Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
CRIMINAL LAW I
I. DEFINITION AND SOURCES
A. DEFINITION
Criminal law is that branch or division of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for their punishment. B. STATE AUTHORITY TO PUNISH CRIMES
1. SOURCES OF PHILIPPINE CRIMINAL LAW (REYES) 1. The Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) and its amendments 2. Special penal laws passed by the Philippine Commission, Philippine Assembly, Philippine Legislature, National Assembly, the Congress of the Philippines, and the Batasang Pambansa. 3. Penal Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law. 1987 Constitution Article II, Section 5 Declaration of Principles and State Policies. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy. 1987 Constitution Article VI, Section 1 The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and referendum. People v. Santiago (1922) Facts: Santiago was driving an automobile at a high speed notwithstanding the fact that he had to pass a narrow space between a wagon standing on one side of the road and a heap of stones on the other side where there were two boys standing. He ran over Parondo who was instantly killed as a result of the accident. Santiago was convicted by the lower court of the crime of homicide by reckless imprudence. The accused appealed challenging the validity of Act No. 2886 which amended General Order no. 58 (which provides that all prosecutions for public offenses shall be in the name of the United States against the persons charged with the offenses), claiming that the legislature is not authorized to amend the latter because its provisions have the character of Constitutional Law. Sec. 2 of Act No. 2866 contains that all prosecutions for public offenses shall be in the name of the People of the Philippine Islands against the person charged with the offense. Held: The procedure in criminal matters is not incorporated in the Constitution of the States, but is left in the hands of the legislature, so it that it falls within the realm of public statutory law. The states, as part of its police power, have a large measure of discretion in creating and defining criminal offenses. It is urged that the right to prosecute and punish crimes is an attribute of sovereignty, but by
/liz@
Page 1 2004-2005
/liz@
Page 2 2004-2005
Criminal law has three main characteristics: 1) general, 2) territorial, and 3) prospective. 1. GENERALITY of Criminal Law 1987 Constitution, Article VI, Section 11 A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No Member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof. Civil Code, Article 14 Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all those who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations. General Rule: The jurisdiction of the civil courts is not affected by the military character of the accused.
An example of a law of preferential application would be R.A. No. 75 which penalizes acts which would impair the proper observance by the Republic and inhabitants of the Philippines of the immunities, rights, and privileges of duly accredited foreign diplomatic representatives in the Philippines. Persons exempt from the operation of our criminal laws by virtue of the principles of public international law (1) Sovereigns and other chiefs of state. (2) Ambassadors, ministers, plenipotentiary, ministers resident, and charges daffaires. * a consul is not entitled to the privileges and immunities of an ambassador or minister. * under the Constitution, members of Congress are not liable for libel or slander in connection with any speech delivered on the floor of an house during regular or special session. US v. Sweet (1901) Facts: Sweet was an employee of the US army in the Philippines. He assaulted a prisoner of war for which he was charged with the crime of physical injuries. Sweet interposed the defense that the fact that he was an employee of the US military authorities deprived the court of the jurisdiction to try and punish him. Held: The case is open to the application of the general principle that the jurisdiction of the civil tribunals is unaffected by the military or other special character of the person brought before them for trial, unless controlled by express legislation to the contrary. 2. TERRITORIALITY of Criminal Law 1987 Constitution, Article I The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domain including the territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines. The provisions of the RPC are enforceable to all crimes committed within the limits of Philippine territory but it may also apply outside of the Philippine jurisdiction against who: 1. should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;
Civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction with general court-martial over soldiers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines even in times of war, provided that in the place of the commission of the crime no hostilities are in progress and civil courts are functioning. When the military court takes cognizance of the case involving a person subject to military law, the Articles of War apply, not the RPC or other penal laws. The prosecution of an accused before a court-martial is a bar to another prosecution of the accused for the same offense. Offenders accused of war crimes are triable by military commission. A military commission has jurisdiction even if actual hostilities have ceased as long as a technical state of war continues. Exceptions to the general application of criminal law Art. 2, RPC, Except as provided in the treatise or laws of preferential application Art. 14, Civil Code, subject to the principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations. An example of a treaty or treat stipulation is the Bases Agreement entered into by the Philippines and the US on Mar. 14, 1947 and expired on Sept. 16, 1991. Another example would be the VFA signed on Feb. 10, 1998 where the Philippines agreed that: a. US military authorities shall have the right to exercise within the Philippines all criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction conferred on them by the military law of the US over US personnel in RP;
/liz@
Page 3 2004-2005
3.
4.
5.
The RPC has therefore territorial and extraterritorial application. The maritime zone extends to three miles from the outermost coastline. Beyond that is the high seas which is outside the territorial waters of the Philippines. There are two rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard merchant vessels while in the territorial waters of another country. French rule Such crimes are not triable in the courts of that country unless their commission affects the peace and security of the territory or the safety of the state is endangered. English rule Such crimes are triable in that country unless they merely affect things within the vessel or they refer to the internal management thereof. We observe the English Rule. Disorders which disturb only the peace of the ship or those on board are to be dealt with exclusively by the sovereignty of the home of the ship, but those which disturb the public peace may be suppressed, and, if need be, the offenders punished by the proper authorities of the local jurisdiction. Smoking opium aboard a foreign vessel in Philippine waters constitutes a breach of public order because it causes such drug to produce its pernicious effects within our territory. Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over offenses committed on board foreign warships in territorial waters. Warships are always reputed to be the territory of the country to which they belong and cannot be subjected to the laws of another state. US v. Ah Sing (1917) Facts: Defendant is a subject of China who bought eight cans of opium in Saigon and brought them on board the steamship Shun Chang during the trip to Cebu. When the steamer anchored in the port of Cebu, the authorities in making the search found the 8 cans of opium. Defendant admitted being the owner but did not confess as to his purpose in buying the opium. Held: Bringing opium in local territory even if it is merely for personal use and does not leave the foreign merchant vessel anchored in Philippine waters is subject to local laws particularly under Sec. 4 Act. No. 2381 a.k.a. Opium Law. Under the said law, importation includes merely bringing the drug from a foreign country to Philippine port even if not landed. Miquiabas v. Philippines-Ryukus command (1948) Facts: Petitioner is a Filipino citizen and a civilian employee of the US army. He has been charged with disposing in the Port of Manila area things belonging to the US army. He is under the custody of
RPC, Art.21. Penalties that may be imposed.No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission. RPC, Art. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect in so far as they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same. Civil Code, Art. 4 Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided. General Rule: Ex post facto law is prohibited. Ex post facto law is one that is specifically made to retroact to cover acts before it became effective to the prejudice of the accused; or to make a certain crime graver or prescribe a heavier penalty for it. The law does not have any retroactive effect EXCEPT if it favors the offender unless he is a habitual delinquent or the law otherwise provides. This is consistent with the general principle that criminal laws, being a limitation on the rights of the people, should be construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused.
Different effects of repeal of penal law. 1. If the repeal makes the penalty lighter in the new law, the new law shall be applied, except when the offender is a habitual delinquent or when the new law is made not applicable to pending action or existing causes of action. 2. If the new law imposes a heavier penalty, the law in force at the time of the commission of the offense shall be applied. 3. If the new law totally repeals the existing law so that the act which was penalized under the old law is no longer punishable, the crime is obliterated. When the repeal is absolute the offense ceases to be criminal. When the new law and the old law penalize the same offense, the offender can be tried under the old law. When the repealing law fails to penalize the offense under the old law, the accused cannot be convicted under the new law.
/liz@
Page 4 2004-2005
4. Nullum Crimen Nulla Poena Sine Lege Art. 3. Definitions. Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos). Art. 21. Penalties that may be imposed. No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission. There is no crime when where is no law punishing it. The phrase punished by law should be understood to mean punished by the Revised Penal Code, and not by special law. Bernardo v. People (1983) Facts: The accused were charged and convicted for violating PD No. 772 for possessing and squatting on a parcel of land owned by Cruz. Held: Conviction is null and void. PD No. 772 does not apply to pasture lands because its preamble shows that it was intended to apply to squatting in urban communities. It is a basic principle of criminal law that no person should be brought within the terms of a penal statute who is not clearly within them nor should any act be pronounced criminal which is not clearly made so by the statute. People v. Pimentel (1998) Facts: Respondent Tujan was charged with subversion under RA 1700. When he was arrested 7 years after he was charged, an unlicensed revolver and ammunition was found in his possession. As such, he was also charged with Illegal Possession of Firearms under PD 1866. Held: Tujan was not placed in double jeopardy because the issue had not yet arisen for he had not yet been actually convicted. RA 7636 totally repealed RA 1700 making subversion no longer a crime. Based on Art. 22 of RPC, this law should be given retroactive effect since the law is favorable to the accused and since he is not a habitual delinquent. The Court convicted Tujan with simple illegal possession of firearm and ammunition but since Tujans
D.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Art. 1 Time when Act takes effect. This code shall take effect on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty. The RPC consists of two books: Book One consists of 1) basic principles affecting criminal liability and 2) the provisions on penalties including criminal and civil liability; Book Two defines felonies with the corresponding penalties. Two theories in criminal law a. CLASSICAL b. POSITIVIST The RPC is based mainly on principles of old or classical school.
/liz@
Page 5 2004-2005
Classification of felonies according to the means by which they are committed (IN GENERAL ONLY) 1. INTENTIONAL / DOLO (by means of deceit, malice) - the offender in performing the act or incurring the omission, has the intention to cause an injury to another - the word deceit in par. 2 of Art. 3 is not the proper translation of the word dolo. Dolus is actually equivalent to malice which is the intent to do an injury to another. 2. CULPABLE (by means of fault or culpa) - an act performed without malice but at the same time punishable though in a lesser degree and with an equal result
/liz@
Page 6 2004-2005
People v. Delos Santos (2003) Facts: Delos Santos stab Flores with a kitchen knife hitting him on the different parts of his body, inflicting upon him mortal wounds which directly caused his death. Delos Santos then argues that since the prosecution witnesses testified that there was no altercation between him and Flores, it follows that no motive to kill can be attributed to him. Held: The court held that the argument of Delos Santos is inconsequential. Proof of motive is not indispensable for a conviction, particularly where the accused is positively identified by an eyewitness and his participation is adequately established. In People vs. Galano, the court ruled that in the crime of murder, motive is not an element of the offense, it becomes material only when the evidence is circumstantial or inconclusive and there is some doubt on whether the accused had committed it. In this case, the court finds that no such doubt exits as witnesses, De Leon and Tablate positively identified Delos Santos. MISTAKE OF FACT It is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused injury to another. He is not, however, criminally liable, because he did not act with criminal intent. Requisites:
/liz@
Page 7 2004-2005
2. 3.
People v. Ah Chong (1910) A houseboy who stabs his roommate in the dark, honestly mistaking the latter to be a robber responsible for a series of break-ins in the area, and after crying out sufficient warnings and believing himself to be under attack, cannot be held criminally liable for homicide. Stabbing the victim whom the accused believed to be an intruder showed a mistake of fact on his part which led him to take the facts as they appear to him and was pressed to take immediate action. People v. Oanis (1988) Police officers who shot a sleeping man in the back mistaking him for a notorious escaped convict wanted dead or alive, could still be held liable for the killing since they did not take reasonable precautionary measures. Police officers are still liable because they are not justified in killing a man whose identity they did not ascertain. The third requisite of mistake of fact is lacking. In this case, self-defense is not tenable as a defense as there was no unlawful aggression but they may avail of the defense of fulfillment of duty as a mitigating circumstance. Criminal intent is replaced by negligence and imprudence in felonies committed by means of culpa. 2. CULPA RPC, Art. 365 par 7 Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence physical condition and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place. Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those cases in which the damage impending to be cause is not immediate nor the danger clearly manifest. Requisites of culpa: 1. freedom 2. intelligence 3. imprudence, negligence foresight and skill
Art. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary. There are 3 classes of crimes. The RPC defines and penalizes the first two classes: 1) intentional and 2) culpable felonies. The third class of crimes is those defined and penalized by special laws which include crimes punished by municipal or city ordinances. The provisions of this Code are not applicable to offenses punished by special laws especially those relating to the requisite of criminal intent; the stages of commission; and the application of penalties. However, when the special law is silent, the Code can give suppletory effect. Dolo is not required in crimes punished by special laws because these crimes are mala prohibita. In those crimes punished by special laws, the act alone irrespective of its motives, constitutes the offense. Good faith and absence of criminal intent are not valid defenses in crimes punished by special laws MALA IN SE and MALA PROHIBITA Mala in se - an act, by its very nature, is inherently and morally wrong; it should be done with criminal intent Malum prohibitum an act is wrong only because there is a law punishing it. It is enough that the prohibited act was voluntarily committed and need not be committed with malice or criminal intent to be punishable. Estrada v. Sandiganbayan (2001) Facts: Estrada is challenging the plunder law. One of the issues he raised is whether plunder is a malum prohibitum or malum in se. Held: Plunder is a malum in se which requires proof of criminal of criminal intent. Precisely because the constitutive crimes are mala in se the element of mens rea must be proven in a prosecution for plunder. It is noteworthy that the amended information alleges that the crime of plunder was committed willfully, unlawfully and criminally. It thus alleges guilt knowledge on the part of the petitioner. RELATION OF RPC TO SPECIAL LAWS
or
lack
of
in culpable felonies, the injury caused to another should be unintentional, it being simply the incident of another act performed without malice. People v. Buan (1968) Facts: The accused was driving a passenger bus. Allegedly because of his recklessness, the bus collided with a jeep injuring the passengers of the latter. A case was filed against the accused for slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence for which he was tried and acquitted. Prior to his acquittal, a case for serious physical injuries and damage to property
/liz@
Page 8 2004-2005
/liz@
Page 9 2004-2005
One who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the consequences which may naturally and logically result therefrom, whether foreseen or intended or not. Rationale: el que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused When a person has not committed a felony, he is not criminally liable for the result which is not intended. The causes which may produce a result different from that which the offender intended are: a. ERROR IN PERSONAE mistake in the identity of the victim; injuring one person mistaken for another (this is a complex crime under Art. 49) b. ABERRATIO ICTUS mistake in the blow, that is, when the offender intending to do an injury to one person actually inflicts it on another; and c. PRAETER INTENTIONEM the act exceeds the intent, that is, the injurious result is greater than that intended.
Art. 116. Misprision of treason. Every person owing allegiance to (the United States) the Government of the Philippine Islands, without being a foreigner, and having knowledge of any conspiracy against them, conceals or does not disclose and make known the same, as soon as possible to the governor or fiscal of the province, or the mayor or fiscal of the city in which he resides, as the case may be, shall be punished as an accessory to the crime of treason. Art. 137. Disloyalty of public officers or employees. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon public officers or employees who have failed to resist a rebellion by all the means in their power, or shall continue to discharge the duties of their offices under the control of the rebels or shall accept appointment to office under them. Art. 208. Prosecution of offenses; negligence and tolerance. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period and suspension shall be imposed upon
/liz@
Page 10 2004-2005
Art. 141. Conspiracy to commit sedition. Persons conspiring to commit the crime of sedition shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium period and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos Art. 186. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon: 1. Any person who shall enter into any contract or agreement or shall take part in any conspiracy or combination in the form of a trust or otherwise, in restraint of trade or commerce or to prevent by artificial means free competition in the market; Art. 306. Who are brigands; Penalty. When more than three armed persons form a band of robbers for the purpose of committing robbery in the highway, or kidnapping persons for the purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom or for any other purpose to be attained by means of force and violence, they shall be deemed highway robbers or brigands. Persons found guilty of this offense shall be punished by prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period if the act or acts committed by them are not punishable by higher penalties, in which case, they shall suffer such high penalties. If any of the arms carried by any of said persons be an unlicensed firearm, it shall be presumed that said persons are highway robbers or brigands, and in case of convictions the penalty shall be imposed in the maximum period. Art. 340. Corruption of minors. Any person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution or corruption of persons underage to satisfy the lust of another, shall be punished by prision mayor, and if the culprit is a pubic officer or employee, including those in government-owned or controlled corporations, he shall also suffer the penalty of temporary absolute disqualification. Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony are two different acts or felonies: (1) conspiracy to commit a felony, and (2) proposal to commit a felony. GENERAL RULE: Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony are not punishable EXCEPTION: They are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefore. RATIONALE: Conspiracy and proposal to commit a crime are only preparatory acts and the law regards them as innocent or at least permissible except in rare and exceptional cases. CONSPIRACY - exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felon and decide to commit it. The RPC specially provides a penalty for mere conspiracy in treason, coup detat, rebellion or sedition. Treason, coup detat, rebellion or sedition must not actually be committed or else conspiracy shall no longer be punishable because it is not a separate offense from the felony itself.
/liz@
Page 11 2004-2005
INDICATIONS OF CONSPIRACY - for a collective responsibility among the accused to be established, it is sufficient that at the time of the aggression, all of them acted in concert, each doing his part to fulfill their common design to commit the felony. REQUISITES OF CONSPIRACY a. That two or more persons came to an agreement: - agreement presupposes meeting of the minds of two or more persons b. That the agreement concerned the commission of a felony; and - the agreement must refer to the commission of a crime. It must be an agreement to act, to effect, to bring about what has already been conceived and determined c. That the execution of the felony be decided upon. - the conspirators have made up their minds to commit the crime. There must be a determination to commit the crime of treason, rebellion or sedition. PROPOSAL Requisites: a. That a person has decided to commit a felony; and b. That he proposes its execution to some other person or persons. There is no criminal proposal when: a. The person who proposes is not determined to commit the felony. b. There is no decided, concrete and formal proposal. c. It is not the execution of a felony that is proposed. It is not necessary that the person to whom the proposal is made agrees to commit treason or rebellion. US v. Bautista (1906) Facts: During the latter part of 1903, a junta was organized and a conspiracy entered into by a number of Filipino residents in HK for the purpose of overthrowing the government of the US in the Philippines and replacing it with Republica Universal Democratica Filipinas. Defendant Ricarte was recognized as chief of military forces to be organized in the Philippines. Defendant Bautista was an intimate friend of Ricarte and was present in several meetings. Defendant Puzon admitted that he accepted employment as chief of signal corps of such junta. Held: The fact that one accused of conspiracy to overthrow the government has actually and voluntarily accepted appointment by the conspirators as an officer of armed forces raised or to be raised in furtherance of the designs of the conspirators may be taken into consideration as evidence of the criminal connection of the accused with the conspiracy. People v. Vengco (1984) The conspiracy between Constantino Leneses and Leon David is discernible from the way in which the assaulted Celaderna and their conduct sometime before and immediately after the stabbing that clearly show
/liz@
Page 12 2004-2005
/liz@
Page 13 2004-2005
People v. Bangcado (2000) Facts: SPO1 Bangcado together with SPO1 Banisa frisked and searched Cogasi, Clemente, Adawan and Lino to see if they were concealing any weapons. After making sure that the victims were unarmed, Bangcado directed the victims to form a line against a Ford Fierra. Because Bangcado and Banisa were holding handguns, Cogasi and his friends did as they were told and were caught unaware when they were shot by Bangcado. Adawan and Lino died of gunshot wounds in the head, while Cogasi and Clemente sustained head wounds. The lower court convicted both Bangcado and Banisa for 2 counts of murder and 2 counts of frustrated murder. Held: There being no finding of Conspiracy with Bangcado, the Court acquitted Banisa of all the charges against him. In the absence of any previous plan or agreement to commit a crime, the criminal responsibility arising from different acts directed against one and the same person is individual and not collective, and that each of the participants is liable only for his own acts. Consequently, Banisa must be absolved from criminal responsibility for the assault on the victims. It is clear that neither the victims nor Banisa could have anticipated Bangcado's act of shooting the victims since the attack was sudden and without any reason or purpose. Thus, the criminal design of Bangcado had not yet been revealed prior to the killings. People v. Ramos (2004) Facts: The trial court found appellant Eulalia San Roque guilty for conspiring and confederating with her co-accused for the murder of her live-in-partner Lomida. Lomida was stabbed, shot and burned resulting to his death. Appellant argues that the fact of such conspiracy has not been satisfactorily proven during the trial of the case. She vigorously contends that she did not participate in the killing of the victim. Held: In determining the existence of conspiracy, it is not necessary to show that all the conspirators actually hit and killed the victim. The presence of conspiracy among the accused can be proven by their conduct before, during or after the commission of the crime showing that they acted in unison with each other, evincing a common purpose or design. There must be a showing that appellant cooperated in the commission of the offense, either morally, through advice, encouragement or agreement or materially through external acts indicating a manifest intent of supplying aid in the perpetration of the crime in an efficacious way. In such case, the act of one becomes the act of all, and each of the accused will thereby be deemed equally guilty of the crime committed. The series of events in this case convincingly show that appellant and her co-accused acted in unison and cooperated with each other in killing Lomida. Appellant was the one who opened the door and allowed the other accused to enter the house. She joined them in bringing the victim to the residence of Ramos, her brother-in-law. While her co-accused dragged the helpless victim, tied him to a santol tree, stabbed him twice by a bladed knife, and shot him 5 to 7 times, appellant merely watched intensely. She even turned her back as the lifeless body of the victim was being
b. c.
d.
STAGES OF COMMISSION 1. Attempted there is an attempt when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. 2. Frustrated it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. 3. Consummated a felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present. ATTEMPTED FELONY Elements: 1. The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts; 2. He does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony;
/liz@
Page 14 2004-2005
/liz@
Page 15 2004-2005
People v. Eria (1927) Facts: The victim of the crime was a child of 3 years and 11 months. There are doubts whether the accused succeeded in penetrating the vagina before being disturbed in the timely intervention of the mother and sister. The physician found a slight inflammation of the exterior parts of the organ, indicating an effort had been made to enter the vagina but it is doubtful whether the entry had been effected. Held: Though complete penetration is not necessary, penetration of the labia is sufficient. However, since there is no sufficient evidence of such penetration, the act is merely frustrated. Dissent: It is consummated rape. People v. Orita (1990) Facts: The victim was a 19-year old college student. She arrived at her boarding house early morning coming from a late-night party. The accused suddenly held her and poked a knife to her neck. They entered a room and the victim was ordered to lie down. The accused made the victim hold his penis and insert it in her vagina. Because of their position, the accused cannot fully penetrate her. Only a small part of his penis inserted her vagina. The victim was able to escape and report to the police what happened. The lower court convicted the accused of frustrated rape. Held: Perfect penetration is not essential for the consummation of rape. Entry of the labia or lips of the female organ without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina is sufficient to warrant conviction. Clearly, in the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of his victim, he actually attains his purpose and, from that moment also all the essential elements of the offense have been accomplished. Nothing more is left to be done by the offender, because he has performed the last act necessary to produce the crime. Thus, the felony is consummated rape. Taking into account the nature, elements and manner of execution of the crime of rape and jurisprudence on the matter, it is hardly conceivable how the frustrated stage in rape can ever be consummated. People v. Caballero (2003) Facts: As Eugene walked by the gate of the Mondragon Compound, Armando Caballero suddenly grabbed Eugene towards the compound. Eugene resisted. Spontaneously, Armandos brothers Ricardo, Marciano, Jr. and Robito joined Armando and assaulted Eugene. Armando took the wooden pole supporting the clothesline and hit Eugene with it. Eugenes sister, Myrna, saw the Caballero brothers assaulting Eugene and shouted for help. Arnold saw the commotion and rushed to the scene to pacify the protagonists. However, Ricardo accosted Arnold and stabbed the latter on the left side of his body. Forthwith, Robito, Marciano, Jr. and
FRUSTRATED FELONY VS. ATTEMPTED FELONY 1. In both, the offender has not accomplished his criminal purpose. 2. While in frustrated felony, the offender has performed all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence, in attempted felony, the offender merely commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution.
ATTEMPTED OR IMPOSSIBLE CRIME FRUSTRATED The evil intent of the offender is not accomplished
/liz@
Page 16 2004-2005
/liz@
Page 17 2004-2005
Art. 4 merely states that criminal liability is incurred by those mentioned by the said article. 1. By any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended REQUISITES: a. That an intentional felony has been committed; and b. That the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct and natural and logical consequence of the felony. Any person who creates in anothers mind an immediate sense of danger, which causes the latter to do something resulting in the latters injuries, is liable for the resulting injuries. Wrong done must be the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony committed. - where it clearly appears that the injury would not have cased death, in the ordinary course of events, but would have healed in so many days and where it is shown beyond all doubt that the death was due to the malicious or careless acts of the injured person or a third person, the accused is not liable for homicide. The offended party is not obliged to submit to a surgical operation to relieve the accused from the natural and ordinary results of his crime. The felony committed must be the proximate cause of the resulting injury. The causes which may produce a result different from that which the offender intended are: a. ERROR IN PERSONAE - mistake in the identity of the victim; injuring one person mistaken for another (this is a complex crime under Art. 49) b. ABERRATIO ICTUS - mistake in the blow, that is, when the offender intending to do an injury to one person actually inflicts it on another; and c. PRAETER INTENTIONEM the act exceeds the intent, that is, the injurious result is greater than that intended. * RPC, Art. 13 Mitigating circumstance 3) That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. 2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES REQUISITES: 1. That the act performed would be an offense against persons or property. FELONIES AGAINST PERSONS ARE: a. Parricide b. Murder c. Homicide d. Infanticide e. Abortion
/liz@
Page 18 2004-2005
/liz@
Page 19 2004-2005
2. Any one who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives by affinity in the same degrees and those consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the revocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had not part therein. 3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first and second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this Article are present and that the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive. 4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act which causes damage, provided that the following requisites are present: First. That the evil sought t be avoided actually exists. Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it. 5. Any person who acts in fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. 6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.
IMPUTABILITY Quality by which an act may be ascribed to a person as its author or owner. Implies that a deed may be imputed to a person.
RESPONSIBILITY Obligation of suffering the consequences of the crime. Implies that the person must take the consequence of such deed.
Article 11 recognizes the acts of such persons as justified. Such persons are not criminals, as there is no crime committed
Par. 1 SELF-DEFENSE Self-defense includes not only the defense of the person or body of the one assaulted but also that of his rights, that is, those rights the enjoyment of which is protected by law. REQUISITES: a. There must be unlawful aggression This is an indispensable requisite. If there is no unlawful aggression, there is nothing to prevent or repel. Unlawful aggression is equivalent to assault or at least threatened assault of an immediate and imminent kind. There must be an ACTUAL PHYSICAL assault upon a person, or at least a THREAT to inflict real injury. When there is no peril to ones life, limb or right, there is no unlawful aggression. PERIL TO ONES LIFE 1. ACTUAL that the danger must be present, that is, actually in existence.
1. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES Those where the act of a person is said to be in accordance with law, so that such person is deemed not to have transgressed the law and is free from both criminal and civil liability. The law recognizes the non-existence of a crime by expressly stating in the opening sentence of Art. 11 that the person therein mentioned DO NOT INCUR CRIMINAL LIABILITY.
Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. The following do not incur any criminal liability: 1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur; First. Unlawful aggression Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
/liz@
Page 20 2004-2005
REQUISITES OF DEFENSE OF RELATIVES: 1. Unlawful aggression; Unlawful aggression may not exist as a matter of fact, it can be made to depend upon the honest belief of the one making a defense. Ex. The sons of A honestly believed that their father was the victim of an unlawful aggression when in fact it was their father who attacked B. If they killed B under such circumstance, they are justified. 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; The gauge of reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel the aggression as against ones self or in defense of a relative is to be found in the situation as IT APPEARS TO THE PERSON REPELLING THE AGGRESSION (the defender). 3. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making a defense had no part therein. There is still legitimate defense of relative even if the relative being defended has given provocation, provided that the one defending such relative has no part in the provocation. Reason for the rule: Although the provocation prejudices the person who gave it, its effects do not
/liz@
Page 21 2004-2005
/liz@
Page 22 2004-2005
/liz@
Page 23 2004-2005
1.
/liz@
Page 24 2004-2005
3.
General rule: No liability in justifying circumstances because there is no crime. Exception: There is CIVIL LIABILITY under this paragraph. It is borne by the persons benefited by the act. They shall be liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have been received. People v. Ricohermoso (1974) Facts: The land Ricohermoso cultivated belonged to Geminiano. When the latter went to the house of the former, as if by prearrangement, Ricohermoso unsheathed his bolo and approached Geminiano from the left while Severo (Ricos father-inlaw) got an axe and approached from the right. Rico stabbed Geminiano first and while in a helpless position, the latter was hacked on the back by Severo. At that same place and time while the killing of Geminiano was taking place, Juan (son of Severo) suddenly embraced Marianito (son of Geminiano), who had a gun slung on his shoulder, from behind. They grappled and rolled downhill towards the camote patch. Marianito passed out and when he regained consciousness, his rifle was gone. He walked uphill and saw his father. Geminiano died later. Juan invoked the justifying circumstance of greater necessity in explaining his act of preventing Marianito from shooting Rico and Severo. Held: The act of Juan was designed to insure the killing of Geminiano without any risk to his assailants. Juan was not avoiding any evil but his malicious intention was to forestall any interference in the felonious assault. He acted in conspiracy with Rico and Severo. Ty v. People (2004) Facts: Ty's mother Chua Lao So Un was confined at the Manila Doctors' Hospital from October 1990 until June 1992. Being the patient's daughter, Ty signed the "Acknowledgment of Responsibility for Payment" in the Contract of Admission. Ty's sister, Judy Chua, was also confined at the same hospital. The total hospital bills of the two patients amounted to P1,075,592.95. Ty executed a promissory note wherein she assumed payment of the obligation in installments. To assure payment of the obligation, she drew 7 postdated checks against Metrobank payable to the hospital which were all dishonored by the drawee bank and returned unpaid to the hospital due to insufficiency of funds. For her defense, Ty claimed that she issued the checks because of an uncontrollable fear of a greater injury She averred that she was forced to issue the
People v. Delima (1922) Facts: Napilon escaped from the jail where he was serving sentence. Some days afterwards the policeman, Delima, who was looking for him found him in the house of Alegria, armed with a pointed piece of bamboo in the shape of a lance. Delima demanded the surrender of the weapon but Napilon refused. Delima fired his revolver to impose his authority but the bullet did not hit him. The criminal ran away and Delima went after him and fired again his revolver this time hitting and killing him.
/liz@
Page 25 2004-2005
/liz@
Page 26 2004-2005
/liz@
Page 27 2004-2005
In Re MNaghten (1843) Guidelines A man who shot someone claimed insanity. Held: Every man is presumed to be sane. It must be clearly proved that at the time of committing the act, A was under a defect of reason that he did not know the nature of act or if he did know what he was doing, he did not know he was wrong. The question to be asked is whether the accused at the time of doing the act knew the differences between right and wrong? The emphasis is on reason or cognition. People v. Tubogoca (1998) Facts: Jacqueline, together with her sisters, lived with their father after their mother died. One night, she was roused by her father who asked her to scratch his back but later she was forced to have intercourse with him. Her sister Jinky also experienced the same with his father 2 years after. When their grandmother found out about the incident, they filed charges against the accused. The accused claim that he cannot remember anything because he often drinks liquor at home. Held: The law presumes every man to be sane. The accused failed to overthrow the presumption of sanity. Failure to remember is in itself no proof of the mental condition of the accused when the crime was performed. His charade of amnesia is a desperate gambit for exculpation. People v. Madarang (2000) Facts: Fernando and his wife quarreled. In the heat of the fight, the accused stabbed his wife causing her death. The accused declared that he had no recollection of the stabbing incident. Further, he alleges that he did not know where he was that day. Court ordered the accuseds confinement in a mental institution where it was found that he was inflicted with schizophrenia. He was submitted to treatment for 2 years, after which, he faced the charges against him. Held: The accused failed to prove that he was completely deprived of intelligence in committing the act. He did not show any signs of insanity prior to and immediately after the act. He was only diagnosed of schizophrenia months after the incident. Also, schizos have lucid intervals. People v. Bonoan (1937) A person suffering from dementia praecox pleaded insanity as a defense for committing murder. In dementia praecox, the crime is usually preceded by much complaining and planning. in these people, homicide attacks are common because of delusions that they are being interfered with sexually or that their property is being taken. During period of excitement, such person has no control whatever of his acts. An irresistible homicide impulse was considered embraced in the terms of insanity.
People v. Taneo (1933) Facts: A fiesta was being celebrated in the barrio and visitors were being entertained at the house of Taneo and his wife. That afternoon, Taneo went to sleep and while sleeping, he suddenly got up, left the
/liz@
Page 28 2004-2005
Par. 2. A PERSON UNDER NINE YEARS OF AGE NINE YEARS OR LESS presumed to be incapable of committing a crime, and this presumption is an absolute one which cannot be overcome by any evidence. Senility, although said to be the second childhood, is only mitigating. 4 PERIODS OF THE LIFE OF A HUMAN BEING a. 9 years and below AGE OF ABSOLUTE IRRESPONSIBILITY b. between 9 and 15 years AGE OF CONDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITY c. 18 or over to 70 years AGE OF FULL RESPONSIBILITY d. over 9 and under 15 with discernment; 15 or over but less than 18, over 70 years of age AGE OF MITIGATED RESPONSIBILITY. Par. 3. A PERSON OVER 9 YEARS OF AGE AND UNDER 15 UNLESS HE HAS ACTED WITH DISCERNMENT, IN WHICH CASE, SUCH MINOR SHALL BE PROCEEDED AGAINST IN COORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 80 OF THIS CODE. A minor over 9 and under 15 years of age must have acted without discernment to be exempted from criminal liability. DISCERNMENT means the mental capacity of a minor between 9 and 15 years of age to fully appreciate the consequences of his lawful act. DISCERNMENT Moral significance that a person ascribes to the said act INTENT Desired act of the person
Discernment may be shown by 1) the manner the crime was committed or 2) the conduct of the offender after its commission. People v. Doquena (1939) A 13-year old student stabs the school bully, and is convicted for having shown discernment through his responsible demeanor and school performance. Doquenas discernment is gleaned from his academic records, leadership qualities and demeanor while testifying in court. The discernment that constitutes an exception to the exemption from criminal liability of a minor under fifteen years of age but over nine, is his mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong, and such capacity may be known by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances afforded by the records in each case, the very appearance, the very attitude of said minor not only before and during the commission of the act but also after and even during trial.
Jose v. People (2005) Facts: Jose, 13 yrs old was in a car with his cousin Zarraga, when the latter inquired from the poseur buyer SPO1 Guevarra if he could afford to buy shabu. Guevarra replied in the affirmative afterwhich Zarraga
/liz@
Page 29 2004-2005
/liz@
Page 30 2004-2005
EN BANC [A.M. No. 02-1-19-SC. February 28, 2002.] RE: PROPOSED RULE ON COMMITMENT OF CHILDREN RESOLUTION Acting on the letter of the Chairman of the Committee on Revision of the Rules of Court submitting for this Court's consideration and approval the Proposed Rule on Commitment Of Children, the Court Resolved to APPROVE the same. The Rule shall take effect on April 15, 2002 following its publication in a newspaper of general circulation not later than March 15, 2002. February 28, 2002. RULE ON COMMITMENT OF CHILDREN SECTION 1. Objective. The objective of this Rule is to ensure that every effort is exerted to promote the child's welfare and enhance his opportunities for a useful and happy life. Toward this end, this Rule seeks to protect the child from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to his development . SECTION 2. Interpretation. The best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration in all actions concerning him, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities and legislative bodies consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. SECTION 3. Definition of Terms. (a) "Child" is a person below eighteen years of age. (b) "Department" refers to the Department of Social Welfare and Development. (c) "Dependent child" is one who is without a parent, guardian or custodian, or one whose parents, guardian or other custodian for good cause desires to be relieved of his care and custody, and is dependent upon the public for support. (d) "Abandoned child" is one who has no proper parental care or guardianship, or whose parents or guardian has deserted him for a period of at least six (6) continuous months. (e) "Neglected child" is one whose basic needs have been deliberately unattended to or inadequately attended to, physically or emotionally, by his parents or guardian. (f) "Physical neglect" occurs when the child is malnourished, illclad and without proper shelter. (g) "Emotional neglect" occurs when a child is raped, seduced, maltreated, exploited, overworked or made to work under conditions not Page 31 2004-2005
/liz@
CRIMINAL LAW 1 ESGUERRA NOTES conducive to good health; made to beg in the streets or public places, or when placed in moral danger, or exposed to drugs, alcohol, gambling, prostitution and other vices. (h) "Disabled child" includes mentally retarded, physically handicapped, emotionally disturbed and mentally ill children, children with cerebral palsy and those with similar afflictions. (i) "Mentally retarded child" is one who is (1) socially incompetent, that is, socially inadequate, occupationally incompetent and unable to manage his own affairs; (2) mentally subnormal; (3) intellectually retarded from birth or early age; (4) retarded at maturity; (5) mentally deficient as a result of constitutional origin through heredity or diseases or (6) essentially incurable. (j) "Physically handicapped child" is one who is crippled, deafmute, blind, or otherwise suffers from a defect which restricts his means of action or communication with others. (k) "Emotionally disturbed child" is one who, although not afflicted with insanity or mental defect, is unable to maintain normal social relations with others and the community in general due to emotional problems or complexes, (l) "Mentally ill child" is one with any behavioral disorder, whether functional or organic, which is of such a degree of severity as to require professional help or hospitalization. (m) "Commitment" or "surrender of a child" is the legal act of entrusting a child to the care of the Department or any duly licensed childplacement or child-caring agency or individual by the court, parent or guardian or any interested party. (n) "Involuntarily committed child" is one whose parents have been permanently and judicially deprived of parental authority due to abandonment; substantial, continuous, or repeated neglect; abuse; or incompetence to discharge parental responsibilities in accordance with Section 4 herein. (o) "Voluntarily committed child" is one whose parents knowingly and willingly relinquished parental authority to the Department or any duly licensed child-placement or child-caring agency or individual in accordance with Section 3 herein. (p) "Child-placing or child-placement agency" refers to a private non-profit or charitable institution or government agency duly licensed, and accredited by the Department to provide comprehensive child welfare services, including but not limited to, receiving applications for adoption or foster care, evaluating the prospective adoptive or foster parents and preparing the home study report. (q) "Child-caring agency" refers to a private non-profit or charitable institution or government agency duly licensed and accredited by the Department that provides twenty-four hour residential care services for abandoned, orphaned, neglected, involuntarily or voluntarily committed children. (r) "Guardian ad litem" is a person appointed by the court where the case is pending for a child sought to be committed to protect his best interests. (s) "Case Study Report" is a written report of the result of an investigation conducted by a social worker as to the socio-cultural, economic and legal status or condition of the child sought to be committed. It shall include among others his developmental age, educational attainment, family and social relationships, the quality of his peer group, his family's strengths and weaknesses and parental control over him. The report is submitted to the Family Court to aid it in its. evaluation of whether the child ought to be committed to the care of the Department or any duly licensed child-placement or child-caring agency or individual. SECTION 4. Petition for Involuntary Commitment of a Child. (a) Who may file. The Secretary of the Department or his authorized representative or any duly licensed child-placement or childcaring agency having knowledge of a child who appears to be dependent, abandoned or neglected, may file a verified petition for involuntary commitment of said child to the care of any duly licensed child-placement or child-caring agency or individual.
UP College of Law 2004-2005 (b) Venue. The petition shall be filed with the Family Court of the province or city in which the parent or guardian resides or where the child is found. (c) Contents of Verified Petition. The petition must state: (1) The names of the parents or guardian and their place of residence. If the child's parents are unknown, petitioner must allege that diligent efforts have been exerted to locate them. If said parents are deceased, petitioner shall attach a certified true copy of their death certificate; (2) The facts showing that the child is dependent, abandoned, or neglected; (3) The facts showing who has custody of the child at the time of the filing of the petition; and (4) The name, address and written consent of the Department or duly licensed child-placement or child-caring agency or individual to whose care the commitment of the child is sought to be entrusted. (d) Summons; Court to Set Time for Hearing. If the court is satisfied that the petition is sufficient in form and substance, it shall direct the clerk of court to immediately issue summons which shall be served together with a copy of the petition and a notice of hearing, upon the parents or guardian of the child and the office of the public prosecutor not less than five (5) days before the date of the hearing. The office of the public prosecutor shall be directed to immediately transmit the summons to the prosecutor assigned to the Family Court concerned. If it appears from the petition that both parents of the child are dead or that neither parent can be found in the province or city where the court is located and the child has no guardian residing therein, summons may not be issued and the court shall thereupon appoint a guardian ad litem pursuant to Sub-section (f) below and proceed with the hearing of the case with due notice to the provincial or city prosecutor, (e) Social Worker. After the court sets the petition for hearing in accordance with Sub-section (d) above, it shall direct the social worker to submit, before the hearing, a case study report of the child to aid it in evaluating whether said child should be committed to the care of the Department or any duly licensed child-placement or child-caring agency or individual. The report shall bear the signature of the social worker on every page. (f) Guardian Ad Litem of Child. If neither of the parents nor the guardian of the child can be located or does not appear in court despite due notice, or if the court finds them incompetent to protect the best interests of the child, it shall be the duty of the court to appoint a suitable person as guardian ad litem to represent the child. In making the appointment, the court shall consider the background of the guardian ad litem and his familiarity with the judicial process, social service programs and child development. A member of the Philippine Bar may be appointed guardian ad litem. (g) Child's Right to Counsel. The court, upon request of the child capable of forming his own views or upon request of his guardian ad litem, shall appoint a lawyer to represent him in the proceedings. (h) Duty of Public Prosecutor. The provincial or city prosecutor shall appear for the State and ascertain if there has been due notice to all parties concerned and that there is justification for the declaration of dependency, abandonment or neglect. (i) Hearing. The court shall direct the person or agency which has custody of the child to bring the latter to the court on the date of the hearing of the petition and shall ascertain the facts and determine whether the child is dependent, abandoned, or neglected, and if so, the cause and circumstances of such condition. (j) Judgment. If, after the hearing, the court shall find the child to be dependent, abandoned, or neglected, it shall render judgment committing him to the care and custody of the Department or any duly licensed child-placement or child-caring agency or individual until he reaches the age of eighteen (18). The judgment shall likewise make proper provisions for the custody of the property or money belonging to the committed. child. If the child is committed to the Department, it shall notify the court within thirty (30) days from the order of commitment, the name and address of the duly licensed and accredited child-placement or childcaring agency or individual where the child shall be placed. Page 32 2004-2005
/liz@
CRIMINAL LAW 1 ESGUERRA NOTES However, if the court finds that the abandonment or neglect of the child may be remedied, the child may be allowed to stay in his own home under the care and control of his parents or guardian, subject to supervision and direction of the Department. (k) Visitation or Inspection. Any duly licensed child-placement or child-caring agency or individual to whom a child has been committed by the court shall be subject to visitation or inspection by a representative of the court or of the Department, as the case may be or of both, to determine whether the welfare and interests of the child are being served. (l) Report of Person or Institution. Any duly licensed childplacement or child-caring agency or individual to whom a child has been committed by judicial order may at any time be required by the court to submit a report, containing all necessary information for determining whether the welfare of the child is being served. (m) Temporary Custody of Child. The duly licensed childplacement or child-caring agency or individual to whom a child has been committed may file a verified motion with the court which granted the petition for involuntary commitment of a child to place him in the care of any suitable person, upon the latter's request, for a period not exceeding one month at a time. The court may order the social worker to submit a case study report to aid it in evaluating whether such temporary custody shall be for the best interests of the child. The period of temporary custody of the child may be extended by the court for a period not exceeding one month at a time upon motion of the duly licensed child-placement or childcaring agency or individual to which the child has been committed. The court, motu proprio, or upon request of the child assisted by his guardian ad litem, or at the instance of the agency or person to whom the child was committed, after due notice and hearing, shall discontinue the temporary custody of the child if it appears that he is not being given proper care. After one month from the date temporary custody of the child was given to another suitable person, the agency or individual shall submit to the court a verified report on whether the temporary custody of the child has promoted his best interests. (n) Change of Custody. If the child is committed to the Department, it shall have the authority to change the custody of a child it had placed with any duly licensed child-placement or child-caring agency or individual if it appears that such change is for the best interests of the child. The Department shall notify the court of any change in custody of the child. When conflicting interests arise among child-placement or childcaring agencies, the court which granted the involuntary commitment of the child, upon motion of the Department or any of the agencies concerned, shall order the change of commitment of the child. (o) Removal of Custody. A motion to remove custody of a child may be filed by an authorized representative of the Department with knowledge of the facts against a child-placement or child-caring agency or individual to whose custody a child has been committed by the court on the ground of neglect of such child as defined in Section 3 (e) of this Rule. The court shall set the motion for hearing with notice to the public prosecutor and the court-designated social worker. If the court finds after hearing that the allegations of the motion have been established and that it is for the best interests and welfare of the child, the court shall issue an order removing him from the custody of the person or agency, as the case may be, and committing him to the custody of another duly licensed childplacement or child-caring agency or individual. In the same proceeding, the court may suspend or revoke the license of the agency or individual found guilty of such neglect depending upon the gravity or frequency of the offense. (p) Restoration of Parental Authority After Involuntary Commitment. (i) Who may file; Ground. The parents or guardian of a child committed to the care of a person, agency or institution by judicial order may file a verified motion for the restoration of his rights over the child with the court which granted the involuntary commitment on the ground that he is now able to take proper care and custody of said child, provided, however, that the child has not yet been adopted. HDATSI (ii) Notice of Hearing. The court shall fix the time and date for the hearing of the motion, which shall not be earlier /liz@
UP College of Law 2004-2005 than thirty (30) days nor later than sixty (60) days from the date of the filing of said motion and cause notice of the hearing to be sent to the person, agency or institution to which the child has been committed, the public prosecutor and the court-designated social worker, at least five (5) days before the date of hearing. (iii) Hearing. At the hearing, any person may be allowed to intervene at the discretion of the court to contest the right to the relief demanded. Witnesses may be called and examined by the parties or by the court motu proprio. (iv) Resolution. If it is found that the cause for the commitment of the child no longer exists and that the movant is already able to take proper care and custody of the child, the court, after taking into consideration the best interests and the welfare of the child, shall issue a resolution terminating the parental authority of the person, agency or institution to whom the child was committed by judicial order and restoring parental authority to the movant. q) Jurisdiction for Prosecution of Punishable Acts. The Family Court which granted the involuntary commitment shall have jurisdiction over the prosecution of a child who left without prior permission from the person or institution to which he has been judicially committed or the person under whose custody he has been judicially committed in accordance with Subsection (m) of Section 4 of this Rule. It shall likewise have jurisdiction over the person who induced the child to leave such person or institution, except in case of actual or imminent grave physical or moral danger to the child. The Family Court which granted the involuntary commitment shall also have jurisdiction over the prosecution of parents or guardians of the child who may be held liable under Articles 59 and 60 of P.D. No. 603 and Sections 9, 10 and 31 of R.A. No. 7610. SECTION 5. Voluntary Commitment of a Child to an Institution or Individual. The parent or guardian of a dependent, abandoned or neglected child may voluntarily commit him to the Department or any duly licensed child-placement or child-caring agency or individual subject to the rules of the Department. However, no child shall be committed unless he is surrendered in writing by his parents or guardian stating such voluntary commitment and specifically naming the office, agency, or individual to whose custody the child is to be committed. Such written instrument should be notarized and signed in the presence of an authorized representative of the Department after counseling and other services have been made available to encourage the child's parents to keep the child. (a) Petition for removal of Custody. (i) Who may file; Ground. The parents or guardian who voluntarily committed the child, or in their absence or failure, any person with knowledge of the facts, may file a verified petition to remove custody of the child against the child-placement or child-caring agency or individual to whose custody the child has been voluntarily committed on the ground of neglect of such child as defined in Section 3 (e) of this Rule. A child may also be removed from the custody of the child-placement or child-caring agency or individual on the ground that the voluntary commitment of the child was unjustified. (ii) Venue. The petition shall be filed with the Family Court of the province or city where the child-placement or child-caring agency to which the child has been voluntarily committed is located or where the child may be found. (iii) Contents of Verified Petition The petition must state: (1) The name and address of the child-placement or child-caring agency or individual to whose custody the child has been voluntarily committed; SEIDAC (2) The facts showing that the child has been neglected by the agency or in cases where the voluntary commitment was unjustified, that the parents of the child are actually capable of taking care and custody of the child; (3) The name, address and written consent of the duly licensed child-placement or child-caring agency or individual to whose care the child may be transferred.
Page 33 2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1 ESGUERRA NOTES (4) The facts showing that petitioner has exhausted the administrative remedies available to him. (iv) Notice of Hearing. If the petition is sufficient in form and substance, the court shall set the same for hearing with notice to the Department, the public prosecutor, the courtdesignated social worker, the agency or individual to whom the child has been committed and in appropriate cases, the parents of the child. (v) Judgment. If after hearing the court finds that the allegations of the petition have been established and that it is for the best interests and welfare of the child, it shall issue an order removing the child from the custody of the person or agency concerned, and committing him to the custody of another duly licensed child-placement or child-caring agency or individual. The court, in the same proceeding may, after hearing the comment or recommendation of the Department, suspend or revoke the license of the agency or individual found guilty of such neglect depending upon the gravity or frequency of the offense. (b) Restoration of Parental Authority After Voluntary Commitment. The restoration of rights of the parent or guardian over the child who has been voluntarily committed shall be governed by the rules of the Department, provided, however, that the petition for restoration is filed within six (6) months from the date of voluntary commitment. In case the Department refuses to grant legal custody and parental authority to the parent or guardian over the child who has been voluntarily committed to an agency or individual, the parent or guardian may file a petition in court for restoration of parental authority in accordance with Section 4 (p) of this Rule. (c) Jurisdiction for Prosecution of Punishable Acts. The Family Court of the place where the child may be found or where the duly licensed child-placement or child-caring agency or individual is located shall have jurisdiction over the prosecution of a child who left without prior permission from the person or institution to which he has been voluntarily committed. It shall likewise have jurisdiction over the person who induced the child to leave such person or institution, except in case of grave actual or imminent physical or moral danger, to the child. The same Family Court shall also have jurisdiction over the prosecution of parents or guardians of the child who may be held liable under Articles 59 and 60 of P.D. No. 603 and Sections 9, 10 and 31 of R.A. No. 7610. SECTION 6. Petition for Commitment of a Disabled Child. (a) Who may file. Where a child appears to be mentally retarded, physically handicapped, emotionally disturbed, mentally ill, with cerebral palsy or with similar afflictions and needs institutional care but his parents or guardians are opposed thereto, the Department, or any duly licensed child-placement or child-caring agency or individual may file a verified petition for commitment of the said child to any reputable institution providing care, training and rehabilitation for disabled children. The parents or guardian of the child may file a similar petition in case no immediate placement can be arranged for the disabled child when his welfare and interests are at stake. AEHTIC (b) Venue. The petition for commitment of a disabled child shall be filed with the Family Court of the place where the parent or guardian resides or where the child is found. (c) Contents of Verified Petition. The petition for commitment must state the following: (1) The facts showing that the child appears to be mentally retarded, physically handicapped, emotionally disturbed, mentally ill, with cerebral palsy or with similar afflictions and needs institutional care; IADCES (2) The name of the parents and their residence, if known, or if the child has no living parent, the name and residence of the guardian, if any; and (3) The fact that the parents or guardian or any duly licensed disabled child-placement or child-caring agency, as the case may be, has opposed the commitment of such child; (4) The name and written conformity of the institution where the child is to be committed.
UP College of Law 2004-2005 (5) An estimate of the costs and other expenses of maintaining the child in the institution. The verified petition shall be sufficient if based upon the personal knowledge of the petitioner. (d) Order of Hearing; Notice. If the petition filed is sufficient in form and substance, the court, by an order reciting the purpose of the petition, shall fix the date of the hearing thereof, and a copy of such order shall be served on the child alleged to be mentally retarded, physically handicapped, emotionally disturbed, mentally ill, with cerebral palsy or with similar afflictions and on the person having charge of him or any of his relatives residing in the province or city as the court may deem proper. The order shall also direct the sheriff or any other officer of the court to produce, if necessary, the alleged disabled child on the date of the hearing. (e) Hearing and Judgment. If the court finds that the allegations of the petition have been established and that institutional care of the child is for his best interests or the public welfare and that his parents, or guardian or relatives are unable for any reason whatsoever to take proper care of him, the court shall order his commitment to the proper institution for disabled children. The court shall likewise make proper provisions for the custody of the property or money belonging to the committed child. The expense of maintaining a disabled child in the institution to which he has been committed shall be borne primarily by the parents or guardian and secondarily, by such disabled child, if he has property of his own. In all cases where the expenses for the maintenance of the disabled child cannot be paid in accordance with the immediately preceding paragraph, the Department shall bear the expenses, or such part thereof as may remain unpaid. The court shall furnish the institution to which the child has been committed with a copy of its judgment, together with all the reports and other data pertinent to the case. (f) Discharge of Judicially Committed Disabled Child. Upon motion of the parent, guardian or institution to which the child has been judicially committed under this rule, the court, after hearing, shall order the discharge of such child if it is established and certified by the Department that: (1) He is no longer a danger to himself and the community; (2) He has been sufficiently rehabilitated, from his physical handicap or if of working age, is already fit to engage in gainful occupation; or (3) He has been sufficiently relieved of his psychological, mental and emotional problems and is ready to assume normal social relations. SECTION 7. Effectivity. This rule shall take effect on April 15, 2002 after its publication in a newspaper of general circulation not later than March 15, 2002. [A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC. February 28, 2002.] RE: PROPOSED RULE ON JUVENILES IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAW RESOLUTION Acting on the letter of the Chairman of the Committee on Revision of the Rules of Court submitting for this Court's consideration and approval the Proposed Rule on Juveniles In Conflict With The Law, the Court Resolved to APPROVE the same. The Rule shall take effect on April 15, 2002 following its publication in a newspaper of general circulation not later than March 15, 2002. February 28, 2002. SECTION 1. Applicability of the Rule. This Rule shall apply to all criminal cases involving juveniles in conflict with the law. A juvenile in conflict with the law is a person who at the time of the commission of the offense is below eighteen (18) years of age but not less than nine (9) years of age.
/liz@
Page 34 2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1 ESGUERRA NOTES This Rule shall not apply to an accused who at the time of initial contact as defined in Section 4(p) of this Rule, or at any time thereafter, shall have reached the age of eighteen (18), in which case the regular rules on criminal procedure shall apply without prejudice to the rights granted under Sections 36, 37, 38 and 39 of this Rule. (n) SECTION 2. Objective. The objective of this Rule is to ensure that the justice system treats every juvenile in conflict with the law in a manner that recognizes and upholds his human dignity and worth, and instills in him respect for the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. The Rule considers his developmental age and the desirability of his reintegration into and assumption of a constructive role in society in accordance with the principle of restorative justice. To attain this objective, the Rule seeks: a) To provide a procedure in the adjudication of juveniles in conflict with the law that takes into account their distinct circumstances and assures the parties of a fair hearing with their constitutional and statutory rights recognized and respected; b) To divert from the justice system juveniles who can be cared for or placed under community-based alternative programs of treatment, training and rehabilitation in conformity with the principle of restorative justice; c) To deal with the juvenile in a family environment whenever possible, separate him from his parents only when necessary for his welfare or in the interest of public safety; d) To remove from juveniles in conflict with the law the stigma of criminality and the consequences of criminal behavior; and e) To provide for the care, protection and wholesome moral, mental, and physical development of juveniles in conflict with the law. SECTION 3. Interpretation. This Rule shall be interpreted liberally to promote the best interests of the child in conformity with Philippine laws and the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the Child. SECTION 4. Definitions. As used in this Rule, (a) To be in conflict with the law means being charged with the commission of an act defined and punished as a crime or offense under the law, including violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations, and ordinances of local government units. (b) Serious offense refers to any offense not covered by Section 1, par. B, Criminal Cases, of the Rule on Summary Procedure, to wit: (1) violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations; (2) violations of the rental law; (3) violations of municipal or city ordinances; (4) all other offenses punished with imprisonment not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding one thousand pesos (P1,000.00), or both, irrespective of other imposable penalties, accessory or otherwise, or of the civil liability arising therefrom; provided, however, that in offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence, the imposable fine is not in excess of ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00). (c) Youth detention center refers to a government-owned or operated agency providing habilitating and rehabilitative facilities where a juvenile in conflict with the law may be physically restricted pending court disposition of the charge against him. (d) Intake report is a preliminary written report containing the personal and other circumstances of the juvenile in conflict with the law and prepared by the social worker assigned by the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) or local government unit to assist him as soon as he enters the justice system. (e) Case study report is a written report of the result of an investigation conducted by the social worker designated by the Family Court on the social, cultural, economic and legal status or condition of the juvenile in conflict with the law. It includes, among others, his developmental age; educational attainment; family and social relationships; the quality of his peer group; the strengths and weaknesses of his family; parental control over him; his attitude toward the offense; the harm or damage done to others resulting from the offense; his record of prior offenses, if any; and the attitude of his parents towards his responsibility for the offense. (f) Diversion refers to an alternative child-appropriate process of determining the responsibility and treatment of a juvenile in conflict with the law on the basis of his social, cultural, economic, psychological or educational background without resorting to formal court adjudication. /liz@
UP College of Law 2004-2005 (g) Diversion programs refer to programs that the juvenile in conflict with the law is required to undergo in lieu of formal court proceedings, (h) Disposition conference is a meeting held by the court with the social worker who prepared the case study report together with the juvenile in conflict with the law and his parents or guardian ad litem, for the purpose of determining the disposition measures appropriate to the personal and peculiar circumstances of the juvenile. (i) Recognizance is an undertaking in lieu of a bond assumed by a parent or custodian who shall be responsible for the appearance in court by the juvenile in conflict with the law when required. (j) Probation is a disposition alternative under which a juvenile in conflict with the law is released and permitted to remain in his home after conviction and sentence. The juvenile is subject to conditions imposed in the sentence and to supervision by the court and a probation officer who has the duty to return the juvenile to the court in case of violation of a condition of his probation. (k) Suspended sentence is the holding in abeyance of the service of the sentence imposed by the court upon a finding of guilt of the juvenile in conflict with the law who will undergo rehabilitation. (l) Community continuum is a community-based group therapy process that provides continuous guidance and support to the juvenile in conflict with the law upon his release from rehabilitation and his reintegration into society. (m) Age of criminal responsibility is the age when a juvenile who is nine (9) years or over but under fifteen (15) years commits an offense with discernment. (n) Discernment means the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong and its consequences. (o) Restorative Justice is a principle which requires a process of resolving conflicts with the maximum involvement of the victim, the offender, and the community. It seeks to obtain reparation for the victim, reconciliation of the offender, the offended and the community and reassurance to the offender that he can be reintegrated into society. It. also enhances public safety by activating the offender, the victim and the community in prevention strategies. (p) Initial contact is the apprehension or taking into custody of a juvenile in conflict with the law by law enforcement officers or private citizens. It includes the time when the juvenile receives a subpoena under Section 3 (b) of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure or summons under Section 6 (a) or Sec. 9 (b) of the same Rule in cases that do not require preliminary investigation or where there is no necessity to place the juvenile under immediate custody. (q) Corporal punishment is any kind of physical punishment inflicted on the body as distinguished from pecuniary punishment or fine. SECTION 5. Exemption from Criminal Liability. A minor under nine (9) years of age at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. A minor nine (9) years and above but under fifteen (15) years of age at the time of the commission of the offense shall be committed to the care of his father or mother, or nearest relative or family friend; in the sound discretion of the court and subject to its supervision. However, if the prosecution proves that he has acted with discernment; he shall be proceeded against in accordance with Sections 24 to 28, or 36 to 40 of this Rule, as the case may be, and subjected to a delinquency prevention program as determined by the court. Exemption from criminal liability does not include exemption from civil liability which shall be enforced in accordance with the provisions of Article 221 of the Family Code in relation to Article 101 of the Revised Penal Code and Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. In case the act or omission of the juvenile involves a quasi-delict, Article 2180 of the Civil Code shall apply. SECTION 6. Procedure in Taking a Juvenile into Custody. Any person taking into custody a juvenile in conflict with the law shall: (a) Identify himself and present proper identification to the juvenile; (b) Inform the juvenile of the reason for such custody and advise him of his constitutional rights in a language or dialect understood by him;
Page 35 2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1 ESGUERRA NOTES (c) Refrain from using vulgar or profane words and from sexually harassing or abusing, or making sexual advances on the juvenile; (d) Avoid displaying or using any firearm, weapon, handcuffs or other instruments of force or restraint, unless absolutely necessary and only after all other methods of control have been exhausted and have failed; (e) Refrain from subjecting the juvenile to greater restraint than is necessary for his apprehension; (f) Avoid violence or unnecessary force; (g) Notify the parents of the juvenile or his nearest relative or guardian, if any, and the local social welfare officer as soon as the apprehension is made; (h) Take the juvenile immediately to an available government medical or health officer for a physical and mental examination. The examination results shall be kept confidential unless otherwise ordered by the Family Court. Whenever treatment for any physical or mental defect is necessary, steps shall be immediately taken by the said officer to provide the juvenile with the necessary and proper treatment; and (i) Hold the juvenile in secure quarters separate from that of the opposite sex and adult offenders. SECTION 7. Taking Custody of a Juvenile Without a Warrant. A peace officer or a private person taking into custody a juvenile in conflict with the law without a warrant shall likewise follow the provisions of Sections 5, 8 and 9 of Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and shall forthwith deliver him to the nearest police station. The juvenile shall be proceeded against in accordance with Section 7 of Rule 112. SECTION 8. Conduct of Initial Investigation by the Police. The police officer conducting the initial investigation of a juvenile in conflict with the law shall do so in the presence of either of the parents of the juvenile; in the absence of both parents, the guardian or the nearest relative, or a social welfare officer, and the counsel of his own choice. In their presence, the juvenile shall be informed of his constitutional rights during custodial investigation. The right of the juvenile to privacy shall be protected at all times. All measures necessary to promote this right shall be taken, including the exclusion of the media. SECTION 9. Fingerprinting and Photographing of the Juvenile. While under investigation, no juvenile in conflict with the law shall be fingerprinted or photographed in a humiliating and degrading manner. The following guidelines shall be observed when fingerprinting or photographing the juvenile: (a) His fingerprint and photograph files shall be kept separate from those of adults and shall be kept confidential. They may be inspected by law enforcement officers only when necessary for the discharge of their duties and upon prior authority of the Family Court; TADCSE (b) His fingerprints and photographs shall be removed from the files and destroyed: (1) if the case against him is not filed, or is dismissed; or (2) when the juvenile reaches twenty one (21) years of age and there is no record that he committed an offense after reaching eighteen (18) years of age. SECTION 10. Intake Report by the Social Welfare Officer. Upon the taking into custody of a juvenile in conflict with the law, the social welfare officer assigned to him by the DSWD shall immediately under take a preliminary background investigation of the juvenile and submit, prior to arraignment of the juvenile, a report on his findings to the Family Court in which the case may be filed. SECTION 11. Filing of Criminal Action. A criminal action may be instituted against a juvenile in conflict with the law by filing a complaint with the prosecutor or the municipal trial court in cases where a preliminary investigation is required. In Manila and other chartered cities, if their charters so provide, the complaint shall be filed with the Office of the Prosecutor. It may also be filed directly with the Family Court if no preliminary investigation is required under Section 1 of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. /liz@
UP College of Law 2004-2005 All criminal actions commenced by complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the public prosecutor assigned to the Family Court. SECTION 12. Prosecution of Civil Action. When a criminal action is instituted against a juvenile in conflict with the law, the action for recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be governed by Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. SECTION 13. Preliminary Investigation. As far as consistent with this Rule, the preliminary investigation of a juvenile in conflict with the law shall be governed by Section 3 of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. If clarificatory questions become necessary, the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness shall apply. If a preliminary investigation is required before the filing of a complaint or information, the same shall be conducted by the judge of the Municipal Trial Court or the public prosecutor in accordance with the pertinent provisions of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. If the investigating prosecutor finds probable cause to hold the juvenile for trial, he shall prepare the corresponding resolution and information for approval by the provincial or city prosecutor, as the case may be. The juvenile, his parents/nearest relative/guardian and his counsel shall be furnished forthwith a copy of the approved resolution. SECTION 14. Venue. Subject to the provisions of Section 15, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, any criminal or civil action involving a juvenile in conflict with the law shall be instituted and tried in the Family Court of or nearest the place where the offense was committed or where any of its essential elements occurred. SECTION 15. Recognizance. Before final conviction, all juveniles charged with offenses falling under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure shall be released on recognizance to the custody of their parents or other suitable person who shall be responsible for the juveniles' appearance in court whenever required. SECTION 16. When Bail a Matter of Right. All juveniles in conflict with the law shall be admitted to bail as a matter of right before final conviction of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. In the event the juvenile cannot post bail for lack of financial resources, the Family Court shall commit the juvenile pursuant to Section 18 of this Rule. However, where the juvenile does not pose a threat to public safety, the Family Court may, motu proprio or upon motion and recommendation of the DSWD, release the juvenile on recognizance to the custody of his parents or other responsible person. SECTION 17. When Bail Not A Matter of Right. No juvenile charged with an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong. SECTION 18. Care of Juveniles in Conflict with the Law. The juvenile charged with having committed a delinquent act, held for trial or while the case is pending appeal, if unable to furnish bail or is denied bail, shall, from the time of his being taken into custody, be committed by the Family Court to the care of the DSWD, a youth detention center, or a local rehabilitation center recognized by the government in the province, city or municipality within the jurisdiction of the said court. The center or agency concerned shall be responsible for the juvenile's appearance in court whenever required. In the absence of any such center or agency within a reasonable distance from the venue of the trial, the juvenile shall be detained in the provincial, city or municipal jail which shall provide adequate quarters for the juvenile separate from adult detainees and detainees of the opposite sex. SECTION 19. Case Study Report. After the institution of the criminal action, the social worker of the Family Court shall immediately undertake a case study of the juvenile and his family, his environment and Page 36 2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1 ESGUERRA NOTES such other matters relevant to the proper disposition of the case. His report shall be submitted within the period fixed by the Family Court, preferably before arraignment, to aid it in the proper disposition of the case. SECTION 20. Diversion Proceedings Before Arraignment. Where the maximum penalty imposed by law for the offense with which the juvenile in conflict with the law is charged is imprisonment of not more than six (6) months, regardless of fine or fine alone regardless of amount, and the corresponding complaint or information is filed with the Family Court, the case shall not be set for arraignment; instead, it shall forthwith be referred to the Diversion Committee which shall determine whether the juvenile can be diverted and referred to alternative measures or services offered by non-court institutions. Pending determination by the Committee, the court shall deliver the juvenile on recognizance to the custody of his parents or legal guardian who shall be responsible for the presence of the juvenile during the diversion proceedings. SECTION 21. Diversion Committee. In each Family Court, there shall be a Diversion Committee to be composed of its branch clerk of court as chairperson, and the prosecutor, a lawyer of the Public Attorney's Office and the social worker assigned to the said Family Court as members. The chairperson of the Committee shall call for a conference with notice to the juvenile, his parents/legal guardian and his counsel, and the private complainant and his counsel, and recommend to the Family Court whether the juvenile should be diverted to a diversion program or undergo formal court proceedings. In making its recommendation, the Committee shall consider the following factors: a) The record of the juvenile on his conflict with the law; b) Whether the imposable maximum penalty of the offense is more than six (6) months, regardless of fine; or only a fine, regardless of amount; c) Whether the juvenile is an obvious threat to himself and/or the community; d) Whether the juvenile is unrepentant; e) Whether the juvenile or his parents are indifferent or hostile; and Whether the juvenile's relationships with his peers increase the possibility of delinquent behavior. If the Committee recommends diversion, it shall submit the diversion program for the juvenile for the consideration and approval of the court. The Committee cannot recommend diversion should the juvenile or the private complainant object thereto. If no diversion program is recommended, the court shall include the case in its calendar for formal proceedings. Consent to diversion by the juvenile or payment by him of civil indemnity shall not in any way be construed as admission of guilt and used as evidence against him in the event that his case is included in the court calendar for formal proceedings. SECTION 22. Diversion Programs. The diversion program designed by the Committee shall be distinct to each juvenile in conflict with the law limited for a specific period. It may include any or a combination of the following: a) Written or oral reprimand or citation; b) Return of property; c) Payment of the damage caused; d) Written or oral apology; e) Guidance and supervision orders; f) Counseling for the juvenile and his family; g) Training, seminars and lectures on (i) anger management skills; (ii) problem-solving and/or conflict resolution skills; (iii) values formation; and (iv) other skills that will aid the juvenile to properly deal with situations that can lead to a repetition of the offense; h) Participation in available community-based programs; i) Institutional care and custody; or j) Work-detail program in the community.
UP College of Law 2004-2005 SECTION 23. Hearing of Diversion Program. The Family Court shall set the recommendation and diversion program for hearing within ten (10) days from receipt thereof. SECTION 24. Undertaking. In all cases where a juvenile in conflict with the law is given the benefit of a diversion program, an undertaking describing the program shall be signed by him, his parents or legal guardian and the complainant, and approved by the Family Court. The program, which shall be enforced under the supervision and control of the Family Court, shall contain the following terms and conditions: a) The juvenile shall present himself to the social worker of the Family Court that approved the diversion program at least once a month for evaluation of its effectiveness. Whenever the juvenile is permitted to reside in a place under the jurisdiction of another Family Court, control and supervision over him shall be transferred to the Family Court of that place, and in such case, a copy of the undertaking, the intake and case study reports and other pertinent records shall be furnished the said court. Thereafter, the Family Court to which jurisdiction over the juvenile is transferred shall have the power with respect to the latter that was previously possessed by the Family Court that approved the diversion and such other conditions as the Committee may deem just and proper under the circumstances. b) The juvenile shall faithfully comply with the terms and conditions in the undertaking. His non-compliance shall be referred by the Committee to the Family Court where the case has been transferred for a show-cause hearing with notice to the juvenile and private complainant. The court shall determine whether the juvenile should continue with the diversion program or his case returned to the original court for formal proceedings. The Family Court shall exert its best efforts to secure satisfaction of the civil liability of the juvenile and his parents or guardian. However, inability to pay the said liability shall not by itself be a ground to discontinue the diversion program of the juvenile. SECTION 25. Closure Order. The juvenile subject of diversion proceedings shall be visited periodically by the Family Court social worker who shall submit to the Committee his reports thereon. At any time before or at the end of the diversion period, a report recommending closure or extension of diversion, as the case may be, shall be filed by the Committee with the Family Court. The report and recommendation shall be heard by the Family Court within fifteen (15) days from its receipt thereof, with notice to the members of the Committee, the juvenile and his parents or legal guardian and counsel and the complainant to determine whether the undertaking has been fully and satisfactorily complied with. If the juvenile has complied with his undertaking, the Family Court shall issue the corresponding closure order terminating the diversion program. It may, however, extend the period of diversion to give the juvenile a further chance to be rehabilitated. In the event the court finds that the diversion program will no longer serve its. purpose, it shall include the case of the juvenile in its calendar for formal proceedings. SECTION 26. Duty of the Family Court to Protect the Rights of the Juvenile. In all criminal proceedings in the Family Court, the judge shall ensure the protection of the following rights of the juvenile in conflict with the law: a) To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt; b) To be informed promptly and directly of the nature and cause of the charge against him, and if appropriate, through his parents or legal guardian; c) To be present at every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of judgment. The juvenile may, however, waive his presence at the trial pursuant to the stipulations set forth in his bail, unless his presence at the trial is specifically ordered by the court for purposes of identification. The absence of the juvenile without justifiable cause at the trial of which he had notice shall be considered a waiver of his right to be present thereat. When the juvenile under custody escapes, he shall be deemed to have waived his right to be present in all subsequent hearings until custody over him is regained; Page 37 2004-2005
/liz@
CRIMINAL LAW 1 ESGUERRA NOTES d) To have legal and other appropriate assistance in the preparation and presentation of his defense; e) To testify as a witness in his own behalf and subject to crossexamination only on matters covered by direct examination, provided that the Rule on the Examination of a Child Witness shall be observed whenever convenient and practicable. The juvenile shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself and his silence shall not in any manner prejudice him; f) To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him; g) To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and production of other evidence in his behalf; h) To have speedy and impartial trial, with legal or other appropriate assistance and preferably in the presence of his parents or legal guardian, unless such presence is considered not to be in the best interests of the juvenile taking into account his age or other peculiar circumstances; (i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law; j) To be accorded all the rights under the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness; and k) To have his privacy fully respected in all stages of the proceedings. SECTION 27. Arraignment and Plea. The provisions of Rules 116 and 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure shall apply to the arraignment of the juvenile in conflict with the law. The arraignment shall be scheduled within seven (7) days from the date of the filing of the complaint or information with the Family Court, unless a shorter period is provided for by law. Arraignment shall be held in chambers and conducted by the judge by furnishing the juvenile a copy of the complaint or information, reading the same in a language or dialect known to and understood by him, explaining the nature and consequences of a plea of guilty or not guilty and asking him what his plea is. SECTION 28. Pre-trial. The provisions of Rule 118 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure shall govern the pre-trial of the juvenile in conflict with the law. Agreements or admissions made during the pre trial conference shall be in writing and signed by the juvenile, his parents or guardian and his counsel; otherwise, they cannot be used against him. Whenever possible and practicable, the Family Court shall explore all possibilities of settlement of the case, except its criminal aspect. Plea bargaining shall be resorted to only as a last measure when it will serve the best interests of the juvenile and the demands of restorative justice. SECTION 29. Trial. All hearings shall be conducted in a manner conducive to the best interests of the juvenile and in an environment that will allow him to participate fully and freely in accordance with the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness. SECTION 30. Guiding Principles in Judging the Juvenile. Subject to the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and other special laws, the judgment against a juvenile in conflict with the law shall be guided by the following principles: 1. It shall be in proportion to the gravity of the offense, and shall consider the circumstances and the best interests of the juvenile, the rights of the victim, the needs of society in line with the demands of restorative justice. 2. Restrictions on the personal liberty of the juvenile shall be limited to the minimum. Where discretion is given by law to the judge to determine whether the penalty to be imposed is fine or imprisonment, the imposition of the latter should be preferred as the more appropriate penalty. 3. No corporal punishment shall be imposed. SECTION 31. Promulgation of Sentence. If after trial the Family Court should find the juvenile in conflict with the law guilty, it shall impose the proper penalty, including any civil liability which the juvenile /liz@
UP College of Law 2004-2005 may have incurred, and promulgate the sentence in accordance with Section 6, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. SECTION 32. Automatic Suspension of Sentence and Disposition Orders. The sentence shall be suspended without need of application by the juvenile in conflict with the law. The court shall set the case for disposition conference within fifteen (15) days from the promulgation of sentence which shall be attended by the social worker of the Family Court, the juvenile, and his parents or guardian ad litem. It shall proceed to issue any or a combination of the following disposition measures best suited to the rehabilitation and welfare of the juvenile: 1. Care, guidance, and supervision orders; 2. Community service orders; 3. Drug and alcohol treatment; 4. Participation in group counseling and similar activities; 5. Commitment to the Youth Rehabilitation Center of the DSWD or other centers for juveniles in conflict with the law authorized by the Secretary of the DSWD. The Social Services and Counseling Division (SSCD) of the DSWD shall monitor the compliance by the juvenile in conflict with the law with the disposition measure and shall submit regularly to the Family Court a status and progress report on the matter. The Family Court may set a conference for the evaluation of such report in the presence, if practicable, of the juvenile, his parents or guardian, and other persons whose presence may be deemed necessary. The benefits of suspended sentence shall not apply to a juvenile in conflict with the law who has once enjoyed suspension of sentence, or to one who is convicted of an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, or when at the time of promulgation of judgment the juvenile is already eighteen (18) years of age or over. SECTION 33. Discharge of Juvenile Subject of Disposition Measure. Upon the recommendation of the SSCD and a duly authorized officer of the DSWD, the head of an appropriate center or the duly accredited child-caring agency which has custody over the juvenile, the Family Court shall, after due notice to all parties and hearing, dismiss the case against the juvenile who has been issued disposition measures, even before he has reached eighteen (18) years of age, and order a final discharge if it finds that the juvenile has behaved properly and has shown the capability to be a useful member of the community. If the Family Court, however, finds that the juvenile has not behaved properly, has been incorrigible, has not shown the capability of becoming a useful member of society, has willfully failed to comply with the conditions of his disposition or rehabilitation program, or should his continued stay in the training institution where he has been assigned be not in his best interests, he shall be brought before the court for execution of his judgment. If the juvenile in conflict with the law has reached the age of eighteen (18) years while in commitment, the Family Court shall determine whether to dismiss the case in accordance with the first paragraph of this Section or to execute the judgment of conviction. In the latter case, unless the juvenile has already availed of probation under Presidential Decree No. 603 or other similar laws, he may apply for probation if qualified under the provisions of the Probation Law. The final release of the juvenile shall not extinguish his civil liability. The parents and other persons exercising parental authority over the juvenile shall be civilly liable for the injuries and damages caused by the acts or omissions of the juvenile living in their company and under their parental authority subject to the appropriate defenses provided by law. SECTION 34. Probation as an Alternative to Imprisonment. After promulgation of sentence and upon application at any time by the juvenile in conflict with the law within the period to appeal, the Family Court may place the juvenile on probation, if he is qualified under the Probation Law. SECTION 35. Credit in Service of Sentence. The juvenile in conflict with the law who has undergone preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the service of his sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty, with the full time during which he has undergone preventive Page 38 2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1 ESGUERRA NOTES imprisonment, if he agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same or similar disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, except in any of the following cases: 1. When the juvenile is a recidivist or has been convicted previously twice or more times of any crime; or 2. When upon being summoned for execution of sentence, he failed to surrender voluntarily. If the juvenile does not agree to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, he shall be credited in the service of his sentence with four-fifths of the time during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment. Whenever the juvenile has undergone preventive imprisonment for a period equal to or more than the possible maximum imprisonment of the offense charged to which he may be sentenced and his case is not yet terminated, he shall be released immediately without prejudice to the continuation of the trial thereof or the proceeding on appeal, if the same is under review. In case the maximum penalty to which the juvenile may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after thirty (30) days of preventive imprisonment. Any form of physical restraint imposed on the juvenile in conflict with the law, including community service and commitment to a rehabilitation center, shall be considered preventive imprisonment. SECTION 36. Confidentiality of Proceedings and Records. All proceedings and records involving juveniles in conflict with the law from initial contact until final disposition of the case by the Family Court shall be considered privileged and confidential. The public may be excluded from the proceedings and, pursuant to the provisions of Section 31 of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, the records shall not be disclosed directly or indirectly to anyone by any of the parties or the participants in the proceedings for any purpose whatsoever, except to determine if the juvenile may have his sentence suspended under Section 25 of this Rule or if he may be granted probation under the Probation Law, or to enforce the civil liability imposed in the criminal action. The Family Court shall take other measures to protect this confidentiality of proceedings including non-disclosure of records to the media, the maintenance of a separate police blotter for cases involving juveniles in conflict with the law and the adoption of a system of coding to conceal material information, which will lead to the juvenile's identity. Records of juveniles in conflict with the law shall not be used in subsequent proceedings or cases involving the same offender as an adult. SECTION 37. Non-liability for perjury or concealment or misrepresentation. Any person who has been in conflict with the law as a juvenile shall not be held guilty of perjury or of concealment or misrepresentation by reason of his failure to acknowledge the case or recite any fact related thereto in response to any inquiry made to him for any purpose. SECTION 38. Sealing of Records. The Family Court motu proprio, or on application of a person who has been adjudged a juvenile in conflict with the law, or if still a minor, on motion of his parents or legal guardian, shall, upon notice to the prosecution and after hearing, order the sealing of the records of the case if it finds that two (2) years have elapsed since the final discharge of the juvenile after suspension of sentence or probation, or from the date of the closure order and he has no pending case of an offense or a crime involving moral turpitude. Upon entry of the order, the case shall be treated as if it never occurred. All index references shall be deleted and in case of inquiry, the Family Court, prosecution, law enforcement officers and all other offices and agencies that dealt with the case shall reply that no record exists with respect to the juvenile concerned. Copies of the order shall be sent to these officials and agencies named in the order. Inspection of the sealed records thereafter may be permitted only by order of the Family Court upon petition. of the juvenile who is the subject of the records or of other proper parties. This procedure shall be without prejudice to the rule on destruction of video or audio tapes under Section 31 of the Rule on the Examination of a Child Witness.
UP College of Law 2004-2005 SECTION 39. Prohibition Against Labeling. In the conduct of proceedings from initial contact with the juvenile in conflict with the law to the final disposition of the case, there shall be no branding or labeling of the latter as a young criminal, juvenile delinquent, prostitute, vagrant, or attaching to him in any manner any derogatory name. Likewise, no discriminatory remarks and practices shall be allowed, particularly with respect to the juvenile's social or economic status, physical disability or ethnic origin. SECTION 40. Contempt Powers. A person who directly or indirectly disobeys any order of the Family Court or obstructs or interferes with its proceedings or the enforcement of its orders issued under this Rule shall be liable for contempt of court. SECTION 41. Effectivity. This rule shall take effect on April 15, 2002 after its publication in a newspaper of general circulation not later than March 15, 2002.
Par. 4. ANY PERSON WHO, WHILE PERFORMING A LAWFUL ACT WITH DUE CARE, CAUSES AN INJURY BY MERE ACCIDENT WITHOUT FAULT OR INTENTION OF CAUSING IT. ELEMENTS: 1. A person performing a lawful act; 2. With due care; 3. He causes an injury to another by mere accident; 4. Without fault or intention of causing it. Striking another with a gun in self-defense, even if it fired and seriously injured the assailant is a lawful act. ACCIDENT something that happen outside the sway of our will and although it comes about through some act of our will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences. - If the consequences are plainly foreseeable, it will be a case of negligence. People v. Agliday (2001) Facts: The wife of the accused was washing dishes in the kitchen when her son was shot with a shotgun by her husband. Conchita claimed that she and her husband quarreled before the incident and then her husband left the kitchen got his shotgun and went back to the kitchen to shoot his son. Accused claimed that it was only an accident. He was merely cleaning his gun and the gun accidentally went off and his sons buttock was hit. Held: The exemption from criminal liability under the circumstance showing accident is based on the lack of criminal intent. In the case at bar, accused got his shotgun and returned to the kitchen to shoot his son who had intervened in the quarrel between the former and his wife. There was clear intent to fire and not mere accident. US v. Tanedo (1910) Facts: The accused, while hunting, saw wild chickens and fired a shot. The slug, after hitting a wild chicken, recoiled and struck the tenant who was a relative of the accused. The man who was injured died. Held: If life is taken by misfortune or accident while the actor is in the performance of a lawful act executed with due care and without intention of doing harm, there is no criminal liability. People v. Bindoy (1931)
/liz@
Page 39 2004-2005
/liz@
Page 40 2004-2005
The case of US v. Exaltation is also an example were there is real, imminent or reasonable fear. IRRESISTIBLE FORCE The offender uses violence or physical force to compel another person to commit the crime. JUSTIFYING There is neither a crime nor a criminal. UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR The offender employs intimidation or threat in compelling another to commit a crime. EXEMPTING There is a crime but no criminal. The act is not justified but the actor is not criminally liable. There is civil liability except no. 4 and 7.
No civil liability except in no. 4 People v. Fronda (1993) Facts: Balaan brothers were taken by 7 armed NPA members accompanied by accused Fronda and Padua. The accused are both residents of the same place. The two were convicted of murder. Fronda appealed claiming he was merely taken by the armed men as a pointer. Held: Records show that appellants participation in the commission of the crime consisted of: 1) leading the members of the armed group to the house where the victims were found, 2) tying the victims hands and 3) digging the grave where the victims were buried. He is not a principal by indispensable cooperation but only an accomplice. The defense of uncontrollable fear cannot be accepted because the fact that the accused was seen being handed by and receiving a hunting knife from one of the armed men, as well as, his inexplicable failure to report the incident to the authorities for more than 3 years
Par. 7 ANY PERSON WHO FAILS TO PERFORM AN ACT REQUIRED BY LAW, WHEN PREVENTED BY SOME LAWFUL OR INSUPERABLE CAUSE. ELEMENTS: That an act is required by law to be done; That a person fails to perform such act; That his failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause.
1. 2. 3.
US v. Vicentillo (1911) A policeman charged cannot be held liable for illegal detention when after arresting his victims, it took him three days to reach the nearest judge. The distance which required a journey for three days was considered to be an insuperable cause. People v. Bandian (1936)
/liz@
Page 41 2004-2005
3. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES Mitigating circumstances are those which, if present in the commission of the crime, do not entirely free the actor from criminal liability, but serve only to reduce the penalty. They are based on the diminution of either freedom of action, intelligence or intent or on the lesser perversity of the offender. CLASSES OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES 1. ORDINARY MITIGATING Those mentioned in subsections 1 to 10 of Art. 13. 2. PRIVILEGED MITIGATING
NOTE: Mitigating circumstances only reduce the penalty but do not change the nature of the crime. Art. 13. Mitigating circumstances. The following are mitigating circumstances; 1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant. 2. That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over seventy years. In the case of the minor, he shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80. 3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. 4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act. 5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees. 6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation. 7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution; 8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his means of action, defense, or comm4unications with his fellow beings. 9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender without however depriving him of the consciousness of his acts. 10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous to those above mentioned.
Art. 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person under eighteen years of age. When the offender is a minor under eighteen years and his case is one coming under the provisions of the paragraphs next to the last of Article 80 of this Code, the following rules shall be observed: 1. Upon a person under fifteen but over nine years of age, who is not exempted from liability by reason of the court having declared that he acted with discernment, a discretionary penalty shall be imposed, but always lower by two degrees at least than that prescribed by law for the crime which he committed. 2. Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years of age the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period. Art. 69. Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is not wholly excusable. A penalty lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law shall be imposed if the deed is not wholly excusable by reason of the lack of some of the conditions required to justify the same or to exempt from criminal liability in the several cases mentioned in Article 11 and 12, provided that the majority of such conditions be present. The courts shall impose the penalty in the period which may be deemed proper, in view of the number and nature of the conditions of exemption present or lacking. Privileged mitigating circumstances which are applicable only to particular crimes: 1. Art. 268, par. 3. Voluntary release of the person illegally detained within 3 days without the offender attaining his purpose and before the institution of criminal action. The penalty is one degree lower. 2. Art. 333, par. 3. Abandonment without justification of the spouse who committed adultery. The penalty is one degree lower. ORDINARY MC Susceptible of being offset by any aggravating circumstance PRIVILEDGED MC Cannot be offset by aggravating circumstance
Par. 1- THOSE MENTIONED IN THE PRECEDING CHAPTER, WHEN ALL THE REQUISITES NECESSARY TO JUSTIFY OR TO EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY IN THE RESPECTIVE CASES ARE NOT ATTENDANT. The circumstances of justification or exemption which may give place to mitigation, because not all the requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are attendant, are the ff: 1. Self-defense 2. Defense of Relatives 3. Defense of Strangers 4. State of necessity 5. Performance of duty 6. Obedience to order of superior 7. Minority over 9 and under 15 years of age
/liz@
Page 42 2004-2005
REQUISITES under par. 4 of Art. 12 : a. A person is performing a lawful act; b. With due care; c. He causes an injury to another by mere accident; and d. Without fault or intention of causing it. If the 2nd requisite and 1st part of the 4th requisite are absent, the case will fall under Art. 365 which punishes reckless imprudence. If the 1st requisite and 2nd part of the 4th requisite are absent, it will be an intentional felony. 3. Incomplete exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear. REQUISITES under par. 6 of Art. 12: a. That the threat which caused the fear was of an evil greater than, or at least equal to, that which he was required to commit; b. That it promised an evil of such gravity and imminence that an ordinary person would have succumbed to it. If only one of these requisites is present, there is only a mitigating circumstance. Par. 2 THAT THE OFFENDER IS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE OR OVER 70 YEARS. IN THE CASE OF THE MINOR, HE SHALL BE PROCEEDED AGAINST IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ART. 80. Par. 2 contemplates the ff: 1. An offender over 9 but under 15 of age who acted with discernment. 2. An offender fifteen or over but under 18 years of age. 3. An offender over 70 years old. Art. 80. Suspension of sentence of minor delinquents. Whenever a minor of either sex, under sixteen years of age at the date of the commission of a grave or less grave felony, is accused thereof, the court, after hearing the evidence in the proper proceedings, instead of pronouncing judgment of conviction, shall suspend all further proceedings and shall commit such minor to the custody or care of a public or private, benevolent or charitable institution, established under the law of the care, correction or education of orphaned, homeless, defective, and delinquent children, or to the custody or care of any other responsible person in any other place subject to visitation and supervision by the Director of Public Welfare or any of his agents or representatives, if there be any, or otherwise by the superintendent of public schools or his representatives, subject to such conditions as are prescribed herein below until such minor shall have reached his majority age or for such less period as the court may deem proper. The court, in committing said minor as provided above, shall take into consideration the religion of such minor, his parents or next of kin, in order to avoid his commitment to any private institution not under the control and supervision of the religious sect or denomination to which they belong. The Director of Public Welfare or his duly authorized representatives or agents, the
In these 3 classes of defense, UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION must always be present. It is an indispensable requisite. Par. 1 of Art. 13 is applicable only when unlawful aggression is present but the other 2 requisites are not present in any of the cases referred to in circumstances number 1, 2 and 3 or Art. 11. Ex. When the one making defense against unlawful aggression used unreasonable means to prevent or repel it, he is entitled to a privileged mitigating circumstance. 2. Incomplete justifying circumstance avoidance of greater evil or injury. of
REQUISITES under par. 4 of Art. 11: a. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists; b. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; c. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it. Avoidance of greater evil or injury is a justifying circumstance if all the three requisites mentioned in par. 4 of Art. 11 are present. But if any of the last two requisites is lacking, there is only a mitigating circumstance. 3. Incomplete justifying performance of duty. circumstance of
REQUISITES under par. 5 of Art. 11: a. That the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office; and b. That the injury caused or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of such duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office. In People v. Oanis, the SC considered one of the 2 requisites as constituting the majority. It seems that there is no ordinary mitigating circumstance under Art. 13 par. 1 when the justifying or exempting circumstance has 2 requisites only. INCOMPLETE EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE 1. Incomplete exempting circumstance of minority over 9 and under 15 years of age. REQUISITES under par. 3 of Art. 12: a. That the offender is over 9 and under 15 years old; and b. That he does not act with discernment. If the minor over 9 and under 15 years of age acted with discernment, he is entitled only to a mitigating circumstance, because not all the requisites to exempt from criminal liability are present.
/liz@
Page 43 2004-2005
4. 5.
Par. 3 THAT THE OFFENDER HAD NO INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GR A WRONG AS THAT COMMITTED. This circumstance can be taken into account only when the facts proven show that there is a notable and evident disproportion between the means employed to execute the criminal act and its consequences. The intention, as an internal act, is judged not only by the proportion of the means employed by him to the evil produced by his act, but also by the fact that the blow was or was not aimed at a vital part of the body. Intention must be judged by considering the weapon used, the injury inflicted and his attitude of the mind when the accused attacked the deceased. This mitigating circumstance is not applicable when the offender employed brute force. Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong is not appreciated where the offense committed is characterized by treachery. In crimes against persons who do not die as a result of the assault, the absence of the intent to kill reduces the felony to mere physical injuries, but it does not constitute a mitigating circumstance under Art. 13 par 3. It is not applicable to felonies by negligence because in these kinds of felonies, there is no intent on the part of the offender which may be considered diminished. Par. 3 is only applicable to offense resulting in physical injuries or material harm. It is not applicable to defamation or slander. People v. Ural (1974) Facts: Witness Alberto saw policeman Ural inside the jail boxing detention prisoner Napola. As Napola collapsed on the floor, Ural went out to get a bottle. He poured the contents to the dress of Napola and set it on fire. Napola got burned and he asked mercy from Ural. Instead, Ural locked him up and threatened the witness not to tell anyone or else he will burn also. When Napola was already suffering much from the burns, Ural became frightened and he and Siton helped put out the fire. Napola died later because of the burns. Held: Offender is criminally liable although consequence of his felonious act was not intended by him. This is covered by Art. 4 of the RPC. The TC failed to appreciate the mitigating circumstance that the offender has no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. It is manifest from the facts that the accused had no intent to kill the victim. His only design was only to maltreat him maybe because of his drunken condition. When the accused realized the fearful consequences of his act, he allowed the victim to secure medical treatment. People v. Amit (1970) Facts: Amit pleads guilty to rape with homicide and sentenced to death. Amit appeals claiming that
LEGAL EFFECTS OF VARIOUS AGES OF OFFENDER: 1. Under 9 years of age, an exempting circumstance. (Art. 12, par. 2) 2. Over 9 and under 15 years of age, also an exempting circumstance, unless he acted with discernment (Art. 12, par. 3)
/liz@
Page 44 2004-2005
PROVOCATION - Any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended party, capable of exciting, inciting, or irritating anyone. REQUISITES: a. That the provocation must be sufficient b. That it must originate from the offended party c. That the provocation must be immediate to the act, i.e., to the commission of the crime by the person who is provoked. People v. Pagal (1977) Facts: Pagal and Torcelino, employees of Gau Guan, conspired together to take away from their employer P1,281. When Gau Guan refused to open the kaha de yero, they stabbed him with an icepick and clubbed him with an iron pipe which resulted to his death. The two accused were charged with the crime of robbery with homicide. On appeal, they claimed that they are entitled to 2 mitigating circumstances: sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party and having acted upon an impulse so powerful as to produce passion and obfuscation. Held: The 2 mitigating circumstances cannot be considered as 2 distinct and separate circumstances but should only be treated as one because they both arose from the same incident the alleged maltreatment of Pagal and Torcelino by Gau Guan. The circumstance of passion and obfuscation cannot be mitigating in a crime which is planned and calmly meditated before its execution. Also, provocation in order to be mitigating must be sufficient and immediately preceding the act. In this case, it was months ago when the incident of alleged maltreatment took place. Romera v. People (2004) Facts: While lying in bed, Romera heard the victim Roy call him and his wife, asking if they had beer and a fighter for sale. He did not answer Roy because he knew that Roy was already drunk. Roy asked for Romera but when the latter's wife told him that he was already asleep, Roy told her to wake her husband up. Romera went down the house and asked who was at the door. Just as he opened the door for Roy, Roy thrust his bolo at him. He successfully parried the bolo and asked Roy what it was all about. Roy answered he would kill Romera. Romera tried to prevent Roy from entering, so he pushed the door shut. As Roy was hacking at the wall, Romeras wife held the door to allow Romera to exit in another door to face Roy. He hurled a stone at Roy, who dodged it. Roy rushed to him and hacked him, but he parried the blow. Petitioner grappled for the bolo and stabbed Roy in the stomach. Wounded, Roy begged petitioner for forgiveness. Romera ceased harming Roy for fear he might kill him. Held: There was sufficient provocation and the circumstance of passion or obfuscation attended the commission of the offense. Thrusting his bolo at Romera, threatening to kill him, and hacking the bamboo walls of his house are sufficient provocation to enrage any man, or stir his rage and obfuscate his thinking, more so when the lives of his wife and children are in danger. Romera stabbed the victim as a result of those provocations, and while Romera was still in a fit of rage. The court however stressed that provocation and passion or obfuscation are not 2 separate mitigating circumstances. Well-settled is the rule that if
/liz@
Page 45 2004-2005
a.
b.
PROVOCATION It is made directly only to the person committing the offense The cause that brought about the provocation need not be a grave offense. It is necessary that the provocation or threat immediately preceded the act.
Basis to determine the gravity of offense in vindication The question whether or not a certain personal offense is grave must be decided by the court, having in mind the social standing of the person, the place and the time when the insult was made. Vindication of a grave offense and passion or obfuscation cannot be counted separately and independently. People v. Ampar (1917) Facts: A fiesta was in progress and the accused Ampar went to the kitchen and asked from Patobo some of the roast pig. Patobo replied, There is no more. Come here and I will make roast pig of you. Later, while Patobo was squatting down, Ampar struck him on the head with an ax, causing his death the following day. The TC appreciated the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense. Held: The offense which the defendant was endeavoring to vindicate would be to the average person considered as a mere trifle. But to this defendant, an old man, it evidently was a serious matter to be made the
/liz@
Page 46 2004-2005
People v. Muit (1982) Facts: Rosario Muit was the Brgy. Zone President and Torrero was the zone auditor. They used to meet frequently because they were having an affair which eventually reached the husband of Rosario, Delfin. Delfin shot Torrero 3 times at the front yard of the Muits. Delfin surrendered himself and turned in the pistol he had used. Held: Muit is guilty of murder with mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and passion and obsfuscation. The accused was driven strongly by jealousy. The feeling of resentment resulting from the rivalry in amorous relations with a woman is a powerful stimulant to jealousy and prone to produce anger and obfuscation. US v. HICKS (1909) Facts: For about 5 years, Hicks and Sola lived together as husband and wife when they separated. A few days later, Sola contracted new relations with another negro named Wallace. Hicks went to Wallaces house and asked the latter to go out. They talked for awhile and then Hicks shot Wallace Held: Even if it is true that the accused acted with obfuscation because of jealousy, the mitigating circumstance cannot be considered in his favor because the causes which mitigate criminal responsibility for the loss of self-control are such which originate from legitimate feelings and not those which arise from vicious, unworthy and immoral passions. The cause of the passion of the accused was his vexation engendered by the refusal of the woman to continue to live in illicit relations with him, which she had a perfect right to do. US v. DE LA CRUZ (1912) Facts: The evidence clearly discloses that the convict, in the heat of passion, killed the deceased, who had theretofore been his lover upon discovering her in flagrante in carnal communication with a mutual acquaintance. Held: The accused was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation because the impulse was caused by the sudden revelation that she was untrue to him, and his discovery of her in flagrante in the arms of another. note: when the court used the word illicit, it doesnt mean that it is an illegitimate or bigamous relationship. It means that it is cohabitation without a valid marriage. People v. Germina (1998) Facts: One night, the accused went to the Angeles residence to look for Raymund. He went to verifiy the news that the latter mauled and stabbed the accuseds mentally retarded brother, Rafael. Raymund was not yet at home and the moment he arrived, the accused spotted him and shot him. Held: There is no treachery. Passion cannot coexist with treachery because in passion, the offender loses his control and reason while in treachery the means employed are consciously adopted. One who loses his reason and self-control could not deliberately employ a particular method or form of attack in the execution of the crime. Passion existed in this case because it clearly arose from lawful sentiments or legitimate feelings. The accused committed the crime due to the maltreatment inflicted by the victim on his mentally retarded brother.
Irresistible force must come from a third person The irresistible force is unlawful
PASSION PROVOCATION Produced by an impulse Comes form the injured which may be caused by party provocation Need not be immediate. It Must immediately precede is only required that the the commission of the influence thereof lasts crime until the moment the crime is committed The effect is the loss of reason and self-control on the part of the offender.
/liz@
Page 47 2004-2005
People v. Gonzalez (2001) Facts: Both of the families of Andres and that of Gonzalez were on their way to the exit of the Loyola Memorial Park. Gonzales was with his grandson and 3 housemaids, while Andres was driving with his pregnant wife, Feliber, his 2yr old son, Kenneth, his nephew Kevin and his sister-in-law. At an intersection, their two vehicles almost collided. Gonzales continued driving while Andres tailed Gonzales vehicle and cut him off when he found the opportunity to do so, then got out of his vehicle and knocked on the appellant's car window. Heated exchange of remarks followed. On his way back to his vehicle, he met Gonzales son, Dino. Andres had a shouting match this time with Dino. Gonzales then alighted from his car and fired a single shot at the last window on the left side of Andres' vehicle at an angle away from Andres. The single bullet fired hit Kenneth, Kevin and Feliber which caused the latters death. Held: The mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation is not obtaining. Andres' act of shouting at Gonzales son, who was then a nurse and of legal age, is not sufficient to produce passion and obfuscation. Dino was shouting back at Andres. It was not a case wherein Gonzales son appeared helpless and oppressed that Gonzales lost his reason and shot at the vehicle of Andres. The same holds true for Gonzales claim of provocation on the part of Andres. Provocation must be sufficient to excite a person to commit the wrong committed and that the provocation must be commensurate to the crime committed. The sufficiency of provocation varies according to the circumstances of the case. The aggressive behavior of Andres towards Gonzales and his son may be demeaning or humiliating but it is not sufficient provocation to shoot at Gonzales vehicle. People v. Lab-eo (2002) Facts: After being told to go away by the victim, Cayno, Lab-eo left and returned to where the victim was selling clothes and then and there stabbed her at the back with a knife. Thereafter, he surrendered to the Chief of Police. Lab-eo argues for the appreciation of the mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation, as well as of sufficient provocation, in his favor. Held: For a person to be motivated by passion and obfuscation, there must first exist an unlawful act that would naturally produce an impulse sufficient to overcome reason and self-control. There is passional obfuscation when the crime is committed due to an uncontrollable burst of passion provoked by prior unjust or improper acts, or due to a legitimate stimulus so powerful as to overcome reason. In asking Labeo to leave, the victim did not do anything unlawful. There is an absolute lack of proof that the Lab-eo was utterly humiliated by the victim's utterance. Nor was it shown that the victim made that remark in an insulting and repugnant manner. The victim's utterance was not the stimulus required by jurisprudence to be so overwhelming as to overcome reason and self-restraint.
2 MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER THIS PARAGRAPH: 1. Voluntary surrender to a person in authority or his agents; 2. Voluntary confession of guilt before the court prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution. REQUISITES OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER: a. That the offender had not been actually arrested. b. That the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the latters agent. c. That the surrender was voluntary. Merely requesting a policeman to accompany the accused to the police HQ is not equivalent to voluntary surrender. Other examples: a. The warrant of arrest showed that the accused was in fact arrested. b. The accused surrendered only after the warrant of arrest was served. c. The accused went into hiding and surrendered only when they realized that the forces of the law were closing in on them. Surrender must be SPONTANEOUS. He surrendered 1) because he acknowledges his guilty or 2) because he wishes to save them the trouble and expenses necessarily incurred in his search and capture.
People v. Bates (2003) Facts: While Edgar, Simon, and Jose are along a trail leading to the house of Carlito Bates, the latter suddenly emerged from the thick banana plantation surrounding the trail, aiming his firearm at Jose who was then walking ahead of his companions. Jose grabbed
/liz@
Page 48 2004-2005
Andrada v. People (2005) Facts: Inside a restaurant, Andrada approached and scolded Cpl. Ugerio while the latter was talking to a woman who passed by their table. Sgt. Sumabong, identifying himself as a PC noncommissioned officer, advised Andrada to pay his bill
/liz@
Page 49 2004-2005
Par. 8. THAT THE OFFENDER IS DEAF AND DUMB, BLIND OR OTHERWISE SUFFERING FROM SOME PHYSICAL DEFECT WHICH THUS RESTRICTS HIS MEANS OF ACTION, DEFENSE, OR COMMUNICATION WITH HIS FELLOW BEINGS. This paragraph does not distinguish between educated and uneducated deaf-mute or blind persons. Physical defect referred to in this paragraph is such as being armless, cripple, or a stutterer, whereby his means to act, defend himself or communicate with his fellow beings are limited. Par. 9. SUCH ILLNESS OF THE OFFENDER AS WOULD DIMINISH THE EXERCISE OF THE WILLPOWER OF THE OFFENDER WITHOUT HOWEVER DEPRIVING HIM OF CONSCIOUSNESS OF HIS ACTS. REQUISITES: a. That the illness of the offender must diminish the exercise of his will-power. b. That such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts. When the offender completely lost the exercise of willpower, it may be an exempting circumstance. It is said that this paragraph refers only to diseases of pathological state that trouble the conscience or will. Ex. A mother who, under the influence of a puerperal fever, killed her child the day following her delivery. Par. 10. AND FINALLY, ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE OF A SIMILAR NATURE AND ANALOGOUS OF THOSE ABOVEMENTIONED. Over 60 years old with failing sight, similar to over 70 years of age mentioned in paragraph 2. Voluntary restitution of the property stolen by the accused or immediately reimbursing the amount malversed is a mitigating circumstance as analogous to voluntary surrender. Not resisting arrest is not analogous to voluntary surrender. Testifying for the prosecution is analogous to plea of guilty. CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE NEITHER EXEMPTING NOR MITIGATING 1. Mistake in the blow or aberratio ictus, for under Art. 48, there is a complex crime committed. The penalty is even higher. Mistake in the identity of the victim, for under Art. 4, par. 1, the accused is criminally liable even if the wrong done is different from that which is intended. Entrapment of the accused. The accused is over 18 years of age. If the offender is over 18 years old, his age is neither exempting nor mitigating.
2.
3. 4.
/liz@
Page 50 2004-2005
A generic aggravating circumstance may be compensated by a mitigating circumstance. According to the new rules, generic and qualifying aggravating circumstances must be alleged in order to be appreciated. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH DO NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF INCREASING THE PENALTY AC 1) which in themselves constitute a crime specially punishable by law, or b) which are included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefore shall not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty (Art. 62, par. 1) AC which arise: a) from the moral attributes of the offender or b) from his private relations with the offended party, or c) from any other personal cause, shall only serve to aggravate the liability of the principals, accomplices, and accessories as to whom such circumstances are attendant. Art. 14. Aggravating circumstances. The following are aggravating circumstances:
/liz@
Page 51 2004-2005
/liz@
Page 52 2004-2005
a. b.
c. d.
PUBLIC AUTHORITY / PERSON IN AUTHORITY A public officer who is directly vested with jurisdiction, that is, a public officer who has the power to govern and execute the laws. The councilor, mayor, governor, barangay captain etc. are persons in authority. A school teacher, town municipal health officer, agent of the BIR, chief of police, etc. are now considered a person in authority. Par. 2 is not applicable if committee din the presence of an agent only such as a police officer. AGENT A subordinate public officer charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and
/liz@
Page 53 2004-2005
/liz@
Page 54 2004-2005
/liz@
Page 55 2004-2005
(1) ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE REQUISITES: That the offended party had trusted the offender. That the offender abused such trust by committing a crime against the offended party. That the abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of the crime.
a. b. c.
The confidence between the offender and the offended party must be immediate and personal. It is inherent in malversation, qualified theft, estafa by conversion or misappropriation and qualified seduction. (2) OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS The ungratefulness must be obvious manifest and clear. People v. Mandolado (1983) Facts: Mandolado and Ortillano, with Erinada and Simon are trainees/draftees of the AFP. They got to know each other and had a drinking session at the bus terminal. The accused was drunk. He got his gun and started firing. Erinada and Simon rode a jeep and tried to escape from Mandolado and Ortillano but the two eventually caught up with them. The two accused shot the victims to death. Held: There is no AC of abuse of confidence. In order that abuse of confidence be deemed as aggravating, it is necessary that there exists a relation of trust and confidence between the accused and one against whom the crime was committed and that the accused made use of such a relationship to commit the crime. It is also essential that the confidence between the parties must be immediate and personal such as would give the accused some advantage to commit the crime. It is obvious that the accused and the victims only met for the first time so there is no personal or immediate relationship upon which confidence might rest between them. People v. Arrojado (2001) Facts: Arrojado and the victim Mary Ann are first cousins and lived with her and her father. Arrojado helped care for the victims father for which he was paid a P1,000 monthly salary. Arrojado killed Mary Ann by stabbing her with a knife. Thereafter he claimed that the latter committed suicide. Held: The aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence is present in this case. For this aggravating circumstance to exist, it is essential to show that the confidence between the parties must be immediate and personal such as would give the accused some advantage or make it easier for him to commit the criminal act. The confidence must be a means of facilitating the commission of the crime, the culprit taking advantage of the offended party's belief that the former would not abuse said confidence. People v. Silva (2002) Facts: Accused armed with a gun, a bolo, a rope and a flashlight abducted brothers Edmund and Manuel Ceriales while the two were playing a game of cards inside their house in the middle of the night. They tied both their hands and feet with a rope and they brought the brothers at an isolated place. Edmund was stabbed and beheaded causing his instantaneous death.
/liz@
Page 56 2004-2005
If it is the Malacaang palace or a church, it is aggravating, regardless of whether State or official or religious functions are being held. The President need not be in the palace. His presence alone in any place where the crime is committed is enough to constitute the AC. It also applies even if he is not engaged in the discharge of his duties in the place where the crime was committed. But as regards the place where the public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, there must be some performance of public functions. Cemeteries are not places dedicated for religious worship. Offender must have the intention to commit a crime when he entered the place. Par. 6. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED (1) IN THE NIGHT TIME, OR (2) IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE, OR (3) BY A BAND, WHENEVER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES MAY FACILITATE THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE. WHENEVER MORE THAN THREE ARMED MALEFACTORS SHALL HAVE ACTED TOGETHER IN THE COMMISSION OF AN OFFENSE, IT SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BY A BAND. These 3 circumstances may be considered separately when their elements are distinctly perceived and can subsist independently, revealing a greater degree of perversity. Nighttime, uninhabited place or band is aggravating: 1. When it facilitated the commission of the crime; or 2. When especially sought for by the offender to insure the commission of the crime or for the purpose of impunity; or 3. When the offender took advantage thereof for the purpose of impunity. (1) NIGHTTIME - The commission of the crime must begin and be accomplished in the nighttime. - The offense must be actually committed in the darkness of the night. When the place is illuminated by light, nighttime is not aggravating. (2) UNINHABITED PLACE - One where there are no houses at all, a place at a considerable distance from town, or where the houses are scattered at a great distance from each other. - TEST: WON in the place of the commission of the offense, there was a reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help. - The fact that persons occasionally passed in the uninhabited place and that on the night of the
/liz@
Page 57 2004-2005
Par. 9. - THAT THE ACCUSED IS A RECIDIVIST. Art. 160. Commission of another crime during service of penalty imposed for another offense; Penalty. Besides the provisions of Rule 5 of Article 62, any person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony. Any convict of the class referred to in this article, who is not a habitual criminal, shall be pardoned at the age of seventy years if he shall have already served out his original sentence, or when he shall complete it after reaching the said age, unless by reason of his conduct or other circumstances he shall not be worthy of such clemency. A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the RPC. REQUISITES: a. That the offender is on trial for an offense; b. That he was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime; c. That both the first and the second offenses are embraced in the same title of the Code; d. That the offender is convicted of the new offense. What is controlling is the time of trial, not the time of the commission of the crime. There is no recidivism if the subsequent conviction is for an offense committed before the offense involved in the prior conviction. Sec. 7 of Rule 120 , Rules of Court, provides that a judgment in a criminal case becomes final (1) after the lapse of the [period for perfecting an appeal, or (2) when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served, or (3) the defendant has expressly waived in writing his right to appeal, or (4) the accused has applied for probation. There is recidivism even if the lapse of time between two felonies is more than 10 years. Recidivism must be taken into account no mater how many years have intervened between the 1st and 2nd felonies. Pardon does not obliterate the fact that the accused was a recidivist; but amnesty extinguishes the penalty and its effects. People v. Molina (2000) Facts: Brothers Joseph and Angelito, along with their cousin, Danny were on their way home when they heard somebody shout kuba, referring to Joseph, a hunchback. They asked who said that but no one admitted. As the 3 were about to go, Molina delivered a strong stabbing blow at the back of Joseph. Angelito came to aid his brother but Molina also stabbed him at the back. Joseph was dead on arrival at the clinic. Held: To prove recidivism, it is necessary to allege the same in the information and to attach thereto
1. 2.
The armed men must take part directly or indirectly in the offense. This AC shall not be considered when both the attacking party and the party attacked were equally armed. This AC is not present when the accused as well as those who cooperated with him in the commission of the crime, acted under the same plan and for the same purpose. WITH AID OF ARMED MEN (par. 8) Aid of armed men is present even if one of the offenders merely relied on their aid, for actual aid is not necessary. BY A BAND (par. 6) More than 3 armed malefactors that have acted together in the commission of an offense.
If there are 4 armed men, aid of armed men is absorbed by employment of a band Aid of armed men includes armed women
/liz@
Page 58 2004-2005
MULTI-RECIDIVISM OR HABITUAL DELINQUENCY - when a person, within a period of 10 years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or falsification, is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener. In habitual delinquency, the offender is either a recidivist or one who has been previously punished for two or more offenses (habituality). He shall suffer an additional penalty for being a habitual delinquent. 4. QUASI-RECIDIVISM - Any person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence or while serving the same, shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony. People v. Gaorana (1998) Facts: Marivel, upon instruction of Rowena (common-law wife of the accused) went to the house of Gaorana and saw the couple lying down. Marivel was asked to come it and Rowena stood up to urinate. Gaorana covered her mouth and pointed a hunting knife to her neck and raped her. The second incident of rape occurred while Marivel was sleeping in the sala with her brother and sister. Marivel did not shout because she was afraid of the accused who was a prisoner and had already killed somebody. Held: The 2 Information alleged that both instances of rape were attended by the aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism. The TC made no
/liz@
Page 59 2004-2005
1.
/liz@
Page 60 2004-2005
/liz@
Page 61 2004-2005
/liz@
Page 62 2004-2005
(2) MEANS EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN DEFENSE This circumstance is applicable only to crimes against persons and sometimes against person and property, such as robbery with physical injuries or homicide. This AC is absorbed in treachery. Ex. One who, while fighting with another, suddenly casts sand or dirt upon the latters eyes and
People v. Lobrigas (2002) Facts: Frank, Marlito, both surnamed Lobrigas and Mante mauled and box Taylaran who was already 76 years old. The victim died caused by severe beating and mauling on the chest portion on the victims body.
/liz@
Page 63 2004-2005
/liz@
Page 64 2004-2005
2.
In treachery, it makes no difference whether or not the victim was the same person whom the accused intended to kill. When it is NOT SHOWN that the principal by induction directed the killer of the deceased to adopt the means or methods actually used by the latter in accomplishing the murder, because the former left to the latter the details as to how it was to be accomplished, treachery cannot be taken into consideration as to the principal by induction. TREACHERY ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH The offender does not employ means, methods or forms of attack; he only takes advantage of his superior strength. MEANS EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN DEFENSE The offender, like in treachery, employs means but the means employed only materially weakens the resisting power of the offended party.
The means, methods or forms of attack are employed to make it impossible or hard for the offended party to defend himself.
When there is conspiracy, treachery is considered against all the offenders. Treachery, evident premeditation and use of superior strength are, by their nature, inherent in the offense of treason. Treachery absorbs abuse of superior strength, aid of armed men, by a band and means to weaken the defense. Nighttime and craft are absorbed in treachery except if treachery rests upon an independent factual basis. Treachery is inherent in murder by poisoning. Treachery obfuscation. cannot co-exist with passion and
People v. Castillo (1998) Facts: Velasco was sitting outside the pubhouse talking with his co-worker, Dorie, when one of the customers named Tony went out of the pubhouse. Then, Castillo suddenly appeared and, without warning, stabbed Tony with a fan knife on his left chest. Tony pleaded for help but accused stabbed him once more. Velasco placed a chair between Tony and the accused to stop the latter. Tony ran away but was pursued by the accused. Tony died and his body was found outside the fence of Iglesia ni Cristo Compound. Held: The killing was qualified by treachery. Treachery is committed when two conditions concur, namely, that the person attacked had no opportunity to defend himself and that such means, method, and forms of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused without danger to his person. These requisites were evidently present in this case when the
/liz@
Page 65 2004-2005
/liz@
Page 66 2004-2005
/liz@
Page 67 2004-2005
People v. Lacao (1974) Facts: Gallardo, coming from a gathering, decided to go home. As he was descending the stairs Balatazar followed him and stabbed him with a knife at the right side of his body. Baltazar tried to pull out the
/liz@
Page 68 2004-2005
People v. Balgos (2000) Facts: Balgos was accused of raping a 6-year old child named Criselle. While the victim was playing, the accused asked his nieces to go outside and buy cheese curls. When they left, the accused opened his zipper and made Criselle hold his penis. The 2 girls came back and he asked them to go out and buy more cheese curls. When they left, he locked the door and had carnal knowledge with Criselle. The accused cannot penetrate the victims organ. The lower court convicted the accused of qualified rape.
/liz@
Page 69 2004-2005
AND
/liz@
Page 70 2004-2005
People v. Marcos (2001) Facts: Virgilio arrived at the house of the Marcoses and proceeded to the artesian well (jetmatic) located just at the back of the house. Virgilio bent down to put on the ground the tools he was carrying. Cesar then came out of the kitchen door with a bolo in hand and suddenly hacked Virgilio from behind. Virgilio was hit on the nape of the neck which caused him to fall to the ground. Then Cesar hacked him again and this time Virgilio was hit on the right side of the head. Virgilio is the elder brother of Cesar. Held: In order that the alternative circumstance of relationship may be taken into consideration in the imposition of the proper penalty, the offended party must either be the (a) spouse, (b) ascendant, (c) descendant, (d) legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister, or (e) relative by affinity in the same degree, of the offender. In the case at bar, Cesar and Virgilio Marcos are brothers. Accused likewise declared that Virgilio is his brother. That the victim is the elder brother of Cesar is likewise alleged in the Information. The rule is that relationship is aggravating in crimes against persons as when the offender and the offended party are relatives of the same level such as killing a brother. Thus, relationship was correctly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. b. INTOXICATION MITIGATING a. if intoxication is not habitual, or b. if intoxication is not subsequent to the plan to commit a felony. AGGRAVATING a. if intoxication is habitual; or b. if it is intentional (subsequent to the plan to commit a felony) - It is intentional when the offender drinks liquor fully knowing its effects, to find in the liquor a stimulant to commit a crime or a means to suffocate any remorse. When the offender has committed a felony in a state of intoxication. - This clause means that the offenders mental faculties must be affected by drunkenness. - The accuseds state of intoxication must be proved. WHEN THE INTOXICATION IS HABITUAL - A habitual drunkard is one given to intoxication by excessive use of intoxicating drinks. The habit should be actual and confirmed, but it is not necessary that it be continuous or by daily occurrence. People v. Renejane (1988) Facts: The accused was convicted for the crime of murder of 1 policeman and his companion. It was found that Renejane was with these 2 persons and some other people and they were having a drinking session when the incident took place. It was also found that the policeman apprehended Renejane a month before the incident of illegal possession of marijuana. Held: Drunkenness is not necessarily an aggravating circumstance. The fact that the accused drank liquor prior to the commission of the crime did not
/liz@
Page 71 2004-2005
Araneta v. CA (1986) Facts: Atty. Araneta was the hearing officer of the Dept. of Labor in Cabanatuan while Mrs. Yoyongco is the widow of a government employee. The latter went to see Araneta regarding her claim for death compensation and Araneta asked for P100 for her claim to be processed. The widow reported this to the PC and the PC decided to entrap Araneta. The entrapment was successful and Atty. Araneta was charged for violating the anti-graft law. Held: Entrapment is not a defense in a criminal case. It is different from instigation. There is instigation when the accused was induced to commit the crime. In entrapment, the mens rea originates from the mind of the criminal. Entrapment does not exempt the criminal from liability. People v. Pacis (2002) Facts: Atty. Yap, supervising agent of the Dangerous Drugs Division-NBI, received information that a Pacis was offering to sell kg of "shabu." A buy-bust operation was approved. Yap and Senior Agent Congzon, Jr., were assigned to handle the case. Yap, Congzon and the informant then went to the house of Pacis. The informant introduced Yap to Pacis as interested buyer. They negotiated the sale of kg of shabu. It was agreed that payment and delivery of shabu would be made on the following day. The next day, the NBI agents and the informant went to Pacis's house as agreed. Pacis handed to Yap a paper bag with markings "yellow cab". When he opened the bag, Yap found a transparent plastic bag with white crystalline substance inside. While examining it, Pacis asked for the payment. Yap instructed Congzon to get the money from the car. Congzon returned and gave the "boodle money" to Atty. Yap who handed the money to the Pacis. Upon Pacis's receipt of the payment, the officers identified themselves as NBI agents and arrested him. Held: The operation that led to the arrest of appellant was an entrapment, not an instigation. In entrapment, ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan. In instigation on the other hand, instigators practically induce the would-be defendant into the commission of the offense and become co-principals themselves. It has been held in numerous cases by this Court that entrapment is sanctioned by law as a legitimate method of apprehending criminal elements engaged in the sale and distribution of illegal drugs. b. EFFECT OF PARDON
ENTRAPMENT Ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreaker in the execution of his criminal plan The means originate from the mind of the criminal.
A person has planned or is about to commit a crime and ways and means are resorted to by a public officer to trap and catch the criminal. Not a bar to the prosecution and conviction of the lawbreaker.
People v. Lua Chu and Uy Se Ting (1931) Facts: Samson was the chief of customs secret service in Cebu and Natividad was the former collector of customs. He was instructed to make sure that the shipment containing opium shall be unloaded in the country. He went along the plan and then he informed the Philippine Constabulary of all that had taken place and they discussed a plan to capture the opium owners. Held: The mere fact that the chief of customs secret service pretended to agree to a plan for smuggling illegally imported opium through the customhouse, in order the better to assure the seizure of said opium and the arrest of its importers, is no bar to the prosecution and conviction of the accused. Samson did not induce nor instigate the accused to import the opium but merely pretended to have an understanding with the collector of customs. There is nothing immoral in this or against the public good which should prevent the government from prosecuting and punishing the culprits, for this is not a case where an innocent person is induced to commit a crime merely to prosecute him, but it is simply a trap set to catch a criminal.
RPC, Art. 23. Effect of pardon by the offended party. A pardon of the offended party does not extinguish criminal action except as provided in Article 344 of this Code; but civil liability with regard to the interest of the injured party is extinguished by his express waiver.
R.A. No. 8353. Anti-Rape Law of 1997. Article 266-C. Effect of Pardon - The subsequent valid marriage between the offender and the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed. In case it is the legal husband who is the offender, the subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended
/liz@
Page 72 2004-2005
Art. 6(3). - There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly or over acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance. Art. 7. When light felonies are punishable. Light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated, with the exception of those committed against person or property. Art. 16. Who are criminally liable. The following are criminally liable for grave and less grave felonies: 1. Principals. 2. Accomplices. 3. Accessories. Art. 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. The penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees, with the single exception of accessories falling within the provisions of paragraph 1 of the next preceding article. Art. 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. Any legally married person who having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro. If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he shall be exempt from punishment. These rules shall be applicable, under the same circumstances, to parents with respect to their daughters under eighteen years of age, and their seducer, while the daughters are living with their parents. Any person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution of his wife or daughter, or shall otherwise
/liz@
Page 73 2004-2005
Only a natural person can be the offender because: a. The RPC requires that the culprit should have acted with personal malice or negligence. An artificial or juridical person cannot act with malice or negligence. b. A juridical person, like a corporation, cannot commit a crime in which a willful purpose or a malicious intent is required. c. There is substitution of deprivation of liberty (subsidiary imprisonment) for pecuniary penalties in case of in case of insolvency of the accused. d. Other penalties consisting in imprisonment and other deprivation of liberty like destierro, can be executed only against individuals. Officers, not the corporation, are criminally liable. Juridical persons are criminally liable under certain special laws. In all crimes there are always 2 parties: ACTIVE (the criminal) and PASSIVE (the injured party). A. PRINCIPALS Art. 17. Principals. The following are considered principals: 1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act; 2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it; 3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished. When a single individual commits a crime, there is no difficulty in determining his participation in the commission thereof. But when 2 or more persons are involved, it is necessary to determine the participation of each. PAR. 1. PRINCIPALS BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION The principal by direct participation PERSONALLY TAKES PART IN THE EXECUTION OF THE ACT constituting the crime. Two or more persons who took part in the commission of the crime are principals by direct participation, when the following requisites are present: 1. That they participated in the criminal resolution 2. That they carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution by acts which directly tended to the same end. First requisite Participation in the criminal resolution Two or more persons are said to have participated in the criminal resolution when they were in conspiracy at the time of the commission of the crime. It is well settled that a person may be convicted for the criminal act of another where, between them, there has been conspiracy or unity of purpose and intention in the commission of the crime charged. CONSPIRACY
/liz@
Page 74 2004-2005
People v. Nunag (1989) Facts: The victim claimed that while she was standing outside the house of her neighbor peeping through an open window to watch a TV program, Nunag came towards her appearing to be drunk. Nunag, threatening to kill her, led her to a nearby ricefield. Later, they were joined by the other 4 accused. Nunag then undressed her and had sexual intercourse with her. Mandap followed and she lost consciousness after. She regained consciousness only when Manalili was abusing her. Held: Accused Nunag, Mandap and Manalili are found guilty of 3 distinct and separate crimes of rape. They being principals by direct participation while the other 2 accused as principals by indispensable cooperation since there is no sufficient evidence that the latter also had sexual intercourse with the victim. The victim lost consciousness and only assumed that the two also raped her. People v. Dela Cerna (1967) Facts: Rafael filed an ejectment suit against dela Cernas father wherein the court ruled in his favor. Later he was shot by the accused while the former and his family were bringing sacks of corn. He was taken away by his family to tend his wounds but Dela Cerna and company followed them and Rafael was shot again resulting to his death. Maquiling, one companion of Dela Cerna, shot Casiano, a relative of Rafael. Held: Dela Cerna cannot be held liable for the death of Casiano because the conspiracy was to kill Rafael only. The rule has always been: co-conspirators are liable only for acts done pursuant to the conspiracy; for other acts done outside the contemplation of the coconspirators or which are not the necessary and logical consequence of the intended crime, only the actual perpetrators are liable. Although Maquiling got the gun from Dela Cerna, the latter only gave it to the former as per their agreement to shoot Rafael As to the other companions, facts prove their active participation in the killing. They are all principals. People v. Dacillo (supra) Facts: Pacot stabbed and strangled Rosemarie leading to the latters death. Dacillo for his part, hold down Rosemaries legs to prevent her from struggling. The two men stopped only when they were sure that the victim was already dead. Dacillo then encase her corpse in a cement. Held:. Two or more persons taking part in the commission of a crime are considered principals by direct participation if the following requisites are present: 1. they participated in the criminal resolution and 2. they carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution by acts which directly tended to the same end. Both requisites were met in this case. Further Dacillos admission that he participated in the commission of the crime by holding Rosemaries legs made him a principal by direct participation. PAR. 2. PRINCIPALS BY INDUCTION Those who directly force or induce others to commit it. The principal by induction becomes liable only when the principal by direct participation committed the act induced.
Second requisite that the culprits carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution, by acts which directly tended to the same end. The principals by direct participation must be at the scene of the crime, personally taking part in its execution. The acts of each offender must directly tend to the same end. One serving as guard pursuant to the conspiracy is a principal by direct participation. When the second requisite is lacking, there is only conspiracy.
/liz@
Page 75 2004-2005
a. By using IRRESISTIBLE FORCE b. By causing UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR 2) BY DIRECTLY INDUCING ANOTHER TO COMMIT A CRIME. a. By giving price, or offering reward or promise. b. By using words of command. REQUISITES: 1. That the inducement be made directly with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime; and a. A thoughtless expression without intention to produce the result is not an inducement to commit a crime. b. The inducement may be by acts of command, advice, or through influence, or agreement for consideration. 2. That such inducement be the determining cause of the commission of the crime by the material executor. - The words of advice of the influence must have actually moved the hands of the principal by direct participation. PRINCIPAL BY PROPOSAL TO COMMIT INDUCEMENT THE FELONY There is an inducement to commit a crime. The principal by The mere proposal to inducement becomes liable commit a felony is only when the crime is punishable in treason and committed by the principal rebellion. The person to by direct participation. whom the proposal is made should not commit the crime; otherwise, the proponent becomes a principal by inducement. The inducement involves The proposal to be any crime punishable must involve only treason or rebellion. EFFECTS OF ACQUITTAL OF PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION UPON THE LIABILITY OF PRINCIPAL BY INDUCEMENT 1) Conspiracy is negated by the acquittal of codefendant. 2) One cannot be held guilty of having instigated the commission of a crime without first being shown that the crime has been actually committed by another. People v. Dela Cruz (1980) Facts: Dela Cruz met with Salip and a couple of other men when he proposed to them the killing of Antonio Yu and the kidnapping of the latters brother for a ransom. A group of men sailed for Basilan where they met with Salip. They proceeded to the accuseds house where the accused informed the group of the whereabouts of the Chinese brothers and other details of the plan. The group was able to kidnap and detain the brother for a short while before he attempted to escape and was shot by one of the men. Held: The contention of the accused that since he did not take part in the commission of the crime, conspiracy does not exist, is untenable. The
1.
2.
To be liable as principals, the offender must fall under any of the three concepts defined in Article 17. There is collective criminal responsibility when the offenders are criminally liable in the same manner and to the same extent. The penalty to be imposed must be the same for all. Principals by direct participation have collective criminal responsibility. Principal by induction, except that who directly forced another to commit a crime, and principal by direct participation have collective criminal responsibility. Principal by indispensable cooperation has collective criminal responsibility with the principal by direct participation. People v. Montealegre (1988) Facts: Abadilla was eating at a restaurant when he detected the smell of marijuana smoke coming from a nearby table. Intending to call a policeman, he went outside and saw a police and reported the matter. The police approached the table and held Montealgre and Capalad. Capalad suddenly pulled out his knife and started stabbing the police at the back. The police released the 2 in order to draw his gun but Montealegre restrained the police so that Capalad may continue stabbing. The 3 grappled and the police was able to draw his gun and fired at the 2 assailants. A chase ensued. Capalad was shot which resulted to his death.
/liz@
Page 76 2004-2005
B. ACCOMPLICES Art. 18. Accomplices. Accomplices are those persons who, not being included in Art. 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. In quasi-collective criminal responsibility, some of the offenders in the crime are principals and the others are accomplices. The participation of an accomplice presupposes the commission of the crime b the principal by direct participation. When there is no conspiracy between or among the defendants but they were animated by one and the same purpose to accomplish the criminal objective, those who cooperated by previous or simultaneous act but cannot be held liable as principals are accomplices. An accomplice does not have a previous agreement or understanding or is not in conspiracy with the principal by direct participation. CONSPIRATOR ACCOMPLICE They know and agree with the criminal design. Conspirators know the Accomplices come to know criminal intention because about it after the they themselves have principals have reached decided upon such course the decision and only then of action. do they agree to cooperate in its execution. Conspirators decide that a Accomplices merely assent crime should be to the plan and cooperate committed. in it accomplishment Conspirators are the authors of a crime Accomplices are merely instruments who perform acts not essential to the perpetration of the offense.
1.
2.
3.
REQUISITES: That there be community of design; that is, knowing the criminal design of the principal by direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpose; That he cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts, with the intention of supplying material or moral aid in the execution of the crime in an efficacious way; and That there be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the person charged as accomplice.
People v. Mandolado (supra) Held: An accomplice cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts, provided he has no direct participation in its execution or does not force or induce others to commit it, or his cooperation is not indispensable to its accomplishment. In the case at bar, Ortillano, by his acts showed knowledge of the criminal design of Mandolado. He was present when the latter tried to attack the driver of the Ford Fiera with a knife and fired at the vehicle hitting a female passenger. When Mandolado cocked his gun and ordered Tenorio to stop the jeep, their 2 other companion, Simon and Erinada, immediately jumped off the jeep and ran away but Ortillano stayed. In a display of unity with Mandolado, Ortillano fired his armalite while they were riding in the jeep of the victim. And Ortillanos act of firing his gun towards the ground manifested his concurrence with the criminal intent. In other words, his simultaneous acts supplied moral aid in the execution of the crime in an efficacious way. His presence served to encourage Mandolado, the principal, or to increase the odds against the victims. People v. Doctolero (1991) Facts: The 3 accused, Ludovico, Conrado and Virgilio (all surnamed Doctolero) threw stones at Saguns house and called to all the men in the house to come out. Epifiana and Lolita and Jonathan (1 year
The community of design need not be to commit the crime actually committed. It is sufficient if
/liz@
Page 77 2004-2005
/liz@
Page 78 2004-2005
BODY OF THE CRIME corpus delicti which means that a specific offense was in fact committed by someone 3. BY HARBORING, CONCEALING ASSISTING IN THE ESCAPE OF PRINCIPAL OF THE CRIME OR THE
2 CLASSES: a. Public officers who harbor conceal or assist in the escape of the principal of any crime (not light felony) with abuse of his public functions REQUISITES: (1) The accessory is a public officer;
/liz@
Page 79 2004-2005
ACCESSORY DISTINGUISHED FROM PRINCIPAL AND FROM ACCOMPLICE 1. The accessory does not take direct part or cooperate in, or induce, the commission of the crime. 2. The accessory does not cooperate in the commission of the offense by acts either prior thereto or simultaneous therewith. 3. That the participation of the accessory in all cases always takes place after the commission of the crime. Art. 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. The penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees, with the single exception of accessories falling within the provisions of paragraph 1 of the next preceding article.
People v. Talingdan (1978) Facts: Bernardo and Teresa lived together but for quite some time their relationship has gotten bitter. Bernardo knew that Teresa had an illicit relationship with Talingdan. Their child testified that on the day the killing occurred, there were 4 men inside their house and Bernardo knew about it but continued plowing his field. Later, when Bernardo came inside the kitchen, Talingdan and Tobias fired at Bernardo and the 4 climbed the stairs of the Batalan. Seeing that the victim was alive they fired at him again. Teresa came out after from her room and pulled her child to question her. Teresa threatened to kill her if she would reveal the incident. Held: One who conceals or assists in the escape of the principal in the crime can be held guilty as accessory. There is morally convincing proof that Teresa is an accessory to the offense. She was inside the room when her husband was shot. As she came out after the shooting, she inquired from the child if she was able to recognize the assailants and when the latter identified the 4 accused as the culprits, Teresa did not only enjoin her daughter not to reveal what she knew to anyone but she went to the extent of warning her not to tell anyone or else she would kill her. Later when the police came, she claimed she had no suspects in mind. She, thus, became active in her cooperation with the 4 accused. People v. Tolentino (2002) Facts: Wilfredo Tolentino hit Herman Sagario with a piece of wood and later stabbed him with a bolo. Wilfedo then instructed appellant Jonathan Fabros and Merwin Ledesma to help him bring Hernan out of the house. Wilfredo held him by the neck while both appellant and Merwin grasped his feet. They then carried Hernan towards a creek. Appellant assisted Wilfredo out of fear and when he noticed that Sagario regained conciousness, he ran away towards a banana plantation. Wilfredo then stab Sagario on the different parts of his body that caused his death. Thereafter, Wilfredo pushed and waded Sagario on the water. Held: Appellant Jonathan Fabros cannot be convicted as an accessory. Under paragraph 2 of Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code, the concealment or the destruction of the body of the crime or of the effects or the instruments thereof must have been done in order
/liz@
Page 80 2004-2005
Purpose of penalty under the RPC: a. RETRIBUTION OR EXPIATION the penalty is commensurate with the gravity of the offense. b. CORRECTION OR REFORMATION as shown by the rules which regulate the execution of the penalties consisting in deprivation of liberty. c. SOCIAL DEFENSE shown by its inflexible severity to recidivist and habitual delinquents.
A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES NO ex post facto laws Art. 21. Penalties that may be imposed. No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission. This article prohibits the Government from punishing any person for any felony with any penalty which has not been prescribed by the law. It has no application to any of the provisions of the RPC for the reason that for every felony defined in the Code, a penalty has been prescribed. REASON: An act or omission cannot be punished by the State if at the time it was committed there was no law prohibiting it, because a law cannot be rationally obeyed unless it is first shown, and a man cannot be expected to obey an order that has not been given. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITIONS 1987 CONSTITUTION Section 18. (1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations. (2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. Section 19. (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua. Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax. Section 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. In Re: Kay Villegas Kami (1970) Facts: Petition for declaratory relief challenging the validity of Sec. 8 of RA 6132 on the
/liz@
Page 81 2004-2005
/liz@
Page 82 2004-2005
What penalty may be imposed for the commission of a felony? - Only the penalty prescribed by law prior tot the commission of the felony may be imposed. - Felonies are punishable under the laws in force at the time of their commission. - But the penalty prescribed by law enacted after the commission of the felony may be imposed, if it is favorable to the offender. People v. Gallo (1999) Facts: The accused seeks a modification of his death sentence to reclusion perpetua in line with the new Court rulings which annunciate that the 7 attendant circumstances introduced in Sec. 11 of RA 7659 partake of the nature of qualifying circumstances that must be pleaded in the indictment in order to warrant the imposition of the penalty (Garcia doctrine reiterated in Medina). Held: By operation of law, the appellant is rightfully entitled to the beneficial application of the Garcia or Medina doctrine. Sentence modified. People v. Patalin (1999) Facts: The accused were convicted of Robbery with Physical Injuries and Robbery with Multiple Rape and were sentenced to imprisonment and death penalty respectively for the two convictions. Held: There is no question that the abolition of the death penalty benefits herein accused. The subsequent reimposition of the death penalty will not affect them. The framers of the Constitution themselves state that the law to be passed by Congress reimposing the death penalty (RA 7659) can only have prospective application. A subsequent statute cannot be so applied retroactively as to impair a right that accrued under the old law. DIFFERENT EFFECTS OF REPEAL OF PENAL LAW. a. If the repeal makes the penalty lighter in the new law, the new law shall be applied, except when the offender is a habitual delinquent or when the new law is made not applicable to pending action or existing causes of action. b. If the new law imposes a heavier penalty, the law in force at the time of the commission of the offense shall be applied. c. If the new law totally repeals the existing law so that the act which was penalized under the old law is no longer punishable, the crime is obliterated. When the repeal is absolute the offense ceases to be criminal. When the new law and the old law penalize the same offense, the offender can be tried under the old law. When the repealing law fails to penalize the offense under the old law, the accused cannot be convicted under the new law. A person erroneously accused and convicted under a repealed statute may be punished under the repealing statute. A new law which omits anything contained in the old law dealing on the same subject, operates as are penal of anything not so included in the amendatory act.
People v. Pimentel (supra) Held: Where the repeal of a penal law is total and absolute and the act which was penalized by a prior law ceases to be criminal under the new law, the previous offense is obliterated. With the enactment of RA 7636, the charge of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition qualified by subversion should be amended to simple illegal possession of firearm and ammunition, since subversion is no longer a crime. B. PENALTIES WHICH MAY BE IMPOSED Art. 25. Penalties which may be imposed. The penalties which may be imposed according to this Code, and their different classes, are those included in the following: Scale PRINCIPAL PENALTIES
Capital punishment: Death. Afflictive penalties: Reclusion perpetua, Reclusion temporal, Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification, Perpetual or temporary special disqualification, Prision mayor. Correctional penalties: Prision correccional, Arresto mayor, Suspension, Destierro.
Light penalties: Arresto menor, Public censure. Penalties common to the three preceding classes: Fine, and Bond to keep the peace. ACCESSORY PENALTIES Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification, Perpetual or temporary special disqualification, Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the profession or calling. Civil interdiction, Indemnification, Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the offense, Payment of costs. PRINCIPAL PENALTIES the court in the judgment of ACCESSORY PENALTIES included in the imposition of those expressly imposed by conviction. those that are deemed the principal penalties.
/liz@
Page 83 2004-2005
DURATION OF EACH OF DIFFERENT PENALTIES 1. Reclusion perpetua 20 years and 1 day to 40 years 2. Reclusion temporal 12 years and 1 day to 20 years 3. Prision mayor and temporary disqualification - 6 years and 1 day to 12 years except when disqualification is accessory penalty; in which case its duration is that of the principal penalty 4. Prision correccional, suspension and destierro - 6 months and 1 day to 6 years except when suspension is an accessory penalty, in which case its duration is that of the principal penalty. 5. Arresto Mayor - 1 month and 1 day to 6 months 6. Arresto Menor 1 day to 30 days. C. SPECIFIC PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY PENALTIES
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7659 AN ACT TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY ON CERTAIN HEINOUS CRIMES, AMENDING FOR THAT PURPOSE THE REVISED PENAL LAWS, AS AMENDED, OTHER SPECIAL PENAL LAWS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Section 1. Declaration of Policy. - It is hereby declared the policy of the State to foster and ensure not only obedience to its authority, but also to adopt such measures as would effectively promote the maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty and property, and the promotion of the general welfare which "Art. 211-A. Qualified Bribery. - If any public officer is entrusted with law enforcement and he refrains from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or death in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present, he shall suffer the penalty for the offense which was not prosecuted. If it is the public officer who asks or demands such gift or present, he shall suffer the penalty of death." Section 5. The penalty of death for parricide under Article 246 of the same Code is hereby restored, so that it shall read as follows: "Art. 246. Parricide. - Any person who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate of illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse, shall be guilty of parricide and shall be punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death." Section 6. Article 248 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "Art. 248. Murder. - Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua, to death if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity. 2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise. 3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, or by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin. 4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity. 5. With evident premeditation.
/liz@
Page 84 2004-2005
/liz@
Page 85 2004-2005
/liz@
Page 86 2004-2005
/liz@
Page 87 2004-2005
SECTION 1. Article 81 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 24 of Republic Act No. 7659 is hereby further amended to read as follows: "Art. 81. When and how the death penalty is to be executed. The death sentence shall be executed with preference to any other penalty and shall consist in putting the person under the sentence to death by lethal injection. The death sentence shall be executed under the authority of the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, endeavoring so far as possible to mitigate the sufferings of the person under the sentence during the lethal injection as well as during the proceedings prior to the execution. "The Director of the Bureau of Corrections shall take steps to ensure that the lethal injection to be administered is sufficient to cause the instantaneous death of the convict. "Pursuant to this, all personnel involved in the administration of lethal injection shall be trained prior to the performance of such task. "The authorized physician of the Bureau of Corrections, after thorough examination, shall officially make a pronouncement of the convict's death and shall certify thereto in the records of the Bureau of Corrections. The death sentence shall be carried out not earlier than one (1) year nor later than eighteen (18) months after the judgment has become final and executory without prejudice to the exercise by the President of his executive clemency powers at all times." Sec. 2. Persons already sentenced by judgment, which has become final and executory, who are waiting to undergo the death penalty by electrocution or gas poisoning shall be under the coverage of the provisions of this Act upon its effectivity. Their sentences shall be automatically modified for this purpose. Sec. 3. Implementing Rules. The Secretary of Justice in coordination with the Secretary of Health and the Bureau of Corrections shall, within thirty (30) days from the effectivity of this Act, promulgate the rules to implement its provisions. Sec. 4. Repealing Clause. All laws, presidential decrees and issuances, executive orders, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. Sec. 5. Effectivity. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation, whichever comes earlier. Publication shall not be later than ten (10) days after the approval thereof. Approved: March 20, 1996
RULES AND REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8177 Pursuant to Section 3 of Republic Act No. 8177 entitled "AN ACT DESIGNATING DEATH BY LETHAL INJECTION AS THE METHOD OF CARRYING OUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ARTICLE 81 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AS AMENDED BY SECTION 24 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7659", the undersigned, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and the Director of Corrections, hereby issues the following Rules to govern the implementation of said Act: SECTION 1. Objectives. These Rules seek to ensure the orderly and humane execution of the death penalty by lethal injection. SECTION 2. Definition of Terms. As used in these Rules, unless the context otherwise requires a. "Death Convict" or "Convict" shall refer to a prisoner whose death penalty imposed by a Regional Trial Court is affirmed by the Supreme Court en banc; b. "Lethal Injection" refers to sodium thiopenthotal, pancuronium bromide, potassium chloride and such other lethal
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8177 AN ACT DESIGNATING DEATH BY LETHAL INJECTION AS THE METHOD OF CARRYING OUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ARTICLE 81 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AS AMENDED BY SECTION 24 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7659.
/liz@
Page 88 2004-2005
1987 CONSTITUTION. Section 19. 1. Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling
/liz@
Page 89 2004-2005
RPC, Art. 81. When and how the death penalty is to be executed. The death sentence shall be executed with reference to any other and shall consist in putting the person under sentence to death by electrocution. The death sentence shall be executed under the authority of the Director of Prisons, endeavoring so far as possible to mitigate the sufferings of the person under sentence during electrocution as well as during the proceedings prior to the execution. If the person under sentence so desires, he shall be anaesthetized at the moment of the electrocution. Death sentence shall be executed with preference to any other penalty. Death sentence is executed by lethal injection. The death sentence shall be carried out not earlier than 1 year nor later than 18 months after the judgment becomes final and executory, without prejudice to the exercise by the President of his executive clemency powers. Art. 82. Notification and execution of the sentence and assistance to the culprit. The court shall designate a working day for the execution but not the hour thereof; and such designation shall not be communicated to the offender before sunrise of said day, and the execution shall not take place until after the expiration of at least eight hours following the notification, but before sunset. During the interval between the notification and the execution, the culprit shall, in so far as possible, be furnished such assistance as he may request in order to be attended in his last moments by priests or ministers of the religion he professes and to consult lawyers, as well as in order to make a will and confer with members of his family or persons in charge of the management of his business, of the administration of his property, or of the care of his descendants. A convict sentenced to death may make a will. Art. 83. Suspension of the execution of the death sentence. The death sentence shall not be inflicted upon a woman within the three years next following the date of the sentence or while she is pregnant, nor upon any person over seventy years of age. In this last case, the death sentence shall be commuted to the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties provided in Article 40. Death is a: a. b. c. d. sentence shall be suspended when the accused Woman, while pregnant; Woman, within one year after delivery; Person over 70 years of age; Convict who becomes insane after sentence of death has been pronounced.
final
Art. 47 provides for cases in which death penalty is not to be imposed. On the other hand, Art. 83 provides for suspension only of the execution of death sentence. RTC can suspend execution of death sentence.
/liz@
Page 90 2004-2005
/liz@
Page 91 2004-2005
Carries with it accessory penalties Entails imprisonment for at least 30 years after which the convict becomes eligible for pardon although the maximum period shall in no case exceed 40 years
RECLUSION TEMPORAL Duration: 12 years and 1 day to 20 years Accessory Penalties: a. Civil interdiction for life or during the period of the sentence as the case may be. b. Perpetual Absolute Disqualification which the offender shall suffer even though pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon. PRISION MAYOR Duration: 6 years and 1 day to 12 years Accessory Penalties: a. Temporary Absolute Disqualification b. Perpetual Special Disqualification from the right to suffrage which the offender shall suffer although pardoned as to the principal penalty unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon.
/liz@
Page 92 2004-2005
ARRESTO MAYOR Duration: 1 month and 1 day to 6 months Accessory Penalties: a. Suspension of right to hold office b. Suspension of the right of suffrage during the term of the sentence. LIGHT PENALTIES Art. 27 (6). Arresto menor. The duration of the penalty of arresto menor shall be from one day to thirty days. Art. 39. Subsidiary penalty. If the convict has no property with which to meet the fine mentioned in the paragraph 3 of the nest preceding article, he shall be subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one day for each eight pesos, subject to the following rules: 1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision correccional or arresto and fine, he shall remain under confinement until his fine referred to in the preceding paragraph is satisfied, but his subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one-third of the term of the sentence, and in no case shall it continue for more than one year, and no fraction or part of a day shall be counted against the prisoner. 2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine, the subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed six months, if the culprit shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and shall not exceed fifteen days, if for a light felony. 3. When the principal imposed is higher than prision correccional, no subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed upon the culprit. 4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be executed by confinement in a penal institution, but such penalty is of fixed duration, the convict, during the period of time established in the preceding rules, shall continue to suffer the same deprivations as those of which the principal penalty consists. 5. The subsidiary personal liability which the convict may have suffered by reason of his insolvency shall not relieve him, from the fine in case his financial circumstances should improve. (As amended by RA 5465, April 21, 1969). Art. 44. Arresto; Its accessory penalties. The penalty of arresto shall carry with it that of suspension of the right too hold office and the right of suffrage during the term of the sentence. ARRESTO MENOR Duration: 1 day to 30 days Accessory Penalties: a. Suspension of right to hold office b. Suspension of the right of suffrage during the term of the sentence. PUBLIC CENSURE
/liz@
Page 93 2004-2005
Art. 66. Imposition of fines. In imposing fines the courts may fix any amount within the limits established by law; in fixing the amount in each case attention shall be given, not only to the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, but more particularly to the wealth or means of the culprit. The court can fix any amount of the fine within the limits established by law. The court must consider: a. The mitigating and aggravating circumstances; and b. More particularly, the wealth or means of the culprit. When the law does not fix the minimum of the fine, the determination of the amount of the fine to be imposed upon the culprit is left to the sound discretion of the court, provided it shall not exceed the maximum authorized by law. Fines are not divided into 3 equal portions. BOND TO KEEP THE PEACE Art. 35. Effects of bond to keep the peace. It shall be the duty of any person sentenced to give bond to keep the peace, to present two sufficient sureties who shall undertake that such person will not commit the offense sought to be prevented, and that in case such offense be committed they will pay the amount determined by the court in the judgment, or otherwise to deposit such amount in the office of the clerk of the court to guarantee said undertaking. The court shall determine, according to its discretion, the period of duration of the bond. Should the person sentenced fail to give the bond as required he shall be detained for a period which shall in no case exceed six months, is he shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and shall not exceed thirty days, if for a light felony. The offender must present 2 sufficient sureties who shall undertake that the offender will not commit the offense sought to be prevented, and that in case such offense be committed they will pay the amount determined by the court; or
/liz@
Page 94 2004-2005
Effects: a. Deprivation of any public office or employment f offender b. Deprivation of the right to vote in any election or to be voted upon c. Loss of rights to retirement pay or pension All these effects last during the lifetime of the convict and even after the service of the sentence except as regards paragraphs 2 and 3 of the above in connection with temporary absolute disqualification.
/liz@
Page 95 2004-2005
E. MEASURES NOT CONSIDERED PENALTY RPC, Art. 24. Measures of prevention or safety which are nor considered penalties. The following shall not be considered as penalties: 1. The arrest and temporary detention of accused persons, as well as their detention by reason of insanity or imbecility, or illness requiring their confinement in a hospital. 2. The commitment of a minor to any of the institutions mentioned in Article 80 and for the purposes specified therein. 3. Suspension from the employment of public office during the trial or in order to institute proceedings. 4. Fines and other corrective measures which, in the exercise of their administrative disciplinary powers, superior officials may impose upon their subordinates. 5. Deprivation of rights and the reparations which the civil laws may establish in penal form. They are not penalties because they are not imposed as a result of judicial proceedings. Those mentioned in par. 3 and 4 are merely preventive measures before conviction of offenders. The commitment of a minor mentioned in par. 2 is not a penalty because it is not imposed by the court in a judgment of conviction. The imposition of the sentence in such case is suspended. The succeeding provisions are some examples of deprivation of rights established in penal form: Family Code, Art. 228. Parental authority terminates permanently: (1) Upon the death of the parents; (2) Upon the death of the child; or (3) Upon emancipation of the child. (327a) Family Code, Art. 229. Unless subsequently revived by a final judgment, parental authority also terminates: (1) Upon adoption of the child; (2) Upon appointment of a general guardian; (3) Upon judicial declaration of abandonment of the child in a case filed for the purpose; (4) Upon final judgment of a competent court divesting the party concerned of parental authority; or (5) Upon judicial declaration of absence or incapacity of the person exercising parental authority. (327a) F. APPLICATION AND COMPUTATION OF PENALTIES Art. 28. Computation of penalties. If the offender shall be in prison, the term of the duration of the temporary penalties shall be computed from the day on which the judgment of conviction shall have become final. If the offender be not in prison, the term of the duration of the penalty consisting of deprivation of liberty shall be computed from the day that the offender is placed at the disposal of the judicial authorities for the enforcement of the penalty. The duration of the other penalties shall be computed only from the day on which the defendant commences to serve his sentence.
/liz@
Page 96 2004-2005
0 represents the penalty prescribed by law in defining a crime, which is to be imposed n the PRINCIPAL in a CONSUMMATED OFFENSE, in accordance with the provisions of Art. 46. The other figures represent the degrees to which the penalty must be lowered, to meet the different situation anticipated by law.
/liz@
Page 97 2004-2005
Art. 61. Rules for graduating penalties. For the purpose of graduating the penalties which, according to the provisions of Articles 50 to 57, inclusive, of this Code, are to be imposed upon persons guilty as principals of any frustrated or attempted felony, or as accomplices or accessories, the following rules shall be observed: 1. When the penalty prescribed for the felony is single and indivisible, the penalty next lower in degrees shall be that immediately following that indivisible penalty in the respective graduated scale prescribed in Article 71 of this Code. 2. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of two indivisible penalties, or of one or more divisible penalties to be impose to their full extent, the penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately following the lesser of the penalties prescribed in the respective graduated scale. 3. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of one or two indivisible penalties and the maximum period of another divisible penalty, the penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the medium and minimum periods of the proper divisible penalty and the maximum periods of the proper divisible penalty and the maximum period of that immediately following in said respective graduated scale. 4. when the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of several periods, corresponding to different divisible penalties, the penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the period immediately following the minimum prescribed and of the two next following, which shall be taken from the penalty prescribed, if possible; otherwise from the penalty immediately following in the above mentioned respective graduated scale. 5. When the law prescribes a penalty for a crime in some manner not especially provided for in the four preceding rules, the courts, proceeding by analogy, shall impose corresponding penalties upon those guilty as principals of the frustrated felony, or of attempt to commit the same, and upon accomplices and accessories. This article provides for the rules to be observed in lowering the penalty by one or two degrees. a. For the principal in frustrated felony one degree lower; b. For the principal in attempted felony two degrees lower; c. For the accomplice in consummated felony one degree lower; and d. For the accessory in consummated felony two degrees lower. The rules provided for in Art. 61 should also apply in determining the MINIMUM of the indeterminate penalty under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The MINIMUM of the indeterminate penalty is within the range of the penalty next lower than that prescribed by the RPC for the offense. Those rules also apply in lowering the penalty by one or two degrees by reason of the presence of privileged mitigating circumstance (Arts. 68 and 69), or when the penalty is divisible and there are two or more mitigating circumstances (generic) and no aggravating circumstance (Art. 64). The lower penalty shall be taken from the graduated scale in Art. 71. The INDIVISIBLE PENALTIES are:
/liz@
Page 98 2004-2005
FIFTH RULE: When the penalty has two periods Ex. Prision correccional in its MINIMUM and MEDIUM periods Prision correccional Maximum Medium Minimum Maximum Medium Minimum
The penalty prescribed for the felony The penalty next lower
Arresto Mayor
When the penalty has one period - If the penalty is any one of the three periods of a divisible penalty, the penalty next lower in degree shall be that period next following the given penalty. Ex. Prision Mayor in its MAXIMUM period The penalty immediately inferior is prision mayor in its MEDIUM period. SIMPLIFIED RULES: The rules prescribed in pars. 4 and 5 of Art. 61 may be simplified as follows: 1. If the penalty prescribed by the Code consists in 3 periods, corresponding to different divisible penalties, the penalty next lower in degree is the penalty consisting in the 3 periods down in the scale. 2. If the penalty prescribed b the Code consists in 2 periods, the penalty next lower in degree is the penalty consisting in 2 periods down in the scale. 3. If the penalty prescribed by the Code consists in only 1 period, the penalty next lower in degree is the next period down in the scale. EFFECTS OF MITIGATING AND AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES Art. 62. Effect of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating circumstances and of habitual delinquency. Mitigating or aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be taken into account for the purpose of diminishing or increasing the penalty in conformity with the following rules: 1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime specially punishable by law or which are included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefor shall not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty. 2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to such a degree that it must of necessity accompany the commission thereof. 3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from the moral attributes of the offender, or from his private relations with the offended party, or from any other personal cause, shall only serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of the principals, accomplices and accessories as to whom such circumstances are attendant. 4. The circumstances which consist in the material execution of the act, or in the means employed to
When the penalty is composed of one indivisible penalty and the maximum period of a divisible penalty Ex. Reclusion temporal in its MAXIMUM period to Reclusion perpetua The same rule shall be observed in lowering the penalty by one or two degrees. FOURTH RULE: When the penalty is composed of several periods - This rule contemplates a penalty composed of at least 3 periods. The several periods must correspond to different divisible penalties. Ex. Prision Mayor in its MEDIUM period to Reclusion temporal in its MINIMUM period. Reclusion temporal Maximum Medium Minimum
/liz@
Page 99 2004-2005
2)
3)
Note: In no case shall the total of the 2 penalties imposed upon the offender exceed 30 years. The law does not apply to crimes described in Art. 155 The imposition of the additional penalty on habitual delinquents are CONSTITUTIONAL because such law is neither an EX POST FACTO LAW nor an additional punishment for future crimes. It is simply a punishment on future crimes on account of the criminal propensities of the accused. The imposition of such additional penalties is mandatory and is not discretionary. Habitual delinquency applies at any stage of the execution because subjectively, the offender reveals the same degree of depravity or perversity as the one who commits a consummated crime. It applies to all participants because it reveals persistence in them of the inclination to wrongdoing and of the perversity of character that led them to commit the previous crime. Cases where attending aggravating or mitigating circumstances are not considered in the imposition of penalties - Penalty that is single and indivisible - Felonies through negligence - When the penalty is a fine - When the penalty is prescribed by a special law. Art. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed. In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof: 1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied. 2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied. 3. When the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied. 4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the act, the court shall reasonably allow them to offset one another in consideration of their number and importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty in accordance with the preceding rules, according to the result of such compensation.
What are the legal effects of habitual delinquency? 1) Third conviction - the culprit is sentenced to the penalty for the crime committed and to the additional penalty
/liz@
Rules for the application of indivisible penalties: 1. Penalty is single and indivisible - The penalty shall be applied regardless of the presence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances. Ex. reclusion perpetua or death 2. Penalty is composed of 2 indivisible penalties: a. One aggravating circumstance present - HIGHER penalty b. No mitigating circumstances present - LESSER penalty c. Some mitigating circumstances present and no aggravating - LESSER penalty d. Mitigating and aggravating circumstances offset each other - Basis of penalty: number and importance.
Art. 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods. In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty or composed of three different penalties, each one of which forms a period in accordance with the provisions of Articles 76 and 77, the court shall observe for the application of the penalty the following rules, according to whether there are or are not mitigating or aggravating circumstances: 1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in its medium period. 2. When only a mitigating circumstances is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its minimum period. 3. When an aggravating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its maximum period. 4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall reasonably offset those of one class against the other according to their relative weight. 5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it may deem applicable, according to th7e number and nature of such circumstances. 6. Whatever may be the number and nature of the aggravating circumstances, the courts shall not impose a greater penalty than that prescribed by law, in its maximum period. 7. Within the limits of each period, the court shall determine the extent of the penalty according to the number and nature of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the greater and lesser extent of the evil produced by the crime.
Rules for the application of DIVISIBLE PENALTIES a. No aggravating and No mitigating - MEDIUM PERIOD b. One mitigating - MINIMUM PERIOD c. One aggravating (any number cannot exceed the penalty provided by law in its maximum period) - MAXIMUM PERIOD
/liz@
COMPLEX CRIME PROPER REQUISITES: 1. That at least two offenses are committed 2. That one or some of the offenses must be necessary to commit the other 3. That both or all the offenses must be punished under the same statute.
/liz@
A continued crime is not a complex crime. A continued crime is different from a TRANSITORY CRIME which is also called a MOVING CRIME. REAL OR MATERIAL CONTINUED CRIME PLURALITY There is a series of acts performed by the offender. Each act performed b the The different acts offender constitutes a constitute only one crime separate crime because because all of the acts each act is generated by a performed arise from one criminal impulse. criminal resolution. People v. Escober (supra) Special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Rule is established that whenever a homicide has been committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part as principals in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide although they did no actually take part in the homicide unless endeavored to prevent homicide. While it has been established that Punzalans participation in the crime was to act as a look-out, and as such he did not participate in the killing of the two helpless victims, he cannot evade responsibility. People v. Hernandez (1956) Facts: Hernandez and others were charged with the crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons and robberies. He was found guilty and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. Held: Murder, arson and robbery are mere ingredients of the crime of rebellion, as a means necessary for the perpetration of the offense. Such common offenses are absorbed or inherent in the crime of rebellion. Inasmuch as the acts specified in Art. 135 constitute one single crime, it follows that said acts offer no occasion for the application of Art. 48 which requires therefore the commission of atleast 2 crimes. Principle of pro reo. Art. 48 is intended to favor the culprit: when two or more crimes are the result of a single act, the offender is deemed less perverse than when he commits said crimes through separate and distinct acts. People v. Geronimo (1956) As in treason, where both intent and overt act are necessary, the crime of rebellion is integrated by the coexistence of both the armed uprising for the purposes expressed in Art. 134 of the RPC, and the overt acts of violence described in the first paragraph of Art. 135. That both purpose and overt acts are essential components of one crime and that without either of them the crime of rebellion legally does not exist, is shown by the absence of any penalty attached to Art. 134. It follows, therefore, that any or all of the acts
/liz@
People v. Comadre (2004) Facts: Robert Agbanlog, Wabe, Bullanday, Camat and Eugenio were having a drinking spree on the terrace of the house of Roberts father, Jaime Agbanlog, Jaime was seated on the banister of the terrace listening to the conversation of the companions of his son. As the drinking session went on, Robert and the others noticed appellants George and Antonio Comadre and Lozano walking. The 3 stopped in front of the house. While his companions looked on, Antonio suddenly lobbed a hand grenade which fell on the roof of the terrace. Appellants immediately fled. The hand grenade exploded ripping a hole in the roof of the house. Robert died while his father, Jaime, Wabe, Camat, and Bullanday sustained shrapnel injuries.. Held: Antonio is guilty of the complex crime of murder with multiple attempted murder under Article 48
/liz@
/liz@
Three-fold Rule The maximum duration of the convicts sentence shall not be more than three times the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him. The phrase the most severe of the penalties includes equal penalties.
/liz@
/liz@
The indeterminate sentence is composed of: 1. a MAXIMUM taken from the penalty imposable under the penal code 2. a MINIMUM taken from the penalty next lower to that fixed in the code.
The law does not apply to certain offenders: 1. Persons convicted of offense punished with death penalty or life imprisonment. 2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason. 3. Those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage. 4. Those convicted of piracy. 5. Those who are habitual delinquents. 6. Those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence. 7. Those who violated the terms of conditional pardon granted to them by the Chief Executive. 8. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year. 9. Those who, upon the approval of the law, had been sentenced by final judgment. 10. Those sentenced to the penalty of destierro or suspension. Purpose of the law: to uplift and redeem valuable human material and prevent unnecessary and excessive deprivation of liberty and economic usefulness - It is necessary to consider the criminal first as an individual, and second as a member of the society. - The law is intended to favor the defendant, particularly to shorten his term of imprisonment, depending upon his behavior and his physical, mental and moral record as a prisoner, to be determined by the Board of Indeterminate Sentence. The settled practice is to give the accused the benefit of the law even in crimes punishable with death or life imprisonment provided the resulting penalty, after considering the attending circumstances, is reclusion temporal or less. ISL does not apply to destierro. ISL is expressly granted to those who are sentenced to imprisonment exceeding 1 year. PROCEDURE FOR DETERMING THE MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM SENTENCE Is consists of a maximum and a minimum instead of a single fixed penalty. Prisoner must serve the minimum before he is eligible for parole. The period between the minimum and maximum is indeterminate in the sense that the prisoner may be exempted from serving said indeterminate period in whole or in part. The maximum is determined in any case punishable under the RPC in accordance with the rules and provisions of said code exactly as if the ISL had never been enacted.
/liz@
Art. 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods. In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty or composed of three different penalties, each one of which forms a period in accordance with the provisions of Articles 76 and 77, the court shall observe for the application of the penalty the following rules, according to whether there are or are not mitigating or aggravating circumstances: 1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in its medium period. 2. When only a mitigating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its minimum period. 3. When an aggravating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its maximum period. 4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall reasonably offset those of one class against the other according to their relative weight. 5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it may deem applicable, according to the number and nature of such circumstances. 6. Whatever may be the number and nature of the aggravating circumstances, the courts shall not impose a greater penalty than that prescribed by law, in its maximum period. 7. Within the limits of each period, the court shall determine the extent of the penalty according to the number and nature of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the greater and lesser extent of the evil produced by the crime. De la Cruz v. CA (1996) In as much as the amount of P715k is P693k more than the abovementioned benchmark of P22k, then adding one year for each additional P10k, the maximum period of 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years of prision mayor minimum would be increased by 69 years, as computed by the trial court. But the law categorically declares that the maximum penalty then shall not exceed 20 years of reclusion temporal. Under the ISL, the minimum term of the indeterminate penalt should be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed b the Code for the offense committed, which is prision correccional. People v. Campuhan (supra) The penalty for attempted rape is two (2) degrees lower than the imposable penalty of death for the offense charged, which is statutory rape of a minor
/liz@
The judgment must be final before it can be executed, because the accused may still appeal within 15 days from its promulgation. But if the defendant has expressly waived in writing his right to appeal, the judgment becomes final and executory. See Rules and regulations to implement RA No. 8177 under Capital Punishment. Art. 86. Reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision mayor, prision correccional and arresto mayor. The penalties of reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision mayor, prision correccional and arresto mayor, shall be executed and served in the places and penal establishments provided by the Administrative Code in force or which may be provided by law in the future. Art. 87. Destierro. Any person sentenced to destierro shall not be permitted to enter the place or places designated in the sentence, nor within the radius therein specified, which shall be not more than 250 and not less than 25 kilometers from the place designated. Convict shall not be permitted to enter the place designated in the sentence nor within the radius specified, which shall not more than 250 and not less than 25 km from the place designated. If the convict enters the prohibited area, he commits evasion of sentence. Destierro is imposed: a. When the death or serious physical injuries is caused or are inflicted under exceptional circumstances (art. 247) b. When a person fails to give bond for good behavior (art. 284) c. As a penalty for the concubine in the crime of concubinage (Art. 334) d. When after lowering the penalty by degrees, destierro is the proper penalty. Art. 88. Arresto menor. The penalty of arresto menor shall be served in the municipal jail, or in the house of the defendant himself under the surveillance of an officer of the law, when the court so provides in its decision, taking into consideration the health of the offender and other reasons which may seem satisfactory to it. Service of the penalty of arresto menor: a. In the municipal jail b. In the house of the offender, but under the surveillance of an officer of the law, whenever the court so provides in the decision due to the health of the offender. In the Matter of the petition for Habeas Corpus of Pete Lagran (2001) Facts: The accused was convicted of 3 counts of violating BP22 and was sentenced to imprisonment of 1 year for each count. He was detained on Feb. 24, 1999. On Mar. 19, 2001, he filed a petition for habeas corpus claiming he completed the service of his sentence. Citing Art. 70, RPC, he claimed that he shall serve the penalties simultaneously. Thus, there is no more legal basis for his detention. Held: Art. 70 allows simultaneous service of two or more penalties only if the nature of the penalties
The mandatory conditions require that the probationer shall (a) present himself to the probation officer designated to undertake his supervision at each place as may be specified in the order within 72 hours from receipt of said order, and (b) report to the probation officer at least once a month at such time and place as specified by said officer. Special or discretionary conditions are those additional conditions imposed on the probationer which are geared towards his correction and rehabilitation outside of prison and right in the community to which he belongs.
A violation of any of the conditions may lead either to a more restrictive modification of the same or the revocation of the grant of probation. Consequent to the revocation, the probationer will have to serve the sentence originally imposed. Modification of Conditions of Probation During the period of probation, the court may, upon application of either the probationers or the probation officer, revise or modify the conditions or period of probation. The court shall notify either the probationer or the probation officer of the filing of such an application so as to give both parties an opportunity to be heard thereon. Transfer of Residence Whenever a probationer is permitted to reside in a place under the jurisdiction of another court, control over him shall be transferred to the executive judge of the "Court of First Instance" of that place, and in such case, a copy of the Probation Order, the investigation report
/liz@
Llamado v. CA (1989) In its present form, Section 4 of the Probation Law establishes a much narrower period during which an application for probation ma be filed with the trial curt: after the trial curt shall have convicted and sentenced a defendant and within the period for perfecting an appeal. The provision expressly prohibits the grant of an application for probation if the defendant has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction. Petitioners right to apply for probation was lost when he perfected his appeal from the judgment of the trial court. The trial court lost jurisdiction already over the case. Bala v. Martinez (1990) PD 1990 which amends Sec. 4 of PD 968 is not applicable to the case at bar. It went into effect on Jan. 15, 1985 and cannot be given retroactive effect because it would be prejudicial to the accused. Bala was placed on probation on Aug. 11, 1982. Expiration of probation period alone does not automatically terminate probation; a final order of discharge from the court is required. Probation is revocable before the final discharge by the court. Probationer failed to reunite with responsible society. He violated the conditions of his probation. Thus, the revocation of his probation is compelling. Salgado v. CA (1990) There is no question that the decision convicting Salgado of the crime of serious physical injuries had become final and executory because the filing by respondent of an application for probation is deemed a waiver of his right to appeal. The grant of probation does not extinguish the civil liability of the offender. The order of probation with one of the conditions providing for the manner of payment of the civil liability during the period of probation, did not increase or decrease the civil liability adjudged. The conditions listed under Sec. 10 of the Probation law are not exclusive. Courts are allowed to impose practically any term it chooses, the only limitation being that it does not jeopardize the constitutional rights of the accused. Office of the Court Administrator v. Librado (1996) Facts: The respondent is a deputy sheriff who was charged of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act and is now claiming he is in probation. The OCA filed an administrative case against him and he was suspended from office. Held: While indeed the purpose of the Probation Law is to save valuable human material, it must not be forgotten that unlike pardon probation does not obliterate the crime of which the person under probation has been convicted. The image of the judiciary is tarnished by conduct involving moral turpitude. The reform and rehabilitation of the probationer cannot justify his retention in the government service.
/liz@
Suspension in case of Insanity or Minority Art. 79. Suspension of the execution and service of the penalties in case of insanity. When a convict shall become insane or an imbecile after final sentence has been pronounced, the execution of said sentence shall be suspended only with regard to the personal penalty, the provisions of the second paragraph of circumstance number 1 of Article 12 being observed in the corresponding cases. If at any time the convict shall recover his reason, his sentence shall be executed, unless the penalty shall have prescribed in accordance with the provisions of this Code. The respective provisions of this section shall also be observed if the insanity or imbecility occurs while the convict is serving his sentence. Only execution of personal penalty is suspended: civil liability may be executed even in case of insanity of convict. An accused may become insane: a. at the time of commission of the crime exempt from criminal liability b. at the time of the trial - court shall suspend hearings and order his confinement in a hospital until he recovers his reason c. at the time of final judgment or while serving sentence execution suspended with regard to the personal penalty only see Exempting Circumstance of Minority for PD No. 603 and Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with Law. VI. EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY A. TOTAL EXTINCTION Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. Criminal liability is totally extinguished: 1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. 2. By service of the sentence; 3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects; 4. By absolute pardon; 5. By prescription of the crime; 6. By prescription of the penalty; 7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Article 344 of this Code. How is criminal liability extinguished? 1. TOTAL 2. PARTIAL Extinction of criminal liability does not automatically extinguish the civil liability. Causes of extinction of criminal liability: 1. BY DEATH OF THE CONVICT - the death of the convict whether before or after final judgment extinguished criminal liability.
/liz@
Art. 93. Computation of the prescription of penalties. The period of prescription of penalties shall commence to run from the date when the culprit should evade the service of his sentence, and it shall be interrupted if the defendant should give himself up, be captured, should go to some foreign country with which this Government has no extradition treaty, or should commit another crime before the expiration of the period of prescription. Period commences to run from the date the culprit evades the service of sentence. The period is interrupted:
/liz@
ELEMENTS: a. penalty is imposed by final sentence b. the convict evaded the service of sentence by escaping during the term of his sentence c. escaped convict has not given himself up, or has been captured d. penalty has prescribed because of the lapse of time Art. 36. Pardon; its effect. A pardon shall not work the restoration of the right to hold public office, or the right of suffrage, unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon. A pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence. Monsanto v. Factoran (1989) Monsanto was convicted of the complex crime of estafa thru falsification of public documents. She was pardoned. She now seeks reinstatement to her former position as Assistant treasurer, without need of a new appointment. Pardon does not ipso facto restore a convicted felon to public office. A pardon although full and plenary, cannot preclude the appointing power from refusing appointment to anyone deemed of bad character, a poor moral risk, or who is unsuitable by reason of the pardoned conviction.
Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto (2001) The applicable law in the computation of the prescriptive period for RA 3019 is Section 2 of Act No. 3326 which provides that prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the violation of the law and if the same be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. People v. Abungan (2000) Facts: Abungan, together with 2 others were charged with murder for the death of Dirilo, Sr, Abungan pleaded not guilty upon his arraignment. After trial on the merits, the trial court sentenced Pedro Abungan to suffer the penalty of reclusion and such penalties accessory thereto. Abungan appealed his case but died during the pendency of his appeal. Held: The death of appellant extinguished his criminal liability. Moreover, because he died during the pendency of the appeal and before the finality of the judgment against him, his civil liability arising from the crime or delict (civil liability ex delicto) was also extinguished. It must be added, though, that his civil liability may be based on sources of obligation other than delict. For this reason, the victims may file a separate civil action against his estate, as may be warranted by law and procedural rules. Recebido v. People (2000) Facts: On September 9, 1990, Dorol went to the house of her cousin, Recebido, to redeem her
/liz@
offender is rearrested and re-incarcerated prosecution under Art. 159 of the RPC
2.
COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE a) reduce degree of penalty b) decrease the length of imprisonment c) decrease the amount of fine Specific cases where commutation provided for by the Code:
is
convict sentenced to death over 70 years old 10 justices of the SC fail to reach a decision for the affirmance of the death penalty
3.
GOOD CONDUCT ALLOWANCES DURING CONFINEMENT - deduction for the term of sentence for good behavior PAROLE - consists in the suspension of the sentence of a convict without granting pardon, prescribing the terms upon which the sentence shall be suspended. - May be granted to a prisoner after serving the minimum penalty under the indeterminate sentence law - Consists in the suspension of the sentence of a convict after serving the minimum term of the indeterminate penalty, without granting a pardon prescribing the terms upon which the sentence shall be punished. Parole May be given after the prisoner has served the minimum penalty is granted by the Board of Parole and Pardons under the ISL For violation, convict can be rearrested and reincarcerated to serve the unexpired portion of his original penalty
4.
Conditional Pardon May be given an time before final judgment is granted by the Chief Executive under the Administrative Code For violation, convict may be rearrested or prosecuted under Art. 159
Art. 95. Obligation incurred by person granted conditional pardon. Any person who has been granted conditional pardon shall incur the obligation of complying strictly with the conditions imposed therein otherwise, his non-compliance with any of the conditions specified shall result in the revocation of the pardon and the provisions of Article 159 shall be applied to him. Art. 96. Effect of commutation of sentence. The commutation of the original sentence for another of a different length and nature shall have
/liz@
Art. 99. Who grants time allowances. Whenever lawfully justified, the Director of Prisons shall grant allowances for good conduct. Such allowances once granted shall not be revoked.
VII. CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM FELONY As a general rule, an offense causes two classes of injuries: 1. SOCIAL INJURY produced by the disturbance and alarm which are the outcome of the offense - this is sought to be repaired through the imposition of the corresponding penalty. 2. PERSONAL INJURY caused to the victim of the crime who may have suffered damage, either to his person, to his property, to his honor, or to her chastity. - this is sought to be repaired through indemnity which is civil in nature. A. GENERAL RULE RPC, Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. BASIS: A crime has dual character: a) as an offense against the state because of the disturbance of the social order; and b) as an offense against the private person injured by the crime unless it involves the crime of treason, rebellion, espionage, contempt and others wherein no civil liability arises on the part of the offender either because there are no damages to be compensated or there is no private person injured by the crime. In crimes against persons, like the crime of physical injuries, the injured party is entitled to be paid for whatever he spent for the treatment of his wounds, doctors fees etc. as well as for loss or impairment of earning capacity. Moral damages may be recovered as well. Exemplary damages as part of the civil liability ma be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. But if there is no damage caused by the commission of the crime, the offender is not civilly liable. Civil liability arises from the commission of the felony. It is determined in the criminal action except: a. the offended party waives his right to file a civil action b. the offended party reserves his right to institute it separately, or c. the offended party institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. A reservation of the right to file a separate civil action only gives the party aggrieved the right to choose under which body of laws he must bring the civil action, either under the:
/liz@
RULE 111 PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION 1985 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party waives the
/liz@
Cases Quinto v. Andres (2005) Facts: Garcia, a Grade 4 elementary school pupil, and his playmate, Wilson Quinto, who was about 11 yrs old saw Andres and Pacheco who invited them to go fishing inside a drainage culvert. Wilson assented but Garcia seeing that it was dark inside opted to remain seated in a grassy area about 2meters from the entrance of the drainage system. Pacheco, Andres and Quinto, entered the drainage system which was covered by concrete culvert about a meter high and a meter wide, with water about a foot deep. After a while, respondent Pacheco, who was holding a fish, came out of the drainage system and left without saying a word. Andres also came out, went back inside, and emerged again, this time, carrying Wilson who was already dead. Andres laid the boy's lifeless body down in the grassy area. Shocked at the sudden turn of events, Garcia fled from the scene. For his part, Andres went to the house of petitioner Melba Quinto, Wilson's mother, and informed her that her son had died. Melba Quinto rushed to the drainage culvert while respondent Andres followed her. The respondents aver that since the prosecution failed to adduce any evidence to prove that they committed the crime of homicide and caused the death of Wilson, they are not criminally and civilly liable for the latters death. Held: The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil action. However, the civil action based on delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgment in the civil action that the act or omission from where the civil liability may arise does not exist. In the present case, the court ruled that respondents cannot be held criminally nor civilly liable for the death of Wilson. In this case, the petitioner failed to adduce proof of any ill-motive on the part of either respondent to kill the deceased before or after the latter was invited to join them in fishing. Indeed, the petitioner testified that respondent Andres used to go to their house and play with her son before the latter's death. When the petitioner's son died inside the drainage culvert, it was respondent Andres who brought out the deceased. He then informed the petitioner of her son's death. Even after informing the petitioner of the death of her son, respondent Andres followed the petitioner on her way to the grassy area where the deceased was.
/liz@
/liz@
ELEMENTS OF PAR 2. 1. The guests notified in advance the innkeeper or the person representing him of the deposit of their goods within the inn or house. 2. The guest followed the directions of the innkeeper or his representative with respect to the care of the vigilance over such goods. 3. Such goods of the guests lodging therein were taken by robbery with force upon things or theft committed within the inn or house. When all the above elements are present, the innkeeper is subsidiarily liable. No liability shall attach in case of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons, unless committed by the innkeepers employees. It is not necessary that the effects of the guest be actually delivered to the innkeeper, it is enough that they were within the inn. 5. SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY OF OTHER PERSONS Art. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties. ELEMENTS: 1. The employer, teacher, person or corporation is engaged in any kind of industry. 2. Any of their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices or employees commits a felony while in the discharge of his duties. 3. The said employee is insolvent and has not satisfied his civil liability. Private persons without business or industry are not subsidiarily liable. The felony must be committed by the servant or employee of the defendant in the civil case. Employer has the right to take part in the defense of his employee. No defense of diligence of a good father of a family. Carpio v. Doroja (1989) Ruling upon the enforcement of the subsidiary liability of an employer in the same criminal proceeding without the need of a separate action, the court held that it should be shown that: 1) the employer, etc. is engaged in any kind of industry 2) the employee committed the offense in the discharge of his duties and 3) he is insolvent The subsidiary liability of the employer, however, arises only after conviction of the employee in the criminal action. All these requisites present, the employer, becomes ipso facto subsidiarily liable upon the employees conviction and upon proof of the latters insolvency. C. WHAT CIVIL LIABILITY INCLUDES Art. 104. What is included in civil liability. The civil liability established in Articles 100, 101, 102, and 103 of this Code includes:
/liz@
D. PERSONS CIVILLY LIABLE Art. 108. Obligation to make restoration, reparation for damages, or indemnification for consequential damages and actions to demand the same; Upon whom it devolves. The obligation to make restoration or reparation for damages and indemnification for consequential damages devolves upon the heirs of the person liable. The action to demand restoration, reparation, and indemnification likewise descends to the heirs of the person injured. Upon whom does the obligation to make restoration, reparation or indemnification for damages devolve? - upon the HEIRS of the person liable The heirs of the person liable has no obligation if restoration is not possible and the deceased left no property.
/liz@
Art. 111. Obligation to make restitution in certain cases. Any person who has participated gratuitously in the proceeds of a felony shall be bound to make restitution in an amount equivalent to the extent of such participation. This refers to a person who has participated gratuitously in the commission of a felony and he is bound to make restitution in an amount equivalent to the extent of such participation. The third person must be innocent of the commission of the crime; otherwise, he would be liable as an accessory and this article will apply.
E. EXTINCTION OF CIVIL LIABILITY Art. 112. Extinction of civil liability. Civil liability established in Articles 100, 101, 102, and 103 of this Code shall be extinguished in the same manner as obligations, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Law.
/liz@