«SX XX B@«XXEXXEeEe idem — Coren prey Bushy neihioreel (L., Same fs SO et Re fod RR pt b mt nw hes —thet re CL iA est) do) BR. Serauitio COMPACT Sef oa Hes pn REVIEWER i IN CRIMINAL LAW sot gna mies Slee ay ERE Eee, dove foe poy ! Cotlos Hece mone vercle ml - Zero, nothing i as Nay~ rot merely tnig but alsa: pot onl torn aa ) ditto iege ,0€ peste fv dedec poem Cuffian. a bru person pimp = 6 men whe solicits clenls fer a enecvale fo lecsen te chende ae Vieor 3) Weekew 1 mised ot boi, bane- woe, harm feign - predend Keviar~ £1 ber eemo2ePn on viet ATTY. LEONOR D. BOADO mm aching @ rahi? SECOND EDITION stihl ‘ ae Mahal, pakatértanclaan ma, Pegribry ko dl maclalaho. Kun noon at ngayon mae fats manshabin Se dadetes ie 4 P42 tdrt rates Pep) Philippine Copyright, 2007 ISBN 978-971-23-4916-4 No portion of proceedings with proper ¢ Any copy of this book without thecorrespond- ing number and the signature of the author on this page either proceeds from an illegitimate source or is in possession of one who has no authority to dispose of the same. ALLRIGHTS RESERVED BY THE AUTHOR No. 0539 ISBN 978.971.23-4916-4 Masri Printed by REX PRINTING Company, inc. nei oe Cocky PREFACE AND DEDICATION It is generally admitted that Criminal Law is the most diff- teresting branch of law. Relatively the shortest, consist- articles and a number of special and amendato- {is a most perplexing subject matter because a slight changes the crime committed or erases the existence ily the bar reviewees in mind. ‘This work is likewise in memory of the author's professors in the University of the East College of Law, especially the Crimi- nal Law professors who will always be her “Sirs.” Special gratitude to Ms. Remy Cabasal-Hadap, librarian at the Legal Office Library, Commission on Audit (COA), Quezon City and Ms. Reina Afos of the Office of Legal Affairs, COA. ‘October 20, 2007. LDB fehs pon focit Teum, nisi mens sit tea — There Con be > crime whey the criminal mind ts wating‘This textbook was written under the auspices of the Profes- sional Chair program of the “Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Reynato 8. Puno Library” Collegeof Law, University of East July 28, 2004. Antonio R. Tupaz Dean UE. College of Law ‘TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface and Dedicati Article 10 — Special Law: CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL ‘srdcle 12 — Beempting x Cicumstances RA. No. 9344 — Juvenile Justice and Welfare ‘Act of 2006. In contempt of or wit Age, sex, rank, dwelling ‘Abuse of confidence/ obvious ungratefulness. Committed in the palace of the Chief Executive, etc. Nighttime, uninhabited place, band, aid of armed men... eR Ss BERERES SB ssgge see &BELEEECEEE eee EEE Eee Eee rete CeCe eee ree eee eee eee eee eee eee ener epee ee teer eer eee eee ert eeeeeeeeeeeeaee ‘On the occasion and by means of caa Aticle 71 — Graduated Sca Ww f or misfortune... 2 n9 racion, habitwal delingueney ‘and divism 121 dE Article 65 — Rules when penalty not composed ‘Abuse of superior strength ‘of 3 periods 124 Treachery (alevosia) Article 76— Legal 124 Ignominy and cruelty... “Article 66 — Imposi 125 — Unlawful entry, breaking of door “Asticle 68 — Penalty on minors 125 Aid of minor, use of motor vehicle. Article 69 — Penalty for inctmplete justification and exemption.. 126 Article 70 — Successive service of sentences 128 je eee ee : Article 75 — Increasing or reducing fine . 129 ! pangs : : Article 77— Complex penalty . 130 a Article 19 — Accessories INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW. 131 Article 20 — \ eae PROBATION i Article 89 — Presidential Decree No. x fee Article 81 — Execution of Death Penalty. 139 Articles 21 Article 89 — Total extinction of er 139 Article 23 — Pardon by the offended Article 94 — Partial Extinction 139 rc Article 36 — Pardon by the Chief Executiv Article 36 — Pardon by the 139 | Article 24 : ‘Article 23 — Pardon by the Offended... 139 ‘Article 29 — Deduction of Preventive, Article 95 — Conditional Pardé 146 a imprisonment Article 98 — Deduction for loyalty 148 Article 25 — Classification of penalties. stiles 100-113 — Civil Liabilit 149 RA. No. 9846 — Abolition of Death Penalty... Article 4 — Civil Interdiction TITLET Derren Arner Are ‘CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL ile 39 — Subsidiary Pes oe Article 45... Article 48 Complex Crimes a ein 162 r frustrated felonies on the accomplices i L and accessories. 17 ie Article 61 — Rules for graduating penalties 7 * ow -oe en ae 5 1 TITLE CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE Article 124 — Arbitrary Detention... so Article 125 — Delay in the delivery of detained persons. RA. No. 7438 — Ri Detained or under Custodial Invest Article 126 — Delaying Rel Article 127 — Expulsion... Article 128 — Violation of Domicil Articles 129-130 — Search warrants m ‘obtained; Abuse in Service; Searching without witnesses : Atticles 131, 146, 147, Articles 132-128. TITLE WI CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER Articles 134-134-A. Articles 138, 142, 148, 1 Article 153 — Tumult Article 155 — Alarms and Scandals... Articles 156-158 — Delivery of prisoner of service of sentence. Article 159. Article 160 TITLE IV CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST Atticle 169 — Forge: Articles 171-172... Article 177 — Usurpation. Articles 180-184 — False Testimony and Perjury .. Articles 185-189. vis Anti-Alias Law ... TITLEV OPIUM Instigation, entrapment, buy bust operation and frame-up. TITLE VI AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS R.A. No. 9287 — Gambling and Illegal Lottery.. TITLE Vi CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS Articles 210-211-A — Bribery. Article 212 — Corruption of Public Officer Article 213... Articles 214-217, Articles 218-220. Articles 221-222 R.A. No. 3019 —Anti-Graft Law. R.A. No. 7080 — Plunder Law Articles 236-245... TITLE Vu CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS Article 246 — Parricide... 209 mai BRR BRERER 239 243, 244 5 RRRBR B 8eee ecco reed ae ce pe sae as aot Article 247., Article 248. Article 249, PD. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294 R.A. No. 7877 — Sexual Harassment Law ... TITLE IX ‘CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY TITLEX CRIMES AGAINST 2ROPERTY Articles 294-296, 329 Articles 308-311, eee 343 PD, No. 1612 — Anti-Fencing Law of 1979. 346 PD, No. 533 — The Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974... 349 R.A. No, 6599 — Anti-Carnapping. 350 PD. No. 704, as amended — Illegal Fishing 354 PD. No. 705, as amended — Forestry Code. 355 356 359 BP. Blg. 22 — An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and Issuance of a Check Without Sufficient Funds or Credit 365 376 378 382 384 385 : 386 Article 392... : 387 TITLE XI ‘CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY Articles 333-334, 388 Articles 336 and 339... 390 Articles 337 and 338 391 Articles 340-341, 392 Articles 342-343. 392 Articles 347-348, Articles 349.351,Bde ord eee eat ‘TITLE XU CRIMES AGAINST HONOR Articles 353-36: Articles 363-364, ‘TITLE XIV ‘CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE Article 366..... APPENDIX Appendix A— Republic Act No, 9372 Human Security Act of 2007... 402 413 415 421 FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIP) 1. Penal laws are o€& of the cts oF omissions and’ penalties for their vio- lations. Those that define crimes, treat of their nature and provide for their punishment, (Lacson vs, Executive Secretary, GR. No. 128096, January 20, 1999) . Criminal law is a branch of public law because it treats of acts or omissions which are primarily wrongs against the State, Hence, the criminal case is denominated “People of the Philippines vs, xxx." lature paohibting certain tional limitations on the power of Congress to en- ‘act penal laws found in the Bill of Rights: a, The law must be general in application (equal protes- tion). b. It must observe substantive and procedural due pro cess. © Itshould not impose cruel and unusual punishment or excessive fines, 4. Itshould not operate as a bill of attainder. t must not operate as an ex post facto law. 4, ‘The prohibition on ex post facto law applies solely to penal laws. It cannot prohibit the retroactivity of procedural laws such as one that prescribes rules of procedure by which courts applying laws of all kinds can properly administer such as the Extradition Treaty. (Wright vs. CA, GR. 213, August 15, 1 5. Provisions in the Code complementing ex post facto rule: a. Article 21: no felony shall be punishable by any pen- alty not prescribed by law prior to its commission.Peele aaa eee ce ae eee Sede Ree) ca need eee ae eenl dee to cal b. ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW. icle 2: penal laws shall have a retroactive effect in- sofar as they favor the offender who is not a habitual delinquent. Therefore, a law which increases the pen- alty for an act or omission or prejudices the right of the accused cannot be given retroactive effect (irretrospec- > ity) 6 Examples of ex post facto law: @. Makes an act or omission criminal which when com- mitted was not criminal Aggravates the seriousness of the crime than when it was committed. Imposes a penalty that is higher than when the crime ‘was commi Makes it easier for the prosecution to establish the: of the accused than when the crime was commit Requires a lesser quantum of evidence than when the crime was committed, Alters, in relation to the offense or its consequences, the situation of a person to his disadvantage. Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only but in effect imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right which when done was lawful. Deprives a person accused of crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or 3 proclamation of amnesty. (Lacson vs. Executive Seere- ane GR. No. 128096, January 20, 1999) (Characteristics of penal law: Generality — (persons to be governed) — penal law is binding on all persans who reside or sojourn in the Philippines whether citizens or not. Basis — Art. 14, Civil Code; Art. stitution, [FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES 3 ition or the place where appli- applicable to all crimes committed ippine territory. Basis — Art. 2, Revised Penal Code — (when the law shall be applicable) should have only prospective application jorable to the offender. (Irretrospectiv- the retroactive application of penal laws.) Basis — Arts, 21 and 22, Revised Penal Code Art, 10(22), Constitution (ex post facto) Att. 4, Civil Code 8. Doctrinal application of the prospectivity rule: a, ‘The prospectivity rule applies to administrative rulings and circulars, and to judicial decisions which though not laws, are evidence of what the laws mean. Thus under Article 8 of the New Civil Code, judicial deci- sions applying the laws or the Constitution form part of the legal system. Legis io legis wim obti This is especially tnie in the construction, and appli- cation of criminal laws, where it is necessary that the punishability of an act be reasonably foreseen for the guidance of society. (Co vs. CA, GR. No. 100776, Octo- ber 28, 1993) Lex prospicit, non respicit, The law looks forward not fackward. The rationale against retroactivity is that a law usually derides rights which may have already become vested or impairs the obligations of contract, hence, unconstitutional. Prior to the statute's nullificar wust have been in force and had to be complied with (doctrine of operative fact). It would be to deprive its quality of fairness and justice if there be what had transpired prior to such ad- prokibita doctrine and the prospectivity rule in the adjudication of cases,Peete ee eee eee ee err ‘ ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW. the latter should prevail because all doubts must be re- solved in favor of the accused. (id,) Moreover, ex post Jacto law is a constituti is is 9. Philosophies underlying the criminal law justice system: Classical or juristic 1. _ Basis of criminal liability — human free will ion, for the right fended party 2. Purpose of the penalty — ret of the State and/or the pri must be observed, 3. Imposable penalty — predetermined penalty for every crime the gravity of which is directly pro- portionate to the crime committed, 4, Emphasis of the law — on the offense. Under the classical theory on which the penal code is ‘mainly based, the basis of criminal liability is human free wil is essentially a moral creature with an absolutely choose between g¢ with freedom, intelligence and intent. Man therefore, should be adjudged or held accountable for wrongful acts so long as free appears unimpaired. (People us. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, September b. Positiv sis after considering his circumstances. 4. Emphasis — on the actor. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES. 5 ‘The Indeterminate Sentence Law, Probation Law, the three-fold rule, the rules on mitigation of crimes exemplify this theory. c. Eclectic (or mixed) combines the good features of both the classical and the positivist theories. Ideally, the classical theory is applied to heinous crimes, whereas, the positivist is made to work on economic and social crimes. Aghsinidtis crime’ is a grievous, odious and hate- ful offense by reason of its inherent or manifest usness, atrocity and perversity, is re- garded as seriously outrageous to the common stan- dards or norms of decency and morality in a just, civi- and orderly society. (R.A. 7659) d. Utilitarian or protective theory under which the pri- ‘mary function of punishment in criminal law is to protect society from potential and actual wrongdoers. ‘The retributive aspect of penal laws should be directed against them, The law should not be applied to further materialism and opportunism. (Magno vs. CA, GR. No. 96132, June 26, 1992) 10, Penal laws are construed strictly against the State and liber- ally in favor of the accused. Whenever two interpretations ‘of law or appreciation of evidence are possible, the exculpa- tory interpretation shall prevail, consistent with the rule on presumption of innocence. Under the equipoise rule, when the evi ~prsessuton, inced;tho.scale— should be tilted in favor of the accused in obedience. to the. i .presumption.of-innacence. (Ursua vs. CA, 01996 Capa t-Peple, GR. No re the State fails to meet the to overcome the constitutional resumption of innocence, the accused is entitled to acquit- fal, as a matter of right regardless of the weakness or even the absence of his defense. For any conviction must zest on. eee eee eee eee eed“Toe ~ erties teat eetaned ane ery ees asta: Saaeetcead: m ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW the strength of the prosecution’ ness of the defense, (Cosep vs. People, G.R. No, 110353, May 21, 1998) 11. Classification of crimes: a, sto commission (Article 3) 1. Dolo or felonies committed with deliberate in- tent; 2. Culpa or those committed by means of fault. B. As to stage of execution (Article 6) 1, Attempted; 2. Frustrated; 3. Consummated. Related to this isthe classification of felonies as to: 1, Formal felonies, those which are always consum- mated because the offender cannot perform the act necessary for their execution without consum- mating the offerise. For instance physical injuries are punished as to result, whether serious, less serious, or slight. Th degree of injury cannot be determined without first consummating the of- fense. 2. Material felonies, or those which have various stages of execution. 3. Crimes which have no frustrated stage, such as rape because its essence is, camal, knowledge. Hence, even the slight penetration of the female organ consumma on especially since the amount of, property has been deleted in the to the law on arson, a e 12, Crimes mala in se and mala prokibita Poe ee cr [FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES 7 As to gravity (Art. 9) 1. Grave felonies; 2. Less grave felonies; and 3, Light felonies. As to count — composite, compound, complex, contin: ued, continuing. ‘As to nature — mala in se and mala prohibita Anact or omission may either be inherently evil (mala i use there isa law prohibiting the same felonies under the Code are mala in se where- in special laws are mala prokibita. However, it e nature of the act or omission that makes ther malum in se or malum prokibitum. Also, ‘even if a special law uses the terms of penalties in the Code, that alone will not make the act or omission a time malum in se. The law may only intend to make the Code apply suppletorily thereto. For instance, PD. 533 is an amendment of Articles 308, 309, and 7 of the Code. Thus, cattle rustling is still malum in se. (Taer v5. CA, GR. No. 85204, June 18, 1990) ~~ le. whereas mala pro- do Rot. The doing of the act itself and not its 05° illegality lies in its positively being prohib- (Dela Torre vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 121592, July 5, \ctions: In mala in se: 1. Basis — moral state of the offender hence, good. faith or lack of criminal intent is a defense.esa ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW 2, Modifying circumstances — taken into account in imposing the penalty on the offender precisely because his moral trait is the basis of this crime. ipation— penalty is computed on the basis of whether the malefactor is a principal offender, or merely an accomplice or accessory. 4. Stage of accomplishment — the penalty imposed depends on whether the crime is consummated, mala in se generally in- lly 80 for its basis is the Revised Penal ariness, hence, good faith or lack is not a defense, unless intent is the crime such as in Section 3(e) of 2. Modifying circumstances — not considered be- cause the law intends to discourage the commis- sion of the act specially prohibited. 3. Degree of participation — the penalty on the of- fenders is the same as they are all deemed princi- pals. 4. Stage of accomplishment — violation of law is punished only when accomplished or consum- mated ‘betayse intent is inherent in attempted. gr frustrafGd stage and intent is not relevant in ‘qtimes mala prakibita.» 5. Moral turpitude — not involved in crimes mala prohibita because the act would not have been ‘wrong if not for the prohibition by law. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES. ’ 6. Law violated — generally, special penal laws. €. Amalaise leony (such as reckless imprudence result- ing in damage to property) cannot absorb mala prohi- bita crimes (such as those violating P.D. No. 1067, PD. "No. 984, and R.A. No. 7942). What makes the former a felony is criminal intent (dolo) or negligence (culpa); what makes the latter crimes are the special laws enact- ‘ge ® Absolute or total repeal or express repeal — the act or Smission ls decriminalized = Pending case ~ dismissed whether the accused is, habitual delinquent or not Offender has been convicted fect of depriving a court of its authority to punish a person charged with violation of the law prior to its repeal and this isbeca ified repeal of a penal law constitutes a rendering legal what had been previously legal, sucha the offense no longer exists and ‘ho committed it never did 60. There tions to the rule, as follows:ecg later aa acc eee om: fauin eel eae i} (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW a, The inclusion of a saving clause in the repealing stat- ute that provides that the repeal shall have no effect on pending actions. b. Where the repealing act re-enacts the former statute and punishes the act previously penalized under the old law, In such instance, the act committed before the re-enactment continues to be an offense in the statute books and pending cases are not affected, regardl whether the new penalty to be imposed is m able to the accused. (Benedicto vs. Court of Apps No. 125359, September 4, 2001) 14. TheSpanish version should prevail over the English version for the Code was originally approved and-enacted ia Snap- shSection 15, Revised Administrative Code). For instance, Article 267 of the Code uses the rather than “kidnap” (secuestar or raptar), thus, the Spanish version should prevail in the interpretation of that Article. (People ws. Astorga, GR. No. 110097, December 22, 1997) 15. Finality of acquittal rule: The fundamental philosophy highlighting this rule cuts dee into the humanity of the laws and in a jealous watchfuiness over the rights of the citizen, when brought in unequal contest with the State. The State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a con. i as well as enhancing ty that even though innocent, he may be found guilty. (People vs. Velasco, G.R. No. 127444, September 13, 2000) ARTICLE 2 — Scope of application of the Code 1. Two applications of the Code »pplication — within the Philippine \cluding its atmosphere, interior waters and maritime zone. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES, n b, _Extra-territorial — the Code may be given application even to those crimes committed outside the Philippine territorial jurisdiction. when the question asks for the exceptions to the application of the Code, do not include in the an- swer the intra-territorial application in paragraph one for that is the general rule.) 2. Treaties and laws of preferential application such as R.A. 75 on iri of diplomatic representatives of foreign coun- tries prevail over the provisions of the Code. Under inter- national laws, sovereigns, heads of states and their official representatives enjoy immunity from suits. Pursuant to the Vienna Convention an DiplomaticRes, jons the heads of diplomatic missions are of three levels: (@) Ambassadors or muncios accredited to the heads of State; (6) Envoys, ministers or internuncios accredited to the heads of States; and (©) Charges a” affairs accredited to the ministers of foreign affairs. Comprising the stalt of the (diplomatic) mission are the diplomatic staff, the administrative staff and the tech- nical and service staff. Only the heads of missions, as well taff, excluding the members technical and service staff of the mis- tank. (Minucher vs. CA, G.R. respective states in concerns of commerce and navigation and perform certain ative and notarial duties, do not ordinarily enjoy the traditional diplomatic immunitiesa os iene ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW and privileges accorded that they are not charged. ymats, mainly for the reason he duty of representing their en re main yardstick in ascertaining whether a person is a diplomat entitled to immunity, is the determination of whether or not he performs di fiplomatic nature. (id) The basis Of toga of diplomatic agents and immunity is suit which requires the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic relations, a diplomatic agent enjoys immunity from criminal jurisdiction of the re- ceiving State except in the case of an action relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplo- if the foreign country Philippines will have b. The countruntcagistry determines.the nationality of the ship or airship, not its ownership. Thus a Filipino- ‘owned ship registered in a foreign country isa foreign ship. French/English Rules refer to the jurisdiction ouse Bnexchant-vessele-ef-ene-countiy located in another FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES w jurisdiction over the crime under in a merchant vessel is about the same because the general rule of one is the exception in the other. Thus: 1. French rule recognizes flag or nationality of was- The country. af ogistcy ilove jurisdiction but When the crime violated. eaceandorder The hostsGianiny Gich as drug-trafficking), the. yuntry will i jon. (Memory aid : Jelates.fo.intemal managenicnt.of.thewessel. In other cases (such as druj i Decause the crime shall be subject to Philippine courtswas the high seas is not within the jurisdiction of any country. War vessels. and olficial vessel of heads.otSiatos such as Ang Pangulo i iuzisi 5, Second and third exceptions: Forgery is committed by giving to a treasury or bank note or any instrument payable to bearer or to order the appearance of a true genuine document or by erasing, substituting, counterfeiting or altering by any means the figures, letters, words or signs contained therein. (Art. 169) If forgery was committed abroad, it must refer only to Philippine coin, currency note or obligations and secu- ities. The special mention of -in.the Code should be deemed as.not-waitten fac the Philippines is no longer. a. commonwealthofthe JS, eee6 ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW Fourth exception: A public officer /employee who commits a crime related to ce. Without this re- lation, they are acting in their private capacity and hence bound by the law of the host country. Example of this ex- ception is the act of a Philippine official sent to a war-torn country who absconds with public funds intended for repa- triation of OFWs thereat. Fifth exception: Title I of Book Il on crimes against national security and the law of nations which covers Treason, Espi- onage, Provoking War and ty in Case of War, Piracy and Mutiny, but not rebellion. ellion i abroad, the Phili ARIICLE 3 1 Felony refers exclusively to acts or omissi der the Code, Felonies in general‘have the elements comprising ei- ther dola or culpa whereas specific felonies under Book il of the Code have their own specific elements which are alleged in the Information. The elements under Article 3 appertain to the actor. The elements of specific felonies relate to the act or acts constituting the felony. ‘ase ofa lethal weapon would sh Kill although death did not result te thus the need to determine it by the tis demonstrated by the overtacisak AseCferezaT Rte ceimina intent pesymed from the vol untary commission of an unlataful ach. (Abdulla vs. People” No-150129, April 6, 2005) Thus, when the victim dies, ied from, the. act of kill- R.No. 142773, January 28, 2003) juries vis-a-vis at- sciviousness vs. at- tempted rape; ler by deed, etc. In these cases, specific criminal intent cannot be presumed but must be established. tances when the offender can be criminally liable, e is no criminal “These two species of crimes can only be consummated i c ime by other oan oer dent of hi nny front; (3) where the defendant, to stop a fired his 45 cal. twice in the air, and, as the bout id, he inal. (Llamoso vs. Sandigan- 163408 & 64026, August 7, 1985) A felony tequites ctiminal intent, Hence, when intent isabsontesthe— wind isnobcciminal, no crime. is committed. This doctrine applies only to dolo,6 ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW c 7. Motive is the moving power or force (such as vengeance) which impels a Generally, motive ‘Simmaterial in determining criminal lability, except ae 2% Macoy, GR. Nos, 9664950, July 1, 1997) In Article 3, culpa is a mode of committing a crime hence killing, for instance, s denominat Intelligence isthe capacity to understand what is rightand ‘whabiswssang. Discernment is relevant to intelligence, not q}levertheless, a conviction + ormatis i FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES, 7 gence is an element of both dolo and culpa, thus, whether the ting felony is intentional or culpable, discemmentisan. clement. Absent discemmmment, there is no.olfense whether dalo.or gulma... ‘12. When insanity is intesposed as.a defense or a ground of a motion to quash the burden rests upon the accused ta ese {ablish that fact, for the law presu absence of sulficient evidence to prove insan- ity, the legal presumption of one's sanity stands. (Zosa vs. CA, G.R. No, 105641, March 10, 1994) passlon and obfncaton merely mitigating. fo commit a felony, whether by dolo or culpa, ‘commit an impossible crime. 2. There are two clauses in no. 1 ofthis article: a. “By any person committing a felon ” referring to dolo because of te the word “intended”). The elements in the second clause are: 1. Anintentional felony is committed. 2. ‘The wrong done is the direct, natural, and logis cal consequence of the felony committed even though different from that intended.w ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW 3. Factors affecting intent and correspondingly the criminal li- ability: 3. Mistake affect, . -Brosimate-causo(the cause ofthe cause isthe cause of the ef ERR flees 4. Mistikeoffactisan shel tory ca relevant only in dota, hen ining the true state of facts, he may be free from dolo but not from culpa 9. Invaberratio ictus or error in the victim of the blow the of- fender intends the injury on one person but the harm fell on. another, There are three persons involved: the offender, the intended victim and the actual victim, Consequently, of fact where there is no crimi The effect of error in personae wepends upon whether the in- tended crime and actual crime committed are: x FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES the actual felony ‘Somumitisd.shall_be jmapased. Example: if the intend- ed crime is homicide but parricide was committed or vice-versa. In effect error in personae is extenuating cir- ccumstance, b. Of the same gravity or severity, the penalty is not miti- gated. Example: ifthe intended crime is homicide and the actual crime committed is also homicide but on a ‘wrong victim. The mistake in the identity of the victim carries the same gravity as when the accused zeroes in ‘on his intended victim. The main reason behind this conclusion is that eee nee errr 39519, November 21, ol 8 In praeter intentionem, the injury is on the intended victim but the resulting consequence is much more grave than in- tends SKeptit, s0 grave a wrong as that committed should be appreciated where the accused had no intent to kil but only to inflict in- juries when he attacked the victim. (People vs. Flores, infra.) 9. Proximate cause is that cause which, in its natural and con- ‘tinuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient intervening ‘cause, produces the injury and without which the result ‘would not have occurred. Proximate cause is to be consid- ered generally in determining whether the consequence of the act should also be borne by the offender. (Art. 4, no. 1)tl es ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW der i ‘5. Acuramt, GR. No. 117954, 4 pril 27, 2000) |. Anyone who inflicts injury voluntarily and with intent is liable for all the consequences of his criminal act, such as death, that supervenes as a consequence of the injuries. Here, accused is liable for the demise of the victim for such ‘was caused by the violent kicks which he inflicted on the vital parts of the victim’s body. (People vs. Flores, 252 SCRA) . The significance of evidence on the precise nature of the inju- ries sustained by the deceased is that it often leads the care- ful examiner to uncover the real cause of death. the examination of a wound, from the legal point should lead to the determination as to when the wound ‘was inflicted, what the degree of danger of the wound is, with its dangers to life or function, whether the wound was given by the injured man himself, or by some one else, and with what manner of instrument (People vs. Matyaong, G.R. Ni In fine, ines to he another, the evidence mus beyond reasonable doubt proximate cause of such ial when there are several possible causes of deat ing thatthe victim was af- ficted with food poisoning, accused may still be held liable for 1 prosecution had presented proof that accused's act of beating his wife was the efficient or proximate cause of death, or had accelerated her death, (id,) a. The acts performed would have been acrime against. Persons or property; $2 FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES, a ‘b. There is criminal intent; ¢ _ Ik is not accomplished because of theinherentimpos- sibility-9s Because the means employed is inadequate ot ineffectual — ‘The act performed by the offender cannot fense against persons or property because: sion of the offense is inherently impossi me ) th teach a lesson to the offender, Subjectively, the offender is a criminal although objectively no crime has been comunitted. ‘There is no attempted or frustrated stage. ‘There is now the impossible crime of rape because of the amendment brought about by the Anti-Rape Law which re- classified rape under Crimes against Persons as anew chap- ter and renumbered Article 266-A to D. ‘There is legal impossibility where the intended acts, even if completed would not amount to a crime, le-steale ing propes -cuwned. by-the stealer. It would apply to those circumstances where: a. The motive, desire, and expectation are to perform an act in violation of law: b, There is an intention to perform the physical act; There is a performance of the intended physical act; d. The consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount toa crime, ity is present when extraneous circum- ‘stances unknown to the actor or beyon¢ his control prevent the consummation. be completed. Bremp)t: gtealing froma, vault. that fumed, out to be empty.teen 2 (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW 7. The offender must not know the circumstance which made the crime an impossible crime. For instance, in killing a per- son who has just died; homicide/murder requires intent to kill. Had the offender known that the victim is already dead, intent to kill will be absent. At most, to desecration of the dead. The malefactors will not go to all the trouble and risks attending the commission of bank robbery if they knew that the vaults are empty. ARTICLE 5 |. Nulluma crimen nulla poena sine lege — there is no crime when there is no law that defines and punishes it. As a civil law country, in the Philippines penal laws are enacted. Crime is ‘the product of the law: no matter how evil an act ig its not a crime unless there is a law punishing it. Moreover, Article 21 prohibits the imposition of a penalty not prescribed by aw prior to the commission of a felony; and, the Constitu- tion prohibits the retroactive application of a penal law (ex post facto). 2. On the other hand a common law crime is one that is mani- festly contrary to good customs and public though not expressly punished by law. As from statutory law created by enactment common law comprises the body of those p: iples and rules of action relating to the government and security of persons and property, which derive their auth eras on aioe does not rest for ‘“Aitfiority upon any express and positive declaration of the will of the legislature. (Black's Law Dictionary) ARTICLE 6 1. Inthe consummated stage all acts hence the offender jp in the o as he no longer has control over the outcome of his acts, having performed all that is necessary to accomplish his purpose. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES a 2. Im the frustrated stage, the offender has also reached the_ ee for he has peconmed-al-the 3 For the atempted felony, the stage because he has not is accomplishment. he may or may not continue his overt acts. The important phrases here are: Preparatory act refers to a prior act. Sxiple: buying poison to kill the intended victim. ple: ropont and conspragy to commit a cri punished except in those cases provided for by law, racy to commit rebellion. son intending to rob ast the store but before he could enter he was apprehend- ‘open the window is no He may be charged with at that act is directly related to . “Desistance” — Is an apsolutory circumstancecSnly 15> he suempted-sace The’ stage exists at time when the offender stillfas contro}(COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW. ‘The moment he has lost control of the outcome of his acts the subjective phase is passed; the stage is now either frustrated or consummated (objective phase) where desistance is merly factual. and, produces no legal effect, hence, will not exempt the offender from criminal liability. felony is attempted. (People vs. Pareja, CR. No, 88043, cember 1958) ~ Seep. 3ej (3)(b) ~Abeali 4. Criteria to determine whether the crime is formal: {1 QAM: a The offender cannot possibly perform all the acts of ‘execution to bring the desired result without consum- mating the offense, such as slander. cannot be frustrated. For instance, since the gra~ of rape is carnal knowledge, the slighte f the female organ consummates the Since the burning of even a portion of the g is considered arson, the mere scorching thereof consum- mates the crime. When the crime requires the concurrence of the will of two parties, there is no frustrated stage, as in corrup- tion of public officers — the momentthe public officer. the gift, promise or consideration in bribery, eae of corruption ig consummated 6aPuhen the ‘ublic officer refuses to be corrupted, the crime is at tempted only. When the crime is treated by the Code in accordance th the results, ie, the result should be there before can be determined, eg., physical injuries, the in the consummated stage. In physi it cannot be determined whether the injury be slight less serious, or serious unless consummated. PS FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES, 3 5. Between attempted and frustrated felonies: a. A8 to acts of execution — in attempted, not all acts of execution had been done whereas in frustrated, all acts of execution had been performed. b, As to causes of non-accomplishment — in attemy it is a cause gr accident other. ” c. _Inattempted stage, the offender shase as he still has control of hi i strated stage, he is already in the objective phase. d. Example: in attempted homick mortal, hence the offender shoul other blow on the victim, which not able to do becau: He is therefore still in subjective stage. In frustrated homicide, the wound is mortal, sufficient to bring about death hence, there is no need of another blow but death nevertheless did zot supervene because of timely medical attendance. He has passed on to the objective phase because he has preformed all acts necessary to bring about the death of the victim. 6. Amere attempt to commit a felony is subsumed in the full execution thereof. To attempt is to commence the commis- ime by overt acts. If one has been proved to have ct required in an attempt. Thus, the accused could have suffered no prejudice, had they been tried under either one or the other section. (People vs. Boco, G.R, No. 129676, June 23, 1999) ARTICLE 7 1. When light felonies are punishable: Persons or property.rm “Io es = — 4 % ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW b, Inall stages if the crime is. againsS.persons or property. 2 Who are punishable — principals and accomplices. te Accessories are CEtpriminaly liable for light felonies. (Article 16) 3. Why is attempted and frustrated light felony not punish- able? And why is an accessory in consummated light felony not punishable? Because the deduction in penalty is 1 de- agree for frustrated, 2 degrees for the attempted stage and nother 2 degrees fr accessory offendensbifoe the penalty for light felony is arresto menor, there is no way of further reducing the penalty. De minimis non curat lex. ARTICLE 8 1. When the proposal is accepted, it becor essence of conspiracy is community of ple vs, Tilos, G.R. No. 138385, January 16, 20 2. Itis essential for one to be liable for the acts of the others that there be intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common desi heis the mastermind or principal by 3. The overt act of a co-conspirator may be in the form of: ‘Active participation in the actual commission of lf assistance to his, Epona ses by being pres- ent at the commis A. Exerting moral ascendancy over fe ‘other co-conspira- tors. (Pecko vs. People, G.R. No. 111399, September 27, 1996) An overt actin furtherance of the conspiracy may consist ly participating in the actual commis- sion of the crime, in lending moral assistance to his co- FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES. 2 conspirators by being present at the scene of the crime, or in exerting moral ascendancy. (People vs. Pablo, GR. Nos. 120394-97, January 16, 2001) 4, Two concepts of conspiracy: a. Asa crime by itself, the subject of conspiracy is not yet “COMMIET DUE the mere act of conspiring is defined and punished as a crime, for instance, proposal and b. As.a basis of incursing liability, the execution of the plan is commenced. Conspiracy by itself ceases to be the crime but is absorbed. Hence, the crime above is no longer conspiracy to commit rebellion but rebellion under Article 135. 5. Asa basis of incurring liability it is necessary to determine: there was prior agreement on how to commit the crime, in which case, a conspirator is Jia ashebppearedin he scene ech ule, Zisthe x nar naictyeonspiracy by rg agreement the la lity of the ie only for the crime agreed \ipon except 1. When the other crime was committed in their presence and they did not prevent its commission 2. When the other crime is the natural consequence planned, eg, homicide resulting from 3. When the resulting crime is a composite crime or special complex crime considered single indivis- ible felony composed of 2 distinct crimes. (infra) b. Whether it is an implied conspiracy, that is, the of- fenders acted in concert during the commission of theme i 2 (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW Mere knowledge, acquiescence to or approval of * the act without coo} is not enough to co cy absent the intentional particip: a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose. (People vs. Bragaes, G.R. No, 62359, November 14, 1991) oe, Necessarily, conspiracy as a crime cannot be im- lied conspiracy. It can only be by pre-agreement or planned because itis the act of conspiring that is penal- ized, 6. Direct proof of previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary for conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or in- ferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such rest. acy is one that is deduced from the mode which the offense was committed. The con- and mannet ‘certed acts ofthe parties to achieve the same objective signify conspiracy. People vs, Gu 13, 1989 first described 8. Conspiracy is not presumed Like the physical acts consti- tuting the crime itself, the elements absanspiracy saust.be roved beyond reasonable-doubt. While |. Mere knowledge, acquiescence or agreement to cooperat FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES » tion is proper upon proof that the accused acted in concert. ‘The act of ons and cachof the, accused will thereby be deere rpsinci- pale.of the crime committed, ippellant never fired a gun, he would still be a8 a co-conspirator in the killing of the might have inflicted the fatal blows or wounds, neve: blender Theptecniotn the act of a conspirator isthe act of all co-conspixators The degree ofactual participation in, E75, July . Although conspiracy is a joint ac, there is nothing irregular if a supposed co-conspirator is acquitted and others con- vvicted. Generally, conspiracy is only a means by which a crime is committed: the mere act of conspiring is not self punishable, Hence, it does not follow that one consp: tor alone cannot be convicted when there is a conspiracy. Aslong as the acquittal of a co-conspirator does not remove the basis of a charge of conspiracy, other conspirators may bbe found guilty of the offense. (People vs. Tiguman, G.R. Nos, 130502-03, May 24, 2001) ‘ot enough to constitute one as a conspirator absent any. tive participation in the commission of the crime pursuant to the common design and purpose. Conspiracy transcends7me aa cual feaahane eel (COMPACT REVIEWERIN CRIMINAL LAW companionship. (People vs. Compo, G.R. No. 112990, May 28, 2001) Mere presence at the scens that the accused had prio: of the principal perpetra make him as co-conspir act is essential for he may yet be an accomplice. (People vs. Samudio, G.R. No. 126168, March 7, 2001) to exist there intentionality on the part of cohorts (“decides to (Magsuci vs. Sardiganbayan, G.R. No. L-101545, When may the head of a government office be held liable as co-principal for the acts of his subordinates? Either by reck- ‘Tess imprudence or by conspiracy: if he by an act of reckless imprudence brought about the commission of estafa thru falsification, or malversation through falsification, without which the crime could not have been accomplished. When, however, that infraction consists in the reliance in good faith, albeit misplaced by a head of office on a subordinate upon whom the primary responsibility rests, absent a clear case of conspiracy, the Arias doctrine must be held to pre- vail. (Arias vs. Sandigantayan, G.R. No. 81563, December 19, 1989) i . Under the Arias doctrine all heads of offices have to rely to sonable extent on their subordinates and on the good those who prepare bids, purchase supplies, or en- ter into negotiations. There has to be some added reason why he should examine each voucher in such detail. Any executive head of even small goverment agencies or com- ‘missions can attest to the volume of papers that must be [FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES a signed. There are hundreds of documents, letters, memo- anda, vouchers, and supporting papers that routinely pass through his hands. The number in bigger offices or depart- ‘ments is even more appall 16. Jefthe absence of previous conspiracy, unity of criminal pur- pose and intention immediately before the commission of the cri unity of crimi the participants is, by him. (People vs. Desoy, 127754, August 16, 1999) ARTICLE 9 — Grave, less grave, light felonies ‘Stion, reese a 2. Less grave felonies are punished with penalties which in their maximum period are correctional, thus the maximum riod of the penalty must be dest a shod with fe menar or ‘Article 26,2200 fine is correc: Whether the accessory is liable; (Article 16). c. Whether a complex crime was comiitted; (Article 48) d. The duration of the subsidiary penalty; (Article 39, no.2) . The duration of the detention in case7 oo @ al) 2 (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW f. Whether the crime has prescribed; (Article 90)-and g. The proper penalty for quasi-offenses, (Article 365) ARTICLE 10 — Special Laws 1. Special penal laws define and penalize crimes not'included in the Code; they are different from those defined and pun- ished therein, ‘The law has long divided crimes into acts wrong in them fstinefon is important with reference to the intent with which a wrongful actis done. In acts mala prahhita the , a? When.an acts laws. ‘The second sentence is the soul of th shall have supplementary applic: ‘CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY = laws use the nomenclature of the penalties in ‘the Revised Penal Code, the effets ae: 's which are mere amendments of the provisions Penal Code, such as the Anti-Cattle Rustling jer vs. CA; Canta vs. Peo Camnapping Law, through amendment of Artide 310, 15 alum prohibutur) 9. The benign provis b. fenders . (People vs. Ondo, 227 SCRA 5E2) UMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL my the Philippines, penal laws subscribe to the classical the- ory hence there is a predetermined penalty for each crime.Poon taeee cn celts) tee eee Gd fee cree) (COMPACT REVIEWERIN CRIMINAL LAW Itis the office of modifying circumstances to increase or de- crease the penalty in accordance with the presence or ab- sence of circumstances showing the moral status of the of- er. ee circumstances which affect or are: ify criminal liabilit Justifying — Article 11 Exempting — Article 12 Mitigating — Articles 13 and 15 Aggravating — Articles 14 and 15 ‘Absolutory — exempting circumstances outside Ar- ticle 12 Extenuating — mitigating circumstances not found in Article 13, such as cong @@bandonment of wife by the hu fe tseorycecunstances Instigation due to public policy; Article 63) — pone desiatanse ia theatiema 3 ‘overt act committed constitutes an- Article 16 — accessories in light felonies; “Article 20 — accessories-relatives other than profiting. in the crime; oe Article 332 — certain relatives in theft, es cious mischief; ‘Somnambulism due to lack of intelligence; Mistake of fact due to lack of intent; ‘otal repeal of inalizes the act. (CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY s 4. Entrapment is the employment of ways and means f ment or instigation the mind of the instigator and mission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him. (People vs, Ramos, Jr, G.R. No. 88301, October 28, 1991) the delivery ofthe goods, fon ‘vs, Utoh Lakibul, G.R. No. 94337, January 27, 193) 6. Instigation and frame-up cannot be both present in a case for they are incompatible. In instigation, the crime is actu- ally performed by the accused except that the intent origi- nates from the mind of the inducers. In frame-up, however, the offense is not committed by the accused. Precisely, the accused is only framed or set up in a situation leading to a false accusation against him. allegation of frameup and.extactias, by police of- is a common and standard defense in most dangerous cases, It is viewed by the court with disfavor, for it can -rformance of their official duties, (id.)6 COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW 7. Distinctions: ENTRAPMENT a. The mens rea originated from the accused who was merely trapped by the peace officer in fla- grante delicto is not absolutory as 4. Trap for the unwary iminal (People vs. Mar- »s, GR. No. 83325, May 8, 1990) e. The peace officer is with- ‘out criminal liability for hisacts rein accordance with law a b. INSTIGATION ‘The evil idea originat- ed from the peace of- ficer who induced the accused to commit the act Absolutory by reason of public policy Contrary to public poli- y |. Trap for unwary inno- Gent yar ~ Coutts The peace officer ig a rincipal_by induce: EE aoe as Ramos ARTICLE 11 —~ Justifying Circumstances 1. Justifying circumstances are thosewheratheactsobthaac- -haxececeivad* The civil i tot on the actor but on those who benefited from the act. 3. The j ing circumstances are: a. Defense of self, of relatives, and of strangers; * 5. x 3. Unlawful aggressic ‘CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY ” b. State of necessity; Fulfillment of duty; and d. Obedience to superior order. Self-defense includes-défensé of ite, chastity pfoperty and Honor.of the accused who must prove with clear and con- ‘Vineing evidence the following elements: A. Unlawful aggression; ssity of the means employed to pre- nd vocation on the part of the person The effect of invoki ‘to place the burden in the a sccssl ip oroya inthe salifactonat tig ak tue tat ‘Of legiiimate defense hecayse thereby he admits the com: mission of the act, complains. y must at all times be present, When unlawful ageression is absent. there js no self-defense whether complete (Article 11) or incomplete (Articles 69 and 13[1}). Tt must be actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidat- ing attitude. The accused must present proof of positively strong act of real aggression. Unlawful ag such as to, aggression means ‘weapon such as to cause inj safety. Aggression is imminent at the point of happenin; tively strong,= (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW 9. That petitioner sustained injuries does not signify that he ‘was a victim of unlawful aggression. (Roca us. CA, G.R. No. 114917, January 29, 2001) ‘When the aggression no longer exists, such as when the ag ee need for self-defense Defender Musi stop for when agges- sion ceases and he still contin..ed to attack, he becomes the aggressor. 1. The presence of large number of wouinds inflicted on the victim and the severity thereof disprove self-defense, so do they belie the aim of incomplete defense of one's relative and indicate not the desire to defend one's relative but a de- termined effort to kill. (People vs. Santos, G.R. Nos. 99259-60, March 29, 1996) 12, Reasonable necessity of the means employed depends upon the circumstances surrounding the aggression, the state of mind of the aggressor and the available weapon at the defender’s disposal. 13, There is no reasonable necessity of the means of defense when the unlawful aggression on the part of the victim has ceased because there is no more need for the offender to defend himself. 14, Ik does not imply commensurability between the means of the attack and defense — the law requites a rational equiva- lence which is determined by the emergency, the imminent danger to which the person attacked is exposed, and the instinct, more than the reason, that moves or impels the defense. The proportionateness thereof does not depend upon the harm done, but rests upon the imminent danger of such injury. (People vs. Gutual, G.R, No, 115233, February 22, 1996) 15. The presence of a lary victim clearly indica the accused to kill his prey and belies the reasonableness of (CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY 2 the means adopted to prevent or repel an unlawful act of an aggressor. (People vs. Arizala, G.R. No. 130708, October 22, 1999) is the rule which applies a weapon and is espe- cially more liberal ifthe person attacked is a peace officer in the performance of his duty. Ths rule has superseded he APT. In defense of one's chastity, there must be mediate, just 18. Slandez may be a necessary.means.ta-repel-slander. But it Ar inust not be more than needed to defend oneself from the defamatory remarks, a “a i t pe ‘in addition, be the necessity to save another igh hese even if there eg nos onthe fense, there must be lack of sul- of the defender; as a mitigat- ing circumstance, there must be presence thereof on the part of the offended.