
itself. This is only true when the law (1) one or some of the ingredients of
expressly punishes the mere conspiracy; criminal liability such as criminal intent,
otherwise, the conspiracy does not bring intelligence, or freedom of action on the part
about the commission of the crime because of the offender is missing
conspiracy is not an overt act but a mere
preparatory act. Treason, rebellion, sedition (2) In case it is a culpable felony, there is
and coup d’ etat are the only crimes where absence of freedom of action or intelligence,
the conspiracy and proposal to commit them or absence of negligence, imprudence, lack
are punishable. of foresight or lack of skill.

G.3 Mitigating Circumstances

F. Felonies as To Severity: TWELVE TYPES of mitigating


Grave circumstances:
Less Grave 1. Incomplete Justification and Exemption
Light 2. Under 18 or Over 70 years of age
3. No intention to commit so grave a wrong
G. Circumstances affecting 4. Sufficient Provocation or Threat
criminalliability 5. Immediate vindication of a grave offense
6. Passion or obfuscation
G.1 Justifying Circumstances 7. Voluntary surrender
Relate to: R.A. No. 9262, The Anti-Violence 8. Voluntary plea of guilt
against Women and their Children 9. Plea to a lower offense
10. Physical defect
11. Illness
12. Analogous Circumstances
Justifying Circumstances – those where
the act of a person is said to be in Mitigating circumstances or causas
accordance with law, so that such person is attenuates are those which, if present in the
deemed not to have transgressed the law and commission of the crime, do not entirely
is free from both criminal and civil liability. free the actor from criminal liability, but
There is no civil liability except in par. 4, serve only to reduce the penalty.
Art. 11, wherethe civil liability is borne by
the persons benefited by the act. Basis: They are based on the diminution of
either freedom of action, intelligence or
An affirmative defense, hence, the burden intent or on the lesser perversity of the
of evidence rests on the accused who must offender. However, voluntary surrender and
prove the circumstance by clear and plea of guilt which, being circumstances that
convincing evidence. occur after the commission of the offense,
show the accused‘s respect for the law

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW Page 12


SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

(voluntary surrender) and remorse and 6. Nighttime; Uninhabited Place; With A


acceptance of punishment (plea of guilt), Band
thereby necessitating a lesser penalty to 7. On Occasion Of A Calamity
effect his rehabilitation (based on the 8. Aid Of Armed Men Or Means To Ensure
Positivist School) Impunity
9. Recidivism
The circumstances under Article 13 are 10. Reiteration or Habituality
generally ordinary mitigating. However, 11. Price, Reward Or Promise
paragraph 1, is treated as a privileged 12. Inundation, Fire, Poison
mitigating circumstance if majority of the 13. Evident Premeditation
requisites concurred, otherwise, it will be 14. Craft, Fraud Or Disguise
treated as an ordinary mitigating 15. Superior Strength Or Means To Weaken
circumstance. (Reyes, citing Art. 69). Defense
16. Treachery
Correlate Article 13 with Articles 63 and 17. Ignominy
64. Article 13 is meaningless without 18. Unlawful Entry
knowing the rules of imposing penalties 19. Breaking Wall, Floor, Roof
under Articles 63 and 64 20. With Aid Of Persons Under 15 By
Motor
Vehicle
Ordinary MC Privileged MC 21. Cruelty
Can be offset by any Cannot be offset by
aggravating aggravating
circumstance circumstance Note: The list in this Article is EXCLUSIVE
If not offset by The effect of – there are no analogous aggravating
aggravating imposing upon the circumstances.
circumstance, offender the penalty
produces lower by one or two The aggravating circumstances must be
the effect of degrees than that established with moral certainty, with the
applying the provided by law for same degree of proof required to establish
penalty provided by the crime. the crime itself.
law
for the crime in its According to the Revised Rules of Criminal
min Procedure, BOTH generic and qualifying
period in case of aggravating circumstances must be alleged
divisible in the Information in order to be considered
penalty by the Court in imposing the sentence. (Rule
110, Sec. 9)
G.4 Aggravating Circumstances
Relate to: PD 1866 as amended by R.A. No. Basis
8294- Illegal Possession of Firearms, 1. the motivating power behind the act
Ammunitions & Explosives 2. the place where the act was committed
3. the means and ways used
Those circumstances which raise the penalty 4. the time
for a crime in its maximum period provided 5. the personal circumstance of the offender
by law applicable to that crime or change the and/or of the victim
nature of the crime.
Generic aggravating Qualifying
TWENTY-ONE aggravating circumstances circumstances aggravating
under Art. circumstances
14: The effect of a The effect of a
1. Taking Advantage of Public Office generic qualifying
2. In Contempt Of Or With Insult To Public AC, not offset by any AC is not only to
Authorities Mitigating give the
3. With Insult Or Lack Of Regard Due To circumstance, is to crime its proper and
Offended Party By Reason Of Rank, Age Or increase the penalty exclusive name but
Sex which should be also to place the
4. Abuse Of Confidence And Obvious imposed upon the author thereof in
Ungratefulness accused to the such a situation
5. Crime In Palace Or In Presence Of The MAXIMUMPERIOD. as to deserve no
Chief other penalty than
Executive that specially

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW Page 13


SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

prescribed by law G.5 Alternative Circumstances


for said crime. THREE TYPES of alternative
It is not an ingredient The circumstance circumstances:
of the crime. It only affects the nature of 1. Relationship
affects the penalty to the crime itself 2. Intoxication
be imposed but such that the 3. Degree of education/instruction
thecrime remains the offender shall be
same liablefor a more IMPORTANT POINT:
serious crime. Circumstances which must be taken in
The circumstance is consideration as aggravating or mitigating
actually an according to the nature and effects of the
ingredient of crime
the crime
The circumstance can Being an ingredient
be offset by an of the crime, it Absolutory Causes
ordinary mitigating cannot be offset There are FOUR TYPES of absolutory
circumstance by any mitigating circumstances:
circumstance 1. INSTIGATION
2. PARDON
3. OTHER ABSOLUTORY CAUSES
Aggravating circumstances which do not 4. ACTS NOT COVERED BY LAW AND
have the effect of increasing the penalty: IN CASE OF
(1) Aggravating circumstances which in EXCESSIVE PUNISHMENT (ART. 5)
themselves constitute a crime especially
punishable by law.
(2) Aggravating circumstances which are IMPORTANT POINTS:
included by the law in defining a crime and Acts not covered by law and in case of
prescribing the penalty therefore shall not be excessive punishment (art. 5)
taken into account for the purpose of
increasing the penalty. (Art. 62, par. 1). Absolutory causes are those where the act
(3) The same rule shall apply with respect to committed is a crime but for reasons of
any aggravating circumstance inherent in the public policy and sentiment there is no
crime to such a degree that it must of penalty imposed.
necessity accompany the commission
thereof. (Art. 62, par. 2). From Ortega Notes:
The effect of this is to absolve the offender from
criminal liability, although not from civil liability. It
Aggravating circumstances which are has the same effect as an exempting circumstance,
personal to but do not call it as such in order not to confuse it
with the circumstances under Article 12.
the offenders.
Aggravating circumstances which arise: Article 20 provides that the penalties prescribed for
(1) from moral attributes of the offender; accessories shall not be imposed upon those who
are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants,
(2) from his private relations with the descendants, legitimate, natural and adopted
offended party; or brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within
(3) from any personal cause, shall only serve the same degrees with the exception of accessories
who profited themselves by assisting the offender to
to aggravate the liability of the principals, profit by the effects of the crime.
accomplices, accessories as to whom such
Then, Article 89 provides how criminal liability is
circumstances are attendant. (Art. 62, par. extinguished:
3).Aggravating circumstances which depend
for their application upon the knowledge of  Death of the convict as to the personal
penalties, and as to pecuniary penalties,
offenders. liability therefore is extinguished is death
occurs before final judgment;
The circumstances which consist (1) in the  Service of the sentence;
 Amnesty;
material execution of the act, or (2) in the  Absolute pardon;
means employed to accomplish it, shall  Prescription of the crime;
serve to aggravate the liability of those  Prescription of the penalty; and
 Marriage of the offended woman as provided in
persons only who had knowledge of them at Article 344.
the time of the execution of the act or their
cooperation therein. (Art. 62, par. 4). Under Article 247, a legally married person who
kills or inflicts physical injuries upon his or her
spouse whom he surprised having sexual
intercourse with his or her paramour or mistress in
not criminally liable.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW Page 14


SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

Under Article 219, discovering secrets through When the felony is grave, or less grave,
seizure of correspondence of the ward by their
guardian is not penalized. all participants are criminally liable.
But when the felony is only light, only the
Under Article 332, in the case of theft, swindling
and malicious mischief, there is no criminal
principal and the accomplice are liable. The
liability but only civil liability, when the offender accessory is not.
and the offended party are related as spouse, Therefore, it is only when the light felony
ascendant, descendant, brother and sister-in-law
living together or where in case the widowed spouse is against persons or property that criminal
and the property involved is that of the deceased liability attaches to the principal or
spouse, before such property had passed on to the accomplice, even though the felony is only
possession of third parties.
attempted or frustrated, but accessories are
Under Article 344, in cases of seduction, abduction, not liable for light felonies.
acts of lasciviousness, and rape, the marriage of
the offended party shall extinguish the criminal
action. I. Penalties
1. Definitions/Classifications/Kinds
Absolutory cause has the effect of an exempting
circumstance and they are predicated on lack of Relate to RA 9346 Prohibiting the
voluntariness like instigation. Instigation is imposition of the death penalty
associated with criminal intent. Do not consider
culpa in connection with instigation. If the crime is
culpable, do not talk of instigation. In instigation, 2. Duration and effect
the crime is committed with dolo. It is confused 3. Rules for the application(with
with entrapment.
computations)
Entrapment is not an absolutory cause. Relate to: Act 4104 The Indeterminate
Entrapment does not exempt the offender or Sentence Law
mitigate his criminal liability. But instigation
absolves the offender from criminal liability PD 968 TheProvation Law as amended
because in instigation, the offender simply acts as a
tool of the law enforcers and, therefore, he is acting
without criminal intent because without the
4. Execution and Service
instigation, he would not have done the criminal
act which he did upon instigation of the law J. Extinction of Criminal Liability(Total
enforcers.
v. Partial)
H. Persons Criminally liable for felonies
K. Civil liability of persons guilty of
Principals, Accomplices, and Accessories
felony
Relate to: P.D. 1612 The Anti-Fencing
III. CASES in BOOK ONE
Law
A. Utilitarian Theory
PD 1829 Obstruction of Justice
MAGNO V. CA 210 SCRA 471 June 26,
Under the Revised Penal Code, when more
1992
than one
person participated in the commission of the
In Magno vs. CA, decided on June 26, 1992, the
crime, Supreme Court acquitted Magno of violation of
the law looks into their participation because Batas PambansaBlg. 22 when he acted without
malice. The wrongdoer is not Magno but the lessor
in who deposited the checks. He should have returned
punishing offenders, the Revised Penal Code the checks to Magno when he pulled out the
classifies them as: equipment. To convict the accused would defeat the
noble objective of the law and the law would be
tainted with materialism and opportunism.
A. PRINCIPAL
B. ACCOMPLICE FACTS:
C. ACCESSORY Petitioner was in the process of putting up a
car repair shop sometime in April 1983, but
This classification is true only under the a did not have complete equipment that
RPC and is not applied under special laws, could make his venture workable. He also
because the penalties under the latter are had another problem, and that while he was
never graduated. going into this entrepreneurship, he lacked
funds with which to purchase the necessary
Do not use the term ―principal‖ when the equipment to make such business
crime committed is a violation of special operational. Thus, petitioner, representing
law (use the term Ultra Sources International Corporation,
―offender/s, culprit/s, accused) approached Corazon Teng, (private
complainant) Vice President of Mancor
As to the liability of the participants in the Industries (hereinafter referred to as
grave, less grave or light felony: Mancor) for his needed car repair service

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW Page 15


SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

equipment of which Mancor was a O.G. 6904, Note also Justice Pablo's view in
distributor, (Rollo, pp. 40-41) People v. Piosca and Peremne, 86 Phil. 31).
Having been approached by petitioner on his
predicament, who fully bared that he had no “xxx the element of "knowing at the time of issue
sufficient funds to buy the equipment that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit
needed, the former (Corazon Teng) referred with the drawee bank for the payment of such check
in full upon its presentment, which check is
Magno to LS Finance and Management subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for
Corporation (LB Finance for brevity) insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been
advising its Vice-President, Joey Gomez, dishonored for the same reason . . . is inversely
that Mancor was willing and able to supply applied in this case. From the very beginning,
the pieces of equipment needed if LS petitioner never hid the fact that he did not have the
funds with which to put up the warranty deposit and
Finance could accommodate petitioner and as a matter of fact, he openly intimated this to the
provide him credit facilities. (Ibid., P. 41) vital conduit of the transaction, Joey Gomez, to
The arrangement went through on condition whom petitioner was introduced by Mrs. Teng. It
that petitioner has to put up a warranty would have been different if this predicament was not
deposit equivalent to thirtyper centum (30%) communicated to all the parties he dealt with
regarding the lease agreement the financing of which
of the total value of the pieces of equipment was covered by L.S. Finance Management.
to be purchased, amounting to P29,790.00. WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is
Since petitioner could not come up with REVERSED and the accused-petitioner is
such amount, he requested Joey Gomez on a hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged.
personal level to look for a third party who
could lend him the equivalent amount of the B. Doctrine of Pro REo/ Equipoise Rule
warranty deposit, however, unknown to
petitioner, it was Corazon Teng who PP V. PABIONA 433 SCRA 301 June 30,
advanced the deposit in question, on 2004
condition that the same would be paid as a FACTS: this case involves the death of
short term loan at 3% interest Roberto. Witnesses include his cousin
Pagayon, but was not able to clearly
HELD: pinpoint who caused the injuries as he
Under the utilitarian theory, the "protective happened to pass by the scene 10 meters
theory" in criminal law, "affirms that the away. He only heard a cry for help but the
primary function of punishment is the identity of the victim was unknown. The he
protective (sic) of society against actual and saw the accused. H two weeks later, he
potential wrongdoers." It is not clear heard a radio news that Robert died after
whether petitioner could be considered as falling into a well on the date he witnessed
having actually committed the wrong sought appellants mauling an unknown victim. He
to be punished in the offense charged, but on then narrated what he saw on the night of
the other hand, it can be safely said that the Nov. 20, 1996 to his wfe. Two months later,
actuations of Mrs. Carolina Teng amount to Pagayon recounted what he witnessed to the
that of potential wrongdoers whose mother of the victim.
operations should also be clipped at some RTC and CA: ConvitedPabiona et.al.
point in time in order that the unwary public SC: reversed CA
will not be failing prey to such a vicious
transaction (Aquino, The Revised Penal Equipoise Rule; Where the evidence on an
Code, 1987 Edition, Vol. I, P. 11) issue of fact is in equipoise or there is doubt
Corollary to the above view, is the on which side the evidence preponderates,
application of the theory that "criminal law the party having the burden of proof loses.
is founded upon that moral disapprobation . . the court must acquit the accused because
. of actions which are immoral, i.e., which the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral
are detrimental (or dangerous) to those certainty and therefore is insufficient to
conditions upon which depend the existence support a judgment of conviction.
and progress of human society. This In the case at bar, two antithetical
disappropriation is inevitable to the extent interpretations may be inferred from the
that morality is generally founded and built evidence presented. The pieces of
upon a certain concurrence in the moral circumstantial evidence do not inexorably
opinions of all. . . . That which we call lead to the conclusion that appellants are
punishment is only an external means of guilty of the crime charged.
emphasizing moral disapprobation the The circumstances proffered by the
method of punishment is in reality the prosecution and relied upon by the trial
amount of punishment," (Ibid., P. court only create suspicion that appellants
11, citing People v. RoldanZaballero, CA 54 probably perpetrated the crime
charged. However, it is not sufficient for a

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW Page 16


SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

conviction that the evidence establishes a to Sambong Street where the explosion took
strong suspicion or probability of guilt.[63] place. Thereafter, they saw complainant
The basis of acquittal in this case is Leoselie John Bañaga being chased by a
reasonable doubt, the evidence for the certain Gil Gepulane. Upon learning that
prosecution not being sufficient to sustain Bañaga was the one who threw the
and prove the guilt of appellants with moral pillbox2 that caused the explosion, petitioner
certainty. By reasonable doubt is not meant and his companions also went after him.
that which of possibility may arise but it is On reaching Bañaga’s house, petitioner,
that doubt engendered by an investigation of Cabisudo and Amante knocked on the door.
the whole proof and an inability, after such When no one answered, they decided to hide
an investigation, to let the mind rest easy some distance away. After five minutes,
upon the certainty of guilt.[64] An acquittal Bañaga came out of the house. At this
based on reasonable doubt will prosper even juncture, petitioner and his companions
though the appellants’ innocence may be immediately apprehended him. Bañaga's
doubted, for a criminal conviction rests on aunt, Marilyn Alimpuyo, followed them to
the strength of the evidence of the the barangay hall.
prosecutionand not on the weakness of the Bañaga was later brought to the police
evidence of the defense station.
Held:Alimpuyo admitted that she did not see who
actually caused the bloodied condition of Bañaga’s
PP V. DIMALANTA 440 SCRA 55 face because she had to first put down the baby she
was then carrying when the melee started.17 More
October 1, 2004 importantly, Alimpuyo stated that she was told by
Equipoise Rule; In the case at bar, the Bañaga that, while he was allegedly being held by the
evidence for the prosecution is concededly neck by petitioner, others were hitting him. Alimpuyo
weak. In such cases, even if the evidence for was obviously testifying not on what she personally
defense is also weak, the accused must be saw but on what Bañaga told her.
duly accorded the benefit of the doubt in While we ordinarily do not interfere with the
view of the constitutional presumption of findings of the lower courts on the
innocence that an accused enjoys. When the trustworthiness of witnesses, when there
circumstances are capable of two or more appear in the records facts and
inferences, as in this case, one of which is circumstances of real weight which might
consistent with the presumption of have been overlooked or misapprehended,
innocence while the other is compatible with this Court cannot shirk from its duty to sift
guilt, the presumption of innocence must fact from fiction.
prevail and the court must acquit We apply the pro reo principle and the
equipoise rule in this case. Where the
FACTS: On November 10, 1999, appellant evidence on an issue of fact is in question
was charged with Estafa under Article 315, or there is doubt on which side the
paragraph 2 (d) of the Revised Penal Code, evidence weighs, the doubt should be
as amended by Presidential Decree No. 818 resolved in favor of the accused.18 If
inculpatory facts and circumstances are
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, capable of two or more explanations, one
the appealed decision of the Regional Trial consistent with the innocence of the accused
Court of Caloocan City, Branch 121, in and the other consistent with his guilt, then
Criminal Case No. C-58083 (99), is the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant certainty and will not justify a conviction
Josefina M. Dimalanta is ACQUITTED on
grounds of reasonable doubt. The civil
action is DISMISSED, without prejudice to C. Intent/ Motive
the filing of a separate action to recover the
civil liability under the transaction. PP V. DELIM 396 SCRA 386 January 28,
2003
AMANQUITON V. PP 596 SCRA 366 It bears stressing that in determining what
August 14, 2009 crime is charged in an information, the
FACTS: Petitioner Julius Amanquiton was material inculpatory facts recited therein
a purok leader of Barangay Western Bicutan, Taguig, describing the crime charged in relation to
Metro Manila. As apurok leader and barangay tanod, the penal law violated are
he was responsible for the maintenance of controlling. Where the specific intent of
cleanliness, peace and order of the community. the malefactor is determinative of the
At 10:45 p.m. on October 30, 2001, crime charged such specific intent must
petitioner heard an explosion. He, together be alleged in the information and proved
with two auxiliary tanod, Dominador by the prosecution.
Amante1 and a certain Cabisudo, proceeded

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW Page 17


SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

The petitioner is presumed to have acted


If the primary and ultimate purpose of the with malice or evil intent when he married
accused is to kill the victim, the incidental the private complainant. As a general rule,
deprivation of the victim’s liberty does not mistake of fact or good faith of the accused
constitute the felony of kidnapping but is is a valid defense in a prosecution for a
merely a preparatory act to the killing, and felony by dolo; such defense negates malice
hence, is merged into, or absorbed by, the or criminal intent. However, ignorance of
killing of the victim.[16]The crime committed the law is not an excuse because everyone is
would either be homicide or murder. presumed to know the
What is primordial then is the specific law. Ignorantialegisneminemexcusat.
intent of the malefactors as disclosed in
the information or criminal complaint
that is determinative of what crime the
accused is charged with--that of murder It was the burden of the petitioner to prove
or kidnapping. his defense that when he married the private
complainant in 1996, he was of the well-
Specific intent may be proved by direct grounded belief that his first wife was
evidence or by circumstantial evidence. It already dead, as he had not heard from her
may be inferred from the circumstances of for more than 20 years since 1975. He
the actions of the accused as established by should have adduced in evidence a decision
the evidence on record.[19] of a competent court declaring the
Specific intent is not synonymous with presumptive death of his first wife as
motive. Motive generally is referred to as required by Article 349 of the Revised Penal
the reason which prompts the accused to Code, in relation to Article 41 of the Family
engage in a particular criminal activity. Code. Such judicial declaration also
constitutes proof that the petitioner acted
in good faith, and would negate
In this case, it is evident on the face of the criminal intent on his part
Information that the specific intent of the when he married the private complainant
malefactors in barging into the house of and, as a consequence, he could not be held
Modesto was to kill him and that he was guilty of bigamy in such case. The
seized precisely to kill him with the petitioner, however, failed to discharge his
attendant modifying circumstances. The act burden.
of the malefactors of abducting Modesto
was merely incidental to their primary
purpose of killing him. Moreover, there is PP V. ESPONILLA 404 SCRA 421 June
no specific allegation in the information 20, 2003(murder)
that the primary intent of the malefactors the appellants assert that if found guilty,
was to deprive Modesto of his freedom or they should only be made liable for the
liberty and that killing him was merely crime of homicide and not for murder. They
incidental to kidnapping.[23] Irrefragably claim that the prosecution failed to prove the
then, the crime charged in the Information is existence of the qualifying circumstance of
Murder under Article 248 of the Revised treachery.
Penal Code and not Kidnapping under The Court does not agree. The trial court
Article 268 thereof. correctly appreciated treachery as having
qualified the killing of the victim to
murder. Treachery is present when the
shooting was unexpected and sudden, giving
MANUEL V. PP 476 461 November 29, the unarmed victim no chance whatsoever to
2005(bigamy) defend himself. The two conditions for
treachery to be present are (1) that at the
In the present case, the prosecution proved time of the attack, the victim was not in a
that the petitioner was married to Gaña in position to defend himself, and (2) the
1975, and such marriage was not judicially offender consciously adopted the particular
declared a nullity; hence, the marriage is means, method, or form of attack employed
presumed to subsist.[36] The prosecution by him.[66]
also proved that the petitioner married the In the case at bar, the victim was shot at the
private complainant in 1996, long after the back. Though the Court is not unmindful
effectivity of the Family Code. that a shot at the back of the victim’s body is
not conclusive proof that there was
treachery, nonetheless, in this case, the
victim was in a wide open field, plowing his
farm. The attack was a complete surprise

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW Page 18


SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

and was unprovoked. There was hardly any


risk at all to the appellants. The victim was
plowing his farmland, completely
impervious that death was at hand. He was RECUERDO V. PP 493 SCRA 421 June
unarmed and was not in a position to defend 27, 2006(estafa)
himself against the assault of the FACTS: Petitioner avers that she acted in good
appellants. Clearly, he was killed in a faith and exerted her utmost efforts to confer with the
treacherous manner. private complainant to settle her obligations. She
points out that she made monthly cash payments to
The appellants are therefore guilty of lessen her civil liability and later on, for convenience,
murder, the prescribed penalty for which, deposited the monthly payments at the private
under Article 248 of the Revised Penal complainant’s bank account with the Bank of the
Code, isreclusionperpetua to death. There Philippine Islands. She continued to make payments
being neither mitigating nor aggravating even during the pendency of the case in the CA, and
continues to make deposits to private complainant’s
circumstance that attended the killing, the bank account.
lesser of the two indivisible penalties shall Petitioner asserts that her efforts to settle her
be imposed, i.e., reclusion perpetua, civil obligations to the private complainant
pursuant to Article 63 (2) of the Revised indicate that she has no intention of duping
Penal Code. the latter, as well as the absence of deceit on
her part. That she failed to comply with her
the rule is that conspiracy must be shown to obligations by failing to make good the
exist by direct or circumstantial evidence, as checks as they fell due does not suggest
clearly and convincingly as the crime deceit, but at best only financial hardship in
itself. In the absence of direct proof thereof, fulfilling her civil obligations. Thus, there is
as in the present case, it may be deduced no factual and legal basis to convict her of
from the mode, method, and manner by estafa. Petitioner insists that criminal intent
which the offense was perpetrated or in embezzlement is not based on technical
inferred from the acts of the accused mistakes as to the legal effect of a
themselves, when such acts point to a joint transaction honestly entered into, and there
purpose and design, concerted action, and can be no embezzlement if the mind of the
community of interest. Hence, it is person doing the act is innocent or if there is
necessary that a conspirator should have no wrongful purpose.
performed some overt act as a direct or Petitioner further avers that she should be
indirect contribution in the execution of the benefited by the Court’s ruling in People v.
crime planned to be committed. The overt Ojeda,7 considering that the facts therein are
act may consist of active participation in the parallel if not almost identical to this case,
actual commission of the crime itself or it the only difference being that, in the Ojeda
may consist of moral assistance to his co- case, the accused-appellant was able to fully
conspirators by being present at the settle her civil obligations
commission of the crime or by exerting
moral ascendancy over the other co- Held: In the case of Ojeda, the prosecution failed to
conspirators.[58] prove deceit. Ojeda never assured Chua the checks
In the case at bar, it was established that the were funded. Chua knew that the checks were issued
appellants suddenly arrived at the farmland to guarantee future payments. Furthermore, Ojeda did
of the victim, each armed with a gun. Even not only make arrangements for payment but she
fully paid the entire amount of the dishonored checks.
as Jose was shot, both the appellants tarried
In the instant case, the elements of deceit
at the scene, their firearms pointed at the
and damage were established by convincing
fallen victim, ready to finish him off. They
evidence. Petitioner Recuerdo issued the
left the situscriminis together after Enriqueta
subject bank checks as payment for the
had shouted for help. There is no evidence
pieces of jewelry simultaneous to the
that one prevented the other from shooting
transactions, that is, on the very same
the victim. The acts of the appellants
occasion when the pieces of jewelry were
before, during and after the commission of
bought. The issuance of the check by
the crime indicated a joint purpose and
Recuerdo was the principal inducement to
design, concerted action, and community of
private complainant to part with the subject
interest. If one of the two shot the victim,
jewelries (CA Decision, pp. 12-13). In
the other, armed with a lethal weapon, was
addition, petitioner only promised to replace
nonetheless present at the scene of the
the dishonored checks but she did not settle
crime, undoubtedly to lend moral and
her obligations with private complainant.
material assistance to the actual assassin —
Assuming that there was an offer to settle
another badge of conspiracy. Thus, the
her obligations, this will not overturn the
appellants as conspirators are equally liable
findings of the trial court and the Court of
as the principals for the crime.
Appeals as to the presence of deceit.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW Page 19


SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

The guilt of petitioner was proven beyond found GUILTY of the crime of
reasonable doubt. MALTREATMENT, as defined and
The crime of Estafa under Article 315, punished by Article 266, par. 3 of the
paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code Revised Penal Code. He is accordingly
has the following basic elements: sentenced to suffer the penalty of
Postdating or issuance of a check in imprisonment of arrestomenor of 10 days.
payment of an obligation contracted Considering that appellant has been
simultaneously at the time the check was incarcerated since 2004, which is well-
issued; beyond the period of the penalty herein
The postdating or issuance was done when imposed, the Director of the Bureau of
the offender had no funds in the bank, or Prisons is ordered to cause appellant’s
that his funds deposited therein were not IMMEDIATE RELEASE, unless appellant
sufficient to cover the amount of the check; is being lawfully held for another cause, and
and to inform this Court, within five (5) days
Damage to the payee thereof (Justice Luis B. from receipt of this Decision, of the
Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Thirteenth compliance therewith.
Edition 1993, Book Two, p. 693; People v. D. Mistake of fact
Panganiban, 335 SCRA 354). US V. AH CHONG 15 Phil. 488
FACTS:
The existence of the foregoing elements of Ah Chong worked as a cook at the
the crime was concretely established by the “Officers’ quarters No. 27, Fort McKinley,
prosecution through convincing evidence, Rizal Province.” The said place was a
warranting petitioner’s conviction of the detached house around 40 meters away from
offense of Estafa. the nearest building. It also served as the
officers’ “mess” room. Only Ah Chong and
PP V. MAPALOG.R. No. 172608 PascualGualberto, a muchaho slept in that
February 6, 2007 place. It was not furnished with a permanent
lock. O August 14, 1908, around 10′o clock
HELD: Homicidal intent must be evidenced by the in the evening, Ah Chong was suddenly
acts that, at the time of their execution, are awaken because someone had been trying to
unmistakably calculated to produce the death of the open the room. Out of fear, I shouted “who
victim by adequate means.97 We cannot infer intent to
kill from the appellant’s act of hitting Piamonte in the
is there” but none replied. Instead, the other
head with a lead pipe. In the first place, wounds were person kept on forcing his entry. Ah Chong
not shown to have been inflicted because of the act. believed that it was a thief, and shouted
Secondly, absent proof of circumstances to show the again “if you enter, I will kill you!” Again
intent to kill beyond reasonable doubt, this Court none replied. Upon entry, and out of fear
cannot declare that the same was attendant.
Ah Chong inflicted a wound. When he
When the offender shall ill-treat another by
realized, that person was Gualberto. He
deed without causing any injury, and
immediately called his employers and
without causing dishonor, the offense is
dressed Pascual’s wound.
Maltreatment under Article 266,98 par. 3 of
ISSUE:
the Revised Penal Code. It was beyond
Whether or not should Ah Chong should
reasonable doubt that by hitting Piamonte,
be exempt from criminal liability?
appellant ill-treated the latter, without
HELD:
causing any injury. As we have earlier
YES. The Supreme Court held that
stated, no proof of injury was offered.
“A careful examination of the facts as
Maltreatment is necessarily included in
disclosed in the case at bar convinces us
Murder, which is the offense charged in the
that the defendant Chinaman struck the fatal
Information. Thus:
blow alleged in the information in the firm
ART. 266. Slight physical injuries and
belief that the intruder who forced open the
maltreatment. – The crime of slight physical
door of his sleeping room was a thief, from
injuries shall be punished:
whose assault he was in imminent peril, both
x xxx
of his life and of his property and of the
3. By arrestomenor in its minimum period or
property committed to his charge; that in
a fine not exceeding 50 pesos when the
view of all the circumstances, as they must
offender shall ill-treat another by deed
have presented themselves to the defendant
without causing any injury.
at the time, he acted in good faith, without
The duration of the penalty of arrestomenor
malice, or criminal intent, in the belief that
in its minimum period is 1 day to 10 days.
he was doing no more than exercising his
legitimate right of self-defense; that had the
Appellant Bernard Mapalo is ACQUITTED
facts been as he believed them to be he
of the charge of MURDER for lack of
would have been wholly exempt from
evidence beyond reasonable doubt. He is

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW Page 20


SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

criminal liability on account of his act; and MUPAS & MUPAS V. PP 172834 February
that he can not be said to have been guilty of 5, 2008
negligence or recklessness or even
carelessness in falling into his mistake as to VALENZUELA V. PP 160188 June 21,
the facts, or in the means adopted by him to 2007
defend himself from the imminent danger
which he believe threatened his person and PP V. QUINANOLA 126148 May 5, 1999
his property and the property under his
charge.” PP V. ORANDE 415 SCRA 699 November
12, 2003
E. Mala in Se/ Mala Prohibita
LONEY V. PP 482 SCRA 195 February 10. H. Conspiracy
2006 PP V. PAGALASAN 404 SCRA 275

GARCIA V. CA 484 SCRA 617 March 14, PP V. CASTILLO 425 SCRA 136
2006
PP V. LARRANAGA 421 SCRA 530
F. Article 4: Proximate Cause Theory &
Impossible CeimeDocteine FERNAN et. al. V. PP 145927
Cinsolidated Cases of Villareal V. PP, G.R.
No. 151258 PP V. GARCHITORENA 597 SCRA 420

PP V. CA, et.al. G.R. No. 154954 PP V. CARANDANG, et.al. 175926

DIZON V. PP G.R. No. 155101 PP V. BOKINGCO, et.al. 187536

VILLA V. ESCALONA II G.R. no. 178057 I.


& 178080 JUSTIFYING/EXEMPTING/AGGRAVA
TING Circumstances
URBANO V. IAC 157 ACRA 1 January 7,
1988 PP V. FORD GUTIERREZ 188602

PP V. VILLACORTA G.R. No. 186412 PP V. REGALARIO 582 SCRA 738


September 7, 2011
TOLEDO V. PP 439 SCRA 94
PP V. NOEL SALES G.R. No. 177218
October 3, 2011 MADALI V. PP 595 SCRA 274

GARCIA V. PP 597 ACRA 392 August 28, PP V. SARCIA 599 SCRA 20


2009
PP V. MANTALABA 186227
INTOD V. CA 215 SCRA 52 October 12,
1992 PP V. BALDOGO 396 SCRA 31

JACINTO V. PP 592 SCRA 426 July 13, TY V. PP 439 SCRA 220


2009
URBANO V. PP 576 SCRA 826
G. Consummated/Frustrated/ Attempted
Felonies PP V. ANOD 597 SCRA 205

PP V. LIZADA 396 SCRA 62 January 24, PP V. IGNAS 412 SCRA 311


2003
PP V. MANGUERA 398 SCRA 618
BALEROS V. PP 483 SCRA 10 February
22, 2006 PP V. ALFON 399 SCRA 64

RIVERA V. PP 480 SCRA 188 January 25, PP V. TABARNERO 168169


2006
PP V. BOKINGCO 187536
VALENZUEL V. PP 596 SCRA 1 August
14, 2009 Instigation v. Entrapment
PP V. NAELGA 599 SCRA 477

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW Page 21


SIERAMON AGATEP LACAMBRA

J. Principals/Accomplices/Accessories
PP V. OCO 412 SCRA 190

PCGG V. DESIERTO 397 SCRA 171

K. Extinction of Criminal Liability


PP V. BAUTISTA 168641

BRILLANTE V. CA 440 SRA 541

PANGAN V. GALBALITE 449 SCRA 145

ABELLANA V. PEOPLE, et.al 174654

IV. THE RPC. BOOK TWO &


RELATED SPECIAL PENAL LAWS
A. Articles 114-123: Crimes against
National Security and The Law of
Nations
Relate to: PD 532 Anti-Piracy & Anti-
Highway Robbery Act
RA 6235 anti-Hijacking Law
RA 9372 Human Security Act of 2007

B. Articles 124-133: Crimes against the


Fundamental Law of the State

C. Articles 134-159: Crimes Against


Public Order
Relate to: PD 1866 as amended by RA 8294
Illegal Possession of Firearms,
Ammunitions & Explosives

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW Page 22