Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 27

Prospective - A person who commits an offense on board a Phil ship or airship

while the same is outside Phil territory can be tried by our courts.
- A penal law cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which it - Ship or airship must be in international waters.
was not punishable when committed.
A Public officer/employee, offense in the exercise of his functions.
No Law = No Crime = No Criminal Liability
- Direct bribery (Art. 210)
Exception - Indirect bribery (Art. 211)
- Frauds against the public treasury (Art. 213)
- When the new law is favorable to the accused
- Possession of prohibited interest (Art. 216)
Not Applicable: - Malversation (Art. 217)
- Falsification (Art. 171)
1. Express Prohibition;
Crimes against the national security and the law of nations
2. Habitual Criminal
- Treason (Art. 114)
Repeal - Espionage (Art. 117)
- If the repeal makes the penalty lighter, the new law shall be applied, - Piracy (Art. 122)
(Exception, retroactive, favorable) Foreign Merchant Ships
- If the new law imposes a heavier penalty, the old law shall be
applied, (General law, no retroactive effect, not favorable) - An extension of the territory of the country to which it belongs.
- If the new law totally repeals the existing law, the crime is - In the case of US Vs. H.N Bull, 1910 Jan 15, G.R No. 5270, a
obliterated, (Exception, retroactive, favorable) continuing crime on board a foreign merchant ship sailing to the
Phils. Is triable by our courts. The condition was still existing when
Construction of Penal Laws the ship was within territorial waters.
- Against the government and in favor of the accused. When a crime is committed on board a foreign merchant ship
- Spanish text is controlling.
International Waters – NOT triable in our courts, an extension of the
As in all rules of statutory construction, these rules are applicable only when territory of the country to which the ship belongs.
there is some ambiguity in the interpretation of the criminal statute.
Territorial Waters – TRIABLE in our courts unless – merely affect things
Art. 2 Extent of Application
1. Within the vessel or they refer to the
- Philippine ship or airship; 2. Internal management thereof. (English Rule)
- Forge or counterfeit coins, currency notes, obligations or securities;
- Introduction of items in no. 2 into the Phils; English Vs. French
- Public officers or employees in the exercise of their functions; Crimes committed on board FMV within territorial waters.
- National security or law of nations. French Rule – Not triable unless it affects peace and security of the
territory.
When committed on a Philippine ship or airship. English Rule – Triable unless they merely affect things within vessel or refer
to internal management thereof.
Example of English Rule Felonies
Possession of Opium
- Dolo – deceit/malice; deliberate intent
- If FMV is in transit – not triable - Culpa – fault, no deliberate intent but there is:
- If Phil is destination – triable o Imprudence – lack of skill, or
o Negligence – lack of foresight
Smoking Opium – triable regardless
*Must be voluntary
Opium is landed on Phil soil – triable regardless
Intent
*See Pp Vs. Wong Cheng, Pp Vs. Look Chaw & Pp vs. Ah Sing
- Being a state of mind intent is hard to prove.
Art. 3 Felonies - Criminal intent is presumed from the commission of an unlawful
act.
Felony is the technical term for violations of the RPC.
General intent Vs. Specific intent
Elements:
Intent as an element of dolo is a general intent.
- Act or omission;
- Punishable by the RPC; Specific intent, e.g., intent to gain in theft and robbery, intent to kill in
- There is dolo or culpa homicide and murder.
Act or Omission Mistake of Fact
- Act pertains to “any bodily movement tending to produce some Misapprehension of facts by the person who causes injury to another.
effect in the external world” Pp Vs. Gonzales, G.R No. 80762, Mar
19, 1990 No criminal liability on the part of the actor because there is no criminal
intent.
Acts
Requisites
Overt – done openly, external (not internal), must have a direct connection
with the felony committed. 1. Act is lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be.
2. Intention of accused is lawful.
Omission 3. No fault or carelessness.
- Refers to inaction or the failure to perform a positive duty. There
must be a law punishing such inaction or failure.

“Mere passive presence at the scene of another’s crime, mere silence and
failure to give the alarm, without evidence of agreement or conspiracy, do
not constitute the cooperation…”

(Pp Vs. Silvestre, Dec 14, 1931, G.R No. 35748)


(US Vs. Ah Chong, Mar 19, 1910, G.R No. 5272) Requisites of Culpa

- In broader terms, ignorance or mistake of fact, if such ignorance or 1. Freedom


mistake of fact is sufficient to negative a particular intent which 2. Intelligence
under the law is a necessary ingredient of the offense charged (e.g., 3. Imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill
in larceny, animus furendi; in murder, malice; in crimes and
misdemeanors generally some degree of criminal intent) “cancels Culpa – no intent to cause injury
the presumption of intent” and works an acquittal; except in those
- The offender in culpable felonies must perform an act without
cases where the circumstances demand a conviction under the
intention to cause injury to another.
penal provisions touching criminal negligence.
- If the offender intended to cause injury but the result is different
(Pp Vs. Oanis, July 27, 1943, G.R No. 47722) from that intended he is liable for an intentional felony under
Article 4.
- In the instant case, appellants, unlike the accused in the instances
cited, found no circumstances whatsoever which would press them Crimes or offenses punished by special laws
to immediate action. The person in the room being then asleep,
- Intent to commit the crime is not required, it is sufficient if the
appellants had ample time and opportunity to ascertain his identity
accused had intent to perpetrate the act.
without hazard to themselves, and could even effect a bloodless
- It is sufficient that the prohibited act is done freely or voluntarily.
arrest if any reasonable effort to that end had been made, as the
victim was unarmed, according to Irene Requinea. Basis
- And a peace officer cannot claim exemption from criminal liability if
he uses unnecessary force or violence in making an arrest. - The legislature has pronounced that the performance of the
prohibited act is injurious to public welfare and the doing of the
Mistake of fact Vs. Mistake of law prohibited act is the crime itself.
- Good faith or absence of intent is not a valid defense.
- This court, in Pp Vs. Bitdu, carefully distinguished between a
mistake of fact, which could be a basis for the defense of good faith Motive and intent
in a bigamy case, from a mistake of law, which does not excuse a
person even a lay person, from liability. Bitdu held that even if the - Motive is the moving power that impels one to action for a definite
accused, who had obtained a divorce under the Mohammedan result.
custom, honestly believed that in contracting her second marriage - Intent is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result.
she was not committing any violation of the law, and that she had
no criminal intent, the same does not justify her act. Motive not a requisite
(Diego Vs. Castillo, A.M. No, RTJ-02-1673, Aug 11, 2004)
Motive is not an essential element of a crime and is therefore not necessary
Good Faith is a good defense for the conviction of the accused. Except.

- In intentional felonies absence of intent is a defense, the accused is 1. There is doubt as to the identity of the accused.
not liable for intentional felony but may be liable for culpable 2. There are two antagonistic versions of the killing.
felony. 3. No eyewitnesses to the crime and there are several suspects.
4. Where evidence is circumstantial.
*Motive alone is not sufficient to sustain a conviction.
Art. 4 Criminal Liability Mistake in identity – error in personae
A intended to kill B;
Criminal liability is incurred: A mistakes C for B (darkness);
A shoots C killing him.
1. Committing a felony although the wrongful act done is different
from what he intended;
A is liable for the death of C, since C’s death is the direct, natural and logical
2. Impossible crime.
consequence of his felonious act (shooting)
Rule on criminal liability
Mistake in the blow – aberratio ictus
A person who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the X intended to kill Y;
consequences that may naturally and logically result therefrom, whether X shoots at Y;
foreseen or intended or not. X hits Z (poor aim) killing him.

Intentional Felony X is liable for the death of Z, since Z’s death is the direct, natural and logical
consequences of his felonious act (shooting Z) X is also liable for the attempt
For this article to apply, the offender must be committing an intentional
on Y.
felony (dolo)

“…different from that which he intended.” Injurious result is greater than that intended – praeter intenionem

If the offender was committing a culpable felony this article does not apply. A punches B once (no intent to kill);
B falls to the ground hitting his head on the pavement;
Committing a felony B dies as a result of the injuries to his head.
- If the person is not committing a felony, the article is not applicable.
A is liable for the death of B, since B’s falling to the ground and hitting his
Bindoy – trying to retain a bolo that was taken from the owner. head on pavement is the direct, natural and logical consequence of his
felonious act (punching)
Villanueva – snatching a bolo because of curiousity.
(Pp Vs. Cagoco, G.R No. 38511, Oct 06, 1933)
“Although the wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended.”
- There is nothing to indicate that it was due to some extraneous
Mistake in the identity – error in personae case. It was clearly the direct consequence of defendants felonious
Mistake in the blow – aberratio ictus act, and the fact that the defendant did not intend to cause so great
Injurious result is greater than that intended – praeter intenionem an injury does not relieve him from the consequence of his unlawful
act, but is merely a mitigating circumstance.
- In all three cases, the perpetrator is liable for all the natural and
logical consequences that may result from the unlawful act,
whether foreseen or not.
“Direct, natural and logical” Proximate Cause

- A person who threatens or pursues another with a knife and causes “that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any
the latter to jump to the river in order to avoid him and drowns as efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the
he did not know how to swim, is liable for the intentional death of result woud not have occurred.” (Salud Villanueva VBA. De Bataclan, Vs.
that person. (US vs. Valdez, 41 Phil 497) Mariano Medina, G.R No. L-10126, Oct 22, 1957)
- If the victim had a delicate constitution as he was suffering from
tuberculosis and died as a result from the fist blows, the person A Person is not liable for all the possible consequences of his act.
who delivered the said blows is liable for the death. (Pp Vs. Illustre,
- And there is authority that if the consequences resulted from a
54 Phil 594)
distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the criminal act, the
- If the death was accelerated by fist blows delivered because the
offender is not responsible for such consequences. (Pp Vs. Marco,
victim was suffering from some internal condition, the person who
G.R Nos. L-28324-5, May 19, 1978)
delivered the blows is liable for the death. (Pp Vs. Rodriguez, 23
Phil 22) Efficient Intervening cause
- If death results from shock after the victim was stabbed with a knife
and it was the stabbing that produced shock, the person who - Active force that intervenes between the felony and the resulting
stabbed the victim is liable for the death. (Pp Vs. Reyes, 61 Phil 341) injury
- The active force must be a distinct act
(Seguritan Vs. Pp, G.R No. 172896, April 19, 2010) - A fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act
- The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim
- Petitioner committed an unlawful act by punching Lucrecio, his
uncle who was much older than him, and even if he did not intend Impossible Crimes
to cause the death of Lucrecio, he must be held guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for killing him pursuant to the above-quoted - The felony intended by the offender is not achieved due to:
provision. He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil o Inherent impossibility
caused. o Employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
- There is still criminal liability. (Criminal propensity)
Refusal of or Unskillful Medical treatment
Requisites of an impossible crime:
- Where the victim refuses to submit to surgical operation, the
person who caused the injuries is still liable as a person is not - Persons or property
obliged to submit to a surgical operation to relieve the accused from - Evil intent
the natural or ordinary results of his crime. (US Vs. Marasigan, 27 - Inherently impossible or means employed is inadequate or
Phil 504) ineffectual
- Should not constitute another violation of the RPC
Refusal

“…. That he who inflicts the injury is not relieved of responsibility if the
wound inflicted is dangerous, that is calculated to destroy or endanger life,
even though the immediate cause of the death was erroneous or unskillful
medical or surgical treatment…” (Pp Vs. Inocentes Moldes, G.R No. 42122,
Dec 01, 1934)
Against Persons or Property Art. 5 Duty of Judge when situation not covered by law.
Crimes against persons:
- Act is not punished by law – must render a decision according to the
- Murder, homicide, physical injuries, rape, etc. law.
- Excessive penalties – must not suspend the execution of sentence.
Crimes against property:
*Report to the president through the DOJ.
- Robbery, theft, estafa, etc.
Alternative penalties not allowed
Kidnapping or serious illegal detention is a crime against liberty.
“sentences should not be in the alternative. There is nothing in the law
Evil Intent which permits courts to impose sentences in the alternative.” While a judge
has the discretion of imposing one or another penalty, he cannot impose
- There must be intent to injure another.
both in the alternative. “he must fix positively and with certainty the
Inherently impossible particular penalty.” (Abellana Vs. Pp, G.R No. 174654, Aug 17, 2011)

- Our laws do not distinguish between legal and physical impossibility Art. 6 Stages of Execution

(Intod Vs. Pp, G.R No. 103119, Oct 21, 1992) - Consummated
- Frustrated
- Furthermore, the phrase “inherent impossibility” that is found in - Attempted
Article 4(2) of the RPC makes no distinction between factual or
physical impossibility and legal impossibility. Consummated

Inadequate or ineffectual means - All element necessary for its execution and accomplishment are
present.
Inadequate, e.g., when the poison used it too small a quantity to cause
death. The quantity should not even cause any injury. Frustrated

Ineffectual, e.g., using sugar or salt mistaking it for arsenic. - Offender performs all the acts of execution that would produce the
felony but does not produce it by reason of causes independent of
(Pp Vs. Enoja, G.R No. 102596, Dec 17, 1999) the will of the perpetrator.

- In another case where the accused who claimed that since they shot Attempted
the victim after the first shooter had already shot the victim, they
were in effect shooting a person already dead, the SC called their - Offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt
argument merely speculative. acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should
produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than
his own spontaneous desistance.
Development of a crime ______________________________________________________________
st
1 internal acts – not punishable Pp Vs. Lamahang, G.R No. 43530 Aug 03, 1935
2nd external acts:
“That in order to declare that such and such overt acts constitute an
a) Preparatory Acts – generally not punishable; attempted offense it is necessary that their objective be known and
b) Acts of Execution – punishable established, or that said acts be of such nature that they themselves should
obviously disclose the criminal objective necessarily intended, said
Attempted Stage, Elements objective and finality to serve as ground for the designation of the offense..”
- Commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts
______________________________________________________________
- Does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce
Pp Vs. Lizada, G.R No. 142468-71, Jan 24, 2003
the felony.
- Acts are not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance
An overt or external act is defined as some physical activity or deed,
- Due to a cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more than a mere
desistance.
planning or preparation, which if carried out to its complete termination
following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles
Overt Acts
nor by the spontaneous desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and
necessarily ripen into a concrete offense.
- External Acts;
- Direct connection with the crime intended to e committed
It is necessary, however, that the attempt must have a causal relation to
Equivocal Vs. Unequivocal the intended crime. In the words of Viada, the overt acts must have an
immediate and necessary relation to the offense.
- Drawing a pistol or raising a bolo are equivocal acts.
- Drawing a pistol, aiming the same at the victim and, with intent to “First, the character of an attempt is lost when its execution is voluntarily
kill, discharge the firearm at the victim can we say that the acts are abandoned. ….secondly, the policy of the law requires that the offender, so
overt acts of homicide/murder. long as he is capable of arresting an evil plan, should be encouraged to do
so, by saving him harmless in case of such retreat before it is possible for any
“Directly by Overt Acts” evil consequences to ensue, Neither society, nor any private person, has
been injured by his act. There is no damage, therefore, to redress.”
- This element requires that the offender personally execute the
commission of the crime.
- Inducing another to commit a crime, when the person induced does
not accede will not result in criminal liability for the inducer as the Does not perform all acts of execution
general rule is mere proposal to commit a crime is not punishable.
- If the offender has performed all acts of execution – consummated
stage or frustrated stage
- If there is still something else to be done – attempted stage
“By reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous Desistance after performing all acts
desistance”
“If he has performed all of the acts which should result in the consummation
- Does not perform all acts of execution due to his own spontaneous of the crime and voluntarily desists from proceeding further, it cannot be an
desistance – no criminal liability attempt.”
- It is a reward for those “having one foot on the verge of crime,
heed the call of their conscience and return to the path of Frustrated and Attempted distinguished
righteousness”
Frustrated – there is no intervention of a foreign or extraneous cause or
Spontaneous Desistance agency between the beginning of the commission of the crime and the
moment when all of the acts have been performed which should result in
- Absolves one from the crime he intended to commit NOT from the the consummated crime.
crime actually committed before the desistance. Attempted – there is such intervention and the offender does not arrive at
the point of performing all the acts which should produce the crime.
Frustrated Stage

 Offender performs all acts of execution. Subjective Phase


 All the acts performed would produce the felony as a consequence.
 The felony is not produced. - The subjective phase is that portion if the acts constituting the
 By reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. crime included between the act which begins the commission of the
crime and the last act performed by the offender which, with the
Performs all acts of execution
prior acts, should result in the consummated crime. From that time
- Nothing is left to be done by the offender because he has forward the phase is objective.
performed the last act necessary to produce the crime. - On the other hand, in case of frustrated crimes the subjective phase
is completely passed. Subjectively the crime is complete.
Belief of the Offender

“…this court has held that it is not necessary that the accused actually Pp Vs. Dagman, G.R No. 23133, Aug 20, 1925
commit all the acts of execution necessary to produce the death of his
victim, but that it is sufficient that he believes that he has committed all said The murder should be regarded as frustrated because the offenders
acts.” Pp Vs. Sy Pio, G.R No. L-5848, Apr 30, 1954 performed all of the acts of execution which should precede the felony as a
consequence but which, nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of
causes independent of the will of the perpetrators; in this instance, the
US Vs. Eduave, G.R No. 12155, Feb 02, 1917 playing possum by Magbual.

“A crime cannot be held to be attempted unless the offender, after


beginning the commission of the crime by overt acts, is prevented, against
his will, by some outside cause from performing all of the acts which should
produce the crime.”
By Reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator Manner of committing the crime

Felony NOT produced - causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. Formal Crimes – Slander and false testimony.

Eduave - "A deadly weapon was used, the blow was directed towards a vital Mere Attempt or proposal – Flight to enemy’s country (attempt) and
part of the body. The aggressor stated his purpose to kill, thought he had corruption of minor (proposal)
killed, and threw the body into the bushes. When he gave himself up he
declared that he had killed the complainant." Material Crimes – Rape, homicide or murder.

Dagman - "...playing possum by Magbual." Attempted or Frustrated Homicide

Consummated Stage In Palaganas Vs. People, we ruled that when the accused intended to kill his
victim, as shown by his use of a deadly weapon and the wounds he inflicted,
- All the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment but the victim did not die because of timely medical assistance, the crime is
are present. frustrated murder or frustrated homicide. If the victim’s wounds are not
fatal, the crime is only attempted murder or attempted homicide. (Colinares
Factors
Vs. Pp, G.R No. 182748, Dec 13, 2011)
- The nature of the offense.
- The elements constituting the felony.
- The manner of committing the same.

Nature of the Offense

 Arson

o If any part of the structure is burned (consummated)


o If the fire is started but no part of the structure is burned
(frustrated)
o If no fire has been even started (attempted)

Elements of the offense

Theft – gaining possession of the item consummates the felony.

There is no frustrated theft. Valenzuela Vs. Pp, G.R No. 1160188, June 21,
2007
Article 7 Light Felonies association and a concurrence of sentiment, conspiracy may be
inferred. And where there is conspiracy, the act of one is deemed
- Punishable only when consummated. the act of all. (Pp Vs. Aleta, G.R No. 179708, Apr 16, 2009)
Except: Crimes against persons or property.

Article 8 Conspiracy and Proposal


Common Design
- Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
- Appellants’ disclaimer of the presence of conspiracy fails. The
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
evidence shows that they cooperated in a common design to kill
- There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a
Chu. Regalado initiated the killing when he stabbed Chu on the
felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons.
chest, and the two other appellants joined Regalado in chasing Chu,
No Criminal Liability with Regalado hitting Chu with firewood along the way. Then, when
the three of them had cornered Chu, Aragon boxed and kicked Chu,
“….are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a enabling Lopez to stab him several times. These indicate a
penalty therefor.” (Art. 8, pa. 1, RPC) conspiracy. (Pp Vs. Lopez, G.R No. 177302, Apr 16, 2009)

- Art. 115. Conspiracy to commit treason One and the Same Purpose
- Art. 136. Conspiracy to commit coup d’ etat,
rebellion or insurrection - However in determining whether conspiracy exists, it is not
- Art. 141. Conspiracy to commit sedition sufficient that the attack be joint and simultaneous for
simultaneousness does not of itself demonstrate the concurrence of
Crime Vs. Manner of incurring liability will or unity of action and purpose which are the bases of the
responsibility of the assailants. What is determinative is proof
- Treason, coup d’ etat, sedition is actually committed – conspiracy is establishing that the accused were animated by one and the same
NOT a crime but a manner of incurring criminal liability. purpose. (Quidet)
Conspiracy Direct Proof NOT Required
- Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement - Direct proof of conspiracy is rarely found; circumstantial evidence is
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The often resorted to in order to prove its existence. (Pp Vs. Amodia,
essence of conspiracy is the unity of action and purpose. It’s G.R No. 173791, Apr 7, 2009)
elements, like the physical acts constituting the crime itself, must be
proved beyond reasonable doubt. When there is conspiracy, the act Amodia
of one is the act of all. (Quidet Vs. Pp, G.R No. 170289, Apr 8, 2010) - An accused participates as a conspirator if he or she has performed
some overt act as a direct or indirect contribution in the execution
Indications of Conspiracy
of the crime planned to be committed.
- When two or more persons aim their acts towards the  Active Participation;
accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so  Moral Assistance by being Present; or
that their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact  Exercising Moral Ascendancy
connected and cooperative indicating closeness of personal
______________________________________________________________ All conspirators would be equally liable
(Pp Vs. Muit, G.R No. 181043, Oct 8, 2008) - “…once conspiracy is established between several accused in the
commission of the crime of robbery, they would all be equally
- Conspiracy is a unity of purpose and intention in the commission of culpable for the rape committed by anyone of them on the occasion
a crime, where conspiracy is established, the precise modality or of the robbery, unless anyone of them proves that he endeavored
extent of participation of each individual conspirator becomes to prevent the others from committing rape.” (Evangelio)
secondary since the act of one is the act of all. The degree of actual
participation in the commission of the crime is immaterial. No conspiracy – separate and individual responsibility

______________________________________________________________ - In the absence of conspiracy, the liability of the defendants is


separate and individual, each is liable for his own acts, the damage
“Even if not all the parties committed the same act” caused thereby, and the consequences thereof. While the evidence
shows that the appellant boxed the deceased, it is, however, silent
A conspiracy exists even if not all the parties committed the same act, but
as to the extent of the injuries, in which case, the appellant should
the participants performed specific acts that indicated unity of purpose in
be held liable only for slight physical injuries. (Quidet)
accomplishing a criminal design. Moreover, direct proof of previous
agreement to commit an offense is not necessary to prove conspiracy – Two different crimes
conspiracy may be proven by circumstantial evidence. (Pp Vs. Malibiran,
G.R No. 178301, Apr 24, 2009) - Their acts did not reveal a unity of purpose that is to kill Pasion.
Bokingco had already killed Pasion even before he sought Col. Their
______________________________________________________________ moves were not coordinated because while Bokingco was killing
(Pp Vs. Reyes, G.R No. 178300, Mar 17, 2009) Pasion because of his pent-up anger, Col was attempting to rob the
pawnshop. (Pp Vs. Bokingo G.R No. 187536, Aug 10, 2011)
- When the accused by their acts aimed at the same object, one
performing one part and the other performing another part as to Proposal
complete the crime, with a view to the attainment of the same Requisites of proposal
object, conspiracy exists.
- A person has decided to commit a felony.
______________________________________________________________ - He proposes its execution to some other person or persons.

(Pp Vs. Evangelio, G.R No. 181902, Aug 31, 2011) Art. 115. Proposal to commit treason.
Art. 136. Proposal to commit coup d’ etat, rebellion or insurrection.
- To be a conspirator, one need not participate in every detail of the
execution; he need not even take part in every act or need not even The crime must not be committed
know the exact part to be performed by the others in the execution
of the conspiracy. - If the crime is actually committed proposal becomes a manner of
incurring liability, i.e. principal by inducement.
- Acceptance of the proposal is not necessary.
Article 9 Gravity of Felonies
(Go-Tan Vs. Spouses Tan, G.R No. 168852, Sept 30, 2008)
 Grave
 Less Grave - Hence, legal principles developed from the Penal Code may be
 Light applied in a supplementary capacity to crimes punished under special laws,
such as R.A No. 9262, in which the special law is silent on a particular
Grave Felonies matter.
- Capital Punishment (Death)
Provisions of the RPC not applicable
- Penalties which in any of its period is afflictive.
Article 71 of the RPC – Scale of Penalties.
o Afflictive (Art. 25)
Special Laws.
 Reclusion Perpetua
 Reclusion Temporal - Punishes only consummated acts.
 Permanent/Temporary Absolute Disqualification - No definition of accessories or accomplices.
 Permanent/Temporary Special Disqualification - No formula for graduation of penalties.
 Prision Mayor - Terms, i.e., penalties are not the same.
- Mitigating/aggravating circumstances cannot be considered, no
Less Grave Felonies
graduation of penalties.
- Punishment which in their maximum is correctional.
Circumstances that affect criminal liability
o Correctional Penalties (Art. 25)
 Prision Correcional - Justifying (Art. 11)
 Arresto Mayor - Exempting (Art. 12)
 Suspension - Mitigating (Art. 13)
 Destierro - Aggravating (Art. 14)
- Alternative (Art. 15)
Light Felonies
- Absolutory Causes (Minority, Art. 280 Last par., violent insanity, Art.
- Arresto Menor 332, Art. 344)
- Fine not exceeding P200.00 or both

Felony – Fine of P200.00, is a light felony.


*Art. 26 classifies fines as a penalty. (Fine is a light penalty if it is less than
P200.00)

Article 10

1st Clause – The RPC is not intended to supersede SPL’s


2nd Clause – The RPC is supplementary to special laws, unless the special law
provides otherwise.
Imputability Vs. Responsibility Defense of Person or Rights
- Person includes danger to one’s:
 Imputability – quality by which an act may be ascribed to a person o Life
as the author. o Limb
 Responsibility – Obligation of suffering the consequences of crime. - Rights includes
o Right to property
While an act may be imputable to a person, it may not necessarily mean he
would be responsible for the same. Self-Defense, requisites

Article 11. Justifying Circumstances 1. Unlawful aggression


2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
- In accordance with the law. 3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
o The actor is not considered to have violated the law. himself
o No criminal or civil liability.
o No crime committed. Unlawful Aggression

- This is a condition sine qua non. An essential and indispensible


(Colinares Vs. Pp, G.R No. 182748, Dec 13, 2011) requisite.
- No unlawful aggression, no self-defense whether complete or
- When the accused invokes self-defense, he bears the burden of incomplete.
showing that he was legally justified in killing the victim or inflicting injury to - The aggression must be unlawful and actual.
him. The accused must establish the elements of self-defense by clear and
convincing evidence. When successful, the otherwise felonious deed would (Pp Vs. Concillado, G.R No. 181204, Nov 28, 2011)
be excused, mainly predicated on the lack of criminal intent of the accused.
“The most important among all the elements is x x x unlawful aggression.
Justifying Circumstances: Unlawful aggression must be proved first in order for self-defense to be
successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete.” “There can be no
1. Self-defense self-defense unless there was unlawful aggression from the person injured
2. Defense of relatives or killed by the accused; for otherwise, there is nothing to prevent or repel.”
3. Defense of strangers “Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to
4. Avoidance of a greater evil or injury inflict real imminent injury, upon a person.”
5. Fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of right or office
6. Obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose - If the victim did not commit unlawful aggression against the
accused, the latter has nothing to prevent or repel and the other two
Self-Defense requisites would have no basis for being appreciated.
- In defense of his person or rights.

Basis:

- State cannot protect all of its citizens all of the time.


- It is a natural reaction to resist any invasion of a person or his rights.
Aggression must be unlawful aggressor to cause an injury shall have been made. A mere threatening or
intimidating attitude is not sufficient to justify the commission of an act
“It cannot be said that there was a previous unlawful aggression…” which is punishable per se, and to allow a claim of exemption from liability
on the ground that it was committed in self-defense.”
“…taking into consideration the fact that the purpose of the deceased in so
doing was to succeed in capturing the arresting the appellant…” (Pp Vs. (US Vs. Ferrer, G.R No. 60, Nov 8, 1901)
Gayrama, G.R No. 39270, 39271, Oct 30, 1934)
- The unlawful aggression and the defense must be
(Pp Vs. Merced, G.R No. 14170, Nov 23, 1918)
simultaneous/without appreciable interval of time
“…That assault was natural and unlawful, for the reason that it was made by
“If any time intervened between the supposed attack of the deceased and
a deceived and offended husband in order to defend his honor and rights by
the firing of the revolver by the defendant, the latter’s actions would cease
punishing the offender of his honor, and if he had killed his wife and the
to have the true character of a real defense, which, in order to be legally
other defendant, he would have exercised a lawful right,…”
sufficient, requires primarily and as an essential condition that the attack be
immediately present.”
Aggression must be actual

- An actual assault, or
- Threat of an assault of an:
o Immediate and imminent;
o Offensive and positively strong showing the wrongful intent
to cause an injury.

Actual Aggression

“Unlawful aggression contemplates an actual, sudden and unexpected


attack on the life and limb of a person or an imminent danger thereof, and
not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. The attack must be real,
or at least imminent. Mere belief by a person of an impending attack would
not be sufficient.” (Baxinela Vs. Pp, G.R No. 149652, Mar 24, 2006)

Actual or Imminent

Actual – Assault with a cane. (US Vs. Laurel)


Imminent – Rocking a boat coupled with threats of capsizing the same. (Pp
Vs. Cabungcal)

(Pp Vs. Macaso, G.R No. L-30489, June 30, 1975)

“To constitute unlawful aggression, it is necessary that an attack or material


aggression, an offensive act positively determining the intent of the
Unlawful Aggression must exist at the time of the act constituting self-
defense
The Nature, Character, Location and Extent of Wound/Injuries.
“a fleeing man is not dangerous to the one from whom he flees.”
- Wounds/Injuries on the victim would usually indicate whether self-
defense is credible or not. “…it is because this court considered that the requisites of self-defense had
ceased to exist, principal and indispensable among these being the unlawful
- Wounds/Injuries on the accused are not as determinative as the aggression of the opponent.” (Pp Vs. Alconga, Apr 30, 1947, G.R No. L-162)
injuries on the victim.
(Pp Vs. Acosta, G.R No. 140386, Nov 29, 2001)
“granting that the victim gave the initial unlawful aggression, it had certainly
Cano Vs. Pp, G.R No. 155258, Oct 7, 2003 ceased from the moment he fell to the ground. At that point, accused Renny
Boy became the aggressor. When the unlawful aggression has ceased to
“….the superficiality of the nature of the wounds inflicted on the accused
exist, the one making the defense has no right to kill or injure the former
does not, per se, negate self-defense. Indeed, to prove self-defense, the
aggressor.”
actual wounding of the person defending himself is not necessary.”

Age and condition of alleged aggressor Defense of Rights

- Accused was 24 while victim was a sexagenarian (Diaz) - Rights to Chastity:


- The victim was 55 years old, seriously injured, lost his right hand o Jaurigue – incomplete, no reasonable necessity.
(Ardiza) o Dela Cruz – complete, no other means to defend herself.
- Right to Property:
Behavior immediately after the incident o Actual attack on the person in lawful possession of the
property. (Art. 249 NCC)
- Failure to interpose self-defense after:
o Surrendering – Manansala Defense of Rights
o Confession – De la Cruz
Home:
Physical Findings “Violent entry… at nighttime…”
“…ready and looking for trouble…”
- Accused claims that when he stabbed the victim they were facing
“…shows aggression instead of fear…”
each other. The factual findings establish that the wounds were in
Circumstances should still show unlawful aggression.
the back of the victim. (Dorico)
- The victim still had his gun tucked inside the waistband of the pants (Pp Vs. Guy-sayco, G.R No. 4912, Mar 25, 1909)
and received 13 gunshot wounds. (Perez)
“In order to consider that an unlawful aggression was actually committed, it
is necessary that an attack or material aggression, an offensive act
positively determining the intent of the aggressor to cause an injury shall
have been made; a mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not
sufficient to justify the commission of an act which is punishable per se…”
Unlawful Aggression (Dec. Sup. Ct. Spain)

- Aiming a revolver at someone with the intention of shooting him. (Pp Vs. Lara, G.R No. 24014, Oct 16, 1925)
- Retreating two steps and placing his hand in his pocket indicating
his purpose to commit an assault with a weapon. - It should be borne in mind that in emergencies of this kind human
- Opening a knife and making a motion as if to make an attack. nature does not act upon processes of formal reason but in
obedience to the instinct of self-preservation; and when it is
apparent, as in the case, that a person has reasonably acted upon
(Pp Vs. Francisco De La Cruz, G.R No. 41487, May 02, 1935) this instinct, it is the duty of the courts to sanction the act and to
hold the actor irresponsible in law for the consequences.
- In order that legitimate self-defense may be taken into account and
sustained as a defense, it is necessary, above all, that the aggression be real, (Pp Vs. Macasaet, G.R No. 11718, Oct 31, 1916)
or at least, imminent, and not merely imaginary.
- Having concluded, however, that under all the circumstances the
Reasonable Necessity accused was justified in making use of his knife to repel the
unprovoked assault as best he could, it would be impossible to say
- The second requisite in self-defense is reasonable necessity in the that a second or third blow was unnecessary under all the
means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression. circumstances of the case, it appearing that the accused instantly
and without hesitation inflicted all the wounds at or about the same
Elements
time.”
There must be reasonable necessity in both:

- Course of action taken by the person defending;


- Means used.
Reasonable Necessity in the means used.
Determined by:
- Rational necessity to employ the means used.
- Existense of unlawful aggression and - Perfect equality is not required.
- The nature and extent of the aggression. - Rational equivalence is what is required.

Nature and Extent of Aggression

- Striking a person on the head with a lead pipe causing death – (US Vs. Apego, G.R No. 7929, Nov 08, 1912)
mauled with fist blows by several men. (Ocaña)
- Shooting a person who was playing a practical joke – place was dark "....since there was no real need of wounding with the said weapon him
and uninhabited. “Lie down and give me your money or else you who had merely caught her arm."
die” (Sup. Ct. Spain)
"...there was no just nor reasonable cause for striking a blow therewith in
the center of the body, where the principal vital organs are seated, of the
man who had not performed any act which might be considered as an
actual attempt against her honor."
(Pp Vs. Montalbo, G.R No. 34750, Dec 31, 1921) (US Vs. Mendoza, G.R No. 1098, Apr 6, 1903)

“though the deceased struck him with his fists, the appellant was not - The character of his weapon is such that in our opinion the
justified in mortally wounding his assailant with the penknife. This was not a defendant could not then have reasonably believed that it was
reasonably necessary means of repelling the attack.” necessary to kill his assailant in order to repel the attack.

Rational Equivalence “It is an instrument shaped like a small chisel (escoplo) with no point or
cutting edge on either side, and is used for the purpose of taking out the
- Nature and quality of the weapon used; contents of betel nuts or the like.”
- Physical condition, character, and size;
- Other circumstances of both aggressor and person defending (US Vs. Mack, G.R No. L-3515, Oct 03, 1907)
himself.
- Place and occasion of assault. “….court not reasonably be excepted to take the chance that mere ordinary
force would be used in striking, or that the blow would be given upon some
Rational Equivalance, Rationale. protected part of his body, or that the cutting edge of the blade was not
keen enough to give him his death blow.”
- Because this justifying circumstances is borne by necessity and is
resorted only in extreme situations or emergencies, the person “…in the shades of night the defendant, with his adversary advancing upon
defending himself is not expected to think coolly and clearly. The him and within a few feet of striking distance.”
person defending is, therefore, not expected to control his blow or
draw a distinction as to the injury that would result after he delivers “The reasonable and natural thing for him to do under the circumstances
his blow. was to fire at the body of his opponent, and thus make sure of his own life.”

Weapons “Not every wound which proves fatal is sufficient to stop an enemy’s attack,
and the accused and his assailant were so close at hand that until the
- Using more dangerous weapons would not preclude reasonable assailant fell to the ground it can be said that the accused was out of
necessity, if it cannot be shown that: danger. Even a wounded man with a drawn bolo in his hand might prove to
o Other means were available, or if there were other means, be no mean antagonist at close quarters.”
he could coolly choose the less deadly weapon to repel the
assault. Physical Condition, Character and Size of the Opposing Parties.

(Pp Vs. Oñas, G.R No. L-17771, Nov 29, 1962) “one is not required, when hard pressed, to draw fine distinctions as to the
extent of the injury which a reckless and infuriated assailant might probably
- In other words, if the accused has only drawn his bayonet in inflict upon him…” (Pp Vs. Ignacio, G.R No. 40140, Nov 27, 1933)
defense, that would have been enough to discourage and prevent
the deceased from further continuing with his attack or sufficient to When attacked by an unarmed assailant/s
ward off the blows given by the deceased when he attacked the “…there may be other circumstances, such as the very violence of the attack
accused. In stabbing the deceased with his bayonet, the defendant- or a great disparity in the age or physical ability of the parties, which give
appellant went beyond what was necessary to defend himself deceased [accused] reasonable ground to apprehend danger of death or
against the unlawful aggression made by the deceased. great bodily harm and justify him in employing a deadly weapon in self-
defense.” (Ignacio)
Private individual vs. Law Enforcement Officer Burden of Evidence
o Private Individual – Prevent or repel aggression. - In the case, considering that at the outset, accused-appellant has
o Law Enforcement Officer – Overcome his opponent. already maintained a claim of self-defense, the burden of evidence
Lack of Sufficient Provocation rests upon him in proving his act of stabbing as justifiable under the
circumstances. (Pp Vs. Maningding, G.R No. 195665, Sept 14, 2011)
- The person defending must not have by his unjust conduct provoked
the aggression sought to be repelled or prevented. Admits to the offense charged

- By pleading self-defense, an accused admits the killing, and thereby


There are 4 situations where the 3rd requisite is considered present: assumes the burden to establish his plea of self-defense by credible,
- No Provocation. clear and convincing evidence; otherwise, his conviction will follow
- Provocation was not sufficient. from his admission of killing the victim. (Pp Vs. Nugas, G.R No.
- Was not given by the person defending himself. 172606, Nov 23, 2011)
- Was not immediate or proximate. (Pp Vs Concillado, G.R No. 181204, Nov 28, 2011)
Alconga - When an accused admits the commission of the crime but claims
the justifying circumstance of self-defense, the burden of proof is
“There is sufficient provocation when it is proportionate to the act of
aggression and adequate to stir the aggressor to its commission.” shifted to him. When the accused miserably fails to discharge his
burden, he does not deserve an acquittal. His conviction must be
Need not be an act of violence sustained, as in the instant case.

- Challenging one to come out of the house to fight. (US Vs. McCray, (Pp Vs. Genosa, G.R No. 135981, Jan 15, 2004)
2 Phil 545, Pp Vs. Valencia, L-58426, Oct 31, 1984)
- Hurling insults or imputing the utterance of vulgar language. (Pp Vs. First, each of the phases of the cycle of violence must be proven to have
Sotelo, 55 Phil 403) But a petty question of pride does not justify characterized at least two battering episodes between the appellant and
wounding or killing an opponent. (“Why are you calling me?” Pp Vs. her intimate partner.
Dolfo)
- Forcibly trying to kiss the sister of the deceased. (Getilda, CA) Second, the final acute battering episode preceding the killing of the
batterer must have produced in the battered person’s mind an actual fear
Burden of proving justifying circumstances of an imminent harm from her batterer and an honest belief that she
needed to use force in order to save her life.
- In justifying circumstances, the actor admits to the commission of
the act buy interposes a justifying circumstance. He, therefore, has Third, at the time of the killing, the batterer must have posed probable –
the burden of proving the existence of such circumstance. not necessarily immediate and actual – grave harm to the accused, based on
the history of violence perpetrated by the former against the latter.
Battered Woman Syndrome (Pp Vs. Toring, G.R No. 56358, Oct 26, 1990)
In 27 March 2004, R.A 9262 took effect.
“It cannot be said, therefore, that in attacking Samuel, Toring was impelled
Sec. 26. Battered Woman Syndrome as a defense. by pure compassion or beneficence or the lawful desire to avenge the
immediate wrong inflicted on his cousin. Rather, he was motivated by
- Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from revenge…”
battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal liability or civil
liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for Caabay
justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal
- Appellant Virgillio testified that he was not armed, while appellant
Code.
Esteban was armed with a piece of wood. However, Paulino
Defense of Relatives sustained ten incised wounds and one stab wound on the scapular
area, left frontal area, chin, right scapular area and posterior neck.
- Spouse Aliguer sustained seven incised wounds on the maxillary area,
- Ascendant fracturing his teeth on the left side of the face; he also sustained
- Descendant wounds on the scrotum and on the left ear. Considering the nature,
- Legitimate, natural, or adopted bro or sis location and number of wounds sustained by the victims, the
- Relatives by affinity in the same degrees appellants’ plea of self defense and defense of relative will not hold.
o Parents-in-law
o Son or Daughter-in-law (Balunueco Vs. CA, G.R No. 126968, Apr 9, 2003)
o Bro or Sis-in-law
1. The injuries on the deceased as well as the relatives of the accused
- Relatives by consanguinity within 4th degree
belie his testimony;
Defense of Relatives 2. The accused failed to present himself to the authorities “The natural
The same in Self-defense: impulse of any person who has killed someone in defense of his
person or relative is to bring himself to the authorities and try to
1. Unlawful aggression and dispel any suspicion of guilt that the authorities might have against
2. Reasonable necessity, him.”
3. “In case there is sufficient provocation, the person defending had no 3. Accused recollection of the events are erratic.
part therein”
Defense of Strangers
(US Vs. Esmedia, G.R No. L-5749, Oct 21, 1910)
1. Unlawful aggression;
“…inasmuch as it has been shown that they inflicted these wounds upon 2. Reasonable Necessity;
him in defense of their father who was fatally wounded at the time. They 3. “The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or
honestly believed, and had good grounds upon which to found their belief, other evil motive.”
that Santiago would continue his attack upon their father.”
(Cabuslay Vs. Pp, G.R No. 129875, Sept 30, 2005) (Tan Vs. Standard Vacuum, G.R No. L-4160, July 29, 1952)

- It bears repeating that the nature and number of wounds inflicted “…the damage caused to the plaintiff was brought about mainly because of
by the accused are constantly and unremittingly considered as the desire of driver Julito Sto. Domingo to avoid greater evil or harm,…”
important indicia which disprove a plea for self-defense or defense
of strangers because they demonstrate a determined effort to kill “It cannot be denied that this company is one of those for whose benefit a
the victim and not just defend oneself. In the instant case, Paquito’s greater harm has been prevented, and as such it comes within the purview
wounds serve to tell us that petitioner was induced by revenge, of said penal provision.”
resentment or other evil motive and that he was set on killing the
Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful Exercise of Right or Office
victim.
Requisites:
Avoidance of Greater Evil or Injury
- The accused acted in the performance of a duty or lawful exercise of
Requisites:
a right or office.
- The evil sought to be avoided actually exists. - That the injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary
- The injury feared is greater than that done to avoid it. consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise
- There is no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it. of such right or office.

Cannot be invoked Fulfillment of Duty

- Negligence - The prevailing jurisprudence is in favor of policemen and guards


- No evil to be avoided, or who shoot prisoners who attempt to escape (Delima, Valcorza,
- Violation of law by the actor. Lagata, Magno)

No criminal liability but there is civil liability Self-defense Vs. Fulfillment of Duty

Art. 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. – “self-defense and fulfillment of duty operate on different principles. Self-
defense is based on the principle of self-preservation from mortal harm,
XXX while fulfillment of duty is premised on the due performance of duty.”
Cabanlig Vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R No. 148431, July 28, 2005
“Second: In cases falling within subdivision 4 of Article 11, the persons for
whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable in Cabanlig
proportion to the benefit which they may have received.”
- A policeman in the performance of duty is justified in using such
(Pp Vs. Ricohermoso, G.R Nos. L-30527-28, Mar 29, 1974) force as is reasonably necessary to secure and detain the offender,
overcome his resistance, prevent his escape, recapture him if he
“….was designed to insure the killing of Geminiano de Leon without any risk escapes, and protect himself from bodily harm.
to his assailants.”

“Juan Padernal was not avoiding any evil


Obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose 1. An imbecile or an insane person
- An imbecile is a person marked by mental deficiency while an
Requisites: insane person is one who has an unsound mind or suffers from a
mental disorder. (Pp Vs. Ambal, Oct 17, 1980)
- An order has been issued by a superior.
- A insane person may have lucid intervals but an imbecile does not.
- The order must be for some lawful purpose.
- The means used to carry out the order must be lawful. Rule on imbeciles and insane persons
Illegal orders, the subordinate is liable except when: Imbecile – “…he must be deprived completely of reason or discernment and
freedom of the will at the time of committing the crime”
- He is not aware that the order is illegal; and
- He is not negligent. Insane – “complete deprivation of intelligence in the commission of the act
or that the accused acted without the least discernment.” (Ambal)
(Pp Vs. Beronilla, G.R No. L-4445, Feb 28, 1955)
Crazy Vs. Insane
- It appearing that the charge is the heinous crime of murder, and
that the accused-appellants acted upon orders, of a superior “There is a vast difference between an insane person and one who has
officers that they, as military subordinates, could not question, and worked himself up into such a frenzy of anger that he fails to use reason or
obeyed in good faith, without being aware of their illegality, without good judgment in what he does.”
any fault or negligence on their part, we cannot say that criminal
intent has been established. “The fact that a person acts crazy is not exclusive that he is insane. The
popular meaning of the word ‘crazy’ is not synonymous with the legal terms
Art. 12 Exempting Circumstances ‘insane’, ‘non compos mentis’, ‘unsound mind’, ‘idiot’, or ‘lunatic’.” (Ambal)
- In exempting circumstances the act does not result in criminal Presumption is in favor of sanity
liability because the act is not voluntary or negligent.
“The law presumes that every person is of sound mind, in the absence of
There is absence of: proof to the contrary” x x x “The law always presumes all acts to be
voluntary. It is improper to presume that acts were executed
- Intelligence
unconsciously.” (Ambal)
- Freedom of action
- Intent Burden of Evidence
- Negligence
- In the instant case, the alleged insanity of Ambal was not
Exempting Circumstances substantiated by any sufficient evidence. The presumption of sanity
was not overthrown. He was not completely bereft of reason or
1. Insanity or imbecility
discernment and freedom of will when he mortally wounded his
2. Minority (15 yrs of age or under, RA 9344)
wife. He was not suffering from any disease or defect. (Ambal)
3. Minority (above 15 below 18 if acting w/o discernment)
4. Performance of a lawful act with due care (accident)
5. Compulsion of an irresistible force
6. Uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury
7. Failure to perform an act due to some lawful or insuperable cause
Presumption in favor of sanity (Pp Vs. Legaspi, G.R No. 136164-65, Apr 20, 2001)

“….that when a defendant in a criminal case interposes the defense of “Mere prior confinement does not prove that accused-appellant was
mental incapacity, the burden of establishing that facts rests upon him, has deprived of reason at the time of the incident.”
been adopted in a series of decisions by this court.” (People Vs. Bascos, G.R
No. 19605, Dec 19, 1922) No evidence that he was adjudged insane.

Bascos Case Discharge is proof of being cured.

Circumstantial evidence: “Caught with his pants down”

1. Witnesses say that the accused has been insane for many years, “Mental depravity which results not from any disease of the mind, but
2. The doctor who examined the accused testified that the accused from a perverted condition of the moral system, where the person is
was a violent maniac and that he may have been insane when he mentally sane, does not exempt one from responsibility for crimes
killed the victim, and committed under its influence.” (Legaspi)
3. Lack of motive on the part of the accused to kill the victim.
(Pp Vs. Madarang, G.R No. 132319, May 12, 2000)
Quantum of Evidence
- The courts have established a more stringent criterion for insanity
- Insanity as a defense is a confession and avoidance and as such to be exempting as it is required that there must be a complete
must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. When the commission deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, i.e., the accused is
of a crime is established, and the defense of insanity is not made deprived of reason; he acted without the least discernment because
out beyond a reasonable doubt, conviction follows. (Pp Vs. Bonoan, there is a complete absence of the power to discern, or that there is
G.R No. 45130, Feb 17, 1937) a total deprivation of the will.

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

- Accused confined at San Lazaro Hospital twice (1922, 1925); - A witness who is intimately acquainted with the accused,
- Dementia praecox is an exempting circumstance (authorities); - A witness who has rational basis to conclude that the accused was
- Insomnia for 4 days before the crime, symptom of or leads to insane based on the witness’ own perception of the accused.
dementia praecox; - Expert testimony. (Madarang)
- A day after his arrest he was sent to the psychopathic hospital.
Madarang
- Alienist reported that the accused had a form of psychosis – Manic
depression psychosis. “The testimony or proof of the accused insanity must relate to the time
preceding or coetaneous with the commission of the offense with which he
Commission vs. Trial
is charged.”
- Insanity at the time of the commission of the defense is different
“….proof of abnormal behavior immediately before or simultaneous to the
from insanity at the time of the trial. In the first instance, it is an
commission of the crime, Evidence on the alleged insanity must refer to the
exempting circumstance, in the second the accused is not exempt
time preceding the act under prosecuting or to the very moment of its
but the proceedings are suspended until the accused is fit to stand
execution.”
trial.
(Pp Vs. Opuran, G.R No. 147674-75, Mar 17, 2004) Child 15 or below, initial contact with child must:
A man’s act is presumed voluntary. It is improper to assume the contrary,
i.e., that acts were done unconsciously, for the moral and legal presumption - Release parents, guardians or nearest relative
is that every person is presumed to be of sound mind, or that freedom and - Notify LSWDO, determine the appropriate programs.
intelligence constitute the normal condition of a person. Thus, the - O/W:
presumption under article 800 of the civil code is that everyone is sane. o NGO;
o Barangay;
Facts in Opuran o Local SWD off or DSWD;

- Such unusual behavior may be considered as mere abnormality of Above 15 but below 18
the mental faculties, which will not exclude imputability;
- Medicine was not shown to be for any mental illness; Without discernment – child is exempt but subject to intervention.
- Was never confined in a mental institution; With discernment – subject to appropriate proceedings, i.e., diversion.
- Dr. Verona’s findings were not based on incomplete and insufficient
facts; No exemption from civil liability.
- Failed to invoke insanity at the earliest opportunity
Discernment
Minority Discernment is the mental capacity to understand the difference between
RA 9344, Juvenile and Justice Welfare Act (May 20, 2006) right and wrong.
New concepts:
It may be shown by:
- Age of criminal responsibility
- Effects - Manner of committing a crime
- Presumptions - Conduct of offender
- Appearance of the minor
Age of Criminal Responsibility - Attitude
- Comportment
- A child fifteen (15) years of age and under at the time of the
- Behavior, before, during and after the trial
commission of the offense is exempt from criminal liability. (Sec.6)
- Child is subject to intervention. Intervention refers to a series of Determination of Age
activities which are designed to address issues that caused the child
to commit an offense. - Birth certificate
- Baptismal certificate
(Section 3[1], RA 9344) - Other pertinent document

“Intervention refers to a series of activities which are designed to address In the absence of the documents mentioned:
issues that caused the child to commit an offense. It may take the form of
an individualized treatment program which may include counseling skills - Testimony of the child or other persons
training, education, and other activities that will enhance his/her - Physical appearance
psychological, emotional and psycho-social well-being.” - Other relevant evidence

CICL enjoys the presumption of minority. (Sec. 7)


Imposable Penalty Sec. 58. Offenses not applicable to children.
Not more than 6 years
- Vagrancy and Prostitution (Art. 202, RPC);
- Mediation, family conferencing and conciliation if appropriate - Mendicancy (PD 1563);
(Where there is a private offended party). - Sniffing of Rugby (PD 1619)
- In victimless crimes, diversion or rehabilitation.
Shall undergo appropriate counseling and treatment.
More than 6 years
(Pp Vs. Arpon, G.R No. 183563, Dec 14, 2011)
- Diversion by the court.
Although the acts of rape in this case were committed before Republic Act
Kinds of Diversion, Sec. 31, Barangay Level. No. 9344 took effect on May 20, 2006, the said law is still applicable x x x
“*w+ith more reason, the act should apply to *a+ case wherein the conviction
- Restitution by the lower court is still under review.”
- Reparation
- Indemnification Arpon
- Written or oral apology
- Care, guidance and supervision orders - Decision appealed from – 8 counts of rape
- Counseling - Supreme court – 3 counts
- Trainings, seminars and lectures o 1st count – exempt, accused 13 yrs;
o Anger management o 2nd & 3rd – accused 17 yrs, discernment, Reclusion Perpetua,
o Problem solving one degree lower (death)
o Values formation - Suspension of sentence no longer an option, accused 29 yrs.
o Other skills to aid the child - Case remanded to trial court for compliance with Sec. 51,
 Participation in community based programs Agricultural camp or other facility.
 Participation in education, vocation and life skills
Accident
programs
Elements:
Kinds of Diversion, Law Enforcement Level.
- Performance of a lawful act;
- All the programs at the Barangay level. - With due care;
- Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds. - Injury is caused to another by mere accident;
- There is no fault or intention of causing the injury.
Kinds of Diversion, Court
Definition
- Court
- All programs at Barangay and law enforcement - An accident is something that happens outside the sway of our will,
- Written or oral reprimand and although it comes about through some act of our will, lies
- Fine beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences. (Pp Vs.
- Payment of the cost of proceedings Agliday, G.R No. 140794, Oct 16, 2001)
- Institutional care and custody
(Pp Vs. Genita, G.R No. 126171, Mar 11, 2004) “must be present, imminent and impending and of such a nature as to
induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the
He must show with clear and convincing proofs that: act is not done.”
“A threat of future injury is not enough.”
1.) He was performing a lawful act with due care,
“The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity to
2.) The injury caused was by a mere accident, and
the accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat.” (Pp Vs. Loreno,
3.) He had no fault or intention of causing the injury.
G.R No. L-54414, July 09, 1984)
Basis as an exempting circumstance.
(Pp Vs. Loreno, G.R No. L-54414, July 09, 1984)
- Criminal liability does not arise in case a crime is committed by “any
person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an - A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, like
injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it.” The one who acts under the impulse of uncontrollable fear of equal or
exemption from criminal liability under the circumstance showing greater injury is exempt from criminal liability because he does not
accident is based on the lack of criminal intent. (Agliday) act with freedom. The force must be irresistible to reduce him to a
mere instrument who acts not only without will but against his will..
Performance of a Lawful Act a threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion must be of
such a character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for
- For an accident to become an exempting circumstance, the act has escape or self-defense in equal combat.
to be lawful. The act of firing a shotgun at another is not a lawful
act. (Aglibay) Impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury

Accident Inconsistent with self-defense Elements:

- Self-defense is inconsistent with the exempting circumstance of o The threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater than or at
accident, in which there is no intent to kill. On the other hand, self- least equal to, that which is required to commit.
defense necessarily contemplates a premeditated intent to kill in o That the evil is of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary
order to defend oneself from imminent danger. (Pomoy) man would succumb to it.

Compulsion of an irresistible force Opportunity to escape

Elements: “At that time Narciso Saldaña, Elmer Esguerra and Romeo Bautista were
waiting for both appellants from a distance of about one (1) kilometer. By
o Compulsion is by physical force; not availing of this chance to escape, appellants’ allegation of fear or duress
o The physical force is irresistible; becomes untenable. Xxx, it is necessary that the compulsion be of such a
o The physical force must come from a third person. character as to leave no opportunity to escape or self-defense in equal
combat.” (Pp Vs. Saldaña, G.R No. 148518, 2004 Apr 15)
Exempted from criminal liability

“because he does not act with freedom.”


“reduce him to a mere instrument who acts not only without will but
against his will”
Prevented by Insuperable Cause Applicable only to public officers and their agents
Elements:
- In instigation, it is necessary that the instigator is a public officer or
- An act is required by law; one who is performing public functions.
- A person fails to perform such act; - If the instigator is a private individual, both the instigator and the
- Such failure is due to some lawful or insuperable cause. person instigated are criminally liable (Principal by induction)

Insuperable Cause Entrapment Vs. Instigation

- Distance and available means of transportation (Vicentillo) Entrapment is sanctioned by the law as a legitimate method of
- Severe dizziness and extreme debility (Bandian) apprehending criminal. Its purpose is to trap and capture lawbreakers in the
execution of their criminal plan. Instigation, on the other hand, involves the
Absolutory Causes inducement of the would be accused into the commission of the offense.
(Pp Vs. Legaspi, G.R No. 173485, Nov 23, 2011)
- Instances where the act committed is a crime but for reasons public
policy and sentiment there is no penalty imposed. Entrapment is not an absolutory cause
Absolutory cause in the RPC;
In entrapment, ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping
o Art. 6 (Spontaneous desistance), or capturing the lawbreaker in the execution of his criminal plan. The means
o Art. 20 (Accessories who are exempt), of committing the crime originates from the mind of the criminal.
o Art.124 (Violent insanity),
o Art.247 (Death under exceptional circumstances), Buy-bust operation
o Art.280, Par. 3 (Exceptions to trespass to dwelling), A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which in recent years has
o Art.332 (Exempt from theft, swindling and malicious been accepted as a valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous
mischief), Drugs Law. It is commonly employed by police officers as an effective way of
o Art.334, Par. 4 (Marriage of the offender and the offended apprehending law offenders in the act of committing a crime. In a buy-bust
party ins SARA) operation, the idea to commit a crime originates from the offender, without
anybody inducing or prodding him to commit the offense. (Valencia)
Instigation is an absolutory cause
Entrapment has to be proved as a material allegation
“Human nature is frail enough at best, and requires no encouragement in
wrongdoing. If we cannot assist another, and prevent him from committing The prosecution has to prove all the material elements of the alleged sale of
crime, we should at least abstain from any active efforts in the way of shabu and the resulting buy-bust operation. Where the testimony of the
leading him into temptation.” (Saunders Vs. Pp, Mich. 218, 222) informer is indispensable, it should be disclosed. (Pp Vs. Ong, G.R No.
137348, June 21, 2004)
(Pp Vs. Valencia, G.R No. 143032, Oct 14, 2002)

“….instigation or inducement, wherein the police or its agent lures the Instigation Vs. Entrapment
accused into committing the offense in order to prosecute him.” Instigator induces accused into Ways and means are resorted to
commission of crime trap and capture lawbreaker in the
“Instigation is deemed contrary to public policy and considered an execution of the offense
absolutory cause.” The accused must be acquitted Is not a bar to prosecution

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi