CRIMINAL LAW – branch or division of law which defines
All persons, EXCEPT those charged with offenses
crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for their
punishment
1. Defines crimes – [civil law country] when there is no
law against an act or omission, then there is no crime
2. Nature – Elements of a crime [absence of one
element is a ground for the acquittal of the accused]
CRIME – act committed or omitted in violation of a public
law forbidding or commanding it
Sources of Philippine Criminal Law
1. RPC (Act 3815)
2. Special Penal Laws
3. Penal P.D. issued during Martial Law
Philippines is CIVIL LAW COUNTRY not common law
*Common Law – not defined as crimes or enacted by
legislature but considered by society as crimes
*Court decisions are not sources of criminal law because they
merely explain the meaning of, and apply, the law
Basis of the State’s power to define and punish crime: Police
Power
*Police Power – power of the state to regulate liberty and
property for the promotion of the general welfare of the people
Limitation on the Power of the Lawmaking Body Enact Penal
Legislations
1. Art III Sec22 – No ex post facto law or bill attainder
shall be enacted
2. Art III Sec14(1) – No person shall be held to answer
for criminal offense without due process of law
(applies to the judicial branch)
EX POST FACTO:
a. Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the
law and which was innocent when done, and
punishes such an act
b. Aggravates a crime, or make it greater than it was,
when committed
c. Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater
punishment than the law annexed to the crime when
committed
d. Alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes
conviction upon less or different testimony than the
law required at the time of the commission of the
offense
e. Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in
effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for
something which when done is lawful
f. Deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful
protection to which he has become entitled, such as
the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a
proclamation of amnesty
BILL OF ATTAINDER – legislative act which inflicts
punishment without trial
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED:
1. All persons shall have the right to speedy disposition
of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial or
administrative bodies (Sec16)
2. No person shall be held to answer for criminal
offense without due process of law (Sec14 [1])
3.
punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of
guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by
sufficient sureties, or to be released on recognizance
as may be provided by law.
The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the
privilege of writ of habeas corpus is suspended.
Excessive bail shall not be required.
4. 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
accusation against him, to have speedy, impartial,
and public trial, to meet with 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. (Sec14[2])
5. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against
himself. (Sec17)
Any person under investigation for the commission
of an offense shall have the right to be informed of
his right to remain silent and to have competent and
independent counsel preferably of his own choice.
If the person cannot afford the services of a counsel,
he must be provided with one.
These rights cannot be waived except in writing and
in the presence of counsel. (Sec12 [1])
No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or
any other means which vitiate the free will shall be
used against him. Secret detention places, solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention
are prohibited.
Any confession or admission obtained in violation of
this or section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in
evidence against him. (Sec12 [3])
6. Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel,
degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. (Sec19
[1])
7. 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. (Sec21)
8. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies
and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to
any person by reason of poverty. (Sec11)
STATUTORY RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED (Section1 Rule
115 of Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure):
1. Presumed innocent until the contrary is proved
beyond reasonable doubt
2. To be informed of the nature and cause of accusation
against him
3. To be present and defend in person and by counsel at
every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to
promulgation of the judgment
4. 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
 5. Exempt from being compelled to be a witness against
himself
6. Confront and cross-examine the witnesses against
him at the trial
7. Have compulsory process issued to secure the
attendance of witnesses and production of other
evidence in his behalf
8. Have speedy, impartial and public trial
9. Appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner
prescribed by law
Rights which can be waived: right to confrontation and
confrontation
Cannot be waived: right of the accused to be informed of the
nature and cause of accusation against him
*Rights which are personal can be waived, rights involving
public interest which may be affected cannot be waived.
CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW
1. General
2. Territorial
3. Prospective
GENERAL – criminal law is binding on all persons who live
or sojourn in the Philippine territory (Art14 of New Civil
Code)
GR: Jurisdiction of civil courts is not affected by the military
character of the accused (U.S. vs. Sweet  Sweet, an
employee of the US army assaulted a prisoner of war)
Exception:
1. Article 2 RPC – “Treatises and laws of preferential
application”
2. Article 14 of the new Civil Code – “principles of
public international law and to treaty stipulations
Examples of treaty and treaty stipulations: (1) Bases
Agreement (2) RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement
Example of Law of preferential application: R.A. 75 – in favor
of diplomatic representatives and their domestic servants
PERSONS EXEMPT FROM THE OPERATION OF OUR
CRIMINAL LAWS BY VIRTUE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
1. Sovereigns and other chiefs of state
2. Ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, ministers
resident, and charges d’affaires – diplomatic
representatives
*Consuls, vice-consuls and other commercial
representatives of foreign nations are not entitled to the
privileges or immunities of an ambassador or minister (in
the absence of a treaty to the contrary, consuls are subject
to the laws of the country to which he is accredited
*Civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction with general courts-
martial over soldiers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
(murder, malversation by an army finance officer) Even in
times of war, provided that in the place of the commission of
the crime, no hostilities are in progress and civil courts are
functioning
*RPC or other penal laws are not applicable when the military
court takes cognizance of the case involving a person subject
to military law = Articles of War apply
*Prosecution of an accused before a court-martial is a bar to
another prosecution of the accused for the same offense
(Reason: double jeopardy)
*Offender accused of war crimes are triable by military
commission
*Military commissions have jurisdiction so long as a technical
state of war continues (war is not ended because hostilities
have ceased because incidents of war may remain pending
which should be disposed of as in time of war)
TERRITORIAL – criminal laws undertake to punish crimes
committed within the Philippine territory
PRINCIPLE OF TERRITORIALITY – penal laws of the
Philippines are enforceable only within its territory
(Art I of the Constitution) – national territory comprises the
Philippines archipelago, with all the islands and waters
embraced therein, and all other territories over which the
Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of all its
terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its territorial
sea, seabed, subsoil, insular shelves and other submarine
areas. Waters around, between, and connecting the islands of
the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions,
form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.
Exceptions (Article 2, RPC):
1. Commit an offense on board a Philippine ship or
airship
2. Forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the
Philippines or obligations and securities issued by the
Philippine government
3. Liable for acts connected with the introduction into
Philippines obligations and securities mentioned in
the preceding number
4. Public officers or employees who commit an offense
in the exercise of their functions
5. Should commit crimes against national security and
the law of nations
PROSPECTIVE – penal law cannot make an act punishable in
a manner in which it was not punishable when committed
*Art366, RPC – crimes are punished under the law in force at
the time of their commission
Exceptions: where penal law is more lenient or favorable to
the accused, it can be given retroactive effect
*Exception to the exception:
1. New law is expressly made inapplicable to pending
actions or existing causes of actions
2. Offender is a habitual criminal
Effects of Repeal of Penal Law:
1. Repeal makes the penalty lighter – new law shall
apply EXCEPT when offender is a habitual
delinquent or make inapplicable to pending action or
causes of action
2. Repeal makes the penalty heavier – law in force at
the time of the commission of the offense will be
applied
3. New law totally repeals the existing law – (to the
effect that the act which was penalized is no longer
punishable) crime is obliterated
Absolute Repeal – offense ceases to be a crime
(decriminalization); Effect: pending case is dismissed, those
serving time are released
*Repeal of a penal law by its reenactment, will not destroy
criminal liability. (U.S. vs. Cuna – selling opium)
*When the new law and the old law penalize the same offense,
the offender can be tried under the old law (U.S. vs. Cuna)
[new law is not more favorable, so old law will be enforced]
*When repealing law fails to penalize the offense under the
old law, the accused cannot be convicted under the new law
(People vs. Sindiong and Pastor – neglecting to make return of
sales of newspapers and magazines within the time prescribed
by the Revised Administrative Code  law was repealed by
the National Internal revenue Code wherein such return of
sales is not required)
*A person erroneously accused and convicted under a
repealed statute may be punished under the repealing statute
(People vs. Baesa – for having failed to pay his employee’s
salary, Baesa was convicted under Com. Act 303,
subsequently repealed by RA602, with which its provisions
are inconsistent, will not prevent his conviction under the
repealing law which punishes the same act, provided that
accused had an opportunity to defend himself against the
charge brought against him)
*A new law which omits anything contained in the old law
dealing on the same subject, operates as a repeal of anything
not so included in the amendatory act – cessante ratione legis
cessat ipsa lex (when the reason for the law ceases, the law
itself also ceases)
Partial or Implied Repeal – still punishable but modified;
example, lesser punishment
Self-repealing law – expiration of a law by its own limitation
(Effect: deprivation of the courts to try, convict and sentence
persons charged with violation of the old law prior to the
repeal)
CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS
1. Penal laws are strictly construed against the
government and in favor of the accused (can be
invoked only where the law is ambiguous and there is
doubt as to its application; no room for interpretation
where the law is clear and unambiguous) - (People
vs. Garcia  Act4130 as amended by
Commonwealth Act 301 penalizes persons who sold
tickets of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes without
being a duly authorized agent. PCSO tickets were
different from the tickets being sold by Garcia. He
must be acquitted because no person should be
brought within the terms of criminal statute who is
not clearly within them, nor should any act be
pronounced criminal which is not clearly made so by
the statute)
2. In the construction or interpretation of the provisions
of the RPC, Spanish text is controlling because it was
approved by the Philippine Legislature in its Spanish
text (People vs. Mangulabnan  Robbery with
accidental homicide. Spanish text which states that
robbery with homicide is a criminal act even if
homicide is a mere accident even though the RPC
conveys the meaning that homicide should be
intentionally committed [Under the Spanish text, it is
sufficient that homicide resulted, even if by accident].
REVISED PENAL CODE
(ACT 3815, AS AMENDED)
RPC consists of 2 books:
1. Book One – (a) basic principles affecting criminal
liability (Art1-20); (b) provisions on penalties
including criminal and civil liability (Art21-113)
2. Book Two – defined felonies with corresponding
penalties (grouped into 14 different titles; Art114-
365)
ARTICLE 1. TIME WHEN ACT TAKES EFFECT – THIS
CODE SHALL TAKE EFFECT ON THE FIRST DAY OF
JANURAY, NINETEEN HUNDRED AND THIRTY-TWO.
RPC took effect on January 1, 1932
3 Theories in Criminal Law:
1. Classical Theory (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a
tooth)
a. Basis of criminal liability: human free will
b. Purpose of penalty: retribution
c. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth
d. Man is free to choose between good and evil,
thus, there is more stress upon the effect or result
of the felonious act (strong sense of
responsibility)
e. Establishes a mechanical and direct proportion
between crime and penalty
f. Scant regard to the human element
2. Positivist Theory (society made man that way)
a. Purpose: Reformation
b. Man is subdued occasionally by a strange and
morbid phenomenon which constrains him to do
wrong, in spite of or contrary to his volition (no
sense of responsibility)
c. Crime is a social and natural phenomenon and
cannot be treated and checked by the application
of abstract principles of law and jurisprudence
nor by the imposition of a punishment
3. Ecclectic Theory (mix of the Classical and Positivist)
a. Classical theory for heinous crimes
b. Positivist theory for social crimes
*RPC is mainly based on the classical theory but positivistic
on some provisions (i.e. juvenile delinquency, impossible
crime, aggravating, mitigating and justifying circumstances)
ARTICLE 2. APPLICATION OF ITS PROVISIONS –
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THE TREATIES AND LAWS
OF PREFERENTIAL APPLICATION, THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS CODE SHALL BE ENFORCED NOT ONLY
WITHIN THE PHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGO, INCLUDING
ITS ATMOSPHERE, ITS INTERIOR WATERS AND
MARITIME ZONE, BUT ALSO OUTSIDE OF ITS
JURISDICTION, AGAINST THOSE WHO:
1. SHOULD COMMIT AN OFFENSE WHILE ON
BOARD A PHILIPPINE SHIP OR AIRSHIP
2. SHOULD FORGE OR COUNTERFEIT ANY COIN
OR CURRENCY NOTE OF THE PHILIPPINE
ISLANDS OR OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES
ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS
3. SHOULD BE LIABLE FOR ACTS CONNECTED
WITH THE INTRODUCTION INTO THESE
ISLANDS OF THE OBLIGATIONS AND
SECURITIES MENTIONED IN THE PRECEDING
NUMBER
 4. WHILE BEING PUBLIC OFFICERS OR
EMPLOYEES, SHOULD COMMIT AN OFFENSE
IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR FUNCTIONS
5. SHOULD COMMIT ANY OF THE CRIMES
AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE
ALW OF NATIONS, DEFINED IN TITLE ONE OF
BOOK TWO OF THIS CODE.
*Exception must be strictly construed (rule in statcon) because
the exception was emphasized – first word in Art2
Exceptions to Art2: Treatises and laws of preferential
applications
Atmosphere – penal laws extend to all air space covered by
the territory SUBJECT to right of way or easement in favor of
foreign aircrafts
Interior Waters – all body of waters within the 3-mile limit
Maritime Zone – includes bays, gulfs, adjacent parts of the sea
or recesses in the coastline whose width at their entrance is not
more than 12miles measured in a straight line from headland
to headland, and all straits of less than 6miles wide (for straits
having more width, the space in the center outside of the
maritime league limits is considered as open sea)
*Foreign merchant ships is an extension of the territory of the
country to which it belongs and offenses committed on such in
high seas is not triable by our courts
*Offenses committed on board a foreign vessel while on
Philippine waters is triable before our court  Continuing
crime on board a foreign vessel is triable when forbidden
conditions existed during the time the ship was within
territorial waters (ex. Norweigian Ship)
2 Rules as to the jurisdiction over crimes committed on board
foreign merchant vessels
1. French Rule – Not triable unless the commission
affects the peace and security of the territory or safety
of the state is endangered
2. English Rule – Triable in the country unless they
merely affect things within the vessel or they refer to
internal management
*Philippines observes the English Rule (reason: It goes well
with the territorial rule).
SHOULD COMMIT AN OFFENSE WHILE ON BOARD A
PHILIPPINE SHIP OR AIRSHIP
GR: Penal laws do not apply if ship is outside the Philippines
Exception: Philippines has jurisdiction over registered private
merchant vessels that are outside the Philippine territory but
within international waters and outside the jurisdiction of
other countries
*Applies to Philippine vessels even beyond the 3-mile limit
(triable before our civil courts) but when Philippine vessel is
found in a foreign territory = subject to the laws of the foreign
country
*Ownership of the vessel depends on its registration (so long
as registered under Philippine laws in the Philippine Bureau of
Customs, it shall be considered as an extension of the
Philippine territory). A Filipino owning a vessel not registered
under Philippine laws will not be criminally liable under
Philippine laws.
*If vessel is unregistered, Art2 will not apply
SHOULD FORGE OR COUNTERFEIT ANY COIN OR
CURRENCY NOTE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS OR
OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES ISSUED BY THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS
*Persons who make such are liable even though the act is done
in a foreign country
SHOULD BE LIABLE FOR ACTS CONNECTED WITH
THE INTRODUCTION INTO THESE ISLANDS OF THE
OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES MENTIONED IN THE
PRECEDING NUMBER
*Reason: introduction of such is as dangerous as forging or
counterfeiting the same, to the economical interest of the
country
WHILE BEING PUBLIC OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES,
SHOULD COMMIT AN OFFENSE IN THE EXERCISE OF
THEIR FUNCTIONS
Examples: direct and indirect bribery (Art210,211); frauds
against public treasury (Art213), possession of prohibited
interest (Art216), malversation of public funds or property
(Art217), failure of accountable officer to render accounts
(Art218), illegal use of public funds or property (Art220),
failure to make delivery of public funds or property (Art221)
and falsification by a public officer or employee committed
with abuse of his official position (Art171)
*Can be prosecuted here even when committed abroad
*Philippine ambassador to Australia committed malversation
of funds and falsification of public documents while in an
office in Australia = liable under Philippine Courts; but if he
committed rape, he cannot necessarily be held liable because it
is not related to his official functions as a diplomat
SHOULD COMMIT ANY OF THE CRIMES AGAINST
NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE ALW OF NATIONS,
DEFINED IN TITLE ONE OF BOOK TWO OF THIS CODE
Law of Nations – Crimes against humanity (example Human
Trafficking)
Examples: treason (Art114), conspiracy and proposal to
commit treason (Art115), espionage (Art117), inciting to war
and giving motives for reprisals (Art118), violation of
neutrality (Art119), correspondence with hostile country
(Art120), flight to enemy’s country (Art121), and piracy and
mutiny on the high seas (Art122)
RTC has original jurisdiction over all crimes and offenses
committed on the high seas or beyond the jurisdiction of any
country on board a ship or warcraft of any kind registered in
the Philippines
Jurisdiction over homicide committed on board a foreign
merchant vessel by a crew member against another –
Philippines will only have jurisdiction if public peace is
disturbed, otherwise, the jurisdiction lies with the sovereignty
of the home of the ship
*Crimes involving breach of public order committed on board
a foreign merchant vessel in transit (possession of opium) =
not triable by our courts (reason: does not constitute breach of
public order without being within Philippine soil); if not in
transit, liable for illegal importation
*Smoking opium on board a foreign vessel anchored within
Philippine territory constitutes breach of public order
Warship Rule –a warship of another country, even though
docked in the Philippines is considered an extension of the
territory of its respective country (acts done within a warship
of another country cannot be subjected to the criminal law of
the Philippines
*Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over offenses
committed on board foreign warships in territorial waters
(warships are always reputed to be the territory of the country
to which it belongs and cannot be subject to the laws of
another state; A US Army transport is considered a warship)
3. Persons owing allegiance to the Philippines not
disclosing knowledge of conspiracy against the
government – misprision of treason
*Mere passive presence at the scene of another’s crime, mere
silence and failure to give the alarm, without evidence of
agreement or conspiracy, is not punishable
Punishable by law – no crime where there is no law punishing
it (punished by RPC not by a special law)

ARTICLE 3. DEFINITIONS – ACTS AND OMISSIONS Classifications of felonies:

PUNISHABLE BY LAW ARE FELONIES (DELITOS). 1. Intentional Felonies – act or omission of the offender
FELONIES ARE COMMITTED NOT ONLY BY is malicious; done with deliberate intent (with the
MEANS OF DECEIT (DOLO) BUT ALSO BY MEANS OF intention to cause an injury to another)
FAULTY (CULPA). 2. Culpable Felonies – act or omission of the offender is
THERE IS DECEIT WHEN THE ACT IS not malicious; unintentional injury caused to another;
PERFORMED WITH DELIBERATE INTENT AND THERE done without malice (imprudence, negligence, lack of
IS FAULT WHEN THE WRONGFUL ACT RESULTS foresight, lack of skill)
FROM IMPRUDENCE, NEGLIGENCE, LACK OF Examples: Malversation through negligence
FORESIGHT, OR LACK OF SKILL. (Art217), Evasion through negligence (Art224), Acts
*Deceit = intent by imprudence of negligence (Art365)
*Fault or Culpa – Quasi-offenses (without intent) Dolus – malice; intent to do an injury
IMPRUDENCE – deficiency of action (lack of skills); fails to
FELONIES – acts and omissions punishable by the RPC take the necessary precaution to avoid injury to person or
-different from- damage to property; performed without prudence in
“Crime” and “Offense” – infractions of the law punished by connection with the circumstances
special statutes NEGLIGENCE – deficiency of perception (lack of foresight);
RPC Special Law fails to pay proper attention and to use due diligence in
Mala Prohibita (Ought to foreseeing the injury or damage impending to be caused;
Mala in Se performed without taking into account the consequences
Know)
Wrong merely because (Reason for punishing negligence: a man must use common
Wrongful from their nature sense and exercise due reflection in all his acts; duty to be
prohibited by statute
Intent is required to cautious, careful and prudent)
Intent is not Required as long *Reckless Imprudence – done voluntarily but without malice;
determine whether or not
as a violation was committed doing or failing to do an act from which material damage
there is a violation
Examples: results (ex. Hunter with 2 companions Homicide through
Acts of Lasciviousness vs. Harassment reckless imprudence [People vs. Ramirez]); a person who
Theft vs. Anti-Fencing Law caused an injury, without intention to cause an evil may be
*Inherently immoral = mala in se even if punishable by held liable for culpable felony
special laws Voluntary – concurrence of intelligence, freedom and intent
Cause of Action (Wrong must be and Actionable Wrong) *A criminal act is presumed to be voluntary, and in the
1. absence of indubitable explanation, act must be declared
2. voluntary and punishable.
3. *Act becomes involuntary when there is compulsion or
4. Enforceable at Law prevention by force or intimidation.

Elements: Reasons why the act or omission in felonies must be voluntary

1. Act or omission
2. Punishable by RPC
3. Such act or omission is incurred by means of dolo or
culpa
Act – external act which has direct connection with the felony
intended to be committed
*Internal acts are beyond the sphere of penal laws
Omission – inaction; the failure to perform a positive duty
which one is bound to do (there must be a law requiring the
doing or performance of an act)
Examples of felony by omission:
1. Abandonment of persons in danger
2. Illegal exaction for officers collecting taxes who
voluntarily fails to issue a receipt
1. RPC based on Classical Theory – that the basis for
criminal liability is human free will
2. Acts or omissions punished by law are always
deemed voluntary since man is a rational being
3. In intentional felonies, act performed with deliberate
intent must necessarily be voluntary, while in
culpable felony, it is the voluntary doing or failing to
do an act from which material injury results
REQUISITES OF DOLO OR MALICE: (FII)
1. Freedom [voluntariness] (reason: person who acts
without freedom is not a human being, he is a tool)
2. Intelligence [Deliberate Intent] while doing or
omitting to do an act (reason: without intelligence to
determine the morality of the act, there is no crime
[examples, insane and minors below 9 years of age])
 3. Intent or Malice (Malice or criminal intent is
presumed and presumption arises from the proof of
commission of an unlawful act)
*A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible
force is not criminally liable
*A person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable
fear of an equal or greater injury I not criminally liable also.
Without Freedom
or = Without Intent
Intelligence
* Freedom + Intelligence – Intent = No fault or Intention = no
Liability
Example: A person conceals the belongings of another and
denies such without a satisfactory explanation = with intention
*Intent is necessary because:
1. Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea – the act itself
does not make a man guilty unless his intention were
so
2. Actus me invite factus non est meus actus – an done
by me against my will is not my act
General Intent – third element of voluntariness
- different from –
Specific Intent – example, intent to gain, intent to kill, etc.
Presumption of criminal intent does not arise from the proof of
the commission of an act which is not unlawful
Actus Non Facit Reum, Nisi Mens Sit Rea – a crime is not
committed if the mind of the person performing the act
complained be innocent
GR: If it is proved that the accused committed the criminal act
charged it is a presumption that the act done was with criminal
intention and the burden of proof rests with the accused to
rebut such presumption
Requisite: Act from which such presumption springs must be a
criminal act
*No felony by dolo if there is no intent (mistake of fact) = not
voluntary; no criminal intent (example: sleepwalking)
Mistake of Fact (example: US vs. Achong – landmark case)
Requisites:
1. (Lawful Facts / Belief) Act would have been lawful
had the facts been as the accused believed it to be
2. (Lawful Intention) Intention of the accused in
performing the act should be lawful
3. Without fault or carelessness on the part of the
accused
Effect of Mistake of Fact:
1. Act will constitute justifying circumstance
2. Act will constitute an absolutory cause
3. Act will constitute an involuntary act
Ignorantia facti excusat – ignorance or mistake fact relieves
the accused from criminal liability
*Misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused
injury to another = not liable = did not act with criminal intent
Honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal
intent which arises upon the commission of a felonies act.
Danmum Absque Injuria – Damage without Prejudice
(example, US vs. Achong)
*Lack of intent to commit a crime may be inferred from the
facts of the case
People vs. Oanis not mistake of fact (at fault)
*Mistake in Identity does not relieve the accused from
criminal responsibility (acted maliciously and willfully; there
is intent)
*No crime of resistance when there is mistake of fact (A
person who resist arrest believing the peace officer to be a
bandit but who submits to the arrest upon being informed by
the peace officer that he is a policeman is not guilty of
resistance)
When there is negligence, mistake of fact is not a defense
(example, People vs. De Fernando – stairs)
Requisites for Culpable Felonies [quasi-offenses; not from a
criminal mind]:
1. Freedom
2. Intelligence
3. Imprudent, Negligent, Lack of foresight, Lack of skill
*In culpable felonies, the injury caused must be unintentional,
it being the incident of another act performed without malice
(example, People vs. Guillen – Bomb)
Causing damage or injury to another without malice or fault
does no give rise to criminal liability as long as the act
performed is lawful (example: accident without fault or
intention – not within the definition of intentional or culpable
felony)
3 Classes of Crimes
1. Intentional Felonies
2. Culpable Felonies
3. Punishable by Special Laws
GR: Dolo is not required in crimes punished by special laws
(reason: act is injurious to public welfare and the doing of the
prohibited act is the crime itself)
Requisites:
1. Criminal Intent
2. Intent to perpetrate the Act
*It is enough that the prohibited act is done freely and
consciously – crimes punished by special laws, it is enough
that the act alone, irrespective of its motives, constitutes the
offense)
Example: People vs. Bayona (Gun during Election Period –
Mala Prohibita)
*Good faith is and absence of criminal intent not a valid
defense in crimes punished by special laws (example:
unlicensed possession is sufficient to sustain a conviction of
illegal possession of firearms)
Exception:
1. People vs. Landicho – temporary and incidental
possession of firearms  enforcing the law by
collecting firearms
2. Civilian Guards
3. People vs. Mallari – pending application for
permanent permit to possess firearm with advise of
agent of the law to keep it in the meantime
4. People vs. Lucero – civilian confidential agents
entrusted with the duty of surveillance and effecting
the killing or capture of wanted persons
Motive Intent
Moving power which impels Purpose to use a particular
one to action for a definite means to effect such result
result (example: revenge) (malice?)
Reason for doing or not doing
 an act (not an essential
element of a crime)
*Person may not have the motive but has the intent (example:
serial killers)
*Good motive does not prevent an act from being a crime
GR: Proof of motive is not necessary to pin a crime on the
accused if the commission of the crime has been proven and
the evidence of identification is convincing
Exceptions:
1. There is doubt as to the identity of the assailant -
Identity of the person accused of having committed a
crime is in dispute
2. Important in ascertaining the truth between 2
antagonistic theories or versions of killing
3. Identification of the accused proceeds from an
unreliable source and the testimony is inconclusive
and not free from doubt
4. No eyewitnesses and suspicion is likely to fall upon a
number of persons
5. Evidence is merely circumstancial
How motive is proved
GR: Testimony of witnesses (Can also be proved by evidence)
*Proof of motive is not sufficient to support a conviction IF
there is no reliable evidence from which it may be reasonably
deduced that the accused was the malefactor
*Strong motive to commit the crime cannot take the place of
proof beyond reasonable doubt because proof beyond
reasonable doubt is the mainstay of our accusatorial system of
criminal justice
*Lack of motive may be an aid in showing the innocence of
the accused (example: sleepwalking)
ARTICLE 4. CRIMINAL LIABILITY – CRIMINAL
LIABILITY SHALL BE INCURRED:
1. BY PERSONS COMMITTING FELONY (DELITO)
ALTHOUGH THE WRONGFUL ACT DONE BE
DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH HE
INTENDED
2. BY PERSONS PERFORMING AN ACT WHICH
WOULD BE AN OFFENSE AGAINST PERSONS
OR PROPERTY, WERE IT NOT FOR THE
INHERENT IMPOSSIBILITY OF ITS
ACCOMPLISHMENT OR ON ACCOUNT OF THE
EMPLOYMENT OF INADEQUATE OR
INEFFECTUAL MEANS
Article 4 (1) requisites:
1. Intentional Felony
2. Wrong done to the aggrieved party be direct, natural
and logical consequence of felony committed
Coverage of Art 4 (1):
1. Mistake in Identity (Error in Personae) – People vs.
Oanis
2. Mistake in the Blow (Aberratio Ictus) – People vs.
Mabugat (Intention to shoot Juana but Perfecta was
hit instead)
3. Injurious result is greater than that intended (Praeter
Intentionem) – People vs. Cagoco [without intention
to kill, he struck the victim in the head from behind
causing victim to fall and hit his head]
*Any person who creates in another’s mind an immediate
sense of danger, which causes the latter to do something
resulting in the latter’s injuries is liable for the resulting
injuries.
Reason: he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the
evil caused - Proximate Cause (example: People vs. Mario
Mariano – rape = death of the girl)
Not Applicable in US vs. Divino – rags with petroleum =
physical injuries through reckless imprudence and illegal
practice of medicine
No felony = not liable for results which are not intended
(example: People vs. Bindoy – bolo and bystander; no
intention to hurt anyone)
No felony if:
1. Act or omission is not punishable by RPC
2. Justifying Circumstances
2nd Requisite of Art4(1): Wrong done to aggrieved party be
direct, natural and logical consequence of felony committed
1. Victim chased by a person with a knife jumped into
the water and drowned
2. People vs. Quianson – wound inflicted by the
accused caused extreme pain and restlessness causing
victim to remove the draining from the wound =
death by peritonitis
3. Other causes cooperated in producing the fatal result,
as long as the wound inflicted is dangerous
(calculated to endanger life) [if injury would not have
caused death, then there is no homicide]
4. Victim suffering from internal malady
5. People vs. Marasigan - offended party not obliged to
submit to a surgical operatio0n to relieve accused
from the natural and ordinary results of his crime
a. Blow is the efficient cause of death
b. Blow accelerated death
c. Blow was the proximate cause of death
6. Resulting injury aggravated by infection – (People
vs. Martir) Accused is liable for all the consequence
of his acts and the infection of a wound he caused is
one of the consequence for which he is answerable.
(US vs. de los Santos) Infection should not be due to
the malicious act of the offended party.
PROXIMATE CAUSE – that cause which, in natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening
cause, producing the injury and without which the injury
would not have occurred
Natural – occurrence in the ordinary course of human life or
events
Logical – rational connection between the act of the accused
and the resulting injury or damage
*Felony committed must be the proximate cause of the
resulting injury
PROXIMATE LEGAL CAUSE – that acting first and
producing the injury, wither immediately or by setting other
events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous
chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its
immediate predecessor
*There must be a cause [felony] and effect [injury/death]
relation which is NOT altered or changed by pre-existing
conditions (example, pre-existing conditions like pathological,
predisposition, concomitant/concurrent condition, conditions
supervening the felony)
NOT proximate cause when:
1. Active force intervened between the felony
committed and resulting injury
 2. Resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the
victim (example, US vs. de los Santos – cesspool)
ACTIVE FORCE – direct act or fact absolutely foreign from
the felonious act of the accused
*Supervening event may be the subject of amendment of a
new charge without being double jeopardy (example, case
filed was for slight physical injuries but it was found out that it
will take 30days for the wound to heal = conversion of the
case to serious physical injuries
IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES (Potential Crimes)
Requisites:
1. Act performed would be an offense against persons
or property
2. Act was done with evil intent
3. Accomplishment is inherently impossible or the
means employed is inadequate or ineffectual
4. Act performed should not constitute violation of
another provision of the RPC
Felonies against persons:
1. Parricide (Art246)
2. Murder (Art248
3. Homicide (Art249)
4. Infanticide (Art255)
5. Abortion (Art256-259
6. Duel (Art260-261)
7. Rape (Art 266-a)
Felonies against Property:
1. Robbery (Art294, 297-303)
2. Brigandage (Art306-307)
3. Theft (Art 308, 310-311)
4. Usurpation (Art312-313)
5. Culpable Insolvency (Art314)
6. Swindling and other deceits (Art315-318)
7. Chattel Mortgage (Art319)
8. Arson and Other Crimes Involving Destruction
(Art320-326)
9. Malicious Mischief (Art327-331)
No Crime and Not Impossible Crime – A wanted to kill B but
found B dead and stabbed B (reason: no evil intent because A
knew that B was already dead = no injury can be caused)
Inherent Impossibility of Accomplishment by:
1. Legal Impossibility
2. Physical Impossibility
Examples:
1. A did not know that B was already dead and A shot B
= impossible crime (legal and physical)
2. A with intent to gain from B took B’s watch but later
found out that it was the watch he (A) lost =
Impossible Crime (legal impossibility because in
theft property taken must belong to another)
Employment of Inadequate means (example, with intent to
poison B, A put a small amount of poison in the food
believing it was sufficient)
*Adequate means employed but result expected was not
produced is not impossible crime but frustrated murder
Employment of ineffectual means (example, A tried to kill B
by trying to put poison in B’s soup but A put sugar instead,
thinking it was arsenic = ineffectual means; A wanting to
shoot B but found out that it was empty when the trigger was
pressed = ineffectual means = impossibility)
Reason for punishing impossible crimes: Suppress criminal
propensity or tendencies
ARTICLE 5. DUTY OF THE COURT IN CONNECTION
WITH ACTS WHICH SHOULD BE REPRESSED BUT
WHICH ARE NOT COVERED BY LAW AND IN CASES
OF EXCESSIVE PENALTIES – WHEN A COURT HAS
KNOWLEDGE OF ANY ACT WHICH IT MAY DEEM
PROPER TO REPRESS AND WHICH IS NOT
PUNISHABLE BY LAW, IT SHALL RENDER THE
PROPER DECISION AND SHALL REPORT TO THE
CHIEF EXECUTIVE, THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, THE REASONS WHICH INDUCED THE
COURTS TO BELIEVE THAT THE SAID ACT SHOULD
BEMADE THE SUBJECT OF PENAL LEGISLATION.
IN THE SAME WAY, THE COURT SHALL
SUBMIT TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE, THROUGH THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, SUCH STATEMENT AS
MAY BE DEEMED PROPER, WITHOUT SUSPENDING
THE EXECUTION OF THE SENTENCE, WHEN A STRICT
ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE
WOULD RESULT IN THE IMPOSITION OF A CLEARLY
EXCESSIVE PENALTY, TAKING INTO
CONSIDERATION THE DEGREE OF MALICE AND THE
INJURY CAUSED BY THE OFFENSE.
Requisites of Art5(1):
1. Act committed appear not punishable by any law
2. Court deems it necessary to repress such act
3. Court must render the proper decision by dismissing
the case or acquitting the accused
4. Make a report stating the reasons why the said act
should be made the subject of penal legislation
Requisites of Art5(2):
1. Court finds accused guilty after trial
2. Excessive penalty because:
a. Accused acted with lesser degree of malice
and / or…
b. There is no injury or injury caused is of
lesser gravity
3. Court should not suspend the execution of the
sentence
4. Judge should submit a statement recommending
executive clemency
Penalties are not excessive when intended to enforce a public
policy.
*Duty of the courts to apply the penalty provided by the law
*Judge has the duty to apply the law as interpreted by the SC
Article5 applies only to acts mala in se or crimes committed
with criminal intent
ARTICLE 6. CONSUMATED, FRUSTRATED AND
ATTEMPTED FELONIES [Stages of acts of execution] –
CONSUMMATED FELONIES, AS WELL AS THOSE
WHICH ARE FRUSTRATED AND ATTEMPTED ARE
PUISHABLE.
A FELONY IS CONSUMMATED WHEN ALL
THE ELEMENTS NECESSARY FOR ITS EXECUTION
AND ACCOMPLISHMENT ARE PRESENT AND IT IS
FRUSTRATED WHEN THE OFFENDER PERFORMS ALL
THE ACTS OF EXECUTION WHICH WOULD PRODUCE
FELONY AS A CONSEQUENCE BUT WHICH, *Acts susceptible of double interpretation cannot be
NEVERTHELESS, DO NOT PRODUCE IT BY REASON considered as ground for attempted crime
OF CAUSES INDEPENDENT OG THE WILL OF THE *Offender must personally execute the commission of the
PERPETRATOR. felony by taking direct part in the execution of the act
THERE IS AN ATTEMPT WHEN THE *Spontaneous desistance – discontinuance of the crime by his
OFFENDER COMMENCES THE COMMISSION OF THE own free will (not punishable – it is the law’s reward to those
FELONY DIRECTLY BY OVERT ACTS, AND DOES NOT having one foot on the verge of the crime and heeding the call
PERFORM ALL THE ACTS OF EXECUTION WHICH of their conscience and return to the path of righteousness)
SHOULD PRODUCE THE FELONY BY REASON OF *Desistance should be made before all acts of execution are
SOME CAUSES OR ACCIDENT OTHER THAN HIS OWN performed
SPONTANEOUS DESISTANCE. *Spontaneous desistance exempts criminal liability for
intended crime but does not exempt him from crime
CONSUMMATED – all elements necessary for its execution committed before his desistance
and accomplishment are present SUBJECTIVE PHASE – portion of acts constituting the crime
FRUSTRATED – all acts of execution was performed but starting from the point offender begins the crime to the point
felony was not produced by reason of causes independent of where he still controls his acts, including his acts’ natural
the will of the perpetrator course
ATTEMPTED – commission of felony by overt acts was OBJECTIVE PHASE – no more control over his acts
commenced but all the acts of execution was not performed by
reason of some causes or accident other than his own ELEMENT OF FRUSTRATED FELEONY:
spontaneous desistance 1. Performs all acts of execution
2. Acts would produce felony as a consequence
2 Stages in the development of a crime 3. Felony is not produced
1. Internal Acts – mere ideas in the mind (not 4. By reason of causes independent of the will of the
punishable) perpetrator
2. External Acts *It is homicide / murder if felony is consummated and victim
a. Preparatory Acts (GR: not punishable) – dies; but if victim survives = frustrated
example, possession of picklocks (Art304) *Mortal wound without death = frustrated
b. Acts of Execution – punishable by RPC *Wound which is not mortal or absence of wound = attempted
ELEMENTS OF ATTEMPTED FELONY: (as long as there is intent to kill)
1. Commences the commission of felony by directly
overt acts Rules on Crimes Against Persons (murder, homicide, parricide
2. Does not perform all the acts which should produce and infanticide) and the stages of execution:
felony Gravity of
Death Intent Crime
3. Offender’s act is not stopped by his own spontaneous the Wound
desistance Presumed
4. Non-performance of all acts of execution was due to Consummated
Yes Conclusively Mortal
some other cause or accident MHPI
by Law
Felony is deemed commenced when: Mortal Frustrated
1. There is an external act No Yes
Wounds MHPI
2. External acts have direct connection with the crime Non-Mortal Attempted
intended to be committed No Yes
Wounds MHPI
OVERT ACTS – physical activity or deed indicating intention Overt Act
to commit a particular crime, more than mere planning or Attempted
No Yes only, no
preparation, which if carried to its complete termination MHPI
Wound
following its natural course, without being frustrated by Serious
external obstacles not by the voluntary desistance of the Mortal
No No Physical
perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete Wound
Injuries
offense Less Serious /
*Drawing or trying to draw a pistol is not an overt act of Non-mortal Slight
homicide No No
Wound Physical
*Raising a bolo as if to strike the offended party with it is not Injuries
an overt act of homicide
*Overt acts may not be physical activity (example, proposal Frustrated /
intended to bribe a public official or employee) Impossible Crime
Attempted
INDETERMINATE OFFENSE – purpose of the offender in Cannot be Evil intent is Possible
performing the act is not certain; we do not know what crime accomplished present although accomplishment
is in the mind of the offender; crime has not yet been the felony was not Accomplishment
determined and there are two possibilities when the accused Impossibility of
accomplished stopped by
was caught accomplishment or
extraneous
*Intention of the accused must be viewed from the nature of ineffective means
variables
the acts executed by him and not from his admission
CONSUMMATED FELONY - All elements of felony must
be present to hold accused liable
There is no felony if:
1. Felony is not shown to be consummated
2. Felony is not shown to be committed
3. Another felony is committed
How to determine whether the crime is only attempted or
frustrated or it is consummated?
1. Nature of the offense (example, consummated arson
– any part of the house was burned no matter how
small; frustrated arson – there is fire but no part was
burned; attempted arson – about to set fire)
2. Elements constituting felony
3. Manner of committing the crime
a. Formal Crimes – consummated in one
instant, no attempt (example, slander and
false testimony)
b. Crimes consummated by mere attempt or
proposal or by overt acts (example, fight to
enemy’s country, corruption of minors,
treason)
c. Felony by omission
d. Crimes requiring the intervention of two
persons to commit them are consummated
by mere agreement (example, betting in
sport contests and corruption of public
officials)
e. Material Crimes – three stages of execution
(attempted, frustrated and consummated)
*There is no attempted or frustrated impossible crime (no
attempted because acts of execution was already performed;
no frustrated because acts performed by offender are
considered to constitute consummated offense)
ARTICLE 7. WHEN LIGHT FELONIES ARE
PUNISHABLE – LIGHT FELONIES ARE PUNISHABLE
ONLY WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN CONSUMMATED,
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE COMMITTED
AGAINST PERSONS OR PROPERTY
LIGHT FELONIES – infractions of the law for the
commission of which the penalty of arresto menor [1-30days
improsinment] or a fine not exceeding 200pesos or both is
provided [Art9 (3)]
GR: Light felonies are punishable only when they have been
consummated (reason: felonies such light, such insignificant
moral and material injuries that public conscience is satisfied
with providing a light penalty for their consummation)
Exception: Light felonies committed against persons or
property are punishable even if attempted or frustrated
(reason: felonies against persons or property presupposes in
the offender moral depravity)
Not consummated = no need for providing for its penalty
Light Felonies under RPC:
1. Slight physical injuries (Art266) – against persons
2. Theft (Art309 (7) and (8)) – against property
3. Alteration of boundary marks (Art313) – against
property
4. Malicious mischiefs (Art328 (3) and Art329(3)) –
against property
5. Intriguing against honor (Art 364) – against persons
*Art309 (7) – theft by hunting or fishing or gathering fruits,
cereals or other forest or farm products upon an inclosed estate
or field where trespass is forbidden and the value of the thing
stolen does not exceed 5pesos
*Art309 (8) – theft where the value of the stolen property does
not exceed 5pesos and the offender was prompted by hunger,
poverty, or the difficulty of earning a livelihood
ARTICLE 8. CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO
COMMIT FELONY – CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO
COMMIT FELONY ARE PUNISHABLE ONLY IN THE
CASES IN WHICH THE LAW SPECIALLY PROVIDES A
PENALTY THEREOF.
A CONSPIRACY EXISTS WHEN TWO OR MORE
PERSONS COME TO AN AGREEMENT CONCERNING
THE COMMISSION OF A FELONY AND DECIDE TO
COMMIT IT.
THERE IS PROPOSAL WHEN THE PERSON
WHO HAS DECIDED TO COMMIT A FELONY
PORPOSES ITS EXECUTION TO SOME OTHER PERSON
OR PERSONS.
CONSPIRACY – 2 or more persons come into an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit
it
GR: Conspiracy is not a crime
Exception: law specifically provides for its penalty (example,
treason, rebellion and sedition) [reason: conspiracy and
proposal to commit a crime are preparatory acts which the law
regards as innocent or at least permissible except in rare and
exceptional cases]
Requisites of Conspiracy:
1. 2 or more persons come into an agreement – meeting
of the minds
2. The agreement concerned the commission of a felony
– agreement to act, to effect or to bring about
3. Execution of the felony be decided upon –
determination to commit the crime of treason,
rebellion or sedition
*Direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy – it may
be inferred from the collective acts of the accused, before,
during and after the commission of the crime
*No crime if conspirators do not perform overt acts in
furtherance of their malevolent designs, Sovereignty of State
is not outraged and tranquility of the public is undisturbed.
Punishable Conspiracies:
1. Conspiracy to commit treason (Art115) – prision
mayor and fine not exceeding 10,000pesos
2. Conspiracy to commit coup d’etat, rebellion or
insurrection (Art136) – prision mayor in its minimum
period and fine not exceeding 8,000pesos
*Rebellion and insurrection punishable by prision
correccional in its maximum period and fine not
exceeding 5,000pesos
3. Conspiracy to commit sedition (Art141) – prision
mayor in its medium period and fine not exceeding
2,000pesos
*Treason, Coup d’etat, rebellion or sedition should not be
actually committed to be held liable for conspiracy (sufficient
that 2 or more persons agree and decide to commit such)
*If committed, they will be liable for the crime and the
conspiracy will be considered as a manner by which criminal
liability is incurred – not a separate offense
Conspiracy as manner of
Conspiracy as Felony
incurring criminal liability
Crime actually committed;
the act of one is the act of all;
conspiracy is not punishable
as a separate offense
Examples:
1. A and B decided to rise publicly and take arms
against the gov’t with the help of their followers =
liable for conspiracy. But if it was actually
committed, they are liable for rebellion and
conspiracy is only a manner of incurring criminal
liability
2. A B and C decided to kill D. Even if they fail to carry
out the plan, there is no conspiracy because the crime
they conspired to commit is murder, not treason,
rebellion or sedition. But if plan was executed,
conspiracy is again a manner of incurring criminal
liability.
Indications of Conspiracy
1. People vs. Geronimo – when the defendants by their
acts aimed at the same object, one performing one
part and the other performing another part so as to
complete it, with a view to the attainment of the same
object, and their acts, though apparently independent,
were in fact concerted action and concurrence of
sentiments, the court will be justified in concluding
that said defendants were engaged in a conspiracy
2. People vs. Cantuba – accused has been held as a co-
conspirator as the circumstances of his participation
indubitably showed unity of purpose and unity in the
execution of the unlawful acts, gleaned from that fact
that he knew the plot to assassinate the victim as he
too had been ordered to scout for a man who could do
the job; he also knew exactly the place where the
killing was to take place and also the date and
approximate time of the assault
3. People vs. Hernandez – for a collective responsibility
among the accused to be established, it is sufficient
that at the time of the aggression, all of them acted in
concert, each doing his part to fulfill their common
design to kill their victim, and although only one of
them may have actually stabbed the victim, the act of
that one is deemed to be the act of all
Acts of the defendants must show a common design – there
must be unity of purpose and unity of execution of the
unlawful objective
Period of time to afford opportunity for meditation and
reflection is not required in conspiracy – conspiracy arises on
the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to
commit the felony
Art186 punishing conspiracy – monopolies in restraint of trade
– prision coreccional in its minimum period or fine ranging
from 200-6,000pesos or both, upon those who (1) shall enter
into a contract or agreement or shall take part in any
conspiracy or combination in the form of a trust or otherwise
in restraint of trade or commerce to prevent by artificial means
of free competition in the market (3) any person who, being a
manufacturer, producer, shall conspire or agree with any
person for the purpose of making transactions prejudicial to
lawful commerce, or of increasing the market price of any
such merchandise
PROPOSAL (must not be actually committed)
Requisites:
1. Person has decided to commit a felony
2. He proposes its execution to some other person or
persons
*Not necessary that the person to whom proposal is made
agrees to commit treason or rebellion
No criminal proposal when:
1. Person who proposes is not determined to commit the
felony
2. There is no decided, concrete and formal proposal
3. Not the execution of felony that is proposed
*Desistance before any rebellious act is actually performed =
no proposal
*Proposal as an overt act of corruption of public officer =
crime of corruption of public officer
Crimes in which conspiracy and proposal are punishable:
1. Treason – external security of the State
2. Coup d’etat and rebellion – internal security of the
State
3. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade –
economic security
ARTICLE 9. GRAVE FELONIES, LESS GRAVE
FELONIES, AND LIGHT FELONIES – GRAVE FELONIES
ARE THOSE TO WHICH THE LAW ATTACHES THE
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT OR PENALTIES WHICH IN
ANY OF THEIR PERIODS ARE AFFLICTIVE, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 25 OF THIS CODE.
LESS GRAVE FELONIES ARE THOSE WHICH
THE LAW PUNISHED WITH PENALTIES WHICH IN
THEIR MAXIMUM PERIOD ARE CORECCIONAL, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE ABOVE-MENTIONED
ARTICLE.
LIGHT FELONIES ARE THOSE INFRACTIONS
OF LAW FOR THE COMMISSION OF WHICH THE
PENALTY OF ARRESTO MENOR OR A FINE NOT
EXCEEDING 200PESOS, OR BOTH, IS PROVIDED.
1. Capital Punishment = death penalty
2. Grave Felonies = Afflictive Periods – even if the
word “any” is used, when penalty prescribed is
composed of two or more distinct penalties, the
higher/highest of the two is the afflictive penalty [Art
25 – Afflictive Penalties – Reclusion Perpetua,
Reclusion Temporal, Perpetual or Temporary
Absolute Disqualification, Perpetual or Temporary
Special Disqualification and Prision Mayor; fine
exceeding Php6,000]
3. Less Grave Felonies = Coreccional Penalties [Prison
Correctional, Arresto Mayor, Suspension, and
Destierro; fine not exceeding Php6,000]
4. Light Felony [arresto menor and fine not exceeding
Php200]
Death - indivisible IMPUTABILITY – quality by which the act may be ascribed
Reclusion perpetua - life imprisonment (20years and 1day to to a person as its author or owner; implies that the act
40years) committed has been freely and consciously done
Reclusion temporal - 12 yrs 1 day to 20 years RESPONSIBILITY - obligation of suffering the consequences
Prision Mayor - 6 yrs 1 day to 12 years of the crime; obligation of taking penal and civil
Prision correctional or destierro - 6 mos. 1 day to 6 years consequences of the crime
Arresto Mayor - 1 month 1 day to 6 months GUILT – element of responsibility for a man cannot be made
Arresto Menor - 1 day to 30 days to answer for the consequences of a crime unless he
Fine is guilty
Public Censure - indivisible JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES –those where the act of a
person is said to be in accordance with law, so that
ARTICLE 10. OFFENSES NOT SUBJECT TO THE such person is deemed not to have transgressed the
PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE – OFFENSES WHICH ARE law and is free from both criminal and civil liability
OR IN THE FUTURE MAY BE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SPECIAL LAWS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE ARTICLE 11. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES – THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE. THIS CODE SHALL BE FOLLOWING DO NOT INCUR ANY CRIMINAL
SUPPLEMENTARY TO SUCH LAWS, UNLESS THE LIABILITY:
LATTER SHOULD SPECIFICALLY PROVIDE THE 1. ANYONE WHO ACTS IN DEFENSE OF
CONTRARY. HIS PERSON OR RIGHTS, PROVIDED
THAT THE FOLLOWING
RPC is not intended to supersede special laws. CIRCUMSTANCES CONCUR:
RPC is considered supplementary to special laws unless FIRST. UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
contrary is provided. SECOND. REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE
SPECIAL LAWS – penal law which punishes acts not defined MEANS EMPLOYED TO PREVENT OR REPEL
and penalized by the Penal Code IT
Supplementary – supplying what us lacking; additional THIRD. LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION
ON THE PART OF THE PERSON DEFENDING
Provisions of penal code on penalties cannot be applied to HIMSELF
offenses punishable under special laws (reason: special laws 2. ANYONE WHO ACTS IN DEFENSE OF
do not provide for a scale of penalties and penalty provided by THE PERSON OR RIGHTS OF HIS
special law does not contain three periods) SPOUSE, ASCENDANTS,
DESCENDANT, OR LEGITIMATE,
Attempted or frustrated stage of execution of an offense NATURAL, OR ADOPTED BROTHERS
penalized by special law is not punishable unless the special OR SISTERS, OR OF HIS RELATIVES
law provides a penalty therefor (special law has to fix BY AFFINITY IN THE SAME DEGREES,
penalties for attempted and frustrated crime). AND THOSE BY CONSANGUINITY
When special law covers the mere attempt to commit the WITHIN THE FOURTH CIVIL DEGREE,
crime defined by it, the attempted stage is punishable by the PROVIDED THAT THE FIRST AND
same penalty provided by that law. SECOND REQUISITES PRESCRIBED IN
*Art10 no applicable to punish an accomplice under special THE NEXT RPECEEDING
laws (People vs Padaong) CIRCUMSTANCE ARE PRESENT, AND
Plea of guilty is not mitigating in illegal possession of THE FURTHER REQUISITE, IN CASE
firearms, punished by special laws THE PROVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY
Special laws amending RPC are subject to its provisions. THE PERSON ATTACKED, THAT THE
ONE MAKING DEFENSE HAD NO APRT
Divisible Penalty – Penalty which can be divided into 3 THEREIN.
[Reclusion Perpetua is Indivisible] 3. ANYONE WHO ACTS IN DEFENSE OF
THE PERSON OR RIGHTS OF A
Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability: STRANGER, PROVIDED THAT THE
1. Justifying Circumstances (Art11) FIRST AND SECOND REQUISITES
2. Exempting Circumstance (Art12) – There is MENTIONED IN THE FIRST
a crime but no criminal CIRCUMSTANCE OF THIS ARTICLE
3. Mitigating Circumstance (Art13) – There is ARE PRESENT AND THAT THE
a crime but no full criminal / evil intent PERSON DEFENDING BE NOT
(lesser penalty) INDUCED BY REVENG, RESENTMENT
4. Aggravating Circumstances (Art14) – OR OTHER EVIL MOTIVE.
example, taking advantage of one’s 4. ANY PERSON WHO, IN ORDER TO
knowledge AVOID AN EVIL OR INJURY, DOES AN
5. Alternative Circumstance (Art15) – ACT WHICH CAUSES DAMAGE TO
Depends, it may mitigate or aggravate ANOTHER, PROVIDED THAT THE
FOLLOWING REQUISITES ARE
PRESENT:
 FIRST. THAT THE EVIL SOUGHT TO BE actual / imminent; there must be actual
AVOIDED ACTUALLY EXISTS physical force or actual use of weapon
SECOND. THAT INJURY FEARED BE GREATER *Threat must be offensive and positively showing the
THAN THAT DONE TO AVOID IT wrongful intent to cause injury
THIRD. THAT THERE BE NO OTHER *Unlawful aggression presupposes actual, sudden and
PRACTICAL AND LESS HARMFUL MEANS OF unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, not merely a
PREVENTING IT threatening or intimidating attitude; refers to an attack which
5. ANY PERSON WHO ACTS IN THE has actually broken out or materialized or at the very least is
FULFILLMENT OF A DUTY OR IN THE clearly imminent
LAWFUL EXERCISE OF A RIGHT OR *There must be real danger to life or personal safety
OFFICE No peril to one’s life, limb or right = no unlawful aggression
6. ANY EPRSON WHO ACTS IN *Insulting words without physical injuries is not unlawful
OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED BY aggression
A SUPERIOR FOR SOME LAWFUL *Slapping = unlawful aggression (reason: dignity of a person)
PURPOSE *Mere belief of impending attack is not sufficient
*”foot-kick” greeting is not unlawful aggression
Justifying Circumstances – those where the act of a person is *Strong retaliation for an injury or threat is unlawful
said t be in accordance with law so that such person is deemed aggression
not to have transgressed the law and is free from criminal and Retaliation – aggression begun by injured party ceased to exist
civil liability when accused attacked him
Justifying Circumstances = No crime committed (reason: the *Unlawful aggression must come from the person who was
element of intent is lacking and without it, there is no attacked by the accused
voluntariness and no felony) *Public officer exceeding his authority is an unlawful
GR: Prosecutor has the burden of proof aggressor
Exception: Burden of Proof is upon the accused to prove in *Nature, character, location and extent of wound of the
order that criminal liability may be avoided accused inflicted by the injured party contradicts the claim of
GR: no civil liability self-defense
Exception: Art11 (4) *Improbability of the deceased being the aggressor contradicts
the claim of self-defense
SELF-DEFENSE *When aggressor flees, unlawful aggression no longer exists
*Must be proved by clear and convincing evidence – accused but if the retreat was made in order to take a more
must rely on his own evidence and not on the weakness of the advantageous position, unlawful aggression still exists
prosecutor’s evidence *Agreement to fight = unlawful aggression (challenge to fight
*Includes not only the defense of the person / body but also must be accepted, otherwise, it is self-defense)
his rights, the enjoyment of which is provided by the law (life, Stand ground when in the right – where the accused is where
property, honor) he has a right to be, the law does not require him to retreat
when his assailant is rapidly advancing upon him with a
ELEMENTS: deadly weapon (reason: he runs the risk of being attacked in
1. Unlawful Aggression the back if he flees)
2. Reasonable means employed to prevent or *The beliefs of the accused may be considered in determining
repel it the existence of unlawful aggression
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of *Threat to inflict real injury is unlawful aggression – act must
the person defending himself be offensive and positively strong, showing wrongful intent of
Reason why Self-Defense is Lawful: Impossible for the State the aggressor to cause injury (threatening attitude is not
to prevent aggression upon its citizens, even foreigners and unlawful aggression)
offer protection tot hose who were unjustly attacked; Man’s *Expected aggression is still real provided that it is imminent
instinct to protect, prevent, repel and save his person / right
from impending danger or peril (Self-preservation of man) 2nd Requisite of Self-Defense: Test of Reasonableness
1. Nature and quality of weapon used by
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION – indispensible element aggressor
(statutory and doctrinal requirement) 2. Physical condition, character, size and other
*There is no self-defense when there is no unlawful circumstances
aggression 3. Physical condition, character, size of the
No unlawful aggression = nothing to prevent = no basis for person defending himself
second element 4. Place and occasion of the assault
2 Kinds of Aggression: *When only minor injuries are inflicted after unlawful
1. Lawful – fulfillment of a duty or exercise of aggression has ceased to exist, there is still self-defense if
a right in a more or less violent manner mortal wounds were inflicted at the time the requisites of self-
2. Unlawful – assault or threatened assault of defense were present
an immediate and imminent kind; when *Person defending himself is not expected to control his blows
there is peril to one’s life, limb or right, (reason: person in the heat of an encounter at close quarters,
was not in a position to reflect coolly or to wait after each
blow to determine the effects thereof)
*In repelling or preventing unlawful aggression, the one
defending must aim at his assailant and not indiscriminately
fire his deadly weapon
*Perfect equality of weapon is not required (reason: person
being assaulted does not have sufficient tranquility of mind to
think, to calculate and to choose which weapon to use)
GR:
1. Dagger / knife is more dangerous than a club
(exception: no other available means or no
other means by which he can coolly choose
a weapon)
2. Firearm vs. dagger / knife (allowed provided
it falls under the exception mentioned
above)
3. Fist must be repelled by fist also (provided
aggressor and defender are of the same size
and strength)