Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 119

Professor: 'ean Carlos M( Ortega

Transcribers:

Marc Roby de Chavez (MARX)


Mon Cristhoper Pasia (MON) Jennielyn Reyes (JEN) Angela dela Cruz (ANGELA) This is the updated ersion o! "##$ TAP%& NOTE%

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
Guide: Bill of attainder: one that imposes a punishment without the benefit of due process. If the lawmakers enact a law, declaring an act criminal, prescribing penalties therefore, and giving the courts to impose the penalty summarily, that kind of penal law is invalid because it is in the nature of a bill of attainder. It imposes a punishment without the benefit of due process The penal law to be enacted should not prescribe cruel and unusual punishment or impose excessive fines Can the lawmakers enact a penal law that would punish a convicted offender with a death penalty by tickling him until he dies? Is that a cruel and unusual punishment? The requirement that the punishment must not be cruel and unusual must go together. The death penalty is cruel penalty but it is not unusual. But imposing a penalty by tickling him until he dies, it is not cruel because he will die laughing but it is unusual, therefore, it is constitutional. Whether the penalties only covers cruel or a penalty that unusual or both cruel and unusual? It must be both not cruel and not unusual, otherwise invalid Characteristics of Criminal Law Generality Territoriality Prospectivity Generality the criminal law of the country governs all persons within the country regardless of their race, belief, sex or creed. However it is subject to certain exceptions brought about by international agreement. Ambassadors, chiefs of states and other diplomatic officials are immune from the application of penal laws when they are in the country where they are assigned. Consuls are not diplomatic officers. This includes consul-general, vice-consul or any consul in a foreign country, who are therefore not immune to the operation or application of the penal law of the country where they are assigned. Consuls are subject to the penal laws of the country where they are assigned. It has no reference to territory. Whenever you are asked to explain this, it does not include territory. It refers to persons that may be governed by the penal law. Territoriality means that the penal laws of the country have the force and effect only within its territory. It cannot penalize crimes committed outside the same. This is subject to certain exceptions brought about by international agreements and practices. The territory of the country is not limited to the land where its sovereignty resides but includes also its maritime and interior watery as well as its atmosphere. Terrestrial Jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over land. The penal law to be enacted should not operate as a bill of attainder
Page | 1

Calibri Font indicates the original 2007 TAPSI NOTES Microsoft Sans Seriff Font indicates 2010 Notes MS PMincho Font indicates 2011 Bar Review

Criminal Law that branch of municipal law which defines crimes, treats of their nature and provides for their punishment. It is that branch of public substantive law which defines offenses and prescribes their penalties. It is substantive because it defines the states right to inflict punishment and the liability of the offenders It is public law because it deals with the relation of the individual with the state Limitations on the power of the Congress to enact penal laws 1. Must be general in application. It refers to the persons that shall be covered by the law 2. Must not partake the nature of ex post facto law (punishes an act which was innocent when committed, it implies retroactive application) 3. Must not partake the nature of Bill of Attainder (imposes punishment without due process) 4. Must not impose cruel and unusual punishment or excessive fines A sentence of death penalty by tickling him is not valid because though it is not cruel, it is unusual. The words cruel and unusual are joined Limitations on the authority of congress to enact a penal law The limitations can also be found in the fundamental law (Constitution). The prohibitions in the Constitution against the enactment of penal laws are scarce. Generally, no limitations The penal law to be enacted must be of general application. Unless there is a substantive basis for making distinctions the law cannot prescribe one course of conduct with respect to a group of person and another course of conduct with respect to another group of person. The law must be of general application. You cannot find a law that holds a certain class of persons criminally liable whether of the same act was committed by another class of person, that crime arises because that would be a violation of this constitutional prohibition. That the penal law to be enacted should not operate as an ex post facto law Ex post facto law: one which prescribes punishment for an act or omission which is innocent at the time the same was committed. In effect, the penal law is made to operate retroactively.

Fluvial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over the maritime and interior waters.

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
Aerial Jurisdiction is the jurisdiction over the atmosphere. The Archipelagic Rule - All bodies of water comprising the maritime zone and interior waters abounding different islands comprising the Philippine Archipelago are part of the Philippine territory regardless of their breadth, depth, width or dimension. On the fluvial jurisdiction there is presently a departure from the accepted International Law Rule because the Philippines adopted the Archipelagic Rule. In the International Law Rule, when a strait within a country has a width of more than 6 miles, the center lane in excess of the 3 miles on both sides is considered international waters. If a foreign merchant vessel is in the center lane and a crime was committed there, under the international law rule, what law will apply? The law of the country were that vessel is registered will apply because the crime is deemed to have been committed in the high seas Under the Archipelagic Rule as declared in Art 1 of the Constitution, all waters in the archipelago regardless of breadth, width, or dimension are part of our national territory. Under this rule, there is no more center lane, all these waters, regardless of their dimension or width are part of the Philippine territory. So if a foreign merchant vessel is in the center lane and a crime was committed, the crime will be prosecuted before the Philippine Courts. Three International law theories on aerial jurisdiction 1. The atmosphere over the country is free and not subject to the jurisdiction of the subjacent state, except for the protection of its national security and public order. Under this theory, if a crime is committed on board a foreign aircraft at the atmosphere of a country, the law of that country does not govern unless the crime affects the national security. 2. Relative Theory - The subjacent state exercises jurisdiction over its atmosphere only to the extent that it can effectively exercise control thereof. Under this theory if a crime was committed on an aircraft which is already beyond the control of the subjacent state, the criminal law of that state will not govern anymore. But if the crime is committed in an aircraft within the atmosphere over a subjacent state which exercises control, then its criminal law will govern. 3. Absolute Theory - The subjacent state has complete jurisdiction over the atmosphere above it subject only to innocent passage by aircraft of a foreign country Under this theory, if the crime is committed in an aircraft, no matter how high, as long as it can establish that it is within the Philippine atmosphere, Philippine Criminal law will govern. This is the theory adopted by the Philippines. Territoriality Regarding territoriality as a Characteristic of Philippine criminal law, we must have an idea of the Archipelagic Rule. This deviated from the international law rule. Under International law, territory of the country extends 3 nautical miles beyond its lowest water mark in its shoreline. In case of recesses within its shores, like gulfs or bays, this will be regarded as part of the territory of the country whose jurisdiction is in issue. If the overall width thereof, does not exceed 6 nautical miles (we compute the 3 nautical miles from one side of the shore, then 3 nautical miles on the other side) if these connect the entire body of water within, then it is part of the territory. Under the archipelagic rule, all those bodies of water which form part of the Philippine Archipelago, as heeded in the treaty of Paris, is considered Philippine territory regardless of breadth of a nation. This has to be adopted as a measure of necessity because without this foreign will be traversing this archipelago. And under International law, they are not subject to Philippine laws. So we adopted this archipelagic rule, that all waters within Philippine archipelago, regardless of breadth, width forms part of Philippine territory, so Philippine criminal law will govern. Prospectivity (irretrospectivity) Acts or omissions will only be subject to a penal law if they are committed after a penal law had already taken effect vice-versa, this act or omission which has been committed before the effectivity of a penal law could not be penalized by such penal law because laws operate only prospectively. In some textbooks, an exemption said to exist when the penal law is favorable to the offender. In which case, it would have retroactive application provided that the offender is not a habitual delinquent and there is no provision in the law against its retroactive application This is misleading because there is no exception to the rule that a penal law cannot be given retroactive effect. The supposed exception refers to a situation where there is repeal. When there is no repeal there can be no retroactivity. The supposed exception where a penal law may be given retroactive applications is true only with a repealing law. If it is an original penal law, that exception can never operate. What is contemplated by the supposed exception is that there is an original law and there is a repealing law repealing the original law. It is the repealing law that may be given retroactive application to those who violated the original law, if the repealing penal law is more favorable (more lenient or liberal) to the offender who violated the original law. If there is only one penal law, it can never be given retroactive effect. The law shall not apply retroactively because that is what the Constitution provides. The exception (referring to the repeal) is not true because it is not an exception, but rather dictated by the Doctrine of Pro Reo and not because it is an exception.

Page | 2

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
Doctrine of Pro Reo - Whenever a penal law is to be construed or applied, and the law admits of two interpretations - one lenient to the offender and one strict to the offender - that interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the offender will be adopted. The doctrine is peculiar to criminal law. This is also true with criminal prosecutions and rules on evidence in criminal cases. Example: Where a circumstance can be interpreted as an indication of guilt or that of innocence, it has no probative value to the prosecution because the circumstance shall be taken in favor of the offender. Prospectivity of law is not only peculiar to criminal law. Art 4 of the Civil Code mandates that laws are prospective in application unless the contrary is provided. The term "unless the contrary is provided is not applicable to criminal law. So the correct term is IRRETROSPECTIVITY" Criminal law cannot be given retroactive application. So if the law is penal in nature, it cannot be given retroactive effect Rule of prospectivity also applies to administrative rulings and circulars In Co. vs. CA, decided on October 28, 1993, it was held that the principle of prospectivity of statutes also applies to administrative rulings and circulars. In this case, Circular No. 4 of the Ministry of Justice dated December 15, 1981, provides that where the check is issued as part of an arrangement to guarantee or secure the payment of an obligation, whether pre-existing or not, the drawer is not criminally liable for either estafa or violation of BP 22. Subsequently, said administrative interpretation was reversed in Circular No. 12 issued on August 8, 1984, such that the claim that the check was issued to guarantee or part of an arrangement to secure an obligation or to facilitate collection is no longer a valid defense for the prosecution of BP 22. Hence, it was ruled in Que vs. People that a check issued merely to guarantee the performance of an obligation is, nevertheless, covered by BP 22. But consistent with the principle of Prospectivity, the new doctrine should not apply to parties who had earlier relied on the old doctrine and acted on the faith thereof. No retrospective effect. Say, a person committed a crime against persons. He was convicted and new serving sentence. Then, he committed again a crime. against person to his inmate. How do you classify him, a recidivist or quasi-recidivist? Analyze what interpretation would be more beneficial to the offender. In RECIDIVISM - it is generic aggravating circumstance while in QUASI RECIDIVISM - it is a special aggravating circumstance If only generic circumstance, said circumstance can be offset by the preference of a mitigating circumstance, if special aggravating- it cannot be offset by any ordinary mitigating circumstance As guided by the Doctrine of Pro Reo, he is to be considered as a recidivist. This is because said interpretation is more lenient or favorable to him The 3 characteristic is commonly known in some annotations to be prospectivity but such is not correct. It should irrestrospectvity. Prospectivity is not peculiar to criminal law. The civil code, in fact, provides that laws shall be prospective in application unless the contrary is expressly provided. So, all laws must be prospective in application, not only criminal law. What is peculiar to criminal law is that you cannot give it retroactive application. Hence irrestrospectivity, we cannot apply it in a retroactive manner. This is so because there is a prohibition in the fundamental law, Constitution, against the enactment of ex post facto law. So the rule of prospectivity which is applied to criminal law is the irrestrospectivity, we cannot give it backward application, unlike other laws. The law will be prospective unless the law provides that it will apply retroactively. In some commentaries, reference is made to a situation where there is an amendatory or repealing penal law that will be applied to the offender rather than the law violated by him. This has been regarded in the commentaries as an exception to the rule. That is not correct. There is no exception to the provision of the constitution against the enactment of ex post facto law. Once a penal law is amended or repealed, you look into whether the amendment or repeal is beneficial to the offender or the liability of the offender more severe than under the law that was violated. If the amendatory or repealing law made the liability of the offender less severe than under the law violated, then, the amendatory or repealing law will be the one applied. In effect, the amendatory or repealing is given a retroactive application. It will apply to both acts and omissions which were committed before the amendment or repeal was effective. This is not an exception. This is dictated by the doctrine of Pro Reo Article 4 of the Civil Code mandates that all laws have prospective application, unless the contrary is expressly provided. That exception is cannot be true in the RPC or to criminal law because of the prohibition in the fundamental law against the enactment of ex post facto law and that provision of the constitution does not admit of any exception. When a penal law is repealed or amended, the law that is lenient to the offender will be the one applied even though it will operate retroactively. This is not an exception, this is a rule dictated in the doctrine of pro reo. Criminal law or laws penal in nature should only be construed and applied in a way that is lenient or liberal to the offender, because we adhere to the presumption of innocence in favor of an offender. We adhere to the positive presumption that a person always does good and not something that is wrong. We presume sanity not insanity. And that is the doctrine that is being followed.
rd

Page | 3

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
What is the Doctrine of Pro Reo? How does it reconcile with article 48 of the RPC? The doctrine of Pro Reo is peculiar only to Criminal law. Under the doctrine of Pro reo, criminal law or any law that is penal in nature should be construed and applied in a manner favorable or lenient to the offender than otherwise. This is the reason why while a criminal law or penal was amended or repealed, the amendatory or repealing law will be applied retroactively if it would be favorable or lenient to the accused. And is what doctrine of pro reo dictates and that is true only to criminal or any law that is penal in nature. So, here is a situation where a certain act will constitute a violation of one of the penal law or another provision of a penal law, you are required to choose that provision where the liability of the offender may be lesser than the liability under the other provisions. You do not choose the provision where the liability will be more severe. For instance, A man who is known from his voyeurism, while he was attending the stairs in the LRT station, he was following a lady with a very shapely body. Because he cannot resist the temptation that influenced him, he held the waist of the lady and made a slight __. The lady berated and warned him. She was so mad. What was the crime committed? The bar candidates answered, acts of lasciviousness. But such answer was not correct While a man dances with a lady, the man takes hold of the waist of the lady, that part of the body was not considered a private part. That if you hold it, it will bring about lasciviousness. Hence that act unavoidably annoyed or irritated the offended party, it is only a case of unjust vexation. Unjust vexation is a crime of a light felony only. So you have a situation where the act done may be regarded as act of lasciviousness, where the penalty is higher or, merely an annoyance or irritation or vexation to the offended party that will bring about a crime commonly known as unjust vexation where the penalty is much lesser. Under the Rule of Pro Reo, prosecution is dictated to construe the act in a way that is lenient to the offender, not in the way that will make the act more severe to subject the offender to a higher penalty. This is because in our jurisdiction, the presumption is towards innocence than guilt. The presumption is towards the good not the bad.
(for the 3rd time irretropectivity again)

is forbidden under the Fundamental law (Constitution) the enactment of ex post facto law. An ex post facto law is one which operates retroactively punishing an act which is not punishable at the time the act was committed. In some commentaries, a supposed exception is that where a law that is penal in nature is enacted to amend or repeal an earlier penal law. And if the later enactment is more favorable or lenient to the offender, the later law will be the one to apply to him, not the law violated by him. Because of this possibility of the retroactive application under such situation, commentaries referred to this as an exception. There is no exception to the provision of the Constitution against an enactment of an ex post facto law. The situation that is contemplated were there is a repealing or amendatory penal law that shall be applied are given to the offender who have violated an earlier legislation that was repealed or amended, is dictated by the doctrine of pro reo. So, that is not an exception but it is mandated by that doctrine which peculiarly applies to criminal law or with those laws which are penal in nature. As to criminal laws or laws which are penal in character, when a criminal law or law penal in nature is amended or repealed and there are offenders already prosecuted under such law, you have to determine whether the amendatory or repealing law prescribes conditions which are prejudicial to the offender instead of the law violated that is to be applied. The doctrine of pro reo requires that you always construe and apply criminal law or any law penal in character in a manner that is liberal or lenient to the offender. And this is the reason why that when a penal law is amended or repealed and the amendatory or repealing law provides for more liberal terms or liberal penalty, to apply the amendatory or repealing law retroactively. Doctrine of pro reo how it holds in the light of article 48 of the RPC You Complex the crime bring about the penalty on the most serious crime to be applied in the maximum period and you only apply article 48 if by complexing the crimes committed, the penalty would be lesser than that of convicting the offender separately on the component crimes that bring about the complex crime. But if by complexing the crime, a serious penalty will be imposed, hence the doctrine of pro reo forbids the complexing of the crime because that would mean imposing a penalty that is more severe than what the offender would have suffered if the crimes will not be complexed. Effect of repeal of penal law to liability of offender In some commentaries, there are references as to whether the repeal is express or implied. What affects criminal liability of an offender is not whether a penal law is expressly or impliedly repealed (or the manner how the repeal was made), it is whether it is absolutely or totally repealed, or relatively or partially repealed.

All laws are generally prospective in application. It is not a characteristic peculiar to criminal law. What is peculiar in criminal law is that a penal cannot be given retroactive application. Article 4 of the Civil Code, provides that laws shall have no retroactive effect unless the contrary is expressly provided. It is the exception that does not apply to criminal law because it
Page | 4

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
Total or absolute, or partial or relative repeal - As to the effect of repeal of penal law to the liability of the offender, qualify your answer by saying whether the repeal is absolute or total or whether the repeal is partial or relative only. Repeal is absolute or total when the crime punished under the repealed law has been decriminalized by the repeal Because of the repeal, the act or omission which was used to be a crime is no longer a crime. An example is RA 7363, which decriminalized subversion. Consequences if repeal of penal law is total or absolute 1. If a case is pending in court involving the violation of the repealed law the same shall be dismissed even though the accused may be an habitual delinquent. This is so, because all persons accused of a crime are presumed innocent until they are convicted by final judgment. Therefore, the accused shall be acquitted. 2. If a case is already decided and the accused is already serving sentence by final judgment, if the convict is not a habitual delinquent, then he will be entitled to a release unless there is a reservation clause in the penal law that it will not apply to those serving sentence at the time of the repeal. But if there is no reservation, those who are not habitual delinquents even if they are already serving their sentence will receive the benefit of the repealing law. They are entitled to release. Repeal is partial or relative when the crime punished under the repealed law continues to be a crime in spite of the repeal. This means that the repeal merely modified the elements of the crime, the circumstances of the crime or the penalty of the crime. The modification may be, prejudicial or beneficial to the offender. Consequences if repeal of penal law is partial or relative 1. If case is pending in court involving the violation of the repealed law, and the repealing law is more favorable to the accused, it shall be the one applied to him. If more severe, the repealed law shall be applied. So whether he is a habitual delinquent or not, if the case is still pending in court, the repealing law will be the one to apply unless there is a saving clause in the repealing law that it shall not apply to pending causes of action. 2. If a case is already decided and the accused is already serving sentence by final Judgment, even if the repealing law partial or relative, the crime still remains to be a Crime. Those who are not habitual delinquents will benefit on the effect of that repeal if there is nothing in the repealing law which provides against its retroactive, application. SO that if the repeal is more lenient to them, it will be the repealing law that will henceforth apply to them.

This does not mean that if they are not released, they are free to escape. If they escape, they commit the crime of evasion of service of sentence, even if there is no more legal basis to hold them in the penitentiary. This is so because prisoners are accountabilities of the government. They are not supposed to step out simply because their sentence has already been, or that the law under which they are sentenced has been declared null and void. If they are not discharged from confinement, a petition for habeas corpus should be filed to test the legality of their continued confinement in jail. If the convict, on the other hand, is a habitual delinquent, he will continue serving the sentence in spite of the fact that the law under which he was convicted has already been absolutely repealed. This is so because penal laws should be given retroactive application to favor only those who are not habitual delinquents. A, a prisoner, learns that he is already overstaying in jail because his Jail guard, B, who happens to be a law student advised him that there is no more legal ground for his continued imprisonment and B told him that he can go. A got out of Jail and went home. Was there any crime committed? As far as A, the prisoner who is serving sentence. Is concerned, the crime committed is evasion of service of sentence. As far as B, the Jail guard who allowed A to go, is concerned, the crime committed Is Infidelity in the custody of prisoners.
Page | 5

For example, under the original law, the penalty is six years. Under the repealing law, it is four years. Those convicted under the original law will be subjected to the four-year penalty. This retroactive application will not be possible if there is a saving clause that provides that it should not be given retroactive effect. Under Article 22, even if the offender is already convicted and serving sentence, a law which is beneficial shall be applied to him unless he is a habitual delinquent in accordance with Rule 5 Article 62 Express or implied repeal - express or implied repeal refers to the manner the repeal is done. Express repeal takes place when a subsequent law contains a provision that such law repeals an earlier enactment For example. In RA 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), there is an express provision of repeal of Title V of the Revised Penal Code. Implied repeals are not favored. It requires a competent court to declare an implied repeal. An implied repeal will take place when there is a law on a particular subject matter and a subsequent law is passed also on the same subject matter but is inconsistent with the first law, such that the two laws cannot stand together. One of the laws must give way. It is the earlier that will give way to the later law because the later law expresses the recent legislative sentiment. So you can have an implied repeal when there are two inconsistent laws. When the earlier law does not expressly provide that it is repealing an earlier law, what has taken place here is implied repeal, if the two laws can be reconciled, the court shall always try to avoid an implied repeal.

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
Consequences if repeal of penal law is express or implied 1. If a penal law impliedly repealed, the subsequent repeal of the repealing law will revive the original law. So the act or omission which was punished as a crime under the original law will be revived and the same shall again be a crime although during the implied repeal they may not be punishable. 2. If the repeal is express, the repeal of the repealing law will not revive the first law. So the act or omission will no longer be penalized Note: Guard against the so-called self-repealing laws (the law fixed its period of effectivity). The term is misleading because there is really no repeal. The correct term is self-liquidating law. When you are faced with a self-liquidating law, do not apply the law on repeal here. This is because it is the law that expires but the offense is still there because there is no repeal here Example: the initial Rent Control Law (which penalizes landlords for collecting higher rentals than that imposed by law which is revived by Congress every two years) assuming It was not extended by Congress. If Congress will not renew it after two years, it will only be good for two years. When there is repeal, the repealing law expresses the legislative intention to do away with such law, and therefore, implies a condonation of the punishment. Such legislative intention does not exist in a self-terminating law because there was no repeal at all. Basic Maxims in Criminal Law Doctrine of Pro Reo Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea Doctrine of Pro Reo Whenever the penal law is to be construed or applied and the law admits two interpretations - one lenient to the offender and one strict to the offender - that interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the offender will be adoptedThis is in consonance with the fundamental rule, that all doubts shall be construed in favor of the accused and consistent with presumption of innocence of the accused. This is peculiar only to criminal law. One boy was accused of parricide and was found guilty. This is punished by reclusion perpetua to death. Assuming you were the judge, would you give the accused the benefit of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLAW)? The ISLAW does not apply when the penalty imposed is life imprisonment to death. Would you consider the penalty imposable or the penalty imposed, taking into consideration the mitigating circumstance of minority? If you will answer "No," then you go against the Doctrine of Pro Reo because you can interpret the ISLAW in a more lenient manner. Taking into account the doctrine, we interpret the ISLAW to mean that the penalty imposable
Page | 6

and not the penalty prescribed by law, since it is more favorable for the accused to interpret the law. Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege There is no crime when there is no law punishing the same. This is true to civil law countries, but not to common law countries. Because of this maxim, there is no common law crime in the Philippines. No matter how wrongful, evil or bad the act is, if there is no law punishing the act, the same is not considered a crime. Common Law crimes are wrongful acts which the community/society condemns as contemptible, even though there is no law declaring the act criminal. Punished not because there is a positive law that is violated but because the act violates the present moral norm in the society. So people in common law countries are more behaved in civil law countries because even if there is no law, they could still be punished. If there is no law punishing the act in common law countries, the offender is brought before the courts of equity. There are 2 courts: Courts of Law and Courts of Equity, So better if we too have Courts of Equity. Not any law punishing an act or omission may be valid as a criminal law. If the law punishing an act is ambiguous, it is null and void Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea The act cannot be criminal where the mind is not criminal. This is true to a felony characterized by dolo but not to felony resulting from culpa. This maxim is not an absolute one because it is not applied to culpable felonies, or those that result from negligence. Utilitarian Theory or Protective Theory The primary purpose of the punishment under criminal law is the protection of society from actual and potential wrongdoers. The courts, therefore, in exacting retribution for the wronged society, should direct the punishment to potential and actual wrongdoers since criminal law is directed against acts and omissions which the society does not approve. Consistent with this theory, the mala prohibitum principle which punishes the offense regardless of malice or criminal Intent should not be utilized to apply the full harshness of the special law. This theory was the basis of the Supreme Court in acquitting the accused In Magno vs. CA, decided on June 26, 1992. In this case, the Supreme Court acquitted Magno of violation of BP22 when he acted without malice. The wrongdoer is not Magno but the lessor who deposited the checks. He should have returned the checks to Magno when he pulled out the equipment. To convict the accused would defeat the noble objective of the law would be tainted with materialism and opportunism.

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
Different Philosophies Underlying the Criminal Law System: 1.) Classical or Juristic Philosophy 2.) Positivist or Realistic Philosophy 3.) Eclectic or Mixed Philosophy It is important to know the different philosophies or principles that underlie the penal law system because the Philippines is now clamoring for a new penal code. Before a penal law is enacted, it is necessary for the lawmakers to specify the philosophy that will underlie it The penalty Imposed for the offense must be both acceptable to the offender and the offended party. Because if the offended party believes that the penalty should be more, he will be tempted to take the law in his hands. Vigilantes. On the other hand, if the offender believes that the penalty is too severe, the offender would just be tempted to go to the mountains and Join the rebels, instead of just facing the penalty imposed by him. Classical or Juristic Theory One that is strictly legalistic. It considers criminal law as necessary to exact retribution from the offenders who has committed a wrong against society The penalty for the crime committed is determined in a mechanical manner. Designed to make the offender suffer in the same way that he has made his victim suffer. That is why it is known as retributive or punitive. This thinking as to what criminal law should be is best ____ under the maxim an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth. The offender is made to suffer in the same manner that he has made his victim suffers. For the classical philosophers fear is the most effective way in discouraging criminality because the offenders would have to think before committing the crime knowing that he would suffer the same if he will be apprehended. Under this theory, the human element is rarely considered. Penalties are imposed in a mechanical manner, in direct proportion to the wrong done. If the offender killed the victim in the commission of the crime, he will be also be killed. He has to pay for the wrong done with his own life. He has killed so he must be killed. Death penalty is designed by the classical thinkers. If the offender blinded the right eye of his victim, his right eye will also be blinded. If the offenders run-over the victim thru reckless imprudence, he shall be also punished by running over in the same way that he did to the offended party. Positivist or Realistic Theory The positivist considers man as a moral creature. If he was in his right thinking, he will not commit a crime. A criminal is regarded as a socially sick and as such he
Page | 7

should not be punished but instead he should be treated, he should be corrected. The penalty prescribe in a penal is designed under this thinking as a reformative or corrective measure. Penalty is determined in relation to the condition of the offender The purpose of imposing a punishment for crime committed is not simply to make the offender suffer for the wrong he has done but rather to correct or reform him for his criminal _____ The positivist assail the classical philosophy in that there are crimes where the offender cannot be made to undergo the same wrong that was committed by him upon his victim. Example: In the crime of acts of lasciviousness, applying the classical maxim an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth, an offender who committed acts of lasciviousness will be also be subjected to acts of lasciviousness. An offender who committed rape will be also be raped. The positivist thinker adopted the maxim, you cannot correct a wrong by doing another wrong, this is a maxim that is still apply. Under this view, the punishment prescribe in a penal law should be given as imposed to make the offender suffer in the same way that he made the victim suffer. To positivist thinkers, they consider crimes as inevitable. Crimes are brought about by the conflicting interest of the members of society. That although man is a moral creature he is not incline with a wrong yet the environment may affect or influence him to commit a wrong even though not really decided by him. Eclectic or Mixed Theory Mixed because it combines the good features of the classical thinking with the good features of the positivist thinking. In this school of thinking, it confirms that the positivist philosophy is also not ____ because there are offenders who are not susceptible of being reformed, they are simply ____. And so the role of criminal law will not be achieved by adopting the Positivist mentality. So it is the gist of the eclectic thinkers that the Philosophy on that penal law should punished a wrongdoer must be divided according to the nature of crime committed. If the crime committed was heinous in nature, the classical mentality should be the one adopted. The purpose of imposing the penalty must be retributive or punitive. On the other hand, if the crime committed was merely economic or social, the positivist attitude in punishing

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
the offender should be adopted. The penalty should be reformative not retributive. In other words, the eclectic philosophers advocate that the penal law should deal with criminality on the basis of the nature of the crime committed whether the crime is regarded as heinous or the crime is simply brought about by the changing economy or changing society Examples where the Revised Penal Code applies the mixed or eclectic philosophy: o Intoxication of the offender is considered to mitigate his criminal liability, unless it is intentional or habitual; o The age of the offender is considered; o The woman who killed her child to conceal her dishonor in her favor is a mitigating circumstance. These different theories and Philosophies are said to underlie a criminal law system of a country in the sense that the lawmakers of the country in adopting a bill to be enacted in the law should consider the philosophy why that act or omission should be made subject of a penal legislation. In a specific case of Republic vs Judge ____, while the crime proven against the accused was qualified rape. At that time there is only one penalty for this which is the death penalty. The defending judge does not believe that the death penalty is proper since the convicted offender did not take a life in the commission of the rape. Under the classical thinking, which is the forerunner of the capital punishment, the death penalty should be imposed if the offender, in the commission of the crime, has taken a life of any other person. If there is no life that has been taken, then death penalty is not deserved. The situation is that a person who has taken a life of an innocent victim, should give his own life. He must be exterminated. In the crime of rape, the offender did not take the life of any other human being, the justification to put to death an offender is not _____. So in this case, death penalty is not proper because even under the different schools of thought, death penalty is proper only if the offender has taken a life of any other human being in the commission of the crime. This brings about the act of decriminalizing the imposition of death penalty. Eclectic Theory, the crimes are penalized on the basis whether the crimes are heinous in nature or simply economic or social in character. Our Revised Penal code is molded with the classical theory because our RPC was simply the translation of the Spanish Codigo Penal. The Spanish Codigo Penal was merely copied from the French Penal Code of 1810. The classical philosophy originated in France. The most inhuman penal law system is that of France. In les Miserables, a man who is starving stole a loaf of bread and he was sentence to hard labor for five years. The man cannot take that, so he chose to be a fugitive from justice. He became more of a criminal hiding in mountains rather that to accept the punishment. This is the Philosophy in enacting a criminal law, the lawmakers should weigh the interest of the offended party and the interest of the offender. Penalty must be balance. If the punishment is not proportionate to the wrong done, the
Page | 8

offender might choose to become a fugitive from justice. On the otherhand, if the government will impose a very light penalty, the offended party will begin to think that the government is weak to punish the offender, if that was true, he will not go to court anymore, they would apply justice in their own hands. Common Law Crimes In the Philippines, there is no common law crimes. Under the maxim of nullum crime nulla poena sine lege (there is no crime when there is no law punishing the same). So strictly we can say, that in our jurisdiction, that crimes are creatures of the law. Without the law there is no crime. No matter how wrongful an act maybe, if there is no law condemning it that a crime deserves a punishment, the act is not is not a crime. This is opposed by the so-called common law crime. A common-law crime is one which is penalized on the basis of the sentiment of the community or society in which the wrongful act was committed. If that community or society condemns the act as criminal, court of equity will hear the case and impose sanctions against the act even though there is no law punishing the same as a crime. This is true in common law countries, where there are 2 courts, courts of law and courts of equity. People in common law countries are more behave than in civil law countries. Urinating in public, even though there is no law, is a crime. In civil law country, it adopts nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege. Crimes are creatures of the law. No law, no crime no matter how wrongful the act may be. In the Philippines, we have only courts of law; we do not have courts of equity. Our courts of law should apply the laws with equity, but if there is no law on the subject, our courts cannot act. Distinctions between Mala in Se and Mala Prohibita Common mistake here is that examinees define the crimes mala in se as those crimes penalized in the Revised Penal Code. This is wrong because crimes mala in se are not limited in the crimes defined in the RPC Violations of the Revised Penal Code referred to as malum in se, which literally means, that the act is inherently evil or bad or per se wrongful. On the other hand, violations of special laws are generally referred to as malum prohibitum. Note; however, that not all violations of special laws are mala prohibita. While intentional felonies are always mala in se, it does not follow that prohibited acts done in violation of special laws are always mala prohibita. Even If the offender is punished under a special law, if the act punished is one which is inherently wrong, the same is malum in se and therefore, good faith and lack of criminal intent is a valid defense, unless it is the product of criminal negligence. Likewise, when the special laws requires that the punished act be committed knowingly and willfully, criminal intent is required to be proved before criminal liability may arise.

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
When the act penalized is not inherently wrong, it is wrong only because a law punishes the same, it is malum prohibitum For example, PD 532 punishes piracy in Philippine Waters and the special law punishing brigandage in the highways. These acts are inherently wrong and although they are punished under special laws, the acts themselves are mala in se, thus, good faith or lack of criminal intent is a defense. WON the crime is mala in se or crime mala prohibita is determined by the nature of the offense and not the law punishing it Crimes Mala in se (Bad Itself) - crimes that are inherently wrong, evil or bad. Designed to correct the crime, so good faith or lack of criminal intent is a defense. Crimes Mata prohibita (Wrong that is Prohibited) - crimes that are not inherently bad, evil or wrong but prohibited by law for public good by reason of public policy or being against the social norm. And so if one goes against the prohibition, he is penalized for it. As Iong as the act was; done voluntarily (not under duress), there is criminal liability. The law here is designed to prevent the effect of the act and not the Crime. So therefore, the good faith or lack of intent of the offender is not a defense. Distinctions between crimes punished under the RPC and crimes punished under special laws RPC The moral trait of the offender is considered. That is why liability would only arise when there is dolo or culpa in the commission of the punishable act Good faith or lack of criminal intent is a valid defense, unless the crime is the result of culpa The degree of accomplishment of the crime is taken into account in punishing the offender. Thus, there are attempted, frustrated, and consummated stages in the commission of the crime. The mitigating and aggravating circumstances are taken into account in imposing the penalty SPECIAL LAW The moral trait of the offender is not considered. It is enough that the prohibited act was voluntarily done As to degree of participation since the moral trait of the offender is considered When there is more than one offender, the degree of participation of each in the commission of the crime is taken into account in imposing the penalty. Thus, offenders are classified as principal, accomplice and accessory. The degree of participation of the offenders is not considered. All who perpetrated the prohibited act are penalized to the same extent. There is no principal or accomplice or accessory to consider.

Governing principles relating to crimes Mala inse and Mala Prohibita 1. Crimes mala inse are not confined only to crimes defined under the RPC and not all special laws or penal statutes are necessarily crimes mala prohibita. 2. The effect of plea of guilty does not apply to crimes mala prohibita. The fact that there is no graduation of penalties in special laws, except those provided under Art.70 of the RPC, Iowering of penalty by a degree is not applicable to special laws or mala prohibita. A crime malum inse and a crime malum prohibitum may not be joined in a single information being premised on two different and distinct criminal philosophy. However, in PP vs. Romeo Barros, where the dissenting opinion given by J. Regalado became the main decision, it was said that in a case of Homicide or Murder with the use of unlicensed firearms, there is only one information needed. The circumstance of the use of the unlicensed firearms must be alleged as an aggravating circumstance. There was no compounding of crimes in an information. It was however reverted back to the old principle in the case of PP vs. Daniel Quejada. No other than the CJ Davide opined and ponente of the case states that there must be; no compounding of crime in a single information and that a crime malum inse and malum prohibitum must not be Joined. Dean Ortega narrates that CJ Davide cannot accept that the learned J. Regalado, a brilliant authority in remedial law and more senior than Davide, should be more appropriate than him. 4. Proximate cause is not applicable to crimes mala prohibita but only to crimes mala inse where Intent is material.

3.

As to moral trait of the offender

As to use of good faith as defense

Good faith is not a defense

As to degree of accomplishment of the crime

The act gives rise to a crime only when it is consummated. There are no attempted or frustrated stages, unless the special law expressly penalizes the mere attempt or frustration of the crime.

As to mitigating and aggravating circumstances

The mitigating an the aggravating circumstances are not taken into account in imposing the penalty
Page | 9

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
1.) Three hijackers accosted the pilot of an airplane. They compelled the pilot to change destination, but before the same could be accomplished, the military was alerted. What was the crime committed? Grave Coercion. There is no such thing as attempted hijacking. Under special laws, the penalty is not imposed unless the act is consummated. Crimes committed against the provisions of a special law are penalized only when the pernicious effects, which such law seeks to prevent arise. 2.) A mayor awarded a concession to his daughter. She was also the highest bidder. The award was even endorsed by the municipal council as the most advantageous to the municipality. The losing bidder challenged the validity of the contract, but the trial court sustained its validity. The case goes to the Sandiganbayan and the mayor gets convicted for relation of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). He appeals alleging his defenses raised in the Sandiganbayan that he did not profit from the transaction, that the contract was advantageous to the municipality, and that he did not act with intent to gain. Rule. Judgment affirmed. The contention of the mayor that he did not profit anything from the transaction, that the contract was advantageous to the municipality, and that he did not act with intent to gain, is not a defense. The crime involved is malum probitum. In the case of People vs. Sunico, an election registrar was prosecuted for having failed to include in the voters register the name of a certain voter. There is a provision in the election law which prescribes any person from preventing or disenfranchising a voter from casting his vote. During the trial, the election registrar raised good faith as defense. The trial court convicted him saying that good faith is not a defense in violation of special laws. On appeal, it was held by the Supreme Court that disenfranchising a voter from casting his vote is not wrong because there is a provision of law declaring it as a crime, but with or without a law, that act is wrong. In other words, it is malum in se. Consequently, good faith is a defense. Since the prosecution failed to prove that the accused acted with malice, he was acquitted. Test to determine if violation of a special law is malum prohibitum or mala in se Analyze the violation: Is it wrong because there is a law prohibiting it or punishing it as such? If you remove the law, will the act still be wrong? If the wording of the law punishing the crime uses the word willful, then malice must be proven. Where malice is a factor, good faith is a defense. In violation of special law, the act constituting the crime is a prohibited act. Therefore culpa is not a basis of liability unless the special law punishes an omission. When given a problem, take note if the crime is a violation of the Revised Penal Code or a special law. Can the act be a crime malum in se and prohibitum at the same time? Yes, because WON the crime is malum in se or malum prohibitum depends on what aspect of the crime is penalized Example: 1. Issuance of a Bouncing Check may constitute estafa (malum in se) and violation of BP 22 (malum prohibitum). In Estafa, deceit and damage must be proven in order to constitute Estafa. Hence, there is no Estafa in the issuance of a check to pay an existing obligation, because debt is already there even with or without the issuance of the check. The damage or injury was not brought about by the issuance of the check. In BP 22, mere issuance of a. worthless check constitutes a violation. Malice and Injury is not necessary to be proven. The act punished there is the issuance of worthless checks because it erodes the integrity of checks as medium of commerce. It also protects the banking industry. The law therefore was made to protect public interest 2. Robbery and Anti-fencing Law. An accused charged as an accessory to the crime of robbery through benefiting from the proceeds of the crime and at the same time charged with violation of the anti-fencing law. Illegal possession of firearms malum prohibitum. Generally, you need separate information for it. However, in view of the New Firearms Law, if the firearm was used in committing the crime of homicide and murder, it is treated only as a special aggravating circumstance. Since it is an aggravating circumstance, it must be alleged in the information.

3.

However, the word "crime" in the law means a crime punished by a penal law and not just any law which penalizes the act 4. Carrying an unlicensed firearm during the firearm ban throughout the election period (not a crime under the law). Here, the offender can be prosecuted with 2 offenses: (1) illegal possession and (2) violation of the firearm ban.

If the firearm was not used in committing a crime - the offender can be prosecuted under a separate crime. In Rebellion, Coup d'etat & Sedition the use of unlicensed firearms and explosives is already absorbed in the offense. So no need to allege. Crime is simply rebellion, sedition or coup d'etat Note: In the notes of Frances Bulseco, there was something stated there about retroactivity of the New Firearms Law favoring even habitual delinquents. It was stated there that the term "habitual delinquent does not apply in special laws." Also, it was stated there that when the firearm was used to commit a light offense, the light offense shall be absorbed. CHECK THAT TOO.
Page | 10

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
According to Dean Ortega, habitual delinquency does not apply to crimes mala prohibita but only to crimes punished under the RPC as enumerated in ,the provisions; slight physical Injury, physical Injury, robbery, theft, estafa, falsification of public document. RA 8294 (illegal possession of firearms) took effect on July 6, 1997 If the accused is charged of Murder and violation of PD 1866 and during the trial, RA 8294 took effect, the accused cannot be convicted of violation of PD 1866, as amended. Neither should the possession of an unlicensed firearm be considered as an aggravating circumstance as it will be less favorable to the accused. If the .accused used "sumpak" to kill the victim, the prosecution must prove that he had no license or permit to possess the "sumpak" (People vs. Q'priano de Vera, GR No. 121462-63, June 9, 1999). Acts Punishable: 1.) "upon any person who shall unlawfully manufacture, deal in, acquire, dispose, or possess any low powered firearm, such as rimfire handgun, .38 or .32 and other firearm of similar power, part of firearm, ammunition, or machinery, Stool or instrument used or intended used in the manufacture of any firearm or ammunition: Provided, that no other crime was committed. Note: Dean Ortega said that the proviso was modified by jurisprudence to mean as unless no other crime was committed with the use unIawful firearm. It means that when the use of firearm results to another crime, the crime of Unlawful possession of firearms will not be appreciated. 2.) if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance 3.) "if the violation of this Section is in furtherance of or incident to, or connection with the crime of rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup de etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an element of the crime of rebellion, or Insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup de etat 4.) The same penalty shall be imposed upon the owner, president, manager, director or other responsible officer of any public or private firm, company, corporation or entity, who shall willfully or knowingly allow any of the firearms owned by such firm, company, corporation or entity to be used by any person or persons found guilty of violating the provisions of the preceding paragraphs or willfully or knowingly allow any of them to use unlicensed firearms or firearms without legal authority to be carried outside of their residence in the course of their employment" Note: this refers to the employer's perspective, permitting their employees to carry unlawful firearms in the performance of their functions as an employee. 7.) "Any person who shall unlawfully repack, alter, modify the composition of any lawfully manufactured explosives." Unlicensed Firearms is defined under RA 8294: 1. Firearm with expired license; and 2. Unauthorized use of licensed firearms in the commission of the crime. Implication by RA 8294 on PD 1866 PD 1866, which codified the laws on illegal possession of firearms, was amended on June 6, 1997 by RA 8264. Aside from Iowering the penalty for said crime, RA 8294 also provided that if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use shall be considered as a special aggravating circumstance. This amendment has 2 implications: 1. the use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of homicide or murder shall not be treated as a separate offense, but merely as a special aggravating circumstance; 2. as only a single crime (homicide or murder with the aggravating circumstance of illegal possession of firearm) Is committed under the law, only one penalty shall be imposed on the accused Murder under RA 8294, is used in its generic term and, hence, includes parricide (People vs. Octavio Mendoza, GR No. 109270-80, January 18, 1991.) 5.) The penalty of arresto menor shall be imposed upon any person who shall carry any licensed firearm outside his residence without legal authority therefor. 6.) Any person who shall unlawfully tamper, change, deface or erase the serial number of any firearm.

Provided no other crime is committed. It is this proviso in the amendatory law that has visited countless woes on numerous Judges and has occasioned not easily reconcilable decisions of the Supreme Court.- It is obviously a case of not only poor but also miserable draftsmanship 1.) It is clear that where there is no other offense except the unlawful possession of a firearm, the penalties provided for in the amended Section 1 shall be imposed: prision correccional in its maximum period for low-powered firearms, and prision mayor in its maximum period for high-powered firearms. Thus, in People vs. Nunez, GR No. 112092, March. 1, 2001, holds that a person may be convicted of simple illegal possession if the illegal possession is proved and the frustrated murder and murder case - involving the use of the illegal possession has not been sufficiently proved. 2.) It is also clear that where either homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use shall constitute an aggravating circumstance. It is well known that RA 8294 was initiated by Sen. Ramon Revilla as
Page | 11

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
a favor to his friend Robin Padilla who was then serving sentence for illegal possession. It was therefore meant to be more benevolent, as it is in the penalties it imposed. Sen. Revilla, however, could not see far enough and regrettably neither could other legislators and the effect at least in the case of murder is that it may send the accused to the lethal injection chamber where otherwise he would not be meted out the death penalty. In People vs. Montinola, GR No. 131866-S7, July 1, 2001, with the Chief Justice himself as ponente, illustrates the complication the law has introduced. In this case, the accused had been charged with two offenses, robbery with homicide and illegal possession of firearms. During the pendency of the case, the amended law came into force. The court then held that insofar as RA 8294 was favorable to the accused in that it spared him from separate prosecution for illegal possession, the charge for illegal possession was dropped. Insofar, however, as it increased the penalty for robbery with homicide, the aggravating circumstances of the use of unlicensed weapon could not be appreciated. Rule 110, Section 9 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure will apply. As an aggravating circumstance, the use of the unlicensed weapon must be alleged in the Information. 3.) when the violation of the law penalizing unlicensed weapon is "in furtherance of or incident to, or in connection with the Crimes of rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted coup de etat, then the violation is absorbed in the main offense 4.) What happens when an unlicensed weapon is used in the commission of other offenses other that homicide, murder, rebellion, insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup de etat?. People vs. Walpandladjaalam, GR No. 1361149-51, September 19, 2000, provides the answer in the distinctively clear language of Justice Panganiban: 'The law is clear, the accused can be convicted of simple illegal possession of firearms, provided that "no other crime was committed by the person arrested." If the intention of the law in the second paragraph were to refer only to homicide and murder, it should have expressly said so, as it did in the third paragraph. Verily, where the law does not distinguish, neither should we. In brief, where the accused commits a crime other than those enumerated with the use of an unlicensed weapon, no separate charge for such used will be brought against him. Consistent with this is the disposition by the Supreme Court decreed: "Accordingly, all pending cases for illegal possession of firearms should be dismissed if they arose from the commission of crimes other than those indicated in Section 1 of RA 8294." 5.) Clearly, the law leads to absurd results, for when the use of an unlicensed weapon attends the commission of a crime, no matter how trivial, the case of illegal possession recedes into judicial irrelevance. *(opinion of Dean Ortega before the new interpretation "with use of firearm"). The matter is definitely one that calls for a curative statute and
Page | 12

the Supreme Court has referred the matter to the congress for another look. One moral lesson can be learned: Laws passed, as favor to one's friend are poor laws. Heinous Crimes Law (RA 7659) NOTE: The provisions of the Heinous Crimes Law are NOT ABSOLUTELY ABROGATED In the light of the passage of RA 9346, the Abolition of Death Penalty law, Read the whole case of PP v. Bon [GR 166401 Oct 30, 2006], the Court discussed the effects of RA 9346 on Rape (a Heinous Crime). "It should be understood that the debarring of the death penalty through Rep. Act No. 9346 did not correspondingly declassify those crimes previous catalogued as "heinous. The amendatory effects of Rep. Act No. 9346 extend only to the application of the death penalty but not to the definition or classification of crimes. True, the penalties for heinous crimes have been downgraded under the aegis of the new law. Still, what remains extant is the recognition by law that such crimes, by their abhorrent nature constitute a special category by themselves. Accordingly, Rep. Act No. 9346 does not serve as basis for the reduction of civil indemnity and other damages that adhere to heinous crimes (People v. Bon GR 166401 Oct 30, 2006]) Definition of Heinous Crime The crimes punishable by death under this Act are heinous for being grievous, odious and hateful offenses and which, by reason of their Inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity are repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just civilized and ordered society (2nd preamble of the heinous crimes law) High Jacking and Anti-Cattle Rustling not anymore regarded as heinous crimes because they are not included in the enumeration of heinous crimes in the Heinous Crimes Law. Only those crimes as enumerated in the Heinous Crimes Law and those committed after its effectivity on December 1, 1993, can be regarded as heinous crimes. Murder before December 1, 1993 cannot be given the death penalty because under the 1987 Constitution, the death penalty was suspended until Congress determines what constitutes heinous crimes. Said law is the Heinous Crimes Law which became effective only December 1, 1993. What are the crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua to death under RA 7659? Under RA No. 7659, the following crimes are penalized by reclusion perpetua to death: 1.) Treason (Sec2) 2.) Qualified piracy (Sec 3) 3.) Parricide(Sec5)

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
4.) Murder (Sec. 6) 5.) Infanticide (Sec 7) 6.) Kidnapping and serious illegal detention if attended by any of the following four circumstances: a.) the victim was detained for more than three days b.) it was committed simulating public authority c.) Serious physical injuries were inflicted on the victim or threats were inflicted to kill him were made; d.) If the victim is a minor, except when the accused is any of his parents, female or a public officer. (Sec 8) 7.) Robbery with homicide, rape or intentional mutilation (Sec 9); 8.) Destructive arson if what is burned is: a.) one or more buildings or edifice; b.) a building where people usually gather; c.) a train, ship or airplane for public use; d.) a building or factory in the service of public utilities; e.) a building for the purpose of concealing or destroying cadence or a crime; f.) an arsenal, fireworks factory, or government museum; and g.) a storehouse or factory of explosive materials located in an inhabited place, or regardless of what is burned, if the arson is perpetrated by two or more persons (Sec 10); 9.) Rape attended by any of the following circumstances: a.) the rape is committed with a deadly weapon; b.) the rape is committed by two or more persons; c.) the rape is attempted or frustrated and committed with homicide (Sec 11); 10.) Plunder involving at least P50 M (Sec 12); 11.) Importation of prohibited drugs (Sec 13); 12.) Sale, administration, delivery, distribution, and transportation of prohibited drugs (id.); 13.) Maintenance of den, dive or resort for users prohibited drugs (id.); 14.) Manufacture of prohibited drugs (id.); 15.) Possession or use of prohibited drugs in certain specified amounts (id.); 16.) Cultivation of plants which are sources of prohibited drugs (id.); 17.) Importation of regulated drugs (id.); 18.) Manufacture of regulated drugs (id.); 19.) Sale, administration, dispensation, delivery, transportation and distribution of regulated Drug (id.); 20.) Maintenance of den, dive, or resort for users of regulated drugs (Sec. 15); 21.) Possession or use of regulated drugs in specified amounts (Sec. 16); 22.) Misappropriation, misapplication or failure to account dangerous drugs confiscated by the arresting officer (Sec 17); 23.) Planting evidence of dangerous drugs in person or immediate vicinity of another to implicate the latter (Sec. 19); and 24.) Carnapping where the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed or raped (Sec. 20) MALUM IN SE VS MALUM PROHIBITUM The legal philosophies applied when a crime is a malum prohibitum is much different from the legal philosophy applied to a crime malum in se. In a crime malum prohibitum, good faith or lack of criminal intent on the part of the offender is no defense at all. The problem is how to identify whether the crime is a malum in se or a malum prohibitum. When a lawyer is engaged to handle a criminal case, the first thing that he will have to consider is whether the crime involved is a malum in se or a malum prohibitum, because the approach that he will apply is different if the crime is a malum in se rather than a crime malum prohibitum. There are some who identified the crime malum in se as when punished by the RPC, and if punished under a penal law outside the RPC, it is regarded as malum prohibitum. The penal law outside the RPC is regarded as Special law. This is not correct. You call a penal law a special law not because it is outside the RPC, but precisely because it punishes an innocent act as a crime whereas the act is not really criminal. In other words, a penal law becomes a special law only when a crime punished thereunder is a malum prohibitum. So, when we say special law, it follows the crime thereunder is a malum prohibitum. It is special in a sense that the act is not really criminal and yet it is being punished as a crime. So do not consider that if a crime punished under the RPC is malum in se and if a crime is punished under a penal law outside the RPC is malum prohibitum. The law punishing the crime has nothing to do with the characterization of a crime as a malum in se or a malum prohibitum. It is the inherent nature of the act that determines whether it is a malum in se (bad in itself) or malum prohibitum (bad only because it is prohibited by law) The SC made an emphatic clarification in the case of People vs Macatanda, involving a crime of cattle rustling. Under PD 533, in that case, the overseer of the cattle ranch was ____, luckily he did not die, hence there is a crime of frustrated murder. Because frustrated murder is a felony under the RPC while cattle rustling is a crime under PD 533, the prosecutor
Page | 13

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
concludes that the 2 crimes cannot be allege in the same information. You cannot complex a crime which is malum in se with a crime malum prohibitum. When one crime is a necessary means to commit another crime, you can only complex if both are punished in the Revised penal code, if one is punished under a special law and the other is punished in the RPC, then both must be a subject of separate information because in the prosecution of the crime, both have different philosophies will be applied like lack of criminal intent, good faith. This becomes relevant if the crime was malum in se. but if the crime is malum prohibitum, this is immaterial because is a crime is a malum prohibitum, good faith and lack of criminal intent is not a defense at all. It is enough that there is a law prohibiting the doing of the act, whatever the intention of the one who violated the prohibition is immaterial. The law is prohibiting the act for public good or public welfare. Anyone who violates the prohibition will do an act detrimental to public good or public welfare; penalty will authomatically attaches to it. The only defense to a crime malum prohibitum was that the accused did not act voluntarily, that he committed a violation of the prohibition out of duress. But for as long as it was his voluntary act whatever be the reason or motive is immaterial. As long as the offender did it willingly and voluntarily But it were a crime malum in se, the wrongdoer will incur criminal liability only when he acted with criminal intent. The maxim applicable here is the act cannot be criminal if the mind is not criminal. An offender who was insane at the time he committed the killing, whether homicide or murder, cannot be made liable for the crime of homicide or murder because he acted without criminal intent, he is insane. Going back to the case of People vs macantanda, the SC, made an observation that cattle rustling is only a specie of theft of large cattle under Art. 310 of the RPC. And theft of large cattle is qualified theft under the RPC which is by nature wrong, evil or bad. The fact that it is punished under the decree does not make it a malum prohibitum because the act is inherently or by nature bad or evil and therefore generally condemned. Since man is regarded in law as a moral creature, that he is inclined to do what is legitimate not that is illegal, the law does not conclude that if he done a wrong, he is regarded as criminally liable, that is, if the wrong resulted without criminal intent, he will only be civilly liable. The resulting wrong will only be regarded as a civil injury or what is known under our civil law as quasi-delict or in common law, it is know as a tort. So without criminal intent, it will not go into the RPC as a felony. The reason why the violations of the RPC are mala in se, is found in article 3 of the RPC. Mala prohibita: an act which is not really bad, but is prohibited by law for public good or public welfare. The moral trait of the offender is not considered, it is enough that he violated or went against the prohibition voluntarily and not brought about by duress. In the crime of mala prohibita, the only defense was the offender acted under duress. He was compelled by irresistible force. The only query is: is there a law prohibiting the act which the accused has done. If the answer is Yes, the next question is: did the accused acted voluntarily?, if the answer is yes, whether he acted in good faith or acted out of a valid defense, is immaterial. The only defense is that he go against the
Page | 14

prohibition because he was force to do it, or he acted under duress. Sample problem: the accused was prosecuted for violation of BP 22, he issued a check that bounced. His defense was, the check he issued to the complainant was drawn against the account where he deposited the check ____ by ___ the amount of which is much more than the amount he issued in the complainant. That if the check did not bounced, the check he issued to the complainant would not have bounced. Acquit or convict? Why? In this case, the accused acted in good faith. He did not foresee that the check will bounce. But that kind of defense is not acceptable because violation of BP 222 is regarded as malum prohibitum. Good faith is not a defense. Do not think that the term mala in se refers to crimes under the RPC and that if the crime is punished under penal laws outside the RPC, the crime is mala prohibited, THAT IS NOT CORRECT. Whether the crime is a malum in se or malum prohibitum is not determined by the law punishing the same. This is determined by the nature of the act or omission penalize as a crime. If the act punished as a crime is by nature evil, wrong or bad, the crime is malum in se. but if the act is by its nature, not really wrong, but prohibited for public good, health or welfare, it is a malum prohibitum. One which is bad because there is a prohibition against the doing of the act. If the act was a malum prohibitum, anyone who violates the act will incur criminal liability. Whether he acted in good faith or without criminal intent is immaterial, the only defense is that he acted under duress, meaning involuntary so he cannot be held criminally liable. FELONY, OFFENSE, MISDEMEANOR AND CRIME Felony, a crime under the Revised Penal Code is referred to as felony. Do not use this term in reference to a violation of special law. Offense, a crime punished under a special law is called as statutory offense, Misdemeanor, A minor infraction of the law, such as violation of an ordinance, is referred to as a misdemeanor. Crime, Whether the wrongdoing is punished under the Revised Penal Code or under a special law, the generic word crime can be used
Article 2. Application of its provisions. - Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who: 1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship; 2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands; 3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number; 4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; or 5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
SCOPE OF APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE The provision In Article 2 embraces two scopes of applications: Intraterritorial refers to the application of the Revised Penal Code within the Philippine territory Extraterritorial - refers to the application of the revised penal code outside Philippine territory Exceptions to the Extraterritorial application of criminal Law: a. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship; b. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippines or obligations and securities; c. Introduction of related acts regarding counterfeit obligations and securities; d. Public officers or employees commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; e. Any person who commits any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations as enumerated in Title One of Book Two of the RPC. Intraterritorial application In the intraterritorial application of the Revised Penal Code, Article 1 makes it clear that it does not refer only to Philippine archipelago but it also includes the atmosphere, interior waters and maritime zone. So whenever you use the word territory do not limit this to land area only As far as jurisdiction or application of the Revised Penal Code over crimes committed on Maritime zone interior waters, the Archipelagic Rule shall be observed. So the three-mile limit on our shoreline has been modified by the rule. Any crime committed in interior waters comprising the Philippine archipelago be subject to our laws although committed on board aforesaid merchant vessel. A vessel is considered a Philippine ship only when it is registered in accordance with Philippine laws. Under international law as long as such vessel is not within the territorial waters of a foreign country. Philippine laws shall govern. Extraterritorial application Extraterritorial application of the Revised Penal Code on crime committed on board Philippine ship or airship refers only to a situation where the Philippine ship or airship is not within the territorial waters or atmosphere of a foreign country. Otherwise, it is the foreign countrys criminal law will apply However, there are two situations where the foreign country may not apply its criminal law even if a crime was committed on board a vessel within its territorial waters and these are: (1) When the crime is committed in a war vessel of a foreign country, because war vessels are part of the sovereignty of the country to whose naval force they belong:
Page | 15

(2)

When the foreign country in whose territorial waters the crime was committed adapts the French Rule, which applies only to merchant vessels, except when the crime, committed affects the national security or public order of such foreign country.

The French Rule The French Rule provides that the nationality of the vessel follows the flag which the vessel flies, unless the crime committed endangers the national security of a foreign country where the vessel is within jurisdiction in which case such foreign country will never lose jurisdiction over such vessel. The American or Anglo-Saxon Rule This rule strictly enforces the territoriality of criminal law. The law of the foreign country where a foreign vessel is within its jurisdiction is strictly applied, except if the crime affects only the internal management of the vessel in which case it is subject to the penal law of the country where it is registered. Both the rules apply only to a foreign merchant vessel if a crime was committed aboard that vessel while it was in the territorial waters of another country. If that vessel is in the high seas or open seas, there is no occasion to apply the two rules. If it is not within the jurisdiction of any country, these rules will not apply. Article 2 provides for the instances where the RPC will be applied extra-territoriality. So under 2 there are 2 kinds of applications: Intra-territorial and Extra-territorial. The extra-territorial application makes up the exception to the characteristic application of territoriality of Philippine criminal law. One of the exceptions to the rule on intra-territoriality application of Penal law is when a crime is committed on board of Philippine Ship. This being an exception, the Philippine ship must be in the high seas. If the Philippine ship is in the Philippine territory or in the territory of another foreign country, the exception does not apply because the criminal law of that other country will be the one to apply. If the Philippine ship is in the territorial waters of another country, what will be applied is the international law rule, the so-called French Rule or English Rule, as to which country will assume jurisdiction over the crime committed. The term Philippine ship should be understood to refer to a vessel registered and licensed in the Philippines in accordance with Philippine laws. It is not the citizenship of the owners of the vessel that determines whether the vessel is Philippine ship or not. The nationality of the vessel is determined by the flag of the country which the vessel flies. Under the convention of the sea, the vessel travelling international waters should fly the flag of the country where that vessel is registered and licensed. A vessel was owned 100% by a Filipino citizen, but the vessel was registered in Panama. A crime was committed on board

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
while in the high seas. Such vessel entered Philippine Port. May the Philippine court assume jurisdiction over the crime? No, because the ship is not a Philippine ship. Even if the ship is owned 100% by a citizen of the Philippines, it is not a Philippine Ship. It is not the ownership of the vessel that controls; it is place or country where the vessel is registered or licensed. Article 2. Application of its provisions. X X X X X 1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship; vessel is regarded, under the French Rule, as an extension of the country whose flag the vessel flies. If the crime committed however is against the national security and public order of that foreign country, as a measure of self-defense, it will assume jurisdiction over the crime committed. This is what known as the RENVOI doctrine If the foreign country in whose territorial waters the Philippine Ship was, when a crime is committed on board of that vessel, follows the English Rule. This rule adheres strictly to the territorial characteristic of the penal law violated. So if that country where the Philippine ship was, at the time when the crime was committed, follows the English Rule, it will assume jurisdiction because it involves a violation of its laws. However, even in this rule, an exception is recognized. And that refers to a case where crime committed on board a Philippine ship in the territorial waters of another country, which adheres to the English rule, will be waived by that country if the crime involved is in the internal management of the vessel. And that is because, as far as the internal management of the vessel is concerned, this is defined in the law of the country where the vessel is registered. So if the vessel was registered in the Philippines, the rules on management that vessel is defined and stated in the Philippine laws governing the same. Supposing the vessel is not registered at all? The vessel went from Philippine port to Borneo. On their way back, the crew killed the merchant and dump the body into the water. May Philippine Court assume jurisdiction over the crime committed? This was the case in 1959 ruling, People vs __?__. In that case, the SC ruled Philippine court have no jurisdiction. That was true at that time because, the rules of criminal procedure provides that in case of crimes committed during the voyage of a vessel registered and licensed in accordance with Philippine laws shall be filed in this particular courts. In other words, the rules of criminal procedure BACK THEN expressly requires such a precedent for Philippine courts to assume jurisdiction over a crime committed on a vessel in the course of its voyage, only if that vessel is registered and licensed in accordance with Philippine laws. But in that case of Akira, such vessel was never registered in any country at all. So the SC, that time, applying that rule, as regard with the institution of the criminal action, ruled that Philippine Courts has no jurisdiction over the crime committed. Under the current revised rules on criminal procedure, in section 15 of Rule 110 regarding a crime committed in the course of the voyage of a vessel, that requirement that the vessel must be registered and licensed in accordance with Philippine laws is no longer required. So the predicate of the ruling in People vs __?__ no longer applies to a situation on the vessel that is not registered and a crime is committed on board that vessel. Instead the current rule of criminal procedure makes reference to the assumption of jurisdiction of Philippine courts in
Page | 16

One of the exceptions where Philippine law may be applied is where a crime that is committed on board a Philippine ship. To qualify as Philippine Ship, the reference is not to the ownership of the vessel. The reference is as to whether the vessel is registered and licensed under Philippine law. So even if the vessel is 100% owned by a Filipino Citizen, if it was registered in a foreign country, that vessel is not a Philippine ship. Therefore, the exceptional situation does not operate. This exception should be understood as operational only if the Philippine Ship was in the High seas or international waters. If the Philippine Ship was already in the territorial waters of another country, this exception ceases to operate. Instead, that situation where that Philippine ship is in the territorial waters of another country, shall be determined by the governing international law rule. There are 2 rules of international law governing foreign merchant vessels while a crime is committed within the territorial waters of foreign country French Rule English Rule These rules must be related to this exception where Philippine criminal law will apply because the crime is committed on board a Philippine ship, but as discussed the same is true only if the Philippine ship is in the high seas when the crime is committed. Otherwise, if it is already within the territorial waters of another country, it will depend on whether that foreign country follows the French rule or English rule. French Rule respects the nationality of the vessel. The nationality of the vessel is determined by the flag of the country where the vessel was registered. So, if it is a Philippine ship, the flag that it will fly is a Philippine flag. The nationality of the vessel is identified by the flag that the vessel flies. If the Philippine ship was within the territorial waters of a foreign country and that foreign country follows the French rule, as long as the crime committed on board the Philippine Ship and does not affect the national security and the public order of that foreign country, that country will respect the jurisdiction of Philippine authorities over the crime committed on a Philippine ship. The

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
accordance with international law. generally accepted principles of Among the five exceptions where the RPC also be given extraterritorial application refers to public officers in the service of the Philippine government assigned to a foreign country, as a representative of the Philippine government. Should a crime be committed by such public officer in the performance of his official functions, he will also be governed by the provision of the RPC. The penal laws of the country where he was assigned will not be applied to him, if the crime committed was in respect of the official functions that he had as a representative of the Philippine government. Similarly, if a public officer of a foreign country is assigned to the Philippines and he figured in a crime here, same treatment will be accorded to him. For instance, in the Philippines, we have this international organization known as Asian Development Bank, the officials of these are representative of their countries part of those maintaining this bank for Asian businessman in the region. If the foreign public officer committed a crime and it is in respect of his official duties, he will enjoy also immunity even though he is not a member of the diplomatic core of the country which he represents. This immunity is what is called functional immunity. Every public officer of a foreign country representing the interest of their country enjoys functional immunity. This contemplate that if they figured in a criminal offense under the penal law of the country where they are assigned, if their involvement is in respect of the exercise of their function, they are subject to international immunity. But if they committed a crime or involved in a crime which has nothing to do with their official functions then, they will be held criminally liable in the country where they are assigned. In this respect, SC made rule in a case where a Filipino citizen working in Asian development bank, the Filipino employee and her immediate foreign employer started lambasting her, uttering obnoxious words. She filed a case of slander before the prosecutors office. The foreign employer of Asian Development bank maintained that Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over him. SC pointed out that the immunity he enjoined is only functional immunity. Any crime committed by him in his private capacity will render him liable just like any citizen or transient in the Philippines. The SC said that slander does not give rise to functional immunity because this is never in respect to the official function of this officer of the international organization.
Article Article 2. Application of its provisions. X X X X X 5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.

What is the relevant principle of international law in this situation? The relevant principle of international law if the vessel is not registered at all in any country is that such vessel does not belong to the convention of vessels flying the different waters of the world, that vessel is regarded as a pirate vessel. So it has become common, that when this vessel which is not registered in any country at all, sails in the high seas of the world, they fly the flag that will reflect skull and bones. They do not belong to any country. And the crime committed on those on board a vessel is what is considered also as a crime of piracy. Piracy is a crime against humanity in general. It is a crime against the family of nations. Wherever the offender may be found because they took refuge in the territory of another country where the piracy is not committed, they can be arrested by the authorities in that country where they took refuge and they may be prosecuted there because piracy knows no jurisdiction. When public officers or employees commit an offense in the exercise of their functions The most common subject of bar problems in Article 2 is paragraph 4: While being public officers or employees, [they] should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions:" General Rule: the Revised Penal Code governs only when the crime committed pertains to the exercise of the public officials functions those having to do with the discharge of their duties in a foreign country. The functions contemplated are those, which are, under the law, to be performed by the public. Officer in the foreign service of the Philippine government in a foreign country. Exception: the revised penal code governs if the crime was committed within the Philippine embassy or within the embassy grounds in a foreign country. This is because embassy grounds are considered an extension of sovereignty Paragraph 5 of Article 2, use the phrase "as defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code." This is a very important part of the exception, because Title I of Book 2 (crimes against national security) does not include rebellion. So if acts of rebellion were perpetrated by Filipinos who were in a foreign country, you cannot give territorial application to the Revised Penal Code, because Title I of Book 2 does not include rebellion.
Article 2. Application of its provisions. X X X X X 4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; or

In the exceptions in the application of the Penal code within Philippine territory, reference is made to crime against national security and the law of nations as define in Title I, Book 2 of the RPC. Rebellion, under RPC, is not yet classified under this title (crimes against national security or the laws of nation).

Page | 17

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
In case of rebellion, the RPC cannot be given extra-territorial application because under the RPC, rebellion is regarded as a crime only against public order.
Article 3. Definition. - Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos). Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa). There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent; and there is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.

If any of these is absent, there is no dolo. If there is no dolo, there could be no intentional felony. Complete definition of Culpa is the criminal negligence as a result from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill, coupled with freedom of action and sufficient intelligence The requisites are: 1. Criminal negligence 2. Freedom of action 3. Sufficient intelligence Between dolo and culpa, the distinction lies on the criminal intent and criminal negligence. If any of these requisites is absent, there can be no dolo nor culpa. When there is no dolo or culpa, a felony cannot arise. You should know by now, that there are persons exempt from criminal liability except when they have acted with the understanding of what is right from what is wrong, otherwise meant as discernment. When a minor genius killed his mother, he may not be held criminally liable when it is proven that he acted without Discernment. What is controlling is not his intellect but the understanding to know what is right from wrong. The law regards a minor to be without sufficient intelligence or understanding what is right from wrong. So, mere intelligence is not enough, what is needed is sufficient intelligence. Case of Guerrero vs. J. Almodavar. Voluntariness in criminal law The word voluntariness in criminal law does not mean acting in one's own volition. In criminal law, voluntariness comprehends the concurrence of freedom of action, intelligence and the fact that the act was intentional. In culpable felonies, there is no voluntariness if any of the following is lacking: freedom, intelligence or imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill. Without voluntariness, there can be no dolo or culpa, hence, there is no felony. May a crime be committed without criminal Intent? Yes, Criminal intent is not necessary in these cases: 1. When the crime is the product of culpa or negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill; 2. When the crime is a prohibited act under a special law or what is called malum prohibitum. Criminal Intent Criminal Intent is not deceit Do not use deceit in translating dolo, because the nearest translation is deliberate intent In criminal law, Intent is categorized into two: 1. General criminal intent; and 2. Specific criminal intent General criminal intent is presumed from the mere doing of a wrong act. This does not require proof. The burden is upon the wrongdoer to prove that he acted without such criminal intent

HOW A FELONY MAY ARISE Punishable by the Revised Penal Code The term felony is limited only to violations of the Revised Penal code. When the crime is punishable under a special law you do not refer to this as a felony. So whenever you encounter the term felony, it is to be understood as referring to crimes under the Revised Penal Code. This is Important because, there are certain provisions in the Revised Penal Code where the term felony" Is used, which means that the provision is not extended, to crimes under special laws. A specific instance is found in Article 160 - quasi-Recidivism, which reads: A person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve sentence or while serving the same, shall be punished under, the maximum period of the penalty. Note that the word felony" is used. An act or omission To be considered as a felony there must be an act or omission; a mere imagination no matter how wrong does not amount to a felony. An act refers to any kind of body movement that produces change in the outside world. For example, if A, a passenger in a jeepney seated in front of a lady, started putting out his tongue suggesting lewdness, that is already an act in contemplation of criminal law. He cannot claim that there was no crime committed. Dolo or culpa However, it does not mean that if an act or omission is punished under the Revised Penal Code, a felony is already committed. To be considered a felony it must also be done with dolo or culpa. Under Article 3, there is dolo when there is deceit. This is no longer true. At the time the Revised Penal Code was codified, the term nearest to dolo was deceit However, deceit means fraud, and this is not the meaning of dolo. Complete definition of Dolo is deliberate intent otherwise referred to criminal intent, and must he coupled with freedom of action and sufficient intelligence on the part of the offender as to the act done by him. The term has three requisites: 1. Criminal intent 2. Freedom of action; and 3. Sufficient intelligence
Page | 18

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
General Criminal intent is presumed from the doing of any wrongful act. This is one of the presumptions of law under the rules of evidence. Specific criminal intent is not presumed because it is an ingredient or element of a crime, like intent to kill in the crimes of attempted or frustrated homicide/parricide/murder. The prosecution has the burden of proving the same. Specific Criminal Intent, however, is an element of a particular crime committed such as intent to gain the crimes of theft or robbery, intent to kill, in crimes of taking a human life. This being an element of a particular felony, to which it is specific, requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, otherwise the particular crime is not committed. Distinction between Intent and discernment INTENT Intent is the determination to do a certain thing, an aim or purpose of the mind It is the design to resolve or determination by which a person acts. DISCERNMENT On the other hand, discernment is the mental capacity to tell right from wrong it relates to the moral significance that a person ascribes to his act and relates to the intelligence as an element of dolo. a husband came home and found his wife in a pleasant conversation with a former suitor. Thereupon, he got a knife. The moving force is jealousy. The intent is the resort to the knife, so that means he is desirous to kill the former suitor. Even if the offender states that he had no reason to kill the victim, this is not criminal intent Criminal intent is the means resorted to by him that brought about the killing. If we equate intent as a state of mind, many would escape criminal liability. Mens rea - The technical term mens rea is sometimes referred to in common parlance as the gravamen of the offense. To a layman, that is what you call the bullseye of the crime. This term is used synonymously with criminal or deliberate intent, but that is not exactly correct. Mens rea of the crime depends upon the elements of the crime. You can only detect the mens rea of a crime by knowing the particular crime committed. Without reference to a particular crime, this term is meaningless. For example, in theft, the mens rea is the taking of the property of another with intent to gain. In falsification, the mens rea is the effecting of the forgery with intent to pervert the truth. It is not merely writing something that is not true; the intent to pervert the truth must follow the performance of the act. In criminal law, we sometimes have to consider the crime on the basis of intent. For example, attempted or frustrated homicide is distinguished from physical injuries only by the intent to kill. Attempted rape is distinguished from acts of lasciviousness by the intent to have sexual intercourse. In robbery, the mens rea is the taking of the property of another coupled with the employment of intimidation or violence upon persons or things; remove the employment of force or intimidation and it is not robbery anymore. Mistake of fact - When an offender acted out of a misapprehension of fact, it cannot be said that he acted with criminal Intent. Do not speak of negligence In acts constituting mistake of fact. Never be misled, even when there seems to be an application of negligence. When the offender acted out of a mistake of fact, criminal intent is negated, so do not presume that the act was done with criminal intent This is absolutory if crime involved dolo. Requisites of Mistake of fact 1. the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be; 2. The intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful. Mistake of fact would be relevant only when the felony would have been intentional or through dolo but not when the felony is a result of culpa. When the felony is a product of culpa, do not discuss mistake of fact. When the felonious act is the product of dolo and the accused claimed to have acted out of mistake of fact, there should be no culpa in determining the real facts, otherwise, he is still criminally liable, although he acted out of a mistake of fact. Mistake of fact is only a defense in intentional felony but never in culpable felony A man returning from work gets inside his home and reached at the Master's bedroom saw two persons underneath a blanket having sex. Having thought that It was his wife with another man, the man
Page | 19

Distinction between intent and motive Intent is demonstrated by the use of a particular means to bring about a desired result. - It is not a state of mind or a reason for committing a crime. On the other hand, motive implies motion. It is the moving power which impels one to do an act. When there is motive in the commission of a crime, it always comes before the intent. But a crime may be committed without motive. Also in respect with criminal intent, we to be familiarize the distinction between motive and intent. Although generally, motive is not an element of a felony and therefore regarded as unnecessary, yet the SC already ruled that when the act committed admits of variant crimes, motive becomes decisive as to what is the correct crime committed. An illustration was made in the case of a killing of a judge, if the motive of the offender in killing the judge was to get even with him because he had decided a case against the offender, the crime of direct assault will attend the commission of the killing. But if the motive of the offender is only to steal from the judge, the killing has nothing to do with the official function of the judge, then the crime is only for the killing without direct assault. If the crime is intentional, it cannot be committed without intent. Intent is manifested by the instrument used by the offender. The specific criminal intent becomes material if the crime to be distinguished from the attempted or frustrated stage. For example,

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
took his gun, shoots and kilted the persons in his bed. He was shocked when behind him was his wife. The wife shouts those were my sister and her husband! I offered to them our bed to make them more comfortable." In this case, is there a mistake of fact or mistake in personae? This is a case of error in personae. There is a criminal intent on the part of the man. In mistake of fact, the intent is lawful and the act would have been lawful if the fact had been as the accused believed them to be. What was mistaken here is the identity of the persons intended to be killed. The same is not a mistake of fact; it is a mistake in identity of the woman involved in the sexual intercourse. The offender mistook the woman to be his wife committing adultery. If that was not his frame of mind and he knew that the woman was not his wife, he would not have reacted spuriously. Mistake in identity is never absolutory. It is only mistake of fact which is absolutory because if we assume the fact to be true as what the offender believe them to be, the act of the offender would be justified. Real concept of culpa Under Article 3, it is clear that culpa is just a modality by which a felony may be committed. A felony may be committed or incurred through dolo or culpa. Culpa is just a means by which a felony may result. In Article 365, you have criminal negligence as an omission which the article definitely or specifically penalized. The concept of criminal negligence is the inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform an act if the danger impending from that situation is clearly manifest, you have a case of reckless imprudence. But if the danger that would result from such imprudence is not clear, not manifest nor immediate you have only a case of simple negligence. Because of Art. 365, one might think that criminal negligence is the one being punished. That is why a question is created that criminal negligence is the crime in itself. In People v. Faller, it was stated indirectly that criminal negligence or culpa is just a mode of incurring criminal liability. In this case, the accused was charged with malicious mischief. Malicious mischief is an intentional negligence under Article 327 of the Revised Penal Code. The provision expressly requires that there be a deliberate damaging of property of another, which does not constitute destructive arson. You do not have malicious mischief through simple negligence or reckless imprudence because it requires deliberateness. Faller was charged with malicious mischief, but was convicted of damage to property through reckless imprudence. The Supreme Court pointed out that although the allegation in the information charged the accused with an intentional felony, yet the words feloniously and unlawfully, which are standard language in an information, covers not only dolo but also culpa because culpa is just a mode of committing a felony.
Page | 20

In Quezon v. Justice of the Peace, Justice J.B.L Reyes dissented and claimed that criminal negligence is a quasi-offense, and the correct designation should not be homicide through reckless imprudence, but reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The view of Justice Reyes is sound, but the problem is Article 3, which states that culpa is just a mode by which a felony may result. Sufficient intelligence on the part of the offender If the offender is a minor and the liability or non-liability depends on discernment, even though the crime charged was the product of culpa or reckless imprudence, the prosecutor must proved that the accused acted with discernment in order to pinned criminal liability on him. It does not mean that the prosecutor should prove discernment only if the felony charged was an intentional felony or the product of dolo. The SC pointed out that both in dolus and in culpa, it is required that the offender must be possessed with sufficient intelligence in the commission of the crime. So discernment is not an attribute of criminal intent, it is an attribute of sufficient intelligence on the part of the accused and this is an ingredient of the voluntariness of the offender whether it is a product or dolo or culpa; whether the crime charged is an intentional felony or culpable felony. It behooves upon the prosecutor to establish that the crime was committed with voluntariness or discernment

CRIMINAL LIABILITY A felony is an act or omission punishable by law particularly the Revised Penal Code, It follows that whoever commits a felony Incurs criminal liability. In paragraph 1 of Article 4, the law uses the word "felony", that whoever commits a felony incurs criminal liability, A felony may arise not only when it is Intended, but also when it is the product of criminal negligence. What makes paragraph 1 of Article 4 confusing is the addition of the qualifier "although the wrongful act be different from what he intended."

A man thought of committing suicide and went on top of a tall building. He jumped, landing on somebody else, who died instantly. Is he criminally liable? Yes. A felony may result not only from dolo but also from culpa. If that fellow who was committing suicide acted negligently, he will be liable for criminal negligence resulting in the death of another. A had been courting X for .the last five years. X told A, "Let us Just be friends. I want a lawyer for a husband and I have already found somebody whom I agreed to marry. Anyway, there are still a lot of ladies around; you will still have your chance with another lady." A, trying to show that he is a sport, went down from the house of X, went inside his car, and stepped on the accelerator to the limit, closed his eyes, started the vehicle. The vehicle zoomed, running over all the pedestrians on the street. At the end, the car stopped at the fence. He was taken to the hospital, and he survived. Can he be held

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
criminally liable for all those innocent people that he ran over, claiming that he was committing suicide? He will be criminally liable, not for an intentional felony, but for culpable felony. This is so because, in paragraph 1 of Article 4, the term used is "felony", and that term covers both dolo and culpa. A pregnant woman thought of killing herself by climbing up a tall building and jumped down below. Instead of falling in the pavement, she fell on the owner of the building. An abortion resulted. Is she liable for an unintentional abortion? If not, what possible crime may be committed? The relevant matter is whether the pregnant woman could commit unintentional abortion upon herself. The answer is no, because the way the law defines unintentional abortion, it requires physical violence coming from a third party. When a pregnant woman does an act that would bring about abortion, it is always intentional. Unintentional abortion can-only result when a third person employs physical violence upon a pregnant woman resulting to an unintended abortion. In one case, a pregnant woman and man quarreled. The man could no longer bear the shouting of the woman, so he got his firearm and poked it into the mouth of the woman. The woman became hysterical, so she ran as fast as she could, which resulted in an abortion. The man was prosecuted for unintentional abortion. It was held that an unintentional abortion was not committed. However, drawing a weapon in the height of a quarrel is a crime of other light threats under Article 285. An unintentional abortion can only be committed out of physical violence, not from mere threat The violation of the RPC are called Felonies and it will bring about criminal liability only once the act or omission was committed or incurred with dolo or in culpa. The terms dolo and culpa involves three ingredients. If these 3 ingredients do not concur, there is no dolo or culpa. This will tell you whether the crime involve is a malum in se or malum prohibitum. In malum prohibitum, an example is smoking. The violation is incurred only if the act that was prohibited was consummated. The evil sought to be avoided will only arise if the act was actually carried out. So this crime cannot be committed in the attempted or frustrated stages. When a person puts a cigarette in his lips without lighting the cigarette, the evil sought to be avoid for punishing smoking does not arise, but if he already lighted the cigarette and start puffing or blows a smoke, the evil which will bring about secondary smoke to the other members of society arises and that is the ____ sought to be avoided and that is the reason for prohibiting smoking in those places which are air conditioned because of the spread of the viral diseases. If the fellow is smoking in his own house and even if he smoke the whole day, there is no violation committed. About the considerably malum prohibitum, the use unlicensed firearm. The violation is considerably malum prohibitum. Under the new firearms law, RA 8294, offenders may be made liable for illegal possession of firearms only if no other crime was
Page | 21

committed by him on the same occasion that he was apprehended with the unlicensed firearm. Otherwise if he has committed some other crimes when he was on that occasion apprehended for an unlicensed firearm, his liability is for the other crime committed and not for illegal possession of firearms. However, if the unlicensed firearm was used in a homicide or murder, the use of unlicensed firearm can be treated as a generic aggravating circumstance; it will bring about an aggravated penalty. The nature of the crime remains the same, homicide or murder. Moreover, if the crime was rebellion, attempted coup dtat or sedition, the use of the unlicensed firearm is absorbed in the crime, this means to say, the use of the unlicensed firearm is not considered at all. It is simply part of the crime. This principle, under the new firearms law, was earlier construed to refer to a situation where the unlicensed firearms was used in the commission of the other crime, so that the offender will be punished for the other crime and not for the use of unlicensed firearms because the use of the unlicensed firearm becomes an instrument of the other crime. In other words, in order for the offender to be free from prosecution for illegal possession of firearms, the firearms must have been used in the commission of some other crime. Like when the offender committed a murder and the use of the firearm is not a subject of another prosecution anymore, the offender will only be prosecuted for murder. The implication, however, is different if the firearm was not used in the commission of the other crime, then there will be 2 prosecution. One for the illegal possession of firearm and another for the other crime (robbery). BUT SUCH IMPLICATION WAS RECENTLY DECLARED BY THE SC, WRONG. Even if the unlicensed firearm was not used to commit another crime, as long as, the unlicensed was seized on the same occasion that the offender was committed some other crime other than homicide, murder, rebellion, attempted coup dtat or sedition, the used of the unlicensed firearm is not been taken into account anymore. As long as there is another crime committed by the same offender. The explanation given by the SC is that the legislative journal reflecting the discussion among the senators while this law was still in the form of a bill subject of deliberation by the senate, the intention was really to make the offender liable for illegal possession or illegal use of an unlicensed firearm, if the firearm was used in the commission of any other crime. In other words, the used of unlicensed firearm is absorbed by the crime. However, the SC observed, while the bill has finally approved in the deliberation of the Senate, was finalized and the bill was forwarded to malacanang for signature by the president, that provision which require that the unlicensed firearm must be used in the commission of the other crime so that there will be an absorption, mysteriously disappeared from the bill. So, that when the bill was finally signed into a law, it does not contain that requirement anymore, hence the SC ruled, whether the unlicensed firearm was used in the commission of any other crime or not, as long as it was seized on the occasion where the offender was found committing another crime, he cannot be prosecuted any further for illegal possession of firearms. Between the bill and the law signed by the president, the reference should be on what the law provides and not what the bill provides. Hence, under the law, there is no such requirement that the unlicensed firearm must be used in the

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
commission of the other crime for which the accused shall be prosecuted. In a raid conducted by the Anti-narcotic team, there was a report about several men having a pot session. So the team raided the place, the participants in the pot session was surprised and they were all apprehended. The members of the team started searching the room for possible drugs. In one of the drawers in a table there, they found a .45 caliber pistol which turned out to be unlicensed. But because it has no relevance to the conduct of the illegal activity, another information for illegal possession of firearms was filed against the owner of the place. On the appeal the SC ruled that it cannot be a subject of a separate prosecution anymore, the new firearms law does not make any exception whether the unlicensed firearm was used in the commission of a crime or not. Between the law and the bill signed by the president, the law will prevail.
Art. 4. Criminal liability. Criminal liability shall be incurred: 1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. 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.

wound in the stomach is only superficial; only that it is a bleeder, but the doctor could no longer save him because B's throat was already cut. Eventually, B died. A was prosecuted for manslaughter. The Supreme Court rationalized that what made B cut his throat in the absence of evidence that he wanted to commit suicide is the belief that sooner or later, he would die out of the wound inflicted by A because of that belief he decided to shorten the agony by cutting his throat That belief would not be engendered in his mind were it not because of, the profuse bleeding from his wound. Now, that profusely bleeding would not have been there, were it not for the wound inflicted by A. As a result, A was convicted for manslaughter. In criminal law, as long as the act of the accused contributed to the death of the victim, even if the victim is about to die, he will be liable for the felonious act of putting the death that victim. In one decision of the SC held that the most precious moment in a mans life that of losing seconds when he is about to die. So when you robbed him of that, you should be liable for his death. Even if a person is already dying, if one suffocates him to end up his agony, one will be liable for murder, when you put him to death, in a situation where he is utterly defenseless. No Need to Physically Touch the Offended This case illustrates that proximate cause does not require that the offender needs to actually touch the body of the offended party. It is enough that the offender generated in the mind of the offended party the belief that made him risk himself. If a person shouted fire, and because of that a moviegoer jumped into the fire escape and died the person who shouted fire when there is no fire is criminally liable for the death of that person. In a case where a wife had to go out to the cold to escape a brutal husband and because of that she was exposed to the element and caught pneumonia, the husband was made criminally liable for the death of the wife. Even though the attending physician may have been negligent and the negligence brought about the death of the offending party in other words, if the treatment was not negligent, the offended party would have survived is no defense at all, because without the wound inflicted by the offender, there would have been no occasion for a medical treatment. Even if the wound was called slight but because of the careless treatment, it was aggravated, the offender is liable for the death of the victim not only of the slight physical injuries. Reason - without the injury being inflicted, there would have been no need for any medical treatment. The contention that the medical treatment proved to be careless or negligent is not enough to relieve the offender of the liability for the inflicting injuries. When a person inflicted wound upon another, and his victim upon coming home got some leaves, pounded them
Page | 22

PROXIMATE CAUSE Article 4 paragraph 1 presupposes that the act done is the proximate cause of the resulting felony. It must be direct, natural, and logical consequence of the felonious act. Proximate cause is that cause which sets into motion other causes and which unbroken by any efficient supervening cause produces a felony without which such felony could not have resulted As a general rule, the offender is criminally liable for all the consequences of his felonious Act, although not intended, if the felonious act is the proximate cause of the felony or resulting felony. A proximate cause is not necessarily the immediate cause. This may be a cause which is far and remote from the consequence which sets into motion other causes which resulted in the felony. A, B, C, D and E were driving their vehicles along Ortigas Avenue. A's car was ahead, followed by those of B, C, D, and E. When A's car reached the intersection of EDSA and Ortigas Avenue, the traffic light fumed red so A immediately stepped on his break, followed by B, C, D. However, E was not aware that the traffic light had turned to red, so he bumped the car of D, then D hit the car of C, then C hit the car of B, then, finally, B hit the car of A. In this case, the immediate cause to the damage of the car of A is the car of B, but that is not the proximate cause. The proximate cause is the car of E because it was the car of E which sets into motion the cars to bump into each other. In one case, A and B, who are brothers-in-law, had a quarrel. At the height of their quarrel, A shot B with an airgun. B was hit at the stomach, which bled profusely. When A saw this, he put B on the bed and told him not to leave the bed because he will call a doctor. While A was away, B rose from the bed, went into the kitchen and got a kitchen knife and cut his throat. The doctor arrived and said that the

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
and put lime there and applying this to the wound, developed locked jaw and eventually he died, it was held that the one who inflicted the wound is liable for his death. In Urbano v. IAC, A and B had a quarrel and started hacking each other. B was wounded at the back. Cooler heads intervened and they were separated. Somehow, their differences were patched up. A agreed to shoulder all the expenses for the treatment of the wound of B, and to pay him also whatever lost of income B may have failed to receive. B, on the other hand, signed a forgiveness in favor of A and on that condition, he withdrew the complaint that he filed against A. After so many weeks of treatment in a clinic, the doctor pronounced the wound already healed. Thereafter, B went back to his farm. Two months later, B came home and he was chilling. Before midnight, he died out of tetanus poisoning. The heirs of B filed a case of homicide against A. The Supreme Court held that A is not liable, it took into account the incubation period of tetanus toxic. Medical evidence were presented that tetanus toxic Is good only for two weeks. That if, indeed, the victim had incurred tetanus poisoning .out-of the wound inflicted by A, he would not have lasted two months. What brought about tetanus infect the body of B was his working in his farm using his bare hands. Because of this, the Supreme Court said that the act of B of working in his farm where the soil is filthy, using his own hands, is an efficient supervening cause which relieves A of any liability for the death of B. A, if at all, is only liable for physical injuries Inflicted upon B. If you are confronted with these, facts of the Urbano case, where the offended party died because of tetanus poisoning, reason out according to that reasoning laid down by the Supreme Court, meaning to say the Incubation period of the tetanus poisoning was considered. Since tetanus toxic would affect the victim for no longer than two weeks, the fact that the victim died two months later shows that It is no longer tetanus brought about by the act of the accused. The tetanus was gathered by his working In the farm and that Is already an efficient intervening cause. The one who caused the proximate cause is one liable. The one who caused the immediate cause is also liable, but merely contributory or sometimes totally not liable. Under Article 4 of the RPC, gives the basis of criminal liability. The act must be a felony, that means, punishable under the RPC. The act or omission brought about the felonious consequence even though different from what the offender had intended The act or omission must be characterized by dolo or culpa. In this anatomy of a felony, we have the structures: Firstly, the offender, the active subject. Under the RPC, only natural persons because of the imprisonment that grows at the penalty, juridical persons cannot be imprisoned. Under the Corporation law, even
Page | 23

juridical person can suffer penal sanctions by way of a fine, but not under the RPC, in the RPC the penalty is imprisonment. There are crime that require a particular offender only Example: Adultery can only be committed by a married woman The act or omission constituting the crime It must be a product of dolo or culpa to be punishable under the RPC. The offended party. There are crimes that can be committed only by specified offended parties. The consequence is criminal and civil. A felony may also be committed against a certain offended party, it cannot be committed against any person. Example: Parricide, not anybody can be an offended party, it must be by blood relationship in the direct line, not relationship in the collateral line. If the offended party is a brother or a sister, it cannot be parricide, because in parricide, the offended party must be an ascendant or descendant in the direct line and by consanguinity, not by affinity. Under Art. 4 there are only 2 situations there: Those who have committed a felony, and the same is characterized by either dolo or culpa. The resulting crime may be the crime intended by the offender, by his felonious act or it may be a crime different from what he intended but the felonious act was the proximate cause thereof So if the resulting crime is different from what he intended and his felonious act was not the proximate cause thereof, he will not be liable for the resulting crime. What is proximate cause? The rule of proximate cause controls the liability of the offender where the resulting crime is different from what he had intended. He is liable for the resulting crime even though that is not intended by him if his felonious act was the proximate cause thereof. Proximate cause: the act must be unbroken by any efficient and sufficient supervening or intervening cause, otherwise the party who brought about the supervening cause will be the one to answer for the criminal consequence that resulted and not the wrong doer, the wrong doer is only answerable up to the point where his acts was the proximate cause. If the crime resulted different from

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
what he had intended, and if brought about by an intervening cause which is not attributable to the offender but to some other person, the that other person will answer for it. Example: in a vehicular accident, a motor cycle driver was rush in the hospital. In the hospital, the doctor was familiarize with the motorcycle driver, that latter was the guy who ran away with the formers girlfriend. So the doctor amputated the leg of the motorcycle driver, actually there is no need to amputate the leg. The motorist who caused the accident to the motorcycle driver will be liable only for physical injuries but not the amputation. The cutting of the leg is an efficient supervening cause. So the motorist should not be made liable for the amputation of the leg. That is no longer proximate cause, that is already intentional on the part of the doctor. Proximate cause is different from immediate cause. Immediate cause refers to the course nearest in point of time to the crime committed. Proximate cause, generally, refers to a cause far ___ from the consequence but which is generated by other causes which in a continuous sequence would bring about a felony and without which the felony would not be produced. In the definition of proximate cause, we observe the reservation there, to be considered a proximate cause, that cause must be unbroken by any efficient intervening or supervening cause. To consider the intervening or supervening cause as sufficient, it would require that it be attended by the same elements of dolo or culpa. If this was so, there is an intervening cause that brought about the felony that was not intended by the offender, the offender will only be criminally liable for a crime intended by him. The one who brought about the sufficient intervening cause, he will be the one to answer for the felony that resulted as a consequence. The other situation where criminal liability may arise is where there is no resulting crime but the offender had performed an act or incurred an omission that would have been a crime against person or property. Socalled impossible crime 2. 3. Error in personae or mistake in identity; and Praeter intentionem or where the consequence exceeded the intention.

ABERRATIO ICTUS In aberration ictus, a person directed the blow at an intended victim, but because of poor aim that blow landed on somebody else. In aberratio ictus, the intended victim as well as the actual victim is both at the scene of the crime. Distinguish this from error in personae, where the victim actually received the blow but he was mistaken for another who was not at the scene of the crime. The distinction is important because the legal effects are not the same. In aberratio ictus, the offender delivers the blow upon the intended victim, but because of poor aim the blow landed on somebody else. You have a complex crime, unless the resulting consequence is not a grave or less grave felony. You have a single act as against the intended victim and also giving rise to another felony as against the actual victim. . When Complex Crime Not Applicable If the resulting physical injuries were only slight, then you cannot complex. The legal effect of Aberratio Ictus when the other crime committed is a light felony is that there should be separate information. In accordance with the Rules on Criminal Procedure, you cannot charge two or more crimes in a single information. You will have one prosecution for the attempted homicide or murder, and another prosecution for slight physical injuries for the innocent party. But if the innocent party was seriously injured or less seriously Injured, then you have another grave or less grave felony resulting from the same act which gave rise to attempted homicide or murder against B,, hence, a complex crime. General Rule: aberratio ictus, generally gives rise to a complex crime. This being SO, the penalty for the most serious crime Is Imposed In the maximum period. This is the legal effect. Refer to Article 48 of the RPC Exception: The only time when a complex crime may not result in aberratio Ictus is when one of the resulting felonies is a light felony. The legal effect is that separate information must be filed and separate prosecution for every crime. In Aberratio Ictus, the contemplation is that the offender directed the blow on the party intended to be hit but because of poor aim and lack of training, he missed the victim against whom the blow was directed, instead that blow landed on somebody else. Verily, the offender performed a single act directed at the intended victim, but he missed the intended victim and instead landed on somebody else. Here we have a situation where the offender performs a single act from which 2 felonies resulted. One, the attempt on the life of the intended victim and the other is the crime actually committed, on the victim upon whom the blow was inflicted. In art. 48, if a single
Page | 24

**** (to be discussed later) Wrongful act done be different from what was intended What makes the first paragraph of Article 4 confusing is the qualification "although the wrongful act done be different from what was intended". There are three situations contemplated under paragraph 1 of Article 4: 1. Aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow;

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
act, bring about 2 or more grave or less grave felonies, the liability of the offender shall be for a complex crime. If it is a complex crime, the penalty for the more serious crime committed will the penalty to be imposed upon the offender and the same shall be imposed in the maximum period. If the resulting crimes are not grave or less grave, then there must be a separate prosecution for the attempted felony and another for the consummated. It will not be a single penalty to be imposed in the maximum period. Relationship between Article 48 and the doctrine of pro reo: The provision in Article 48 to complex the crime will only be applied if by so complexing, a lesser penalty would arise than punishing the offender for the 2 resulting crimes differently. So if we complex the 2 crimes, the penalty for the more serious crimes should be impose in the maximum period and the maximum period would be higher than the 2 felonies prosecuted separately, then we will not apply art 48 because that will be in contrary to the doctrine of pro reo. We will only complex if the result will be in the imposition of the penalty lesser than that if the offender will be prosecuted separately for the crimes brought about by his acts ERROR IN PERSONAE In Error en Personae (Mistake in identity) there was an actual victim upon whom the blow was directed, but he was not really the intended victim. The predetermined or intended victim was not at the scene of the crime. This is very important because article 49 of the RPC applies only in a case of error personae and not in a case of aberratio ictus. In Article 49 then the crime intended is more , serious than the crime actually committed or vice-versa, whichever crime carries the lesser penalty, that penalty will be the one imposed. But it will be Imposed in the maximum period. For instance, the offender intended to commit homicide, but what was actually committed with parricide because the-person he killed by mistake was somebody related to him within the degree of relationship in parricide. In such a case, the offender will be charged with parricide, but the penalty that would be imposed will be that of homicide. This is because under Article 49, the penalty for the lesser crime will be the one imposed, whatever crime the offender is prosecuted under. In any event, the offender is prosecuted for the crime committed not for the crime Intended. A thought of killing B. He positioned himself at one corner where B would usually pass. When a figure resembling B was approaching, A hid and when that figure was near him, he suddenly hit him with a piece of wood on the nape, killing him. But it turned out that it was his own father. The crime committed is parricide, although what was intended was homicide. Article 49, therefore, will apply because out of a mistake In Identity, a crime was committed different from that which was intended. In another Instance, A thought of killing B. Instead of B, C passed. A thought that he was B, so he hit C on the neck, killing the latter. Just the same, the crime intended to be committed is homicide and what was committed is actually homicide, Article 49 does not apply. Here, error in personae is of no effect Effects of error in personae to criminal liability Article 49 operates only when there is a variance in the crime committed. The variance must be a result of the mistake in identity. If the crime committed is the same as that which was; intended, error in personae does not affect the criminal liability of the offender. The effect is not actually mitigating. It can not be a mitigating circumstance because such instance is not enumerated as mitigating circumstances under the code. Such lowering of penalty is dictated by the principle of Pro Reo. In Error in personae, we have art 49 governing. Under such article between the crime intended to be committed and the crime actually committed, as long as, the result will be a crime different from what was intended, Art 49 of the RPC shall operate. In art 49, between the 2 felonies, the one intended to commit and the one actually committed, whichever will bring about a lesser penalty, that lesser penalty will be the one imposed, and it will be imposed in the maximum period. PRAETER INTENTIONEM Praeter intentionem (So grave a wrong caused than that intended) literally mean as the consequence went beyond that intended or expected. This is a mitigating circumstance (Art 13, par 3) when there is a notorious disparity between the act or means employed by the Offender and the resulting felony Elements: 1. The act committed must be a felony 2. the wrong done must be the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony committed even though different from that intended; . 3. there is a notorious disparity in the means employed. if the means used to bring about the desire result would also logically and naturally bring about the actual felony committed, praeter intentionem will not be appreciated. In People v. Gacogo, 53 Phil 524, two persons quarreled. They had fist blows. The other started to run away and Gacogo went after him, struck him with a fist blow at the back of the head. Because the victim was running, he lost balance, he fell on the pavement and his head struck the cement pavement. He suffered cerebral hemorrhage. Although Gacogo claimed that he had no intention of killing the victim, his claim is useless. Intent to kill is only relevant when the victim did not die. This is so because the purpose .of intent to kill is to differentiate the crime of physical injuries from the crime of attempted homicide or attempted murder or frustrated homicide or frustrated murder. But once the victim is dead, you do not talk of intent to kill anymore. The best evidence of intent to kill is the fact that victim was killed. Although Gacogo was convicted for homicide for the death of the person, he was given the benefit of paragraph 3
Page | 25

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
of Article 13, is that the offender did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. This is the consequence of praetor intentionem. In short, praeter Intentionem Is mitigating, particularly covered by paragraph 3 of Article 13. In order however, that the situation may qualify as praeter Intentionem. There must be a notable disparity between the means employed and the resulting felony. Dean Ortega said, the only exception to the doctrine laid on PP vs. Gacogo when the person who throws his blow was Manny Pacquiao and then definitely with a single blow, it may result to a killing of a person. The disparity may be negated. person who is suffocated may eventually die. So the offender was prosecuted for the serious crime of rape with homicide and he was not given the benefit of paragraph 3, Article 13. Differentiating this first case with the case' of the Chinaman and his wife, it would seem that the difference lies in the means employed by the offender. In praeter intentionem, it is essential that there is a notable disparity between the means employed or the act of the offender and the felony which resulted. This means that the resulting felony cannot be foreseen from the acts of the offender. If the resulting felony can be foreseen or anticipated from the means employed, the circumstance of praeter intentionem does not apply Praeter Intentionem, where the consequence went beyond the intention. It is exemplified in a case were the accused have boxed victim, exchanging blows, but the victim was not a good fighter, so he simply withdrew or run away, but the accused ran after away. While running away the accused give him a fist blow at the back of the head, the victim fell to the concrete pavement because the momentum of his running that aggravated by the fist blow. He suffered from cerebral injuries and eventually died. The SC applied this rule, this is a mitigating circumstance under par 3 of Art 13, that the offenders did not intend to commit so grave a wrong at that which was committed. Ordinarily, an ordinary fist blow will not cause the death of the offended party. In praeter intentionem, it has some element of accident, and that is why this always mitigating. To be mitigating, the offender would not have foreseen or anticipated the crime that would follow the act that he has done. If the resulting crime would be anticipated or foreseen from the felonious act of the offender, the offender cannot escape liability for the felonious act he committed. On this premise, if a person hits another with an iron bar on the head, breaking the skull of his adversary, he cannot invoke praeter intentionem because the use of an iron bar, he can already anticipate or foreseen that the victim may be mortally or fatally wounded. Hence, he will be liable for the natural, logical and direct consequences of his felonious act. IMPOSSIBLE CRIME An impossible crime is an act which would be an offense against person or properties were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. Elements: 1. acts constitute a crime against persons or property; 2. Criminal Intent; 3. Crime not accomplished by reason of its inherent impossibility or inadequacy or inefficiency of the means employed Accused was a houseboy in a house where only a spinster resides. It is customary for the spinster to sleep nude because her room was warm. It was also the habit of the houseboy that whenever she enters her room, the houseboy would follow and peek into the keyhole,. Finally, when the houseboy could no longer resist the urge,
Page | 26

A stabbed his friend when they had a drinking spree. While they were drinking they had some argument about a basketball game and they could not agree, so he stabbed him eleven times. His defense is that he had no intention of killing his friend. He did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. It was held that the fact that 11 wounds were inflicted on A's friend is hardly compatible with the idea that he did not intend to commit so grave a wrong that committed. In another instance, the accused was a homosexual. The victim ridiculed or humiliated him while he was going to the restroom. He was so irritated that he just stabbed the victim at the neck with a ladys comb with a pointed handle, killing the victim. His defense was that he did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that of killing him. That contention was rejected, because the instrument used was pointed. The part of the body wherein it was directed was the neck which Is a vital part of the body. In praeter intentionem, it is mitigating only if there is a notable or notorious disparity between the means employed and the resulting felony. In criminal law, intent of the offender is determined on the basis employed by him and the manner in which he committed the crime. Intention of the offender is not what is in his mind; it is disclosed in the manner in which he committed the crime. In still another case, the accused entered the store of a Chinese couple, to commit robbery. They hogtied the Chinaman and his wife. Because the wife was so talkative, one of the offenders got a pandesal and put it in her mouth. But because the woman was trying to wriggle from the bondage, the pandesal slipped through her throat. She died because of suffocation. The offenders were convicted for robbery with homicide because there was a resulting death, although their intention was only to rob. They were given the benefit of paragraph 3 of Article 13, "that they did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that Committed. There was really no intention to bring about the killing, because it was the pandesal they put into the mouth. Had it been a piece of rag, it would be different. The means employed is not capable of producing death if only the woman chewed the pandesal. A man raped a young girl. The young girl was shouting so the man placed his hand on the mouth and nose of the victim. He found out later that the victim was dead already; she died of suffocation. The offender begged that he had no intention of killing the girl and that his only intention was to prevent her from shouting. The Supreme Court rejected the plea saying that one can always expect that a

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
he climbed into the ceiling, went inside the room of his master, placed himself on top of her and abused her, not knowing that she was already dead five minutes earlier. Is an impossible crime committed? Yes. Before, the act performed by the offender could not have been. A crime against person or property. The act performed would have been constituted a crime against chastity Impossible crime is true only if the act done the offender constitutes a crime against person or property. However, with the new rape law amending, the Revised Penal Code and classifying rape as a crime against persons, it is now possible that an impossible crime was committed. Note, however, that the crime might also fall under the Revised Administrative Code - desecrating the dead A was driving his car around Roxas Boulevard when a person hitched a ride. Because this person was exquisitely dressed, A readily welcomed the fellow inside his car and he continued driving. When he reached a motel, A suddenly swerved his car inside. A started kissing his passenger, but he found out that his passenger was not a woman but a man, and so he pushed him out of the car, and gave him fist blows. Is an impossible crime committed? If not, is there any crime committed at all? It cannot be an impossible crime, because the act would have been a crime against chastity. The crime is physical injuries or acts of lasciviousness, if this was done against the will of the passenger. There are two ways of committing acts of lasciviousness. Under Article 336, where the acts of lasciviousness were committed under circumstances of rape meaning to say, there is employment of violence or Intimidation or the 'victim is deprived of reason. Even if the victim is a man, the crime of acts of lasciviousness is committed. This is a crime that is not limited to a victim who is a woman. Acts of lasciviousness require a victim to be a woman only when it is committed under circumstances of seduction. If it is committed under the circumstances of rape, the victim may be a man or a woman. The essence of an impossible crime is the inherent impossibility of accomplishing the crime or the inherent impossibility of the means employed to bring about the crime. When we say inherent impossibility, this means that under any and all circumstances, the crime could not have materialized if the Crime could have materialized under a different set of facts, employing the same mean or the same act, it is not an impossible crime; it would be an attempted felony. It is, therefore, important to know what are the crimes against persons under Title VIII, and those against property under Title X. An impossible crime is true only to any of those crimes. A entered a department store at about midnight, when it was already closed. He went directly to the room where the safe or vault was being kept He succeeded in opening the safe, but the safe was empty. Is an impossible crime committed? If not, what crime Is possibly committed? This is not an impossible crime. That is only true if there is nothing more to steal. But in a department store, where there is plenty to steal, not only the money inside the vault or safe. The fact that the vault had turned out to be empty is not really inherently impossible to commit the crime of robber. There are other things that he could take. The crime committed therefore is attempted robbery, assuming that he did not lay his hands on any other article. This could not be trespass to dwelling because there are other things that can be stolen. A and B were lovers. B was willing to marry A except that A is already married. A thought of killing his wife. He prepared her breakfast every morning, and every morning, he placed a little close of arsenic poison into the breakfast of the wife. The wife consumed all the food prepared by her husband including the poison but nothing happened to the wife. Because of the volume of the household chores that the wife had to attend to daily, she developed a physical condition that rendered her so strong and resistance to any kind of poisoning, so the amount of poison applied to her breakfast has no effect to her. Is there an impossible crime? No impossible crime is committed because the fact itself stated that what prevented the poison from taking effect is the physical condition of the woman. So it implies that if the woman was not of such physical condition, the poison would have taken effect Hence, it is not inherently impossible to realize the killing. The crime committed is frustrated parricide. If it were a case of poisoning, an impossible crime would be constituted if a person who was thinking that it was a poison that he was putting into the food of the Intended victim but actually it was vetsin or sugar or soda. Under any and all circumstances, the crime could not have been realized. But if due to the quantity of vetsin or sugar or soda, the intended victim developed LBM and was. hospitalized, then it would not be a case of impossible crime anymore. It would be a case of physical injuries, if the act done does not amount to some other crime under the Revised Penal Code. Do not confuse an impossible crime with the attempted or frustrated stage. Scott and Charles are roommate in a boarding house. Everyday, Scott leaves for work but before leaving he would lock the food cabinet where he kept his food. Charles resented this. One day, he got an electric cord tied the one end to the door knob and plugged the other end to an electric outlet The Idea was that, when Scott comes home to open the door knob, he would be electrocuted. Unknown to Charles, Scott is working in an electronic shop where he received a daily dosage of electric shock. When Scott opened the doorknob, nothing happened to him. He was just surprised to find out that there was an electric cord plugged to the outlet and the other hand to the door knob. Whether an impossible crime was committed or not? It is not an impossible crime. The means employed is not inherently impossible to bring about the consequence of
Page | 27

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
his felonious act. What prevented the consummation of the crime was because of some cause independent of the will of the perpetrator. A and B are enemies. A, upon seeing B, got the revolver of his father, shot B, but the revolver did not discharge because the bullets were old, none of them discharged. Was an impossible crime committed? No. It was purely accidental that the firearm did not discharge because the bullets were old. If they were new, it would have fired. That is a cause other than the spontaneous desistance of the offender, and therefore, an attempted homicide. But if let us say, when he started squeezing the trigger, he did not realize that the firearm was empty. There was no bullet at all. There is an impossible crime, because under any and all circumstances, an unloaded firearm will never fire. Whenever you are confronted with a problem where the facts suggest that an impossible crime was committed, be careful about the question asked. If the question asked is: Is an impossible crime committed? then you judge that question on the basis of the facts. If really the facts constitute an impossible crime, then you suggest than an impossible crime is committed, then you state the reason for the inherent impossibility If the question asked is "is he liable for an impossible crime?" this is a catching question. Even though the facts constitute an Impossible crime, if the act done by the offender constitutes some other crimes under the Revised Penal Code, he will not be liable for an impossible crime. He will be prosecuted for the crime constituted so far by the act done by him. The reason is an offender is punished for an impossible crime Just to teach him a lesson because of his criminal perversity. Although objectively, no crime is committed, but subjectively, he is a criminal. That purpose of the law will also be served if he is prosecuted for some other crime constituted by his acts which are also punishable under the RPC A and B are neighbors. They are jealous of each other's social status. A thought of killing B so A climbed the house of B through the window and stabbed B on the heart, not knowing that B died a few minutes ago of bangungot. Is A liable for an impossible crime? No. A shall be liable for qualified trespass to dwelling. Although the act done by A against B constitutes an impossible crime, it is the principle of criminal law that the offender shall be punished for an impossible crime only when his act cannot be punished under some other provisions in the Revised Penal Code. Impossible crime is one of last resort If he could be taught of the same lesson by charging him with some other crime constituted by his act, then that will be the proper way. If you want to play safe, you state there that although an impossible crime is constituted, yet it is a principle of criminal law that he will only be penalized for an impossible crime If he cannot be punished under some other provision of the Revised Penal Code. If the question is "Is an impossible crime is committed?" the answer is YES because on the basis of the facts stated, an impossible crime is committed. But to play safe add another paragraph: However, the offender will not be prosecuted for an impossible crime but for _____ [state the crime]. Because it is a principle in criminal law that the offender can only be prosecuted for an impossible crime if his acts do not constitute some other crimes punishable under the Revised Penal Code. An impossible crime is a crime of last resort Modified concept of impossible crime In a way, the concept of impossible crime has been modified by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Intod v. CA, et aL, 215 SCRA 52. In this case, four culprits all armed with firearms and with Intent to kill went to the intended victims house and after having pinpointed the latter^ bedroom, all four fired at and riddled said room with bullets, thinking that the intended victim was already there as it was about 10:00 in the evening. It so happened that the intended victim did not come home on the evening and so was not in her bedroom at that time. Eventually the culprits were prosecuted and convicted by the trial court for attempted murder. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment but the Supreme Court modified the same and held the petitioner liable only for the socalled impossible crime. As a result, petitioner-accused was sentenced to imprisonment of only six months of arresto mayor for the felonious act he committed with intent to kill: this despite the destruction done to the intended victim's house. Somehow, the decision depreciated the seriousness of the act committed, considering the lawlessness by which the culprits carried out the Intended crime, and so some members of the bench and bar spoke out against the soundness of the ruling. Some asked questions: Was it really the impossibility of accomplishing the killing that brought about its non-accomplishment? Was it not purely accidental that the intended victim did not come home that evening and, thus, unknown to the culprits, she was not in her bedroom at the time It was shot and riddled with bullets? Suppose, instead of using firearms, the culprits set fire on the intended victim's house, believing she was there when In fact she was not, would the criminal liability be for an Impossible crime? Until the Intod case, the prevailing attitude was that the provision of the Revised Penal Code on impossible crime would only apply when the wrongful act, which would have constituted a crime against persons or property, could not and did not constitute -another felony. Otherwise, if such act constituted any other felony although different from what the offender Intended, the criminal liability should be for such other felony and not for an Impossible crime. The attitude was so because Article 4 of the Code provides two situations where criminal liability shall be Incurred, to wit:
Art 4. Criminal liability Criminal liability shall be Incurred: 1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act be different from that which he intended. 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 on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.

Page | 28

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
Because criminal liability for Impossible crime presupposes that no felony resulted from the wrongful act done, the penalty Is fixed at arresto mayor or a fine from P200.00 to P500.00, depending on the "social danger and degree of criminality shown by the offender (Article 59) regardless of whether the wrongful act was an impossible crime against persons or against property. There is no logic in applying paragraph 2 of Article 4 to a situation governed by paragraph 1 of the same Article, that Is, where a felony resulted. Otherwise, a redundancy and duplicity would be perpetrated. In the Intod case, the wrongful acts of the culprits caused destruction to the house of the intended victim; this felonious act negates the Idea of an impossible crime. But whether we agree or not, the Supreme Court has spoken, we have to respect its ruling. *** According to Justice Peralta, the Intod case brought about a new concept in impossible Crime. It does not only pertain to legal impossibility but now includes physical impossibility Dean Ortega noted that It was considered to be a dangerous ruling on the part of the high court. **** (continuation) Under the par 2 of article 4, this will only apply if there is no crime resulted after the act. If somehow a crime resulted even though different from what he intended, we apply par 1 art 4 not par 2. Par 2 only applied if there is no crime resulted from the act. So the liability for an impossible crime is a last resort. We will only apply this liability if there is no other provision in the RPC that may be applied to the offender. The offender will only be accused for an impossible crime if in the situation no other crime was committed. The purpose of this provision is merely to teach the accused a lesson for his being criminally inclined. The liability, however, arises only if the act would have been a crime against persons; so unless title 8 or 10 book 2 of the RPC. If the act would have been some other crime, no liability under this article will apply. The reason why the liability is limited only to those acts which should have been a crime against person or property is because at the time the RPC was enacted, only crimes against person and property are frequently committed. Is an impossible crime really a crime? No, the penalty here which is found in art 59 of the RPC is ___ whether the act would have been a crime against person or property and that is not true if a crime actually resulted. If it resultied a crime against person, the penalty is higher than if it is a crime against property. But here, since there is no crime committed, penalty is only intended to teach the accused a lesson for his criminal perversity, the penalty is arresto
Page | 29

mayor or a fine ranging from 200 to 500 pesos. If a crime incidentally or accidentally was committed during a supposed commission of an impossible crime, the offender will be prosecuted not for the impossible crime but for the crime that actually took place. We will only apply par 2 art 4, if there is no crime resulted. The liability for an impossible crime is incurred only, if the offender was not aware of the impossibility of accomplishing the crime. If the offender is aware that the crime is he had intended to commit cannot really be accomplished, then it is not criminal perversity but a sort of mischievousness knowing that the crime, after all, cannot be committed. So we will not apply this provision in the RPC. Example: in 2 neighboring families, there had been a constant feud. And so, it is only a matter of time where one head of the family would kill the other head of the family. The offender then, is determined that is better for him to kill the adversary before the adversary kill him. So he scale the house of the other family at night, then by the window, he entered the house. While inside, he saw the adversary supposedly asleep not knowing that his adversary died out of bangungot earlier on. He started stabbing the victim on the heart region. What would be the crime that you would file against the accused? It is not an impossible crime. The offender will only be prosecuted for an impossible crime if his involvement does not bring about any other crime. In this case, when the offender scales the house of the victim entering through the window, he committed an act of trespass to dwelling. As far as this concern, it is the crime that was committed by him. When he started stabbing the body of the victim, not knowing that the victim died a few minutes before, his liability would not be for an impossible crime anymore because the crime he would have been accused of would have been the impossibility in the commission of the crime, if no other crime was committed. But because there is some other crime committed he will be prosecuted for that other crime that was committed. Let us say, the crime committed was qualified trespass to dwelling because he entered into the window (an opening not intended for entrance or exit). He managed to enter the room of the adversary and finding the adversary there purportedly sleeping but actually nursing a wound because he was stabbed the night before. The crime will not be for an impossible crime anymore. The crime will be for the crime actually carried out, which is physical injuries corresponding to the injury that he inflicted had the victim be still alive and that is known to the offender. In short, it must be considered whether the offender is aware of the impossibility of carrying out the impossible crime that was committed. Otherwise, the liability will not

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
be for an impossible crime because he knew that the crime committed was impossible for him to accomplish. 2 farmers, after preparing the farm, sat down and drink a tuba. They discussed which is the better basketball team. They cannot agree and one of them had taken to many local wine simply raised his bolo and hit the left leg of his friend. The left leg of his friend is artificial and the offender knew such fact. What is the liability of the offender? Is there a crime committed, if so what crime? He deliberately destroyed the artificial left leg, hence a deliberate destruction of property and that is malicious mischief Relative to this, now that the crime of rape has been transposed to title 8 book2 of the RPC, take note that there can now be a liability for an impossible crime of rape provided that the offender is not aware on the condition that the crime of rape cannot be committed anymore because the victim is already dead. Rape is now a crime against persons. For impossible crime to occur, the dead body must appear to be still alive. Illustration: there was a vehicular accident; one of the drivers involved in the accident is a lady. The lady died. Her body was brought to the funeral parlor. The funeral attendant had to prepare the body for internment and since there is blood spilled over the body, he had to clean the body. While he was cleaning the body, he got aroused and had sexual intercourse with the body. What will be his criminal liability? It is not an impossible crime because he knew of the impossibility of committing rape. The liability will not be for an impossible crime of rape because he is aware that the body is dead. The liability will be an administrative liability of desecrating the dead. It is not an impossible crime because he is aware that the crime is not possible of accomplishment. The criminal perversity will be absent because he knew that he cannot accomplish the same. It was only a malicious act that he was doing. About this impossible crime of rape, bear in mind that this became true only after the new rape law took effect. We have to be aware of the date of its effectivity Oct 22, 1997. Before this date, there can no impossible crime of rape. Similarly on that date, there is no rape by sexual assault. The crime will be act of lasciviousness only. The impossibility that may engender the liability under par 2 art 4 may be legal impossibility or a factual (physical) impossibility. It is a legal impossibility where it is the law that brings about the non-accomplishment of the crime because the elements required by law are never fulfilled. That means when the victim is already dead, it cannot be regarded as a person anymore. If a person is stealing a property turns out to be the owner of the thing, he cannot be liable for theft or robbery, because the element required that the thing must be owned by another, that is a legal impossibility. The factual impossibility is describe in the case of Intod vs CA, the offender is pick pocketing, and he intended to pick pocket another passenger, he thrust his hand into the pocket of another, only to find out that the pocket is empty, there is nothing to still. That according to the SC is a physical or factual
Page | 30

impossibility, there is nothing steal. That is why the crime of theft or robbery is impossible. Is an impossible crime really a crime? No, because the penalty imposed is not because a crime is committed rather it is because of the criminal tendency of the offender. Actually, there is no crime committed but because he had shown a criminal propensity, the RPC will subject him to the penalty for such tendency. Bear in mind that if the offender is aware of the impossibility of accomplishing the crime he intended but somehow the crime he intended was impossible, he will not be liable for an impossible crime. Some other wrong may have been committed but it will not be a crime.
Article 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed but which are not covered by the law, and in cases of excessive penalties. - Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to repress and which is not punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons which induce the court to believe that said act should be made the subject of penal legislation. In the same way the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense.

No Crime Unless There Is A Law Punishing It When a person is charged in court, and the court finds that there is no law applicable, the court will acquit the accused and the Judge will give his opinion that the said act should be punished. Article 5 covers two situations: 1. The court cannot convict the accused because the acts do not constitute a crime. The proper judgment Is acquittal, but the court Is mandated to report to the Chief Executive that said act be made subject of penal legislation and Why 2. Where the court finds the penalty prescribed for the crime too harsh considering the conditions surrounding the commission of the crime, the Judge should Impose the law. The most that he could do is to recommend to the Chief Executive to grant executive clemency. CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES Felonies are classified under Article 3, 6 and 9. Under Article 3 (Manner of their commission), Felonies are classified whether they are product of: Dolo intentional felonies Culpa culpable felonies Under Article 6 (Stages of their execution) Attempted Frustrated Consummated Under Article 9 (according to their gravity of the felonies) the classification is based on the penalty attached on the felony Light felonies

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
Less grave felonies Grave felonies The felony that is attempted is not necessarily the felony that the offender had in mind to commit rather it is the felony which is directly linked to the act so far done by him Spontaneous desistance

Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable. A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. 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.

Overt act is that act which if allowed to continue in its natural course would definitely result into a felony The use of the word OVERT in art 6 differentiates a situation where the acts are only preparatory. Preparatory acts do not render the beginning of criminal liability unless there is a law prescribing a penalty for the initial stage which is only preparatory. Proposal to commit a felony or conspiracy to commit a felony are mere preparatory acts. That is why they are not punishable unless there is a provision of law specially providing penalties therefore. The liability begins when the act of the offender is already overt. The act is said to be overt if allowed to continue in its normal and direct course, it will definitely end up in a felony. If that is so then, it is attempted stage. Not any kind of act will mark the beginning of a felony The intent to commit a crime must first be established and therefore, if the act so far being done does not begin a felony, criminal liability correspondingly does not begin. Preparatory acts do not give rise to criminal liability. The acts so far performed may already be a crime in itself or it may be just an ingredient of another crime. The word "directly" emphasizes the requirement in the attempted felony which is directly linked to the overt act performed by the offender, irrespective of his intention or the felony he has in his mind. if a married man who have met a younger woman that is why he would want to replace his wife. The younger woman is willing to live with him if his wife is already dead. He thought of killing his wife and the visible way that he had thought of was to poison her little by little until finally she will become so ill and die. So early morning he went to the drug store to but poison which he would mix with the food. The pharmacist asked him why he is buying poison. The man replied that he will kill his wife. After the man left the pharmacist called the police precinct and reported that this man had disclosed that he will going to poison his wife. The law enforcers went after the man. They caught him. The law enforcers arrested the man. Is there a crime committed? Or is there any criminal liability incurred? None, in the attempted stage, the beginning of the commission of the felony is when the act is already overt. Buying a poison intended to be used on his wife is not an overt act. The married man may used the poison to kill rats. There is no logical link that would bring about the death of the wife by the mere buying of the poison. There is no criminal liability yet. But if this married man mix the poison with the food that he expects his wife to eat, that is an overt act. If after reaching the poison to the food of the wife, he is not required to do anything further.
Page | 31

STAGES IN THE COMMISSION OF FELONY The classification of stages of a felony is applicable only under the RPC but even certain crimes under the Code do not admit of these stages. Article 6 does not apply to: 1. crimes punishable under special laws, unless the same specifically so provide: 2. crimes by omission unless the acts performed constitute another felony: 3. formal crimes The purpose of classifying penalties is to bring about a proportionate penalty and equitable punishment. The penalties are graduated according to their degree of severity. Formal crimes are crimes which are consummated in one instant. For example, in oral defamation, there is no attempted or frustrated oral defamation; it is always in the consummated stage. Material crimes are crimes not consummated in one insant or single act. It consists of three stages of execution, attempted, frustrated and the consummated Stage Consummated is that stage when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present and the actor has nothing more to do but to wait for the happening of the crime. Frustrated is that stage 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. Attempted is that stage when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. The difference between the attempted stage and the frustrated stage lies on whether the offender has performed all the acts of execution for the accomplishment of a felony. Attempted stage the important matter stated in the definitions are: The beginning of the attempted stage in the commission of the felony is when the offender had perform overt acts

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
A awakened one morning with a man sleeping in his sofa. Beside the man was a bag containing picklocks and similar tools. He found out that the man entered his sala by cutting the screen on his window. If you were to prosecute this fellow, for what crime are you going to prosecute him? The act done by him of entering through an opening not intended for the purpose is only qualified trespass. It is qualified trespass because he did so by cutting through the screen. There was force applied in order to enter. Other than that, under Article 304, RPC, illegal possession of picklocks and similar tools is a crime. Thus, he can be prosecuted for two crimes: (1) qualified trespass to dwelling, and (2) illegal possession of picklocks and similar tools; not complex because one is not necessary means to commit the other. Another aspect of the attempted stage is the word directly. This means to say the felony that is attempted is not necessarily the one which the offender had in mind to commit, rather it is the felony which is directly linked to the overt act done by the offender. There is a need to examine the relation between the act and the felony supposedly to be committed not necessarily the felony in the mind of the offender will be the felony that is attempted, it may be some other felony. In the case of US vs Lamangan, the offender started removing the wooden paneling on the side of a sari-sari store. The proprietor of the store do not sleep there after business hours. He lock the store from the outside. During the early hours in the morning Lamangan started removing the paneling on the side of the sari sari store. He succeeded in removing the paneling, he tried to enter, but the opening is not big enough to accommodate him, so he started removing another wooden paneling. While doing so, the removal created some noise and a roving policeman in the vicinity was attracted by the noise. The policeman saw Lamangan and arrested him. What is the crime that Lamangan may be held liable? Logically, it is robbery. The entering is done thru breaking a wall. The trial court and the CA found him guilty of attempted robbery. The SC ruled that the crime is not attempted robbery. The crime directly linked to what the accused had already done is not robbery but trespass to dwelling. At most the removal of the wooden paneling would indicate the intention of the accused to enter the same. So the crime directly linked to the overt act so far done by the accused is a crime qualified trespass to dwelling. There is no overt act yet of robbery because robbery contemplates taking of personal property belonging to another with intent to gain and that overt act of taking is not yet began. What is linked to the removal of the paneling is to intrude to the premises and that is trespass. Spontaneous Desistance is the abandonment of the intention of doing the crime by an offender, convinced by himself and without any outside force. It negates criminal liability but only applies in the attempted stage of the felony. If the act done is already in the frustrated stage, no amount of desistance will negate criminal liability. Spontaneous Desistance, 1. made during the attempted stage 2. the acts committed do not constitute any other offense In a case where the accused saw his enemy at a distance. The man was hit and he was knocked down by the impulse of the bullet. So the accused run to the site, where his enemy had fallen and he hacked his firearm for the second time. Aim it at the head of the victim and announced to him now you are dead. The victim knelt before the gunman. The gunman was touched and eventually he kept his firearm and walked away. Later, he was apprehended and he was charged for attempted homicide. The trial court found him guilty, he argued that when he kept him firearm and did not continue firing upon the offended party, intent to kill is negated. So it cannot be attempted homicide because he desisted from killing the victim. The SC in resolving the issue as to what crime has committed, said the crime was utmost physical injuries because the victim was hit by the first shot fired by the accused. The appellate court pointed out that in the case, there are 2 acts done, the desistance was only in respect with the second attempt. The desistance cannot apply to the first shot because the victim was already wounded. The intent to kill which characterizes the first shot was already achieved, it is only matter of ___ that the wound is mortal or not. It is not frustrated because the offender had not yet perform all the acts of execution that would bring about the killing. So it is on the second attempt that the desistance may be logically considered but not as to the first shot. So there is an intent to kill but since the first shot was not fatal, hence it is only attempted homicide. In another instance, A has a very seductive neighbor in the person of B. A had always been looking at B and had wanted to possess her but their status were not the same. One evening, after A saw B at her house and thought that B was already asleep, he entered the house of B through the window to abuse her. He, however, found out that B was nude, so he lost interest and left. Can A be accused of Attempted rape? No, because there was desistance which prevented the crime from being consummated. The attempted stage was erased because the offender desisted after having commenced the commission of the felony. The attempted felony is erased by desistance because the offender spontaneously desisted from pursuing the acts of execution. It does not mean, however, that there is no more felony committed. He may be liable for a consummated felony constituted by his act of trespassing. When A entered the house through the window, which is not intended for entrance. If is always presumed to be against the will of the owner. If the offender proceeded to abuse the woman, but the latter screamed, and A went out of the window again, he could not be prosecuted .for qualified trespass. Dwelling is taken as an aggravating circumstance so he will be prosecuted for attempted rape aggravated by dwelling.

Page | 32

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
In the attempted stage, desistance. Desistance contemplates that the offender had begun the commission of the overt act that would bring about a crime or felony but somehow he listened to a call of his conscience to discontinue with his act and return to the conduct of righteousness. To be considered desistance, it must be spontaneous on the part of the offender. Meaning to say the offender did not desist because of some external reason. Desistance contemplates that the offender spontaneously give up the pursing of the criminal act that would indicate that he listened to what his conscience may heard told him not to do. That is why in law, desistance negates liability for any attempted felony. It does not follow that the offender will be criminally liable, if a felony is already committed before the offender desisted, the desistance will not affect his liability because he already achieved because desistance contemplates that the attempted felony has not yet been attained. Desistance is legally recognized only when the felony is still in the attempted stage because it is only in the attempted stage that the offender has not yet performed all acts of execution. There is still room for desistance. If he offender had already passed the subjective phase of the crime and had already entered the objective phase, desistance is not legally possible anymore because there is no more room to desist since the offender had already performed all the acts of execution. In the crime of theft or robbery, the moment the offender gain complete control of the personal property subject of the theft or robbery, the crime is already consummated. The scenario is where the offender decided to steal the object, get the object from the receptacle where the owner had placed it. Brought it out, then he found that it is not worth taking, so he returned the same. Is there a crime committed? Yes, because in law, there is no desistance possible if the felony had already gone beyond the attempted stage, if the felony is in the subjective phase which is the attempted stage that desistance is possible. In the frustrated stage the code requires that the offender already performed all acts of execution and what prevented the commission of the felony are reasons or causes independent of the will of the perpetrator, desistance is not possible. In desistance, the offender discontinued his overt act because of a reason purely spontaneous to his conscience, in other words there is no external cause. 2 helpers in a sari sari store agreed, one of them will ransack the store, to get the money savings of the proprietor of the store, the other one will kill the proprietor who is sleeping inside the store. They went to the sari sari store in the evening precisely to carry out the commission of the crime. While inside a police patrol car came, the 2 thought that the policeman had been summoned to apprehend them. So one of them fled, the other one stabbed the proprietor. What will be the liability of the one who fled? What will be the criminal liability of the one who stabbed the proprietor? The act of the one who fled cannot be desistance, because the reason why he fled is because if the police patrol car that approached with siren. He thought that the policeman was summoned to bring
Page | 33

about their arrest. So it is not spontaneous. But the act of the one who left the sari sari store because of the police patrol car is one of flight not desistance. If the case is flight that means there is a reason or a cause that made the offender to discontinue the felonious act that he had begun, the law will not reward that. That is why the liability is for an attempted stage. Frustrated Stage the focus of attention is whether the offender have performed all acts of execution, otherwise the crime is not in the frustrated stage. That means that there is nothing more to do, only the result will be the one that should follow. If some further act that has to be done a crime is only in the attempted stage because the offender has not yet performed all the acts of execution. Corrorarily, there are felonies which do not admit of this frustrated stage. There are felonies which at once are consummated, there are those which are of the attempted or consummated but no frustrated case. In such case where the felony involved does not admit the frustrated stage, it is because that in the frustrated stage the RPC requires that the offender has performed all acts of execution. There are felonies where the moment the offender has performed all the acts of execution, the felony is at once consummated. So the frustrated stage never existed. Example: Crime of arson In the crime of arson, the mens rea is the destruction of property by burning. So there must be a sign, but the property intended to be destroyed by burning had already began to burn. Absent any such kind, the criminal offense to burn the property at most is only in the attempted stage. Once any portion of the property intended to be burned had already blackened, it is indicative that such property had already caught fire, it had begun to burn. In the crime of arson the moment any part of the property intended to be destroyed by burning had begun to burn, the crime is consummated, because it is not required that the entire property be burned down before the act is consummated, it is enough that any particle of the property had already caught in a fire. So the crime rules out the possibility of the attempted stage. If there is no sign that the property intended to burn had already began to burn, only attempted. But the moment there is a sign, like the property had already began to blackened indicative that it had begun to burn, the arson is consummated because in the crime of arson, it is not necessary that the entire property intended to be burn should burn down. And a portion thereof had begun to burn, it consummates the crime. Another example: Bribery (Direct or Indirect) Indirect Bribery is always consummated. It does not admit of the attempted or frustrated stages. If it is direct bribery, it admits of the attempted or consummated stages, but not the frustrated stage. So whether the bribery is Direct or indirect, there is no frustrated stage.

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
Crimes which involve killing in relation to frustrated stage In crimes involving the destruction of human lives, if a mortal or fatal wound were inflicted but a timely medical attention was given resulting that the victim did not die, the crime is already in the frustrated stage. The law considers that the offender had already performed all the acts of execution, that will bring about the death of the victim. What remains in that fatal or mortal wound to take its cause. It may be provided by some external medical treatment but that is already independent of the will of the perpetrator. If the wound inflicted was superficial or not really fatal or mortal, the implication of that is it is not susceptible to bring about the death of the victim. Therefore the intended killing is regarded only as attempted unless the victim died eventually, in this case, the crime becomes consummated. So even if the wound is not mortal or fatal, if the victim lost so much blood because the medical attention given to him is delayed, the crime initially would be in the attempted stage because the wound is not fatal, but the moment he dies because of loss of blood, the crime does not even become frustrated but already consummated. However, there is a notable exception to this, were although the wound inflicted was not fatal or mortal, the liability of the offender is regarded as already on the frustrated felony. In the case of people vs Bornaga, the victim did not sustain any injury because the spear that was thrown at him landed on the part of the chair where the victim was seating. But because the offender believed that he had already inflicted a serious wound upon the victim and for that matter he already fled, rejoicing that he had killed the victim, whereas the victim did not even suffer a scratch. In his mind, he thought he had already performed all the acts of execution. So in cases like this, the SC laid down the exception, that were the offender himself believed that he had already performed all the acts of execution to bring about the death of the victim and the offender could have really carried out the killing of the victim, because there was nothing that stop him, but because of his belief, he did not perform any further act, the SC in effect said, who are we to say otherwise, when the offender himself believed that he had already perform all the acts of execution this runs along the common saying we cannot be more popist than the pope. So even though it turned out that the wound inflicted was not really fatal or mortal, if the offender could have carried out the killing but he did not because he believe that he already done all the acts of execution then the liability can be for a frustrated killing even though the wound inflicted was not really fatal or mortal. On the other hand, even though, the offender believe that he had not performed all the acts of execution, whereas in fact he had inflicted a fatal wound upon the victim, that wound objectively can bring about the death of the victim. So against the belief of the offended, the crime is already in the frustrated stage. Where the offender, for example, shots his enemy at a distance, the enemy was hit, but somehow the enemy manages to run and hid himself from the road where the offender could not see him anymore. So the offender in his mind believe, he has not inflicted a mortal wound, he even uttered a mark may araw ka din, mapapatay din kita. It turned out that the victim was mortally wounded and after having run a
Page | 34

distance, he collapsed but kind hearted people brought him to the hospital and he was treated timely that made him recover from the fatal wound. Although the belief of the offender that the wound inflicted was not really fatal or mortal but because the facts turned out to be different, the offender is liable for the act he has done. So we apply the rule, which is an exception only if it were true to the belief of the offender. When the victim of an act that would bring about a killing resulted to the death of the victim, the crime is always consummated homicide and there is no need to discuss intent to kill. The fact that the victim is dead is conclusively regarded by law as indicative of intent to kill. This is so because we only consider intent to kill if the victim did not die and that is to differentiate a crime of physical injuries from the crime of attempted or frustrated homicide, murder or parricide. If the victim died, there is no need to determine whether the crime is homicide, murder or physical injuries. It cannot be physical injuries if the victim already died. The fact that the victim is dead rises conclusively that the offender inflicted the mortal wound precisely with intent to kill. The crime of murder, homicide or parricide may be incurred although the offender acted without intent to kill, if the act should bring a felonious and the consequence of that act the victim died, then the crime may be consummated homicide, murder or parricide In a case where a victim is courting a lady, residing in different vicinity, the young man in the neighborhood already forewarned him that they will not allow any young man from another vicinity to court a lady within that neighborhood. So they told him to lay off, but out of his affection to the lady, he kept on visiting her. And this brought about the anger on the part of the young man in the same neighborhood. One afternoon after the young man from the other vicinity courting the young lady, came down the house of the lady, the offenders who were 3, seized the fellow, tied him against the tree, they tied up his arms around the tree, then they started whipping him. When they stopped the fellow is already unconscious and turned out that he is already dead. The issue is whether the crime is murder or homicide? The victim was tied, hence treachery, he is in no position to defend or retaliate, he is totally defenseless and that is the essence of treachery, hence the crime is not homicide but murder. So even without intent to kill the crime is murder because treachery as a circumstance affecting criminal liability pertains to the material execution of the crime. Consummated stage One thing that is commonly incurred AS A MISTAKE by bar candidates, is to refer to the felony on the basis of the acts of execution. There are no more acts to speak of because in the frustrated stage which comes before the consummated stage, the offender has already performed all acts of execution. So what follow is no longer the act but the elements. Art 6 does not refer to acts of execution in the consummated stage. The article refers to elements. Otherwise you will be going back to the attempted stage.

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
In determining the execution of a particular felony, you have to consider the 3 criteria. The manner of executing the felony The elements of the particular felony involve The nature of the felony itself All these are found in the law punishing the crime. These stages are applied only in material felonies or those which are susceptible of these. But there are felonies which do not admit of these stages, they are referred to as formal felonies. There are felonies which at once consummated. No neither attempted nor frustrated Example: slander or oral defamation, the moment it is uttered, the defamatory utterance is consummated. Manner of committing a crime For example, let us take the crime of bribery. Can the crime of frustrated bribery be committed? No. (Incidentally, the common concept of bribery is that it is the act of one who corrupts a public officer. Actually, bribery is the crime of the receiver not the giver. The crime of the giver is corruption of public official. Bribery is the crime of the public officer who in consideration of an act having to do with his official duties would receive something, or accept any promise or present in consideration thereof.) The confusion arises from the fact that this crime requires two to commit the giver and the receiver. The law called the crime of the giver as corruption of public official and the receiver as bribery. Giving the idea that these are independent crimes, but actually, they cannot arise without the other. Hence, if only one side of the crime is present, only corruption, you cannot have a consummated corruption without the corresponding consummated bribery. There cannot be a consummated bribery without the corresponding consummated corruption, if you have bribery only, it is only possible in the attempted stage. If you have a corruption only, it is possible only in the attempted stage. A corruptor gives money to a public officer for the latter not to prosecute him. The public officer received the money but just the same, arrested him. He received the money to have evidence of corruption. Do not think that because the corruptor has already delivered the money, he has already performed all the acts of execution, and, therefore, the corruption is already beyond the attempted stage. That thinking does away with the concept of the crime that it requires two to commit. The manner of committing the crime requires the meeting of the minds between the giver and the receiver. When the giver delivers the money to the supposed receiver, but there is no meeting of the minds, the only act done by the giver is an attempt. It is not possible for him to perform all the acts of execution because in the first place, the receiver has no intention of being corrupted. Similarly, when a public officer demands a consideration by official duty, the corruptor turns down the demand, there is no bribery. If the one to whom the demand was made pretended to give, but he had reported the matter to higher authorities, the money was
Page | 35

marked and this was delivered to the public officer. If the public officer was arrested, do not think that because the public officer already had the money in his possession, the crime is already frustrated bribery, it is only attempted bribery. This is because the supposed corruptor has no intention to corrupt. In short, there is no meeting of the minds. On the other hand, if there Is a meeting of the minds, there is consummated bribery or consummated corruption. This leaves out the frustrated stage because of the manner of committing the crime. But indirect bribery is always consummated. This is because the manner of consummating the crime does not admit of attempt or frustration. You will notice that under the Revised Penal Code, when it takes two to commit the crime, there could hardly be a frustrated stage. For instance, in the crime of adultery, there is no frustrated adultery. Only attempted or consummated. This Is because it requires the link of two participants. If that link is there, the crime is consummated; if such link is absent, there is only an attempted adultery. There is no middle ground when the link is there and when the link is absent. There are instances where an intended felony could already result from the acts of execution already done. Because of this, there are felonies where the offender can only be determined to have performed all the acts of execution when the resulting felony is already accomplished. Without the resulting felony, there is no way of determining whether the offender has already performed all the acts or not It is in such felonies that the frustrated stage does not exist because without the felony being accomplished, there is no way of stating that the offender has already performed all the acts of execution. An example of this is the crime of rape. The essence of the crime is carnal knowledge. No matter what the offender may do to accomplish a penetration, if there was no penetration yet, it cannot be said that the offender has performed all the acts of execution. We can only say that the offender in rape has performed all the acts of execution when he has effected a penetration. Once there is penetration already, no matter how slight, the offense is consummated. For this reason, rape admits only of the attempted and consummated stages, no frustrated stage. This was the ruling in the case of People v. Orita. In rape, it requires the connection of the offender and the offended party. No penetration at all, there is only an attempted stage. Slightest penetration or slightest connection, consummated. You will notice this from the nature of the crime requiring two participants. This is also true in the crime of arson. It does not admit of the frustrated stage. In arson, the moment any particle of the premises intended to be burned is blackened, that is already an indication that the premises have begun to burn. It does not require that the entire premises be burned to consummate arson. Because of that, the frustrated stage of arson has been eased out. The reasoning is that one cannot say that the offender, in the crime of arson, has already performed all the acts of execution which could produce the destruction of the premises through the use of fire, unless a part of the premises has begun to burn. If it has not begun to burn, that means that the offender has not yet performed all the acts of execution. On the other hand, the moment it begins to

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
burn, the crime is consummated. Actually, the frustrated stage is already standing on the consummated stage except that the outcome did' not result. As far as the stage is concerned, the frustrated stage overlaps the consummated stage. The Supreme Court followed the analysis that one cannot say that the offender in the crime of arson has already performed all the acts of execution which would produce the arson as a consequence, unless and until a part of the premises had begun to burn. When the offender has already passed the subjective stage of the felony, it is beyond the attempted Stage. It is already on the consummated or frustrated stage depending on whether a felony resulted. If the felony did not result, it is frustrated. The attempted stage is said to be within the subjective phase of execution of a felony. It is that point in time when the offender begins the commission of an overt act until that point where he loses control of the commission of the crime already. If he has reached that point where he can no longer control the ensuing consequence, the crime has already passed the Subjective phase and, therefore, it is no longer attempted. The moment the execution of the crime has already gone to that point where the felony should follow as a consequence, it is either already frustrated or consummated. If the felony does not follow as a consequence, it is already frustrated. If the felony follows as a consequence, it is consummated. The trouble is that, in the Jurisprudence recognizing the objective phase and the subjective phase, the Supreme Court considered not only the acts of the but also his belief. That although the offender may not have done the act to bring about the felony as a consequence, if he could have continued committing those acts but he himself did not proceed because he believed that he had done enough to consummate the crime, Supreme Court said the subjective phase has passed. This was applied in the case of US v. Valdez, where the offender, having already put kerosene on the jute sacks, lighted the same, he had no reason not to believe that the fire would spread, so he ran away. That act demonstrated that in his mind, he believed that he has performed all the acts of execution and that it is only a matter of time that the premises will burn. The fact that the occupant of the other room came out and put out the fire is a cause independent of the will of the perpetrator. The ruling in the case of US v. Valdez is still correct But in the case of People v. Garda, the situation is different Here, the offender who put the torch over the house of the offended party, the house being a nipa hut, the torch which was lighted could easily bum the roof of the nipa hut But the torch burned out. In that case, you cannot say that the offender believed that he had performed all the acts of execution. There was not even a single burn of any instrument or agency of the crime. The analysis made by the Court of Appeals is still correct: that they could not demonstrate a situation where the offender has performed all the acts of execution to bring about the crime of arson and the situation where he has not yet performed all the acts of execution. The weight of the authority is that the crime of arson cannot be committed in the frustrated stage.
Page | 36

The reason is because we can hardly determine whether the offender has performed all the acts of execution that would result in arson, as a consequence, unless a part of the premises has started to burn. On the other hand, the moment a particle or a molecule of the premises has blackened, in law, arson is consummated. This is because consummated arson does not require that the whole of .the premises be burned. It is enough that any part of the premises, no matter how small, has begun to burn. There are also certain crime that do not admit of the attempted or frustrated stage, like Physical injuries One of the known commentators in criminal law has advanced the view that the crime of physical injuries can be committed in the attempted as well as the frustrated stage. He explained that by going through the definition of an attempted and a frustrated felony under Article 6, if a person who was about to give a fist blow to another raises his arms, but before he could throw the blow, somebody holds that arm, there would be attempted physical injuries. The reason for this is because the offender was not able to perform all the acts of execution to bring about physical injuries. On the other hand, he also stated that the crime of physical injuries may be committed in the frustrated stage when the offender was able to throw the blow but somehow, the offended party was able to sidestep away from the blow. He reasoned out that the crime would be frustrated because the offender was able to perform all the acts of execution which would bring about the felony were it not for a cause independent of the will of the perpetrator. The explanation is academic. You will notice that under the Revised Penal Code, the crime of physical injuries is penalized on the basis of the gravity of the injuries. Actually, there is no simple crime of physical injuries. You have to categorize because there are specific articles that apply whether the physical injuries are serious, less serious or slight. If you say physical injuries, you do not know which article to apply. This being so, you could not punish the attempted or frustrated stage because you do not know what crime of physical injuries was committed. Is there an attempted slight physical injuries? If there is no result, you do not know. Criminal law cannot stand en any speculation or ambiguity; otherwise, the presumption of innocence would be sacrificed. Therefore, the commentator's opinion cannot stand because you cannot tell what particular physical injuries was attempted or frustrated unless the consequence is there. You cannot classify the physical injuries. A threw muriatic acid on the face of B. The injuries would have resulted in deformity were it not for timely plastic surgery; After the surgery, B became more handsome. What crime is committed? Is it attempted, frustrated or consummated? The crime committed here is serious physical injuries because of the deformity. When there is deformity, you disregard the healing duration of the wound or the medical treatment required by the wound.

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
In order that in law, a deformity can be said to exist, three factors must concur: 1. The injury should bring about the ugliness; 2. The ugliness must be visible; 3. The ugliness would not disappear through natural healing process. Along this concept of deformity in law, the plastic surgery applied to B is beside the point. In law, what is considered is not the artificial or the scientific treatment but the natural healing of the injury. So the fact that there was plastic surgery applied to B does not relieve the offender from the liability for the physical injuries inflicted. The crime committed is serious physical injuries. It is consummated. In determining whether a felony is attempted, frustrated or consummated, you have to consider the manner of committing the felony, the element of the felony and the nature of the felony itself. There is no real hard and fast rule. Another example: Espionage The manner of obtaining the information or plans of the Philippine government is by entering any of the defense establishment where the Philippines is keeping plans, maps and other materials. Since the article says by entering the mere act of entering these establishments even though his purpose is not to gather defensive materials there, the crime is already consummated. The mere entering for that purpose will consummate the crime Elements of the crime In the crime of estafa, the element of essential before the crime could be consummated. If there is no damage, even if the offender succeeded in carting away the personal property involved, estafa cannot be considered as consummated. For the crime of estafa to be consummated, there must be misappropriation already done, so that there is damage already suffered by the offended party. If there is no damage yet, the estafa can only be frustrated or attempted. On the other hand, if it were a crime of theft, damage or intent to cause damage is not an element of theft What is necessary only is intent to gain, not even gain is important The mere intent to derive some profit is enough but the thinking must be complete before a crime of theft shall be consummated. That is why we made that distinction between theft and estafa. If the personal property was received by the offender, this is where you have to decide whether what was transferred to the offender is Juridical possession or physical possession only. If the offender did not receive the personal property, but took the same from the possession of the owner without the latter's consent, then there Is no problem. That cannot be estafa; this is only theft or none at all. In estafa, the offender recedes the property; he does not take it. But in receiving the property, the recipient may be committing theft, not estafa, if what was transferred to him was only the physical or material possession of the object. It can only be estafa if what was transferred to him is not only material or physical possession but juridical possession as well.
Page | 37

When you are discussing estafa, do not talk about intent to gain. In the same manner that when you are discussing the crime of theft, do not talk of damage. The crime of theft is the one commonly given under Article 6. This is so because the concept of theft under the Revised Penal Code differs from the concept of larceny under American common law. Under American common law, the crime of larceny which Is equivalent to our crime of theft here requires that the offender must be able to carry away or transport the thing being stolen. Without that carrying away, the larceny cannot be consummated. In our concept of theft, the offender need not move an inch from where he was. It is not a matter of carrying away. It is a matter of whether he has already acquired complete control of the personal property involved. That complete control simply means that the offender has already supplanted his will from the will of the possessor or owner of the personal property involved, such that he could exercise his own control on the thing. I placed a wallet on a table inside a room. A stranger comes inside the room, gets the wallet and puts it in his pocket. I suddenly started searching him and I found the wallet inside his pocket. The crime of theft is already consummated because he already acquired complete control of my wallet This is so true when he removed the wallet from the confines of the table. He can exercise his will over the wallet already, he can drop this on the floor, etc. But as long as the wallet remains on the table, the theft is not yet consummated; there can only be attempted or frustrated theft. If he has started lifting the wallet, it is frustrated. If he is in the act of trying to take the wallet or place it under, attempted. Taking in the concept of theft simply means exercising control over the thing. If instead of the wallet, the man who entered the room pretended to carry the table cut of the room, and the wallet is there. While taking the table out of the room, I apprehended him. It turned out that he is not authorized at all and is interested only in the wallet, not the table. The crime is not yet consummated. It is only frustrated because as far as the table is concern, it is the confines of this room that is the container. As long as he has not taken this table out of the four walls of this room, the taking is not complete. A man entered a room and found a chest on the table. He opened it found some valuables inside. He took the valuables, put them in his pocket and was arrested. In this case, theft is consummated. But if he does not take the valuables but lifts the entire chest, and before he could leave the room, he was apprehended, there is frustrated theft. If the thing is stolen from a compound or from a room, as long as the object has not been brought out of that room, or from the perimeter of the compound, the crime is only frustrated. This is the confusion raised in the case of US v. Dino compared with People v. Adio and People v. Espiritu.

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
In the case of US v. Dino, the boxes of rifle were stocked file inside the compound of the South Harbor. As far as the boxes of rifle are concerned, it is the perimeter of the compound that is the container. As long as they were not able to bring these boxes of rifle out of the compound, the taking is not complete. On the other hand, in the case of People v. Espiritu, what were taken were hospital linens. These were taken from a warehouse. Hospital linens were taken from boxes that were diffused or destroyed and brought out of the hospital. From the moment they took it out of the boxes where the owner or the possessor had placed it, the control is complete. You do not have to go out of the compound to complete the taking or the control. This is very decisive in the problem because in most problems given in the bar, the offender, after having taken the object out of the container changed his mind and returned it. Is he criminally liable? Do not make a mistake by saying that there is a desistance. If the crime is one of theft, the moment he brought it out, it was consummated. The return of the thing cannot be desistance because in criminal law, desistance is true only in the attempted stage. You cannot talk of desistance anymore when it is already in the consummated stage. . If the offender has already acquired complete control of what he intended to take, the fact that he changed his mind and .returned the same will no longer affect his criminal liability. It will only affect the civil liability of the crime because he will no longer be required-to pay the object. As far as the crime committed is concerned, the offender is criminally liable and the crime is consummated theft. Nature of the crime itself In crimes involving the taking of human life - parricide, homicide, and murder - in the definition of the stage, it is indispensable that the victim be mortally wounded. Under the definition of the frustrated stage, to consider the offender as having performed all the acts of execution, the acts already done by him must produce or be capable of producing a felony as a consequence. The general rule is that there must be a fatal injury inflicted, because it is only then that death will follow. If the wound is not mortal, the crime is only attempted. The reason is that the wound inflicted is not capable of bringing about the desired felony of parricide, murder or homicide as a consequence; it cannot be said that the offender has performed all the acts of execution which would produce parricide, homicide or murder as a result. An exception to the general rule is the so-called subjective phase The Supreme Court has decided cases which applied the subjective standard that when the offender himself believed that he had performed all the acts of execution, even though no mortal wound was inflicted, the act is already in the frustrated stage. There are crimes which do not admit attempted or frustrated stages. Example: Bribery (Direct or Indirect) Indirect Bribery is always consummated. It does not admit of the attempted or frustrated stages.
Page | 38

If it is direct bribery, it admits of the attempted or consummated stages, but not the frustrated stage. So whether the bribery is Direct or indirect, there is no frustrated stage. Another example: Physical injuries a person threw a bottle of muriatic acid in the face of his enemy. A deformity would have followed had it not been for timely plastic surgery. After the plastic surgery, the victim appeared more handsome than before. What is the crime committed? Is it attempted, frustrated or consummated? In the crime of physical injuries, it must be observed that there is no such crime as Physical injuries. The crimes are Slight physical injuries, less serious physical injuries, serious physical injuries. The crimes are punished on the basis of the gravity of the injury inflicted. (segway of Dean O, [his answers are not responsive to his own questions sometimes]) In the rules of criminal procedure (sec 6 rule 110), for a complaint or information to be sufficient, it must give the crime committed, the designation that the law violated __ to it. A complaint or information is allowed to state the section or subsection of the law violated only if the law did not give the name to the crime committed. If the crime committed is parricide, the accused will be prosecuted for violation of art 246, the rule on stating the designation given by the law for the crime committed is violated. So the complaint or information is not sufficient because it did not revealed the name given by law to the crime committed rather the designation is for only crime which the law does not give as a designation for what was committed. (Answering the situation given) a deformity would have resulted. Deformity refers to serious physical injuries. Par 3 of art 263, where the offended party shall have become deformed. The physical injuries will immediately become serious. We do not have to consider the duration of the medical treatment required by the injury. We do not even consider the period that the offended party had been incapacitated from labor. The moment there is deformity, it is serious. In the problem given, the crime will be serious physical injuries even though the ugliness was not produced because of the timely plastic surgery. The substance of the deformity as a physical injury is ugliness. To constitute a legal deformity, 3 conditions must concur: The injury must have produced an ugliness o if what was produced was not ugliness, but something pleasant, it will not be serious physical injuries. The implication of deformity was ugliness The ugliness must be visible o when a person punch someone and the offended partys tooth fell, that

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
constitutes serious physical injuries because that is deformity unless the tooth is an artificial tooth. If the inner molar was removed, that is not visible, unless the offended party has such a wide mouth The ugliness will not disappear through natural healing process. o What the law only considers is the natural healing process. Purpose of determining the gravity of offense 1. To determine whether these felonies can be complexed or not, and 2. To determine the prescription of the crime and the prescription of the penalty General Rule: Light felonies are punished only when it is consummated Exception: In all stages, when the crime committed is against persons or property Only Principal offenders are punishable Article 16 The accomplices and accessories are not punished because the penalty in such case will be two degrees lower than that of the principal hence, so minimal.
Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons.

So Physical injuries is a crime which by nature determines that it is always consummated. The nature of the crime do not admit an attempted or frustrated stage.
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 7, in relation to article 16 Under the article 16, were the felony is only light felony, accessories are not criminally liable therefore, only principals and accomplices incurred liability in a light felony. But under article 7, u are informed that even the principal and the accomplice will not incur criminal liability in a light felony, if the light felony is not consummated. To this provision however, we have another exception, that were the light felony would have been a crime against persons or property even though it is not consummated, it is punishable by law. Those who will deserved the punishment are the principal and accomplice, accessories are never liable on light felony, whether the light felony is against persons or property, whether it is consummated or otherwise. CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES According to the manner of their commission Under Article 3 1. intentional felonies or those committed with deliberate Intent 2. Culpable felonies or those resulting from negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill. According to the stages of their execution Under Article 6 1. attempted felony 2. frustrated felony 3. consummated felony According to the stages of their execution Under Article 9 1. Grave felonies or those which attaches the capital punishment or penalties which any of their periods are afflictive 2. Less grave felonies or those to which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period was correccional 3. Light felonies or those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty is arresto mayor
Page | 39

CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT A FELONY Two ways for conspiracy to exist: (express) there is an agreement (implied) the participants acted in concert or simultaneously which is indicative of a meetings of the minds towards a common criminal goal or criminal objective. When several offenders act in a synchronized, coordinated manner, the fact that their acts complimented each other is indicative of the meetings of the minds. There is an implied agreement. Two kinds of conspiracy 1. Conspiracy as a crime 2. Conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability When conspiracy itself is a crime, no overt act is necessary to bring about criminal liability. The mere conspiracy is the crime itself. This is only true when the law expressly punishes the mere conspiracy; otherwise, the conspiracy does not bring about the commission of the crime because conspiracy is not an overt act but a mere preparatory act Treason, rebellion, sedition, and coup d'etat are the only crimes where the conspiracy and proposal to commit to them are punishable. Union A proposed acts of sedition to Union B. Is there a crime committed? Assuming Union B accepts the proposals, will your answer be different? There is no crime commited. Proposal to commit sedition is not a crime. But if Union B accepts the proposal, there will be conspiracy to commit sedition which is 2 crimes under the Revised Penal Code

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
When the conspiracy is only a basis of incurring liability, there must be an overt act done before the conspirators become criminally liable When the conspiracy itself is a crime, this cannot be inferred or deduced because there is no overt act. All that there is the agreement. On the other hand, if the co-conspirator or any of them would execute an overt act, the crime would no longer be the conspiracy but the overt act itself. General Rule: if there has been a conspiracy to commit a crime in a particular place, anyone who did not appear shall be presumed to have desisted Exception: if such person who did not appear was the mastermind. We have to observe the distinction between the two because conspiracy as a crime, must have a clear and convincing evidence of its existence. Every crime must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. When the conspiracy is just a basis of incurring liability, however, the same may be deduced or inferred from the acts of several offenders in carrying out the commission of the crime. The existence of a conspiracy may be reasonably inferred from the acts of the offender when such acts disclose or show a common pursuit of the criminal objective. This was the ruling in people vs Pinto, 204 SCRA 9. Although conspiracy is defined as two or more person coming to an agreement regarding the commission of a felony and deciding to commit it, the word person here should not be understood to require a meeting of the conspirator regarding the commission of the felony. A conspiracy of the second kind can be inferred or deduced even though they have not met as long as they have acted in concert or simultaneously, indicative of a meeting of the minds toward a common goal or objective. Conspiracy is a matter of substance which must be alleged in the information, otherwise the court will not consider the same. When several persons who do not know each other simultaneously attack the victim, the act of one is the act of all, regardless of the degree of injury inflicted by any one of them. All will be liable for the consequences. A conspiracy is possible even when participants are not known to each other. Do not think that participants are always known to each other. crime in itself but merely a basis for incurring criminal liability. This is just a preparatory act, and his desistance negates criminal liability. Proposal is true only up to the point where the party to whom the proposal was made has not yet accepted the proposal. Once the proposal was accepted, a conspiracy arises. Proposal is unilateral, one party makes a proposition to the other; conspiracy is bilateral. It requires two Parties. As pointed out earlier, desistance is true only in the attempted stage. Before this stage, there is only a preparatory stage. Conspiracy is only in the preparatory stage. The Supreme Court has ruled that one who desisted is not criminally liable. When person has set foot to the path of wickedness and brings back his foot to the path of righteousness, the law shall reward him for doing so" Where there are several person whom participated, like in a killing, and they attacked the victim simultaneously, so much so that it cannot be known what participation each one had, all these participants shall be considered as having acted in conspiracy and they will be held collectively responsible. Do not search for an agreement among the participants. If they acted simultaneously to bring about their common intention, conspiracy exists. And when conspiracy exists, do not consider the degree of participation of each conspirator because the act of one is the act of all. As a general rule, they have equal criminal responsibility. There are several offenders who acted simultaneously. When they fled, a victim was found dead. Who should be liable for the killing if who actually killed the victim is not known? There is collective responsibility here. Without the principle of conspiracy, nobody would be prosecuted; hence, there is the rule on collective responsibility since it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the victim. There is conspiracy when the offenders acted simultaneously pursuing a common criminal design; thus, acting out a common criminal intent. When may Co-Conspirators Not a Principal The common notion is that when there is conspiracy Involved, the participants are punished as principals. This notion is no longer absolute. In the case of People v. Nierra, the Supreme Court ruled that even though there was conspiracy, if a co-conspirator merely cooperated in the commission of the crime with insignificant or minimal acts, such that even without his cooperation, the crime could be carry out as well, such co-conspirator should be punished as an accomplice only. The reason given is that penal laws always favor a milder form of responsibility upon an offender. That means the penalty which shall be imposed upon him is one degree lower. So it is no longer accurate to think that when there is a conspiracy, all are principals. For example, there was a planned robbery, and the taxi driver was present during the planning. There, the conspirators told the taxi
Page | 40

A law student resented the fact that his brother was killed by A. He hired B to kill A and offered him P50,000.00. He disclosed to B that A was being arraigned in the City Hall of Manila and told him to execute the plan on the following day. In the evening of that same day, the law student changed his mind so he immediately went to the police and told them to dispatch police officers to prevent B from committing the crime. Unfortunately, the police were caught in traffic causing their delay, so that when they reached the place, B had already killed A. In this case, there was no proposal but a conspiracy. They have conspired to execute a crime but the crime involved here is murder and a conspiracy to commit murder is not a

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
driver that they are going to use his taxicab in going to the place of robbery. The taxi driver agreed but said, "I will bring you there, and after committing the robbery I will return later". The taxi driver brought the conspirators where the robbery would be committed. After the robbery was finished, he took the conspirators back to his taxi and brought them away. It was held that the taxi driver was liable only as an accomplice. His cooperation was not really Indispensable. The robbers could have engaged another taxi. The taxi driver did not really stay during the commission of the robbery. Almost, what he only extended was his cooperation. That is why he was given only that penalty for an accomplice. No Conspiracy in a Public Riot In Siton v. CA, it was held that the Idea of a conspiracy is incompatible with the Idea of a free for all. There is no definite opponent or definite intent as when a basketball crowd beats a referee to death. Composite crimes Composite crimes are crimes which, in substance, consist of more than one crime but in the eyes of the law, there is only one crime. For example, the crimes of robbery with homicide, robbery with rape, robbery with physical injuries. Legal effects in relation to conspiracy In case the crime committed is a composite crime, the conspirator will be liable for all the acts committed during the commission of the crime agreed upon. This is because, in the eyes of the law, all those acts done in pursuance the crime agreed upon are acts which constitute a single crime. only those who committed the killing or rape or who were present during the killing or rape that they could have stop or prevented this had they wanted to do so, will answer for the crime of robbery with homicide or robbery with rape. Those who were not present during the rape or killing will only answer for the crime of robbery because their conspiracy only refers to the commission of the robbery Example: A, B, and C decided to commit robbery in the house of D. Pursuant to their agreement, A would ransack the second floor, B was to wait outside, and C would stay on the first floor. Unknown to B and C, A raped the girl upstairs. All of them will be liable for robbery with rape. The crime committed is robbery with rape, which is not a complex crime, but an indivisible felony under the Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. Even if B and C did not know that rape was being committed and they agreed only and conspired to rob, yet rape was part of robbery. Rape cannot be separated from robbery. Example: A, B and C agreed to rob the house of D. It was agreed that A would go the second floor, B would stay in the first floor, and C stands guard outside. All went to their designated areas in pursuit of the plan. While A was ransacking the second floor, the owner was awakened. A killed him. A, B and C was held to be liable for robbery
Page | 41

with homicide. The C appealed because he was only in the ground floor. The robbery and the killing took place in the second floor. And he was only looking at the door to make sure that the others committing the robbery will be forewarned if anybody is coming to the house. The SC clarified that under this composite crime, for as long as the evidence on record does not show that any member of the group who took part the in the commission of the crime did not exert effort to stop the killing or to stop rape, he will also incur liability because the crime involved is a single indivisible offense. C filed a motion for reconsideration explaining that he does not even know that there was a killing committed in the second floor. He argued that he cannot prevent the killing when he does not know that there was killing that took placed The SC simply said that composite crimes constitute a single indivisible offense. The SC further said that only if there is evidence that C tried to stop the killing or any violence during the robbery, he will be excluded from the killing or rape and he will be only be held liable for the robbery because he disown whatever liability he may incur out of the killing or rape. (RECENT RULING) In the case of People vs Canturia? decided on 1993, the SC came out with this ruling which deviated from the earlier ruling (ruling above). Without any qualification, the SC simply concluded in the dispositive part of the decision that since only Canturia took part in the rape while the others only took part in the robbery, only Canturia will be held liable for robbery with rape. The others who conspired only to commit robbery should be liable for robbery only. Only those taking part of the robbery who were present during the commission of the component crime (killing, rape, mutilation or inflicting of serious physical injuries) and who did not do anything to stop the same will answer for the crime of robbery with homicide, robbery with rape, robbery with mutilation or robbery with serious physical injuries. Otherwise, if they are not present during the commission of these component crimes, they shall only answer for the robbery. (Dean O disagrees with this ruling because it runs contradictory to a composite crime) When Co-Conspirator Not Liable to the acts of another CoConspirator General rule: when there is conspiracy, the rule is that the act of one is the act of all. This principle applies only to the crime agreed upon. Exception: if any of the conspirator would commit a crime not agreed upon. This happens when the crime agreed upon and the crimes committed by one of the coconspirators are distinct crimes.

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
Exception to the exception: in acts constituting a single indivisible offense, even though the co-conspirator performed different acts bringing about composite crime, all will be liable for such crime. They can only evade responsibility for any other crime outside of that agreed upon, if it is proved that the particular conspirator had tried to prevent the commission of such other act. The rule would be different if the crime committed was not a composite crime. Proposal and Conspiracy to commit a felony Proposal and conspiracy to commit a felony are mere preparatory acts. So generally, they do not give rise to criminal liability. The exception, where there is a positive law imposing a penalty upon the mere proposal or mere conspiracy, there such proposal or conspiracy is a crime. That is the exception when an overt act will bring about a criminal liability. General Rule: an overt act will bring about a criminal liability Exception: where there is a positive law imposing a penalty upon the mere proposal or mere conspiracy, there such proposal or conspiracy is a crime There are cases were a penal law does not punish the proposal to commit the felony but punishes the conspiracy such felony. Example: Sedition. Proposal to commit sedition is not a crime. Conspiracy to commit sedition is a crime. In cases where the proposal does not constitute a crime whereas a conspiracy of the same crime would bring about criminal liability, that a proposal stays as a proposal only for as long as the party to whom the proposal was made has not yet accepted or agreed to the proposal. So in such a case, there is no criminal liability yet. Once the party to whom the proposition was made agreed to or accepted the same, what began as a proposal will ripen into a conspiracy. Where the party to whom the proposal was made agreed to the commission of the crime, so we have the essence of conspiracy. Example: Arson. Proposal to commit arson is not a crime but conspiracy to commit arson is a crime. For as long as the other party has not accepted the proposition to commit arson, there is no criminal liability but once he agreed to commit the arson proposed, a conspiracy arises. Conspiracy when 2 persons come to an agreement concerning a commission of a crime and they decided to carry it out. The fact the crime agreed upon has not yet carried out, that does not mean that there is no conspiracy. The execution was the one held in abeyance but the agreement is there. So the liability for conspiracy to commit sedition is already committed. On the conspiracy to commit a crime, we have to determine whether the conspiracy is express or implied. The conspiracy is express when the conspirators actually met, discuss how the crime is to be carried out and they arrived at an agreement concerning the commission of the crime and a
Page | 42

decision is reached to carry out. From the time that parties involve have already agreed on the commission of the crime, they are already co-conspirators even though the execution of the crime will yet come some days later on. During all the while that commission of the crime is still being awaited, the parties are already co-conspirators because the conspiracy is express. So if anyone of the co-conspirators found an opportunity to execute the crime before the date agreed upon, all the others, even though they are not aware on the execution of the crime, will incur criminal liability because they remain as coconspirators. If the conspiracy is express, it is not necessary that after the conspiracy, each of the conspirators should participate in the execution of the criminal act. Once there is a conspiracy the act of one is the act of all. This is the legal effect of that conspiracy. It is not necessary that each of them will participate in the execution of the crime. One who participates in an express conspiracy, may only avoid criminal liability in either of 2 ways: By not appearing at the place where the crime is to be committed on the date and time of the crime. It must be a voluntary and spontaneous non-appearance. The law regards this as indicative of desistance from the conspiracy The conspirator appear at the place where the crime is to be committed in which they agreed upon, but there he exerted efforts to prevent and stop his coconspirators from carrying out the commission of the crime. Another other way that has met out the conspirator in the execution of the crime, other than these 2, there is no other way can negate the criminal liability of an express conspirator. Once he is a party to an express conspiracy, he is bound by the tides of that conspiracy unless he performs any of the above mention 2 acts. If the co-conspirator was absent at the place because he was apprehended on the way to that place or he fled because he notice that there was an indication that they will be arrested, then this circumstances are against the idea of desistance. It is one of flight. Flight is brought about external occurrence. Implied conspiracy, the co-conspirators need not meet and discuss how the crime is to be committed. Instead, they act together at the place where the act is to be committed. In this situation, the conspiracy will give rise from the conduct of the implied conspirators, if they acted in concert (in a coordinated or synchronized manner), an indication arises that they acting to pursue a common criminal objective. That is why from that circumstance the existence of the conspiracy will be implied. The law would assume a meeting of the minds among those who took part in the execution of the crime. In an implied conspiracy, participation by the implied conspirators in the execution of the criminal act is necessary. It is from there, that the inference is deduced that he concurred in criminal resolution to carry out the crime. So if the person is seen at the place of the crime merely stood by and watched the others while they are executing the crime, his passive presence will not make him an implied conspirator because there is no basis to infer his concurrence to the criminal acts. The basis of the inference is his participation which is coordinated or synchronized with the acts of the others demonstrating a meeting of the minds toward a common criminal objective.

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
The mere presence at the scene of the crime does not make one co-conspirator. This ruled was laid down by the SC in a case where the conspiracy is only implied. If the conspiracy is express, the SC will not make that obiter dictum. Likewise the SC said that mere acquiescence or approval to the execution of the crime will not make one a co-conspirator. This is true for an implied conspiracy. If the conspiracy was express, the parties did not only to execute the crime in a coordinated manner, they agreed on how the crime will be committed, for as long as that agreement has not yet been negated, all of them who have come into that agreement are conspirators. If the conspiracy was express, even though the conspirators who were present at the scene of the crime did not act in the execution of the crime, they are nevertheless criminally liable because they are all co-conspirators already. If the conspiracy was implied, the implication is drawn from their criminal participation. So if there was no criminal participation, there is no basis to imply that he is a coconspirator. When the conspiracy is implied, one who is present at the scene of the crime did not act in a ___ manner, he simply saw his companions beating up the victim and he uttered sige pa bugbugin nyo pa that alone will not render him a coconspirator if the conspiracy is only imply or inferred because the inference can only be drawn out of a criminal participation. Thats why in implied conspiracy, the participation must be in concert. If the participation is successively, it is not indicative of a conspiracy. Each one will be liable individually not collectively. The moment there is an existence of conspiracy, it is immaterial that the participation of each of the same importance or intensity as the others because the basis of conspiracy is the conformity to bring about the commission of the crime. As to the importance of participation, that is considered irrelevant. Example: 3 persons went to the house of the victim late in the afternoon. They called upon the victim to come down from his house. The victim was reluctant but later on appeared. They went to the yard of the house. At that moment, one of the 3, who is armed with a hand gun, strike an argument with the victim, then shot him in the chest. The victim fell. One of the 3 went near the body of the victim and checked if the victim was still alive by touching his neck. He announced that he is already dead. The other one checked the pulse on the victims arm and he remarked similarly. They left altogether. Eventually they were caught and convicted for murder. The suddenness of the attack was characterized as treachery. 2 of the convicts contends that, they were surprised too when the victim was shot by the other, so they claimed that they should not be held liable as co-conspirators. The SC explained that subsequent acts, after the victim was already dead, showed that they concur with the commission of the crime, that they made certain that the victim was already dead. We should be guarded against a situation where, however, a crime is committed when each of the participants is not a conspirator but himself an offender committing the same crime. Example: 3 persons were walking along the road. From the opposite direction, the victim was walking towards them. When they came face to face, one from the 3 immediately slapped the victim, accusing the victim that such was stoning his house at night. There were altercations. 2 among those, confronted the victim. One of them went behind the victim, held his hand from behind while the other slapped him. The other one was surprised because he did not know the reason for such aggressiveness on the part of the 2. The 2 started stabbing the victim. Until the victim, although still alive, was already motionless then he just dropped on to the ground. The 2, who stabbed the victim, wiped the blood out of their knives and directed the other one to dispose of the body, so that the authorities will not see the body. They left. The one who was directed to dispose the body does not know what to do. He carried the body of the victim and then he found an old abandoned well. He dropped the body to the well. Because of the blood that was scattered on the road, the people there immediately learned that a crime was committed. The body of the victim was taken out from the well. During the autopsy, it was found out that the lungs of the victim was filled with water from the well with sediments of those well, indicative that the victim was still breathing when he was dumped in the well. The cause of death was affixation or drowning. Eventually, the 2 persons, who stabbed the victim was caught and the one who dumped the victim unto the well was also caught thereafter. They were all charged for murder. The one who dumped the victim unto the well challenged the decision of conviction for murder claiming that if at all his liability would only be as an accessory to the crime committed because he only disposed of the motionless body that was appeared to be dead at that time. The SC clarified that he was being held not as a coconspirator to the act of the 2 who stabbed the victim. He is being held liable in his own liability for what he had participated in. Since it was him who dumped the victim inside the well and such victim died of drowning, then his act is the proximate cause of the death. He is liable not as a co-conspirator but he is liable on his own act for causing the death. The other 2 are liable for stabbing the victim and the victim out of loss of blood cannot resist anymore. In this case, there is no conspiracy, the attack was sudden. The one who dumped the body on the well did not leave the crime scene together with the 2, indicative that he is not one of them. He was only a companion. But be that as it is, he performed an overt act which is felonious, the disposing of the body of the crime. For that feloniousness, he will incur criminal liability. He argued further that he does not know that the victim was still alive because the victim was motionless when he dumped him unto the well. The SC said that the same was immaterial because under par 1 of art 4, one who is committing a felonious act will be liable consequence although it be different from what he had intended.
Page | 43

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
Article 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light felonies. - Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with article 25 of this Code. Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are correctional, in accordance with the above-mentioned article. Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or both, is provided.

being done to the offended party. Article 100 states that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. That article shall be applied suppletory to avoid an injustice that would be caused to the private offended party, if he would not be Indemnified for the damages or Injuries sustained by him. A violation of a special law can never absorb a crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code, because violations of the Revised Penal Code are more serious than a violation of a Special Law. But a crime in the Revised Penal Code can absorb a crime punishable by a special law if it is a necessary ingredient of the crime in the Revised Penal Code. In the crime of sedition, the use of firearms is not an ingredient of the crime. Hence, two prosecutions can be had: (1) sedition; and (2) illegal possession of firearms. But do not think that when a crime is punished outside of the Revised Penal Code, it is already a special law. For example, the crime of cattle-rustling is not a mala prohibitum but a modification of the crime theft of large cattle. So, Presidential Decree No. 533, punishing cattle-rustling, is not a special law. It can absorb the crime of murder. If in the course of cattle rustling, murder was committed, the offender cannot be prosecuted for murder. Murder would be a qualifying circumstance in the crime of qualified cattle rustling. This was the ruling in People v. Martinada. The amendments of Presidential Decree No. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) by Republic Act No. 7659, which adopted the scale of penalties in the Revised Penal Code, means; that mitigating and aggravating circumstances can now be considered in imposing penalties; Presidential Decree No. 6425 does not expressly prohibit the suppletory application of the Revised Penal Code. The stages of the commission of felonies will also apply since suppletory application is now allowed. Art 10 refers to crimes mala prohibita, they are not governed by the RPC but the provisions of the RPC shall only be suppletory in so far matters are not provided for in the special law. Where there is a deficiency in the special law, like when the special law imposes punishment of a crime, the convict is insolvent to pay for the crime but the special law does not provide for subsidiary imprisonment, applying the provision of the RPC in Art. 39, that for the non-payment of the fine may be required to undergo subsidiary imprisonment. That provision of the code will be applied by authority of article 10. What would amount to injustice, may be remedied by the provision of the RPC being applied to a case governed by a special laws. The more significant in respect of Art 10, is the ruling of the SC in the case of people vs Martin-simon? although the crime is malum prohibitum, if the special law adopted the nomenclature of penalties under the RPC using such designation like arresto mayor, prision correccional, etc such provision in the special law demonstrates the intention of the law makers to punish the violation in the same manner that felonies are penalized under the RPC. Those provisions of the RPC in imposing the penalty as well as in the determination of the sentence, the provisions of the RPC shall be followed. So mitigating and aggravating circumstances can be considered, the scale of penalties under
Page | 44

In this Article, the gravity of the felonies is defined. Our attention must be called to a felony which is punishable by a fine exactly 200php. Under Art 9, such felony punishable by a fine exactly 200php and/or imprisonment of not more than 30 days is considered a light felony only. If we would go over Art 26, as to the classification of penalty prescribed. We will find out there that a fine exactly 200php is a correccional penalty. To be considered as a light penalty, the fine must be less than 200php. Under Art 9, when the felony is punished with a correctional penalty, the felony is a less grave felony. Clearly, there is inconsistency where the felony is considered light but the penalty is considered correccional. In order to reconcile this inconsistency, in the question involved is the prescription of the crime, a crime punished with a fine exactly 200php shall be considered as a light felony. But if the issue is in respect of prescription of penalty, there, the penalty exactly 200php shall be regarded as a correccional penalty. That penalty will prescribed in 10 years. SUPPLETORY APPLICATION OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE
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.

Article 10 is the consequence of the legal requirement that you have to distinguish those punished under special laws and those under the Revised Penal Code. With regard to Article 10, observe the distinction. In, Article 10, there is a reservation provision of the Revised Penal Code may be applied suppletorily to special laws. You will only apply the provisions of the Revised Penal Code as a supplement to the special law, or simply correlate the violated special law, if needed to avoid an injustice. If no Justice would result, do not give suppletory application of the Revised Penal Code to that of special law. For example, a special law punishes certain act as a crime. The special law is silent as to the civil liability of one who violates the same. Here is a person who violated the special law and he was prosecuted; His violation caused damage or injury to a private party. May the court pronounce that he is civilly liable to the offended party, considering that the special law is silent on this point? Yes, because Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code may be given suppletory application to prevent an Injustice from

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
art 71 which is applicable penalties under the RPC shall also be considered adopted by the special law. Hence, when the special law adopted this scale the penalties to be imposed can be graduated by degree or by periods. The stages in the execution of the crime may be considered when practicable because the scale in art 71 will likewise be applied. This is the far reaching consequence when the crime although a malum prohibitum is treated in the same manner as felonies are penalized under the RPC. Indeterminate sentence shall be arrived at in the same manner that this is arrived at for felonies under the RPC. The minimum of the indeterminate sentence shall be within the range of a penalty one degree lower because the scale in art 71 is deemed adopted also. Generally, penalties in the special laws have no degrees or periods because they dont have scale. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY What are the circumstances affecting criminal liability? The circumstances affecting criminal liability are: 1.) Justifying circumstances; 2.) Exempting circumstances; 3.) Mitigating circumstances; 4.) Aggravating circumstances; 5.) Alternative circumstances; 6.) Absolutory cause; and 7.) Extenuating circumstances. When the question asked does not distinguish circumstances that affects criminal liability as stated in the Revised Penal Code, such as the above question, include the two other circumstances. In Justifying and exempting circumstances, there is no criminal liability. When an accused invokes them, he in effect admits the commission of a crime but tries to avoid the liability thereof. The burden is upon him to establish beyond reasonable doubt the required conditions to justify or exempt his acts from criminal liability. What is shifted is only the burden of evidence, not the burden of proof. Justifying circumstances contemplate intentional acts and, hence, are incompatible with dolo. Exempting circumstances may be invoked in culpable felonies. Justifying vs Exempting In justifying circumstance, it affects the act not the actor. The reference is to the act not to the actor. The circumstance renders the act not a crime, so there is no crime there is no criminal. While in exempting circumstance affects the actor not the act. The actor acted without voluntariness. That is why there is a crime but there is no criminal. In justifying circumstances, there is no criminal liability as well as civil liability because the act is done within legal bounds hence, it is considered legitimate. Consequently, it may be said that there is no crime, there is no criminal. In exempting circumstance, it is only the actor but the act is a crime only nobody deserves a punishment because nobody
Page | 45
3. 2.

acted voluntarily. He is only an instrument or tool of the crime. But because there is a wrong committed, there is civil liability. So in an exempting circumstance, there is civil liability but in a justifying circumstance, there can be no civil liability. Procedurally, if the accused invokes a justifying or exempting circumstance, he in effect confesses the commission of the act imputed to him, only that he tries to avoid liability from that act. These justifying and exempting circumstances are affirmative defenses. As differentiated from a denial of the act charged as a crime, these are regarded as negative defenses. Under the Speedy Trial Act 1997, that when the defense involved is an affirmative defense, the presentation of evidence may be done by the accused first. The prosecution will only present rebuttal evidence because by invoking an affirmative defense, the accused in effect admits the commission of the act imputed to him. This is what is known as trial in the reverse. This is true only in a criminal case. When the accused invokes a justifying or exempting circumstance, in effect, he admits the crime imputed to him, hence, he will have to rely on the basis of the evidence presented by him. No matter how weak the prosecutions evidence, he cannot anymore take issue as the sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence because by invoking justifying or exempting circumstance he admits the acts imputed to him. This means that the accused cannot file a demurrer to the evidence because he admits the act. The SC said that if the accused invokes a justifying or exempting circumstance, he can no longer question the sufficiency of the prosecutions evidence. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
Article 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. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those by 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 provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein. 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. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to another, provided that the following requisites are present; First. That the evil sought to be avoided actual exists; Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;

4.

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it. 5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.

The means employed becomes unreasonable and unnecessary when after the aggression had ceased and the victim no longer posed any threat of further attack, the accused continued inflicting injuries on the victim. The concept of unlawful aggression should be equated not on the seriousness of the means employed. Unlawful aggression is more equated with how proximate or near is the danger to the life or limb of the person being defended or of the person defending and not on the gravity of the weapon with which the unlawful aggression is being carried out. Hence, we should observed whether the person against whom the unlawful aggression was being employed is a peace officer or law enforcer or just a civilian because if the person defending is law enforcer, whether he will be incurring criminal or civil liability depends on the requisites under par 5 of Art 11 not on the requisites under par 1, 2 or 3 of art 11. If that danger to the life and limb of the person defending is still _____ there is no unlawful aggression. It must be on this equation that if the person defending did not take the life of the supposed aggressor, he would have lost his own life. Reasonable Necessity General rule: the law does not allow the person defending himself to use arms or deadly weapon. Exception: When the circumstances so requires, the law allows a person defending himself or his rights to use arms or deadly weapon, only to repel or prevent an attack. Test in determination of reasonable means 1. Whether the means employed was the only one which the defender could avail of under the circumstances; 2. That the person attacked does not use his rational mind but acts according to his instincts of self-preservation. As a rule there must be No sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself however, if there may have been provocation on the part of the defender. It must not immediately precede the act and it must not be sufficient and disproportional. Defense of rights include defense of honor. In US v. Mateo, while a woman was sleeping, her sister and brother-in-law went to see a movie and came home late that evening. The accused was already asleep. The brother-in-law came up first while his wife was still in the staircase. He started feeling through the dark, and in the process, he awakened the accused. Believing that her honor was at stake, she got a pair of scissors and stabbed the man. When the lights were turned on, she realized that she had stabbed her brother-in-law. The accused claimed as having acted in defense of her honor and mistake of feet she said that she believed that her own honor was at stake. It was held that the whole matter Is purely her imagination. Touching the arm could not produce such danger as would realty be imminent to the honor of the woman.
Page | 46

6.

Justifying Circumstances are those circumstances wherein the acts of the actor are in accordance with law, and hence, he incurs no civil and criminal liability. It Is a case that there is no crime therefore there Is no criminal. It follows the legal maxim: "actus non tacit reum, nisi mens sit rea; (the act does not make a person criminal unless the mind is criminal.) Circumstance under Article 11 1.) Self-defense, of rights and property 2.) Defense of relatives; 3.) Defense of strangers; 4.) State of necessity; 5.) Fulfillment of a duty; 6.) Obedience to superior order The most common problem stated in the bar exams are about the circumstances of defenses. In the nature of defensive acts, there must always be unlawful aggression. !t also relates to the reasonableness of the means employed to repel the unlawful aggression which depends on the gravity of the aggression. If the unlawful aggressor was killed, this can only be justified if it was done to save the life of the person defending or the person being defended. The equation is life was taken to save life."
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.

Self Defense In justifying circumstances, the most important is selfdefense. When this is given in the bar, it is the element of unlawful aggression that is in issue. Never confuse unlawful aggression with provocation. Mere provocation is not enough. Concept of unlawful aggression The aggression must be unlawful. It must constitute a violation of the law otherwise it is merely an immoral, or improper act which is although wrongful, nevertheless does not violate any law. The aggression must be continuous up to the point it is repelled or prevented. When aggression ceased to exist, there is no more necessity to defend one's self. It becomes one of retaliation than of defense. Hence, the killing or injury to the attacker must be done during the unlawful aggression.

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
Apparently, under the Revised Penal Code, the honor of a woman in respect of her defense is equated with her virginity. The presence or lack of all or some of the requisites for the defense has the following effects: 1. AII requisites are present, the result is that there is a Justifying circumstance Article 11; 2. Two requisites are present, unlawful aggression plus one of the two requisites; it becomes a privileged mitigating circumstance; Art 69; 3. Only one requisite present, and this must be unlawful aggression, it's only an ordinary mitigating circumstance. Article 13, no. 1. Defense of property rights This can only be invoked if the life and Iimb of the person making the defense is also the subject of unlawful aggression. Life cannot be equal to property. Under the doctrine of "self-help" In Article 429 of the Civil Code, the law justifies the act of the owner or lawful possessor of a thing in Using force necessary to protect his proprietary or possessory rights. He must however exercise this right at the very moment that he is being deprived of his property. If sufficient time elapsed from the deprivation, he must seek the help of the proper authorities in reclaiming his property. Otherwise, he could be liable for coercion. In Self-defense, defense of relatives and defense of stranger, there is a common requirement: That the offended party must have acted in unlawful aggression; That the crime committed was brought by a reasonable necessity to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression The second requisite tells us the unlawful aggression on the part of the offended party must still be continuing when the act was committed by the accused by way of defense. But if the unlawful aggression is no longer continuing because the unlawful aggressor was already shot, then there is nothing to defend anymore. Any further act done by the defender will be an act of retaliation. What is justifiable under these 3 justifying circumstances is only an act of defense never an act of retaliation. Example: the offended party hacked the accused. The accused was wounded. The accused was carrying his hand gun, thereupon he shot the unlawful aggressor on the chest, the aggressor fell on the ground. The accused did not stop there, he fired another shot on the head of the aggressor. Will the act be justified? No, the act of defense is only the first shot because of that shot, the unlawful aggressor was already down. The aggression is already ceases. When the second shot was fired, there is no more unlawful aggression. So, it is not an act of defense but
Page | 47

an act of aggression. This is not justifiable under art 11, the justification is only as regards to the act of defense under the second requisite reasonable necessity to prevent or repel the aggression. In the example given, when the person who was hacked shot the aggressor, that is justifiable just to stop the unlawful aggression. When the unlawful aggressor was down on the ground, no more unlawful aggression. For the offender to shoot him again, the offender becomes the aggressor. So we have a case where the accused and the offended party act in pari delicto, both of them are equally liable. The accused cannot invoke the justification. Nobody can claim justification. The fact that he was hacked that made him to retaliate is only a mitigating circumstance. There we will have a case of incomplete self-defense. The act is not totally justified, it will only be a circumstance that will mitigate criminal liability of the person who is hacked. When a person challenges another person to a fight; the means they will employ are equal, nobody between them can invoke self-defense. Both of them are equally criminally liable.
Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. The following do not incur any criminal liability: 2. Anyone 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 no part therein.

Aside from the legal contemplation of what is unlawful aggression, the relationship between the accused and the person being defended by the accused is decisive. Defense of relatives extends only up to first cousin, second cousin is no longer cousin covered by defense of relatives, although second cousin is still regarded as relatives. As far as second cousin are concerned, what would be applicable is par 3 art 11, the second cousin is regarded only as a stranger and therefore it will be par 3 on defense of stranger that shall govern. This is important because the requisites to justify the act are different. If the relationship between the accused and the person being defended by the accused is governed by the second par of art rd 11, actually there are only 2 requisites there. The 3 requisite is only conditional or contingent. The required conditions only are: Unlawful aggression on the part of the offended party Reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel or prevent that unlawful aggression rd The 3 condition which is contingent: if provocation is from the relative defended, it is required that the person defending have no part therein. If no provocation was initiated by the relative defended, that requisite will not apply at all.
Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. The following do not incur any criminal liability: 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 Art. are present and that the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
Defense of stranger If the person being defended is already a second cousin, you do not invoke defense of relative anymore. It will be defense of stranger. This is vital because if the person making the defense acted out or revenge, resentment or some evil motive in killing the aggressor, he cannot invoke the justifying circumstance if the relative defended is already a stranger in the eyes of the law. On the other hand, if the relative defended is still within the coverage of defense of relative, even though he acted out of some evil motive, it would still apply. It is enough that there was unlawful aggression against the relative defended, and that the person defending did not contribute to the unlawful aggression. If the accused acted under the circumstance of defense of stranger, the requisites are different, although there was unlawful aggression on the part of the offended party, although there was reasonable necessity on the means employed to prevent or repel such unlawful aggression, if however the prosecution proved that the accused acted out of revenge, resentment or some other evil motive in resorting to the defense against the unlawful aggressor, this would deprive him of the benefit of the justification because it would mean that the act done by him is not a matter of defense anymore, it is an act of retaliation brought about by the spirit of defense, resentment or other evil motive. It will only mitigate the liability.
Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. The following do not incur any criminal liability: 4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act which causes damage to another, provided that the following requisites are present; First. That the evil sought to 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.

In some commentaries, they called attention to par 4 art 11, the so-called state of necessity and it is ERRORNEOUSLY impress, that this justifying circumstance is an exception where there is civil liability. The impression is MISLEADING. In a justifying circumstance, absolutely, there is no civil liability because the act precisely legitimate. The civil liability arising from the revised penal code is base on criminal liability. If there is no criminal liability, there is no civil liability to be recovered under the RPC. The recovery of the civil liability may be under the civil code but not under the RPC. Civil liability under the civil code may be recovered even the case is pending appeal. In other words the judgment has not yet become executory. But in a criminal case, that is not possible, the accused must be first convicted and the conviction must become final and executory before any civil liability may be recovered because the civil liability is recoverable on the basis only of criminal liability. The importance of distinguishing civil liability under the Civil Code and under the RPC is that the recovery of civil liability under the civil code is subject to the defense that the parties subsidiary civilly liable has exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection or supervision of his employees. But if the recovery is under the RPC, this defense will not lie or not available in the criminal case. The basis of civil liability under the RPC is art 100, any person criminally liable is civilly liable.
Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.

State of necessity The state of necessity must not have been created by the one invoking the justifying circumstances. For example, A drove his car beyond the speed limit so much so that when he reached the curve, his vehicle skidded towards a ravine. He swerved his car towards a house, destroying it and killing the occupant therein. A cannot be justified because the state of necessity was brought about by his own felonious act Civil liability referred to in a state of necessity is based not on the act committed but on the benefit derived from the state of necessity. So the accused will not be civilly liable if he did not receive any benefit out of the state of necessity. On the other hand, persons who did not participate in the damage or injury would be pro tanto civilly liable if they derived benefit out of the state of necessity. Civil liability is based on the benefit derived and not on the act, damage or Injury caused. It is wrong to treat this as an exception to the rule that in justifying circumstances, there is no criminal nor civil liability, on the principle that "no one should enrich himself at the expense of another
Page | 48

Going back to par 4 Art 11, the civil liability that may arise in a state of necessity is based on the benefit derived out of respect of necessity by the party who would be civilly liable. The basis of the civil liability is not the act that was done to avert the state of necessity. So IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AN EXCEPTION because the predicate is different. If it is not the justifying circumstance that is the predicate, but it is the benefit derived. The principle governing the basis of the liability are different, in a justifying circumstance the man, ___ of the civil liability is based on the principle that the act is legal, so it does not bring about civil liability, but under the state of necessity, where civil liability may arise, the legal basis or predicate is that no person shall be enrich at the expense of another. The basis is the rule of equity, whereas in the justifying circumstance, the basis is the rule of law. Illustration: in a street there are 5 houses, house 1 was on fire, and the wind while blowing strong towards the direction of the other houses. So the fire certainly may jump from house 1 to house 2 to house 3 etc the owner of house 3 took it upon himself to demolish house 2, so that the fire will not burn his house. The demolition of house 2 only slow down the fire, just the same, the fire burned house 3. The owners of house 4 and 5 did not participate in the demolition of house 2. But because the fire stops at house 3, houses 4 and 5 are spared. Under the law, the owners of house 4 and 5 will answer correspondingly to the value of the benefit derived by them for the compensation of the owner of house number 2. The owner of house 3, even though he was the one who demolished house 2, will not incur civil liability because he did not get any benefit out of that incident.

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
This is justified under par 4 art 11 provided that there is a greater evil if house 3 will be burned than that of demolishing house 2. If house 2 is a mansion and house 3 is a nipa hut, then the justification does not exist. If the owner of house 3 took the effort of demolishing house 2 to save his house, but that only slow down the spread of the fire, but the house 3 is also burned, it was house 4 and 5 that were spared but the owners of house 4 and 5 did not participate in the demolition of house 2, but they benefited out of that demolition. Under the state of necessity, whoever benefited out of the act done to avert the state of necessity will be the one to shoulder the civil liability in proportion to the benefit derived. The owner of house 3 did not benefit so he will not shoulder the civil liability because the basis of the civil liability is not the act but the benefit derived from the act. The basis is equity and not the act done. Difference between Civil liability under the RPC and Civil Code The basis of the civil liability under the RPC is the criminal liability. If there is no criminal liability, there is no basis for civil liability. If the civil liability is recoverable under the RPC, it is solidary The defense of having resorted to diligence in the proper selection and supervision of employees applies under the Civil code but not in the revised penal code.
Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. The following do not incur any criminal liability: 5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.

aggression had already ceased by the time A shot B. When the unlawful aggressor started fleeing, the unlawful aggression ceased. If the person attacked runs after him. In the eyes of the law, he becomes the unlawful aggressor. Self-defense cannot be invoked. You apply paragraph 5 on fulfillment of duty. The offender was not only defending himself but was acting in fulfillment of a duty, to bring the criminal to the authorities. As long as he was not acting out of malice when he fired at the fleeing criminal, he cannot be made criminally liable. However, this is true only if it was the person who stabbed was the one killed. But if, let us say, the policeman was stabbed and despite the fact that the aggressor ran into a crowd of people, the policeman still fired indiscriminately. The policeman would be held criminally liable because he acted with imprudence. In firing toward several people where the offender had run. But although he will be criminally liable, he will be given the benefit of an incomplete fulfillment of duty. If the accused invoke self defense, defense of relative or defense of stranger was a law enforcer or peace officer, it is not the requisites under such defenses that we will consider in determining whether his acts is justified or not. Rather it is the requisite to the circumstance under par 5 of art 11 that we will consider; that of having acted in fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or an office. A peace officer or law enforcer has a duty to fulfill. He is not only limited to repel an unlawful aggression, a law enforcer has a duty to bring to the bar of justice the unlawful aggressor. So he is required to resort to affirmative act to apprehend the unlawful aggressor. In comparison with the civilian resorting to self defense, defense of relatives or defense of stranger, if the unlawful aggressor already run away, a civilian who was the offended party in the unlawful aggression is not authorized to run after the unlawful aggression anymore because that means that the unlawful aggression has already stopped. But if the person defending or the person who acted in defense of relative or stranger was a law enforcer or peace officer, even when the unlawful aggressor started to flee, he has a duty to fulfill and he is authorized to run after the unlawful aggressor and apprehend him. If when doing so he incurred a felony, even though the felony was committed while he was running after the unlawful aggressor, the act may be justified because he was acting in fulfillment of a duty. There are only 2 requisites under par 5: He must be acting in the lawful fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office; The crime committed was the unavoidable consequence of the due performance of the duty. That means he did not act recklessly or imprudently. It does not mean that if the unlawful aggressor had fled that he may just simply shoot him, but if the necessity to stop the unlawful aggressor to use his service firearm and he use it discreetly and with prudence but somehow the unlawful aggressor was hit fatally still there is no criminal liability.

Fulfillment of duty In the justifying circumstance of a person having acted out of fulfillment of a duty and the lawful exercise of a right or office, there are only two conditions: 1. The felony was committed while the offender was in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office; and 2. The resulting felony is the unavoidable consequence of the due fulfillment of the duty or the lawful exercise of the right or office. Invariably, when you are given a problem on this premise, and the first condition is present, but the second is not because the offender acted with culpa, the offender will be entitled to a privilege mitigating circumstance. This is what you call incomplete justification of fulfillment of duty or incomplete justification of exercise of a right. In that case, the penalty would be reduced by one or two degrees. A, a policeman, while waiting for his wife to go home, was suddenly stabbed at the back by B, a hoodlum, who mistook him for someone else. When A saw B, he drew his revolver and went after B. After firing a shot in the air, B did not stop so A shot B who was hit at a vital part of the body. B died. Is the act of A justified? Yes, under paragraph 5. The justifying circumstance of self-defense cannot be invoked because the unlawful
Page | 49

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. - The following are exempt from criminal liability: Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. - The following are exempt from criminal liability:

1.

An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval. When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court.

1.

An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval. When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court.

2. 3.

A person under nine years of age. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has acted with discernment, in which case, such minor shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of article 80 of this Code. When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in conformity with the provisions of this and the preceding paragraph, shall commit him to the care and custody of his family who shall be charged with his surveillance and education; otherwise, he shall be committed to the care of some institution or person mentioned in said article 80.

Imbecility and Insanity There is complete absence of Intelligence. Imbecile has an IQ of 7. The Intellectual deficiency is permanent There is no lucid interval unlike in Insanity. The insanity that is exempting is limited only to mental aberration or disease of the mind and must completely impair the Intelligence of the accused. Under common law countries, emotional or spiritual Insanity are exempting circumstances unlike in this Jurisdiction because the Revised Administrative Code, as defined is limited to mental aberration of the mind. This was the ruling In People v. Dungo. In People v. Rafanan, decided on November 21, 1991, the following are the two tests for exemption on grounds of Insanity: 1. The test of cognition, or whether the accused acted with complete deprivation of intelligence in committing said crime; and 2. The test of volition, or whether the accused acted In total deprivation of freedom of will.
Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. - The following are exempt from criminal liability:

4. 5. 6. 7.

Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it. Any person who acts under the compulsion of irresistible force. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful insuperable cause.

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES It refers to circumstances wherein there is an absence in the agent of the crime any of all the conditions that would make an act voluntary and hence, although there is no criminal liability, there is civil liability, except in case of Paragraph 4 and 7 of Article 12. Circumstances under Article 12 1. lack of sufficient Intelligence, paragraph 1 to 3; 2. lack of criminal Intent, paragraph 4 and 7; 3. lack of freedom of action, paragraph 5 and 6. In exempting circumstances, the circumstance affects the actor not the act. The actor acted without voluntariness. That means the ingredients of dolo or culpa do not concur. Any of the ingredients is lacking, hence, there is no voluntariness on the part of the offender. One of them is criminal intent, sufficient intelligence in the case of dolo. Sufficient intelligence supplies the so-called discernment. If the offender does not possess sufficient intelligence that means he does not have yet discernment. On the part of the offender, every person is deemed to possess intelligence but it is not the intelligence alone that is a requisite of dolo, it is sufficient intelligence. A child below 15 years old is regarded to possess intelligence but not of sufficient intelligence. So the question of discernment is not appreciated where the offender is 15 yrs old or less. It is the law that concludes that the offender does not possess with sufficient intelligence. If the offender is below 18 years old, the matter of discernment is considered.

2. 3.

A person under nine years of age. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has acted with discernment, in which case, such minor shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of article 80 of this Code. When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in conformity with the provisions of this and the preceding paragraph, shall commit him to the care and custody of his family who shall be charged with his surveillance and education; otherwise, he shall be committed to the care of some institution or person mentioned in said article 80. (AMENDED BY RA 9344)

Minority The provision of the Revised Penal Code regarding Minority as an exempting circumstance was changed by RA 9344 or. The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006. Dean Ortega brands it as "A Bad Law." RULES IN THE EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY under RA 9344 1. Child age 15 years and below, at the time of the commission of the crime, exempt from criminal liability but not from civil liability (15 years if age or less is the age of absolute exemption). Although such child is exempt from criminal liability, he shall nevertheless undergo the so-called Intervention program.
Page | 50

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
2. Child over 15 years but less than 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime, he shall also be exempt from criminal liability but not from civil liability. Although exempt from criminal liability because he committed a crime without discernment, he will however be civilly liable. He shall be required to undergo diversion program. The idea is to bring about restorative justice. Child over 15 years but less than 18 years of age and the crime is committed with discernment, he shall be considered a child in conflict with the law. A child in conflict with the law will be criminally responsible. Three Levels of Diversion Penalty Prescribed Imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years Action to be Taken Mediation, family conferencing and conciliation by the law enforcement or Punong Barangay with the assistance of Local DSWD with the presence of the child and his parents. The Local DSWD shall meet with parents for the appropriate diversion and rehabilitation program. Diversion is determined by the court whether It Is appropriate. g. Appropriate disposition measures under the SC Rule on Juveniles In Conflict with the Law shall be Imposed, considering the various circumstances of the child.

3.

CIC with the Law reached 18 years while under suspended sentence. Options of the Court; 1. Discharge the child in accordance with RA 9344; 2. Order execution of sentence; 3. Extend the suspended sentence for a certain period or until child reaches the maximum age of 21 years. CIC with the Law reached 18 years Old pending Diversion and Court Proceedings The appropriate Diversion Authority in consultation with Local DSWD or the Family Court in consultation with Social Services and Counseling Division (SSCD) of the Supreme Court, as the case maybe, shall determine the appropriate disposition. In lieu of service of sentence, the court may place the offender on Probation upon application at any time, unless already availed by the offender. Section 4 of the Probation Law PD 968 is accordingly amended. CIC with law CANNOT be held GUILTY OF PERJURY, concealment, or misrepresentation, under any provision of law, by reason of failure to acknowledge the case or recite a fact related thereto in response to any Inquiry made to him for any purpose. No Detention on Jan pending trial or hearing of his case. Court must order: 1.) Release on recognizance to his parents and other suitable persons; 2.) Release on bail; 3.) Transfer to a youth detention home or youth rehabilitation center. CONFIDENTIALITY OF RECORDS General Rule: All records and proceedings involving CIC with the law from initial contact until final disposition of the case shall be considered privileged and confidential. Includes the following: 1. Non-disclosure of records to media; 2. Maintaining a separate blotter for cases involving CIC with the law; 3. Adopting a system of coding to conceal material information which lead to the child's identity; 4. Records of CIC with the law can not be used in subsequent proceedings in cases involving the same offender as an adult except when beneficial to the offender and with written consent. Exception: For the purpose of determining whether the CIC with the law: 1. May have his sentence suspended; or 2. May be granted probation under Probation Law; or

Victimless Crimes with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years

Imprisonment exceeding six (6) years but not exceeding twelve (12) years and before arraignment

Status Offenses - refers to offenses which discriminate only against a child, while an adult does not-suffer any penalty for committing similar acts. These shall include curfew violations, truancy, parental disobedience and the like. This law makes it lawful the act of a child disobeying their parents." Dean Ortega. Victimless Crimes - refers to offenses where there is ho private offended party. When may parties acquire option to institute appropriate legal action and to file a case according to the regular process? They may file a case only when the "diversion" program or contract has been violated or otherwise not complied with, or refused by the parents/guardian of said offender. AUTOMATIC SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE a. Child under 18 years at the commission of the crime; b. Found guilty of the offense charged; c. Civil liability shall be determined and ascertained by the court as a result of the offense; d. No pronouncement of judgment of conviction; e. CIC with the Law shall be placed under Suspended Sentence, without need of application; f. Suspension shall still be applicable even if the juvenile Is already 18 years or above at the time of the supposed pronouncement of his guilt;
Page | 51

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
3. Whether to enforce the civil liability imposed in the criminal action. "Diversion" refers to an alternative, child-appropriate process of determining the responsibility and treatment of a child in conflict with the law on the basis of his/her social, cultural, economic, psychological or educational background without resorting to formal court proceedings. (RA 9344) "Diversion Program" refers to the program that the child in conflict with the law is required to undergo after he/she is found responsible for an offense without resorting to formal court proceedings. (RA 9344) Diversion proceedings are parallel to proceedings before the baranggay under the so-called katarungan pambaranggay. It is not a formal judicial proceedings. So there will be conciliation or mediation before the baranggay. This is only true in those cases where the violation committed does not imprisonment higher than 6 years or when there is no offended party involved. If the violation carries a penalty higher than 6 years imprisonment, the diversion proceedings will have to be conducted in the level of the public prosecutor. The purpose of the diversion proceeding is to bring about restorative justice, to bring the parties to their respective status quo before the crime was committed. If the prosecutor conducting the proceedings, however, submits that diversion could not be advisable because the child is incorrigible, then an information will have to filed with the family court. But even when the case is already filed in court, where the crime committed carries a penalty not higher than 12 yrs imprisonment, the court is required, under this law, not to conduct an arraignment immediately, instead the court shall endeavor to subject a child to diversion proceedings, and only when the court finds that diversion is not an appropriate remedy, may the court proceed with the trial. Although the child may be found criminally responsible, sentence shall not be pronounced on him. The sentence shall be suspended and this is required even though the child has already attained the age of majority at the time the sentence is to be pronounced or promulgated. And the sentence shall remain suspended until he attains 21 years of age. Under RA 9344, the child, although found criminally responsible, may be held in a youth rehabilitation center up to the age of 21. If he reached the age of 21, the supervisor of the youth rehabilitation center, will bring hand before the court or inform the court whether further corrective measure will have to be undertaken to correct the offender or the case will already be dismissed and the offender will be discharged already. If it is advisable to make the offender suffer the sentence, and he is already 21 yrs old or more, then he shall be refer to an agricultural camp, not to a penal institution. So the age, under RA 9344, is only on the age of the offender at the time the crime was committed. His age at the time he was found responsible for the crime committed will not affect the proceedings against him as long as at the time the violation is committed, the child is still below 18 years old. Under this law, even when the child is already an adult at the time when the sentence for the crime committed to be promulgated the sentence shall be suspended and under this law, the suspension may either be up to the time the child attains the age of 21.
Page | 52

The law applies restorative Justice rather than retributive justice. Restorative Justice - refers to 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/she can be reintegrated into the society. It also enhances public safety by activating the offender, the victim and the community in prevention strategies. Retroactive Effect Offenders who were less than 18 years old at the time of the commission of the offense for which they were convicted and serving sentence, shall benefit from the retroaction of RA9344. Their, sentences shall be adjusted accordingly and be entitled to appropriate dispositions under this law. RA 9344 AN ACT ESTABLISHING A COMPREHENSIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE SYSTEM, CREATING THE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE COUNCIL UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Under this law, the age of absolute exemption from criminal liability has been increased to 15 years old or less. The child is exempt from criminal liability not from civil liability. Although exempt from criminal liability, at this age, the child shall be subject to so-called intervention program, a program of activities that will correct the child from some wrong doing. Where the child is already above 15 yrs old, we will have to consider his discernment. If the crime was committed without discernment, such child below 18 yrs old although above 15 yrs old, shall also be exempt from criminal liability but not from civil liability. Also such child is required to undergo the intervention program applied to children who 15 years old or less. "Intervention" refers to a series of activities which are designed to address issues that caused the child to commit an offense. It may take the form of an individualized treatment program which may include counseling, skills training, education, and other activities that will enhance his/her psychological, emotional and psycho-social well-being. (RA 9344) If the child although below 18 yrs old but above 15 yrs old acted with discernment, he shall be considered a child in conflict with the law. There will be criminal responsibility. But instead of a formal judicial proceeding, such child shall be subjected to the so-called diversion proceedings "Child in Conflict with the Law" refers to a child who is alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as, having committed an offense under Philippine laws. (RA 9344) Child in conflict with law the term is used for a child below 18 who was found to have acted with discernment. When this term is used, the implication is there is criminal responsibility.

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
The important aspect of this law: The so called status offenses have been decriminalize. Those wrong doings which are penalize when the offender is a child but not penalize when the offender is an adult, in other words, discriminating against the child, is now prohibited under this law. "Status Offenses" refers to offenses which discriminate only against a child, while an adult does not suffer any penalty for committing similar acts. These shall include: curfew violations; truancy, parental disobedience and the like. (RA 9344) This ordinance or regulation curfew cannot be made as a basis in imposing sanction upon child. Any such ordinance or regulation is still allowed but only for administrative purpose only, it cannot be made a basis of any penal sanction because status offenses are now prohibited. Under this law, there are crimes where, a child is exempt from criminal prosecution, not just from criminal liability. A case cannot be filed against him. These crimes are: 1. Vagrancy 2. Prostitution 3. Mendicancy 4. Sniffing of rugby Sec. 58. Offenses Not Applicable to Children. Persons below eighteen (18) years of age shall be exempt from prosecution for the crime of vagrancy and prostitution under Section 202 of the Revised Penal Code, of mendicancy under Presidential Decree No. 1563, and sniffing of rugby under Presidential Decree No. 1619, such prosecution being inconsistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Provided, That said persons shall undergo appropriate counseling and treatment program. (RA 9344) If the child would be found liable and therefore sentence for him will be suspended, the implication is that the child is found guilty of the wrong doing. As a matter of procedure, the child is allowed to appeal such finding of the court. Although the child may have appeal the findings of the court that would bring about the sentence except that the sentence is suspended, that appeal will not disqualify such child from applying for probation. Under the probation decree, that where an accused was convicted under the judgment of the trial court appeals the judgment, that appeal will already disqualify him from applying for probation. The exception of this rule is provided for under section 42 of RA 9344, which allows the child who was proceeded against under this law to apply for probation at any time.
Page | 53

SEC. 42. Probation as an Alternative to Imprisonment. - The court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a child in conflict with the law, and upon application at any time, place the child on probation in lieu of service of his/her sentence taking into account the best interest of the child. For this purpose, Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 968, otherwise known as the "Probation Law of 1976", is hereby amended accordingly. The provision in sec 4 of PD 968 shall be considered as accordingly amended. Relative to this, SC however, upheld the denial of probation to a child who was apprehended while illegally selling shabu. Specifically because section 24 of dangerous drug act of 2002 expressly provides that those who are convicted for drug pushing or drug trafficking are disqualified from applying for probation even if the offender is a minor. Because the provision in that law is without exception and unqualified, the court cannot make an exception is a case of an offender under 18. It is not the intention of the lawmakers to exempt from sec 24 of such law a minor who is below 18 but over 15 yrs old. If the intention was to exempt a child from the effect of the conviction and allow him to go on probation, it would have been simple for the lawmakers to make an exemption. If a person have proceeded against RA 9344 either being subject to an intervention program while he was still young, or such person submitted to a diversion proceeding. This law provides that any such person who had been proceeded against under RA 9344 shall not be made liable for falsification, misrepresentation, perjury or false testimony, should he conceal or deny the proceedings against him under this law because of some criminal violation. So if a child has been brought under the operation of RA 9344 and he studied law, and to take the bar exam, in his application, although the applicant has been prosecuted under RA 9344, this law expressly provides that he can deny it without being liable for falsification, misrepresentation, perjury or false testimony. In short all proceedings under this law may be concealed even under oath. Under the RPC, the if an offender had been made to suffer preventive imprisonment while the case against him is being heard, the period of time that the offender had been held under preventive imprisonment shall be deducted from the sentence imposed of him should the sentence involved deprivation of liberty. The credit given is either 80% of the number of days that the offender had served under preventive imprisonment or full credit if the offender had been held among convicted prisoners serving sentence. In the case of a child, whatever be the form of confinement, it shall be credited in full for the time spent under preventive detention.

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. - The following are exempt from criminal liability: 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.

Accident Under Article 12, paragraph 4, the offender is exempt not only from criminal but also from civil liability. This paragraph embodies the Latin maxim "damnum absque injuria A person who is driving his car within the speed limit, while considering the condition of the traffic and the pedestrians at that time, tripped on a stone with one of his car tires. The stone flew hitting a pedestrian on the head. The pedestrian suffered profuse bleeding. What is the liability of the driver? There is no civil liability under paragraph 4 of Article 12. Although, this is just an exempting circumstance, where generally there is civil liability, yet, in paragraph 4 of Article 12, there is no civil liability as well as criminal liability. The driver is not under obligation to defray the medical expenses. However, correlate paragraph 4 of Article 12 with the second paragraph of Article 275. Article 275 gives you the crime of abandoning the victim of one's own accident. It is a crime. Here, the Accident referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 275 is in the concept of paragraph 4 of Article 12. This means that the offender must be performing a lawful act, that he was doing it with due care but somehow. Injury resulted by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it. Presence of Negligence Contradictory to Accident If at the very beginning, the offender was negligent, you' do not apply Article 275, paragraph 2. Instead, it will be Article 365 on criminal negligence. Notice that in the last paragraph of Article 365, in the case of the so-called hit and run -drivers who have injured somebody and would abandon the victim of the accident, the penalty is qualified to a higher degree. Here, under paragraph 4 of Article 12, the infliction of the Injury by mere accident does not give rise to a criminal or civil liability, but the person who caused the Injury is duty bound to attend to the person who was injured. If he would abandon him, it is in that abandonment that the crime arises which is punished under the Second Paragraph of Article 275. The offender is exempt from criminal liability as well as in criminal liability. In other words, the effect is identical to a justifying circumstance. Why this circumstance is not made part of justifying circumstance? Because the circumstance affects the actor not the act and in art 11, the circumstance affect the act not the actor. That will be foreign to the predicate of justification. The exception under par 4 art 12, arises where the accused causes injury to another out of a lawful act brought about by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it. The word accident must have been to refer to an event or occurrence which cannot be foreseen or which can be foreseen but cannot be avoided. Under the Civil law, no person shall be held responsible for any occurrence which cannot be foreseen or which can be foreseen but cannot be avoided. What we call
Page | 54

force majeure or fortuitous event. The word accident should not be understood in the case where the offender is made liable for culpa and not for dolo for criminal intent. So the accident must partake of a fortuitous event or force majeure. In civil law, this is damnum absque injuria, this is the essence of this exempting circumstance. This circumstance is covered by the maxim damnum absque injuria, that is why there is no civil liability. 2 consequences of Accident: It exempts the offender from criminal and civil liability for the physical injury But if the offender abandoned the person injured by him, knowing that he is exempt from criminal and civil liability, by that abandonment he will incur a crime. The exemption from criminal and civil liability is only insofar as the injury resulting from accident is concerned. Although he is acquitted from these, if he would not give the needed assistance, he can still be prosecuted for abandonment under par 2 of art 275. And he cannot invoke the acquittal under par 4 of art 12 as a basis to contend that he will be subject of double jeopardy. (Villamera vs CA)
Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. - The following are exempt from criminal liability: 5. Any person who acts under the compulsion of irresistible force. 6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.

Compulsion of Irresistible force and under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear The offender must be totally deprived of freedom or volition. If the offender has still freedom of choice or deminis exercise of freedom of action, whether to act or not, even if force was employed on him or even if he is suffering from uncontrollable fear, he is not exempt from criminal liability because he is still possessed with voluntariness. In exempting circumstances, the offender must act without voluntariness. In a situation where the offender would otherwise be exempt, but the requisites for exemption are not all present, the offender is still entitled to a mitigating circumstance of incomplete exemption under paragraph 1 of Article 13. Apply the rule if majority of the requisites to exempt from criminal liability are present. The offender shall be given the benefit of privilege mitigating circumstances. That means that the penalty prescribed of the crime committed shall be reduced by one or two degrees In accordance with Article 69 of the Revised Penal Code. If less than a majority of the requisites for exemption are present, the offender shall be given only the benefit of ordinary mitigating circumstances. That means the penalty shall be reduced to the minimum period of the prescribed penalty, unless the mitigating circumstance is offset by an aggravating circumstance. So it is not enough that there be compulsion or an uncontrollable fear or that there be impulse generating

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
fear of an equal or greater injury. It must be, considering the personal character of the accused, that he was completely deprived of volition not to act on the premises. Otherwise, the circumstance under par 5 and 6 will only be mitigating.
Article 13. Mitigating circumstances. - The following are mitigating circumstances: 1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant. That the offender is under eighteen years of age or over seventy years. In the case of the minor, he shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of article 80. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony (delito) his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters or relatives by affinity within the same degrees. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation. 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. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his means of action, defense, or communication with his fellow beings. 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. And, finally, any other circumstance of a similar nature and analogous to those above mentioned.

period, provided the penalty is a divisible one. Privilege mitigating circumstances operate to reduce the penalty by one or two degrees, depending upon what the law provides. You can easily detect whether the circumstance which mitigates the liability of the offender is privilege or not, that is, If the penalty is reduced by degree. If the penalty is lowered by one or two degrees, it is privilege; therefore, even if there is an aggravating circumstance, do not compensate because that would be violating the rules. The circumstances under Article 13 are generally ordinary mitigating, except in paragraph 1, where it is privilege. Article 69 would apply When there is a lowering of penalties by degrees, it is a privilege mitigating circumstance. It cannot be offset by an aggravating circumstance. Although the bulk of the circumstances in Article 13 are ordinary mitigating circumstances, yet, when the crime committed is punishable by a divisible penalty, two or more of these ordinary mitigating circumstances shall have the effect of a privilege mitigating circumstances if there is no aggravating circumstance at all. Correlate Article 13 with Articles 63 and 64. Article 13 is meaningless without knowing the rules of imposing the penalties under Articles 63 and 64. The effect of this circumstance is to lower the prescribed penalty either by degree or by period only. If the mitigating circumstance attending the crime, lowers the imposable penalty only by period, that mitigating circumstance was what we call Ordinary Mitigating and it can be offset by a generic aggravating circumstance. If the mitigating circumstance lowers the imposable penalty by degree, we call this privilege mitigating circumstance. It is called privilege mitigating circumstance, because the circumstance lowers the imposable penalty and the same cannot be offset by any aggravating circumstance. The reason why privilege mitigating circumstance cannot be offset is because any circumstance which lowers the imposable penalty by degree is always covered by the provision of the RPC, there is always a provision in the RPC which lowers the penalty imposable by at least 1degree and the provision states that penalty under certain circumstance will be lowered than what ordinarily is prescribed for the crime. In other words, the provision of the code may expressly states that the penalty is lower by one or 2 degrees or without saying so the provision of the code may simply state the penalty imposable when a certain mitigating circumstance attended the commission of the crime. If the penalty provided by specific provision of the RPC lowers the penalty by one degree or more, then we conclude that it is a privilege mitigating circumstance. And it cannot be offset by an aggravating circumstance.

2.

3. 4. 5.

6. 7.

8.

9.

10.

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES In mitigating and aggravating circumstance, it implies that the accused is guilty, it implies conviction because mitigating and aggravating circumstances are relevant to the imposition of the penalty. Mitigating Circumstances are those circumstances that have the effect of reducing the penalty because there is a diminution of any of the elements of dolo or culpa, which makes the act voluntary or because of the lesser perversity of the offender. 1. Incomplete justifying circumstances; 2. Minority or senility; 3. Praeter intentionem; 4. Sufficient provocation or threat; 5. Immediate vindication of a grave offense; 6. Passion and obfuscation; 7. Voluntary surrender; 8. Voluntary plea of guilty; 9. Deaf and dumb, blind or physical defect; 10. Illness; and 11. Analogous circumstances. Distinctions between ordinary mitigating circumstances and privileged mitigating circumstances 1. As to the nature of the circumstances Ordinary mitigating circumstances can be offset by aggravating circumstances. Privilege mitigating circumstance can never be offset by any aggravating circumstance. 2. As to effect Ordinary mitigating circumstances, if not offset, will operate to reduce the penalty to the minimum
Page | 55

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
Every Privilege mitigating circumstance is always covered by a law mandating that the same lowers the penalty by degree or by one or more degrees. In Art 333 of the RPC, punishing the crime of adultery
Art. 333. Who are guilty of adultery. Adultery is committed by any married woman who shall have sexual intercourse with a man not her husband and by the man who has carnal knowledge of her knowing her to be married, even if the marriage be subsequently declared void. Adultery shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods. If the person guilty of adultery committed this offense while being abandoned without justification by the offended spouse, the penalty next lower in degree than that provided in the next preceding paragraph shall be imposed.

shall be given the benefit of a privilege mitigating circumstance in accordance with art. 69 of the RPC. Art. 69 provides that the penalty that the court may impose when not all the requisites of justification or exemption attended the commission on the crime, may be lowered by one or two degrees depending on the importance of the requisites that is present or absent. 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. When less than a majority of such requisites attended the commission of the crime, the offender can be entitled to the benefit only of an ordinary mitigating circumstance, the same therefore can be offset by a generic aggravating circumstance. When the requisites to justify the act or exempt from criminal liability are only 2, the presence of one of such requisites shall be considered as a majority already and the offender shall be given the benefit of a privilege mitigating circumstance under art 69 of the RPC. Under par 5 art 11, there are only 2 requisites there. If one of the requisites is present, the law regarded it as a majority to be lenient to the offender. The interpretation is inconsonance with the doctrine of pro reo. Instead of regarding it as ordinary mitigating, the same is regarded as privilege.
Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. The following do not incur any criminal liability: 5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.

In the crime of infanticide


Art. 255. Infanticide. The penalty provided for parricide in Article 246 and for murder in Article 248 shall be imposed upon any person who shall kill any child less than three days of age. If the crime penalized in this article be committed by the mother of the child for the purpose of concealing her dishonor, she shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, and if said crime be committed for the same purpose by the maternal grandparents or either of them, the penalty shall be prision mayor. The penalty in infanticide is reclusion temporal but if committed by the mother to conceal her dishonor the penalty will be prision correccional medium to maximum. The penalty is lowered by more than 1 degree. It renders the circumstance privilege.

Mitigating Circumstances as applied with ISLAW If the crime is punished under the RPC, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are taken into account in arriving at the maximum of the indeterminate sentence, yet in fixing the minimum, the penalty prescribed by the code will be lowered by one degree. In effect that minimum shall be lowered twice. One, under the ISLAW, two, under the privilege mitigating circumstance. If we fail to lower the minimum twice, we will arrive at an incongruity where the minimum is higher than the maximum. So when we encounter a situation where there is a privilege mitigating, immediately lower the prescribed penalty by one or 2 degrees as called for in the privilege mitigating circumstance. Then in arriving at the minimum of the indeterminate sentence, we have again to lower it by one degree. Incomplete Justification or Exemption
Art. 13. Mitigating circumstances. The following are mitigating circumstances; 1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when NOT all the requisites necessary to justify or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are attendant.

It covers incomplete justification or exemption. The paragraph will apply when not all the requisites to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability attended the commission of the crime. Rules:

When majority of the requisites to justify the act or exempt from criminal liability are present, the accused
Page | 56

In self-defense, defense of relative or defense of stranger, there should always be an unlawful aggression on the part of the offended party. Otherwise, there can be no complete or incomplete self defense, defense of relative or defense of stranger. If only unlawful aggression on the part of the offended party attended the commission of the crime, the accused shall be entitled to an ordinary mitigating circumstance only and thus which can be offset by a generic aggravating circumstance. But if aside from unlawful aggression, another requisite to justify the act or exempt from criminal liability attended the commission of the crime, but not all, the accused shall be entitled to a privilege mitigating circumstance in accordance with article 69 of the RPC.

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
Minority of the the offender
Article 13. Mitigating circumstances. - The following are mitigating circumstances: 2. That the offender is under eighteen years of age or over seventy years. In the case of the minor, he shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of article 80.

Where the minority of the offender is not exempting, it is at least mitigating. Relevant Age Reckoned at What Time - For purposes of lowering the penalty by one or two degrees, the age of the offender at the time of the commission of the crime shall be the basis, not the age of the offender at the time the sentence is to be imposed. But for purposes of suspension of the sentence, the age of the offender at the time the crime was committed is not considered, it is the age of the offender at the time the sentence is to be promulgated. Praeter Intentionem
Article 13. Mitigating circumstances. - The following are mitigating circumstances: 3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.

However, the recent rulings of the Supreme Court, as well as the Court of Appeals, have stretched this criterion - it is not only a matter of time anymore. Before, there was a ruling that if a period of one hour had lapsed between the provocation and the commission of the felony, this mitigating circumstance is no longer applicable. The accused went to a barrio dance. In that gathering, there was a bully and he told the accused that he is not allowed to go inside. The accused tried to reason out but the bully slapped him several times In front of so many people, some of whom were ladies who were being courted by the accused, so he was humiliated and embarrassed. However, he cannot fight the bully at that time because the latter was much bigger and heavier. Accused had no choice but to go home. When he saw the bully again, this time, he was armed with a knife and he stabbed the bully to death. The evidence for the accused showed that when he went home, he was not able to sleep throughout the night, thinking of the humiliation and outrage done to him, despite the lapse of about 22 hours. The Supreme Court gave him the benefit of this mitigating circumstance. The reason is that the effect of the humiliation and outrage emitted by the offended party as a provocation upon the accused was still present when he committed the crime and, therefore, the reason for paragraph 4 still applies. The accused was still acting under a diminished self control because he was thinking of the humiliation he suffered in the hands of the offended party. The outrage was so serious unless vindicated. As long as the offender at the time he committed the felony was still under the Influence of the outrage caused by the provocation or threat, he is acting under a diminished self control. You have to look at two criteria: 1. If from the element of time, there is a material lapse of time stated in the problem and there is nothing stated In the problem that the effect of the threat or provocation had prolonged and affected the offender at the time he committed the crime, then you use the criterion based on the time element 2. However, if there is that time element and at the same time, facts are given indicating that at the time the offender committed the crime, he is still suffering from outrage of the threat or provocation done to him, then he will still get the benefit of this mitigating circumstance. In People v. Diokno, a Chinaman eloped with a woman. Actually, it was almost three days before accused was able to locate the house where the Chinaman brought the woman. Here, sufficient provocation was one of the mitigating circumstances considered by the Supreme Court in favor of the accused.

Praeter lntentionem - The common circumstance given in the bar about praeter intentionem, under paragraph 3, is that there must be a notable disproportion between the means employed by the offender compared to that of the resulting felony. If the resulting felony could be expected from the means employed, this circumstance does not avail. This circumstance does not apply when the crime results from criminal negligence or culpa. When the crime is the product of reckless imprudence or simple negligence, mitigating circumstances does not apply. This is one of the three Instances where the offender has performed a felony different from that which he intended. Therefore, this is the product of intentional felony, not a culpable one. Sufficient threat or provocation
Article 13. Mitigating circumstances. - The following are mitigating circumstances: 4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act.

This is mitigating only if the crime was committed on the very person who made the threat or provocation. The common set-up given in a bar problem is that of provocation was given by somebody. The person provoked cannot retaliate against him; thus, the person provoked retaliated on a younger brother or on an elder father. Although in fact, there is sufficient provocation, it is not mitigating because the one who gives the provocation is not the one against whom the crime was committed. Provocation Must Be Immediate - Generally, the commission of the felony must be immediate to the threat or provocation in order that this circumstance be mitigating. If there is sufficient break of time before the provocation or threat and the consequent commission of the crime, the law presupposes that during that interval, whatever anger or diminished self-control may have emerged from the offender had already vanished or disappeared. In applying this mitigating circumstance, the courts are generally considering that there must be no break between the provocation or threat and the commission of the felony. In other words, the felony was committed precisely because he was then and there provoked.
Page | 57

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
Vindication of a grave offense
Article 13. Mitigating circumstances. - The following are mitigating circumstances: 5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony (delito) his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.

generated by common law relationship or by some other human consideration. In a case where the relationship between the accused and the woman he was living with was one of common law, he came home and surprised his common law wife having sexual intercourse with a friend. This infuriated him. He killed the friend and he claimed passion or obfuscation. The trial court denied his claim because the relationship was a common law one. On review, the accused was given the benefit of the circumstances and the basis of considering passion or obfuscation In favor of the accused was the act of the common law wife in committing adultery right from the conjugal bed. Whether or not they are married, any man who discovers that infidelity was committed on the very bed provided by him to the woman would naturally be subjected to obfuscation. When a married person surprised his better, half in the act of sexual intercourse with another, he gets the benefit of Article 247. However, that requisite which in the first place, the offender must have surprised his/her spouse actually committing sexual intercourse should be present. If the surprising was done not in the actual act of sexual intercourse but before or after it, then Article 247 does not apply. Although this is the ruling, still, the accused will be given the benefit of sufficient provocation if the intercourse was done in his dwelling. If this act was done somewhere else and the accused kills the paramour or the spouse, this may be considered as mitigation of a grave offense to him or otherwise as a situation sufficient to create passion or obfuscation. Therefore, when a married man upon coming home, surprises his wife who was nude and lying with another man who was also nude. Article 247 does not apply. If he kills them, vindication of a grave offense will be mitigating in favor of the offender.
Article 13. Mitigating circumstances. - The following are mitigating circumstances: 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

The word "offense" should not be taken as a crime. It is enough if what was imputed or what was done was wrong. In considering whether the wrong Is a grave one upon the person who committed the crime, his age, education and social status will be considered. Here, in vindication of a grave offense, the vindication need not be done by the person upon whom the grave offense was committed. So, unlike in sufficient threat or provocation where the crime should be inflicted upon the very person who made the threat or provocation, here, it need not be the same person who committed the grave offense or who was Offender by the wrong done by the offended party. The word immediate" here does not carry the same meaning as that under paragraph 4. The word "immediate^ here is an erroneous Spanish translation because the Spanish word is "proxima and not Immediatementa Therefore, it is enough that the offender committed the crime with the grave offense done to him, his spouse, his ascendant or descendant or to his brother or sister, whether natural, adopted or legitimate and that Is the proximate cause of the commission of the crime. Passion or Obfuscation
Article 13. Mitigating circumstances. - The following are mitigating circumstances: 6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.

This stands on the premise or proposition that the offender is suffering from a diminished self control because of the passion or obfuscation. The same is true with the circumstances under paragraphs 4 and 5. So, there is a ruling to the effect that if the offender is given the benefit of paragraph 4, he cannot be given the benefit of paragraph 5 or 6, or vice-versa. Only one of the three mitigating circumstances should be given in favor of the offender. ' However, in one case, one of the mitigating circumstances under paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 stands or arises from a set of facts, and another mitigating circumstance arises from another set of facts. Since they are predicated on different set of facts, they may be appreciated together, although they arose from one and the same case. Hence, the prohibition against considering all these mitigating circumstances together and not as one applies only if they would be taken on the basis of the same set of facts. If the case involves a series of facts, then you can predicate any one of these circumstances on one fact and the other on another fact and so on. The passion must be legitimate. As a rule, it cannot be based on common law relationship because common law relationships are illicit However, consider whether passion or obfuscation is

There are 2 mitigating circumstances under par 7: Voluntary surrender Voluntary plea of guilty Both are separate and distinct mitigating circumstances which are only ordinary. Under par 5 of art 64, when there are 2 or more ordinary mitigating attending the commission of the crime provided there is no aggravating circumstance, the penalty next lower in degree, shall be the one impose. From this paragraph, the attendance of 2 mitigating in the commission of the crime has the effect of a privilege mitigating circumstance. The prescribe penalty shall be lowered by one degree provided that there is no aggravating circumstance. As far as voluntary surrender is concerned, the surrender may be voluntary but it is not necessarily mitigating. Not every voluntary surrender is mitigating. The surrender is only be mitigating under the circumstance that would show that the offender is still has the opportunity to escape and avoid
Page | 58

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
apprehension but he instead chose to surrender and give himself up to the authorities implying that he admits that he has committed a wrong. So the fact that the offender voluntarily went with the arresting officer took him and arrest him for the crime committed, does not mean that such surrender is voluntary and therefore mitigating. As a general rule, if after committing the crime, the offender did not flee and he went with the responding law enforcers meekly, voluntary surrender is not applicable. However, there is a ruling that if after committing the crime,, the offender did not flee and instead waited for the law enforcers to arrive and he surrendered the weapon he use in killing the victim, the ruling was that voluntary surrender is mitigating. Even if the offender may have gone into hiding, if the law enforcers had already known where he is hiding and it is just a matter of time before he is flushed out of that place, then even if the law enforcers do not know exactly where he was hiding and he would come out, this is not voluntary surrender. Whether or not a warrant of arrest had been issued against the offender is immaterial and irrelevant. The criterion is whether or not the offender had gone into hiding or had the opportunity to go into hiding and the law enforcers do not know of his whereabouts. If he would give up, his act of surrendering under such circumstance indicates that he is willing to accept the consequences of the wrong he has done and also thereby saves the government the effort, the time and the expenses to be incurred in looking for him. Where the offender went to the municipal building not to own responsibility for the killing such fact is not tantamount to voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance. Although he admitted his participation in the killing, he tried to avoid responsibility by claiming self-defense which however he was not able to prove. People v. Mindac, decided December 14, 1992. In order that surrender may bring about mitigating circumstance, these requisites must be present: 1. The surrender must be made with a person in authority or at least to the agent of the person in authority as provided under Art 152 of the RPC 2. The surrender must have been made before the government has incurred so much expenses in its agents tracking down the whereabouts of the offender. 3. The offender must have surrendered with a view to place himself at the disposal of the person in authority or to the agent to whom he surrender. 4. The offender in surrendering must have acted spontaneously demonstrating remorse or repentance in so surrendering Requisite 2 - In a case where the law enforcers tracking down the whereabouts of the offender for 4 years and they were unsuccessful because they have no leads, simply that they tried to effect the apprehension of the offender, because they cannot succeed during the period of 4 years, the offender simply came out and appear before the police headquarters and gave himself up. When the trial court found him guilty of
Page | 59

the crime charged, the trial court did not give him the benefit of a voluntary surrender, so he questioned this before the SC. The SC said the surrender is not mitigating because the reason why the surrender is made mitigating because by so surrendering the offender saves the government from expenses otherwise to be incurred in tracking down his whereabouts. So the mitigating brought about by the surrender is a reward to the offenders act of saving the government expenses otherwise to be incurred trying to track down the whereabouts of the offender had he not given himself up. Requisite 3 - So where a police precinct commander was involved in a crime, so he went to the police precinct having jurisdiction over the place the crime was committed. Then he surrenders to the sergeant of the precinct and then he informed the police sergeant the if his present will be required, he will just be around his house and he will be willingly submit in investigation. Eventually, the case was filed in court, the precinct commander was the accused and the case resulted to his conviction. Upon being convicted the trial did not give him the benefit of voluntary surrender as mitigating, so he questions this before the SC. The SC ruled that there is no surrender. Because the surrender means the surrenderee submit himself to the disposal of the authority to whom he surrendered. But in this case, the offender is the superior of the sergeant to whom he gave his service firearm. It is not surrender, for surrender means, the offender must submit himself to one occupying ascendancy over him, so that he can be placed under the custody or the authority to whom he surrendered. Requisite 4 - So if the offender sent ___ that he will surrender but he demanded that he wanted celebrities to be around on the place where he will surrender, he wanted photographers and media coverage, that is not voluntary surrender, that is more of a propaganda, he wanted to be famous. The law does not reward that with a mitigating circumstance. The surrender must be spontaneous indicative that the offender is doing so as a sign of remorse or repentance for the crime he had committed otherwise, otherwise it cannot be mitigating even though it may be considered as voluntary surrender. If the offender, after having committed a crime fled and hid in the mountains, because of the cold weather, he developed a respiratory disease. He came out of hiding. He went to the police headquarters and requested that he be taken to the station hospital to be treated for his pulmonary tuberculosis. Such surrender is not a surrender that is not mitigating because that is a surrender for convenience. He surrender, otherwise, he will die. The SC said that, it is not the kind of surrender that is spontaneous. The surrender in the person in authority does not include a teacher or head of schools. Although in art 152 of the RPC, teachers and head of schools recognized by the government are included in the term person in authority. The SC has clarified that it is only true for purposes of the crime of direct assault where the teacher or the head of the school is the offended party but not for any other public purposes.

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
So where a student who has a grudge against his classmate, reached the point where they have encountered during classes and one of them shot the other, killing the other. After that he went to the teacher give the firearm, and give himself to the teacher. The teacher brought him to the principal, the principal called the police enforcers to whom he was delivered. Eventually the offender was prosecuted and found guilty, no mitigating circumstance was given. Hence, the accused raised this point to the SC. The SC said that the voluntary surrender must be made before the person on authority or the agent of a person in authority. Although a teacher or head of school recognize by the government may be included in the term person in authority as defined in article 152, that is only for purposes of direct assault where the teacher or the school head is the offended party but not for any other purposes. In the same paragraph, we have there voluntary confession of guilt before the presentation of evidence during the trial. This mitigating circumstance contemplates no other than a plea of guilty by an accused upon arraignment by a competent court, the court which could impose a sentence upon the accused entering a plea of guilty. So confession of guilt during custodial investigation is not included. This is only available when the accused arraigned and upon arraignment he entered a plea of guilty. Although Art 13 par 7 (2) refers to a voluntary confession of guilt, since it refers to the presentation of evidence by the prosecution, the circumstance is wrongly translated to refer only to a plea of guilty upon arraignment before the trial court. The court that will impose the penalty or that will render him acquitted. If the plea was made before a court that is not competent to receive that plea, the same shall have no standing in law. Hence, it is not affecting the criminal liability of the offender at all. In order for a plea of guilty may be mitigating, the plea must have been made to the crime charged in the information. If the plea was entered into for a lesser offense than that what was charged in the information, such plea will not be considered as voluntary and mitigating. It must be an unconditional plea to the crime charged and therefore spontaneous. If, therefore, the accused was charged for a crime of murder. On arraignment, he offered to plead guilty to the crime of homicide, even if the court allowed him to enter a plea for a lesser offense, that plea will not be appreciated as mitigating anymore. It is regarded as not spontaneous nor voluntary, if after all, it was subject to any condition. In this plea, however, if on arraignment, the accused offer to plea guilty to a lesser crime of homicide, but the crime charged was murder. If the court accepted the plea but the prosecutor and the offended party was not willing to accept the plea of guilty to a lesser offense, so the court proceeded to try the case on the merits. If after conducting hearing on the crime charged, the crime proven is homicide and not murder.The fact that before the plea was made, the accused offered to plea guilty to a lesser offense of
Page | 60

homicide and after trial, the accused, who offered to plea guilty to the lesser offense of homicide, was actually found guilty by the trial court for the crime of homicide, the SC ruled that although the accused offered a plea of guilty to a lesser offense than that charged in the information, if the crime proven after trial was indeed the lesser crime to which the accused, in the first place, offered to plead guilty to, that will only demonstrate that the accused was honest and sincere in offering the plea of guilty to the crime he had committed. The SC said that we cannot expect the accused to enter a plea of guilty for a crime he did not commit at all. In such a case, the plea of guilty must be made mitigating even though this was made to a lesser offense than that charged in the information. Conclusion: General Rule: the plea must have been made to the crime charged in the information. If the plea was entered into for a lesser offense than that what was charged in the information, such plea will not be considered as voluntary and mitigating Exception: if the accused offered a plea of guilty for a lesser offense but the same was rejected by the prosecution and the offended party --- trial followed ---. If on the course of the trial, it shown that the lesser crime is actually the crime committed and it will show that the accused is honest and sincere in admitting the commission of the felony which actually the crime committed by him as found by the trial court, the plea of guilty must be made mitigating Physical defect
Article 13. Mitigating circumstances. - The following are mitigating circumstances: 8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his means of action, defense, or communication with his fellow beings.

The physical defect that a person may have must have a relation to the commission of the crime. In a case where the offender is deaf and dumb, personal property was entrusted to him and he misappropriated the same. The crime committed was estafa. The fact that he was deaf and dumb is not mitigating because that does not bear any relation to the crime committed. Not any physical defect will affect the crime. It will only do so If It has some relation to the crime committed. If a person is deaf and dumb and he has been slandered, he cannot talk so what he did was, he got a piece of wood and struck the fellow on the head. The crime committed was physical injuries. The Supreme Court, held that being a deaf and dumb is mitigating because the only way is to use his force because he cannot strike back. If the offender is blind in one eye, as long as his means of action, defense or communication with others are not restricted, such circumstance is not mitigating. This circumstance must also have a bearing on the crime committed and must depend on how the crime was committed.

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
Illness of the Offender
Article 13. Mitigating circumstances. - The following are mitigating circumstances: 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.

You do not just resort to this by analogy to increase the penalty. This is only true to a mitigating circumstance. As far as aggravating circumstances in concerned, they are not taken into account by analogy because the effect of an aggravating circumstance is derogatory to the doctrine of pro reo. It must be taken by specific provision of the RPC. If 3 offenders thought of killing their enemy but they are waiting for a time when it will be totally dark so that they cannot be identified. One day, they learned in the newspaper that total solar eclipse will be occurring. So they considered this as an opportunity for them to take advantage with the color of darkness. Since the total solar eclipse occurred, there was darkness, the offenders took advantage of the darkness and carried out the commission of the killing. Eventually, they were apprehended. Is nighttime or nocturnity appreciable by analogy? Can it be appreciated as aggravating under cover of darkness by analogy? No, there is no such provision under art 14. Analogy is true only to mitigating circumstance but never to aggravating circumstance. Aggravating circumstances cannot just be presumed or assumed. This must be authorized by provision of law. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. - The following are aggravating circumstances: 1. 2. 3. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position. That the crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due to the offended party on account of his rank, age, or sex, or that it be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive, or in his presence, or where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place dedicated to religious worship. That the crime be committed in the nighttime, or in an uninhabited place, or 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. 7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic, or other calamity or misfortune. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity. That the accused is a recidivist. 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 this Code. 10. That the offender has been previously punished for an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward, or promise.

If the illness is of such character that the accused is already deprived of consciousness of his acts, the circumstance is not only mitigating but, more than this, it will be even considered exempting. This was the ruling in that case (People vs ____) where in the course of a high fever brought about by pneumonia, the accused started hacking the members of his household until he regained his senses and realized that he hacked his own wife. Upon realizing that he hacked his own wife, he cradled her and cried. The witnesses testified on that matter. So this is a case, that he does not really know what he is doing. During the trial, he disclosed that he was seeing demons fooling him. The demons turn out to be the members of his household. The SC acquitted him. So illness to be MITIGATING, the qualification is that the offender IS NOT deprived of his consciousness of his acts. So illness to be EXEMPTING, the qualification is that the offender IS DEPRIVED of his consciousness of his acts, that means there is absence of freedom of action Analogous cases
Art. 13. Mitigating circumstances. The following are mitigating circumstances; 10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous to those enumerated under art 13 of the RPC.

A general provision, any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous to those enumerated under art 13 of the RPC, if after all, the accused is not really criminally perverse. When the accused upon being arrested reenacted how he committed a crime, SC ruled this is analogous to voluntary surrender because by re-enacting on how he committed a crime, the accused made it easier for the prosecution to prosecute a crime against him. Similarly, when an offender after being arrested voluntarily brought the arresting officer to the place where he buried the instruments and effects of the crime, the SC said that it is analogous to voluntary surrender because by bringing out the evidence in the commission of the crime, the accused made it easier for the prosecution to prove the commission thereof. Under this par 10, we do not have a similar provision in respect of the aggravating circumstances under article 14 because aggravating circumstances cannot be appreciated on the basis on analogous character. Because also, the law requires that in aggravating circumstance the same quantum of evidence required to prove the crime itself. It must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Par. 10 of Art. 12 does not have similar provision under Art. 13 because aggravating circumstances are never presumed. They are never appreciated unless there is a law which provides that the circumstance is aggravating.
Page | 61

4. 5.

6.

8.

9.

11.

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel or intentional damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice involving great waste and ruin. That the act be committed with evident premeditation. That craft, fraud, or disguise be employed. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed to weaken the defense. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia). There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. 17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry. There is an unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a way not intended for the purpose. 19. That as a means to the commission of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age or by means of motor vehicles, motorized watercraft, airships, or other similar means. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its commission.

13. 14. 15.

16.

What makes the circumstance aggravating is the facility by which the offender may be able to commit the crime because of the cover of darkness. But if, although the darkness was deliberately sought by the offender, somehow the place became lighted when the crime was already in the process of being committed, if that light destroys the condition of nocturnity, nighttime will not be appreciated as aggravating anymore because the darkness which make it aggravating was in fact not true during the commission of the crime. The offenders deliberately agreed to rob the house under the cover of darkness at a certain time at past midnight. Pursuant to that plan they entered the house of their chosen victim and there they started ransacking the place. Because it was so dark, they could hardly find their way inside the house. While they were ransacking the place, one of them bumped a table where there a gas-lamp being used by the occupants while they are still awake. With that lamp, when it fell on the floor, the gas contained ignited and the whole room was thrown to light because of the huge fire that broke out. Is nighttime aggravating? The circumstance is aggravating because of the cover of darkness that facilitated the crime. It must either be deliberate sought for, which st is the subjective test (1 test) where the offenders subjectively chose to avail of the cover of darkness. 2 test is the objective test or whether the cover of darkness actually facilitated the commission of the crime. Under this objective test, nocturnity should not be aggravating because the intended activity of committing the crime became absent when the fire broke out and brightly illumined that place from the fire that broke out because the gas in the lamp which was bumped by one of the offenders fell on the floor and caused fire. 2. Qualifying circumstance either: Changes the nature of the crime committed into a more serious crime because of the circumstance qualifying the commission thereof. Example: In a commission otherwise is homicide, if the same was carried out after evident premeditation among the offenders, the crime becomes murder. The penalty for murder is higher than if the killing is only homicide. Qualifying circumstance will not change the nature of the crime, but bring about the imposition of a penalty higher in degree than what should be prescribed for the crime committed if not qualified.
nd

18.

20.

21.

Aggravating Circumstances - those which serve to increase the penalty without exceeding the maximum provided by law because of the greater perversity of the offender as shown by the motivating power of the commission of the crime, the time and place of its commission, the means employed or the personal circumstance of the offender How are aggravating circumstances classified under criminal law? These are classified into 4 categories and the classification guides you in the appreciation of the aggravating circumstance. Generic Aggravating Qualifying Circumstance Specific or Special Aggravating circumstance Inherent aggravating circumstance 1. Generic Aggravating those which generally applies to all crimes. That is why it is called generic. Example: Nocturnity or nighttime. When the offender deliberately sought the cover of darkness to commit the crime. Generally whatever may be the crime, that deliberate seeking of the cover of the darkness will make aggravating nocturnity or nighttime. Noctunity specifically covers the period from sunset to sunrise, the crime must begun and finished within such interval- after sunset before sunrise.
Page | 62

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
Example: The crime of theft. If the crime of theft was committed with grave abuse of confidence the crime becomes qualified theft. Although it remains to be a crime of theft, the circumstance of grave abuse of confidence characterize the crime as qualified theft. Under Art. 310 the penalty for the crime will jump up by 2 degrees than the penalty prescribed for the theft as simple theft. So while the crime remains as theft, penalty goes up more than the penalty for a crime without the abuse of confidence. The increase is beyond 2 degrees. 3. Specific aggravating or special aggravating Those which are specifically brought about by provision of the RPC Specific aggravating is that which may only be appreciated in a particular crime. Example: Circumstance of Treachery. This circumstance has been defined under the par. 16 of Art. 14. The definition in par. 16 points out that this is feasible only in a crime against persons. So there no treachery in a crime which is against property or a crime which is not against persons. Treachery therefore is specific in crimes against persons. You cannot appreciate it in some other crimes. Considering that the crime of rape is now categorized as a crime against persons, the circumstance of treachery can now be appreciated in crime of rape. But, this should only be true after Oct. 22, 1997 when the crime has been transposed as a crime against persons in Title XIII Book 2 of the Revised Penal Code as Chapter 3 thereof. Where the offender jumped upon the offended woman in rape on behind, pinned her to the ground, taking advantage of superior strength in perpetrating the sexual attack, treachery may be appreciated because the crime is now a crime against persons. Although the classification of specific aggravating is that of a special aggravating, the characteristics are the same. They are both covered by specific provisions of law increasing the penalty for the crime committed without offsetting against an ordinary mitigating circumstance. Example: Habitual delinquency, Recidivism, Quasirecidivism. There are specific articles making the circumstance aggravating which cannot be offset against any ordinary mitigating circumstance. 4. Inherent aggravating circumstance that which necessarily accompanies a crime and therefore is not to be appreciated anymore, because the law considers the same in imposing the penalty for the crime committed.
Page | 63

Example: Dwelling is aggravating. Where a crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party that would indicate that the offender is more criminally perverse because he was bold enough to commit a crime in the very dwelling of the offended party. But if the crime was trespass to dwelling, dwelling cannot be appreciated as aggravating any further because dwelling is the essence of violation and it is deemed to be already considered by the law in imposing or in providing a penalty therefore. So in the penalty of qualified trespass to dwelling penalty is considered on the basis of the aggravating circumstance of dwelling. It is not appreciated anymore as aggravating to dwelling because it is inherent to the crime of qualified trespass to dwelling. In those crimes which cannot be committed except upon a female such is inherent. So the aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed without regard to the respect due to the offended party by reason of sex is not aggravating anymore because the crime cannot be committed if the offended party is not a female. Example: Crime of seduction. Although employing the ways of committing the crime the offender may have displayed lack of respect to the offended party who is a female, that fact that the victim is a female cannot be aggravating anymore, because the crime of seduction cannot be committed except upon a female. So in cases where the crime cannot be committed except upon a female the aggravating circumstance of the offender committing a crime in disregard of the sex of the offended party is not appreciated because this is inherent in the crime committed. Without that the crime cannot be committed. Basic Principles that now attend the circumstance where it affects the commission of a crime. Aggravating circumstances cannot be presumed. The aggravating circumstance to be appreciated to be appreciated must be proven by the same quantum of evidence required to prove the crime itself. In short, the crime must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The fact that the victim has a gunshot wound at the back of his head does not make the crime murder. The manner of attack must be shown. There must be evidence how the victim was attacked because if the victim was able to put up any defense, although a token one, treachery is out. So killing will not bring about a case of murder. Revised Rules of Criminal Procedures Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 requires that aggravating circumstance, whether generic or qualifying, must be alleged in the information and proven during the trial.

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
Taking advantage of public position If not alleged in the information although proven during the trial, the circumstance should not be appreciated against the accused. The aggravating, whether generic or qualifying may be appreciated only when alleged in the information and proven during the trial. Sec. 8. Designation of the offense. The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsections of the statute. Sec. 9. Cause of the accusation. The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstance must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstance and for the court to pronounce judgment. Before the amendment to the Rules of Criminal Procedures, when the circumstance which was not alleged in the information but proven during the trial is a qualifying circumstance the same shall not be appreciated as qualifying anymore, but should only be appreciated as generic aggravating if proven during the trial. This rule is no longer true in the light of the new provision of Sec 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Now, there are two requirements. Firstly, the aggravating circumstance must be alleged in the information: o both as to the designation of the of the crime committed and o as to the act or omission constituting the crime committed. You have sections 8 and 9 explaining this. So unless alleged in the information and proven during the trial, the same may not be appreciated anymore. This is a new rule. These circumstances require proof beyond reasonable doubt. So these cannot just be appreciated. An offsetting between generic aggravating and ordinary mitigating can now apply only when the aggravating circumstance is expressly alleged both in the designation of the crime committed and the act or omission constituting the offense. This is covered by sections 8 and 9 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. We classify aggravating circumstances as done in order to determine whether an offsetting can be effected or not. Special or specific aggravating circumstance and qualifying circumstances cannot be offset with ordinary mitigating circumstance.
Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. - The following are aggravating circumstances: 1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.

Article 62 was also amended by the Republic Act No. 7659. The legal import of this amendment is that the subject circumstance has been made a qualifying special aggravating that shall not be offset or compensated by a mitigating circumstance. The mitigating circumstance referred to in the amendment as not affecting the imposition of the penalty in the maximum are only ordinary mitigating circumstances. Privileged mitigating circumstances always lower the penalty accordingly. Disrespect due to rank, age, sex
Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. - The following are aggravating circumstances: 3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due to the offended party on account of his rank, age, or sex, or that it be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation.

Aggravating only in crimes against persons and honor, not against property like Robbery with homicide (People v. Ga, 156 SCRA 790). Teachers, professors, supervisors of public and duly recognized private schools, colleges and universities, as well as lawyers are persons in authority only for purposes of direct assault and simple resistance, but not for purposes of aggravating circumstances in paragraph 2, Article 14. (People v. Taoan, 182 SCRA 601). Disrespect to Sex - The circumstance of sex is not considered in crimes where being a woman is an element thereof as in parricide, rape, abduction, or seduction. The thing important is not the disparity of sex but that knowledge of such sex. There must be proof that offender deliberately Intended to offend or insult the age or sex of the offended. These circumstances cannot co-exist with passion or obfuscation because in such case the offender lost his control or reason. Disrespect to Rank - There must be great disparity on rank or social standing between the offender and the offended. Disrespect to Dwelling - Dwelling will only be aggravating if it is the dwelling of the offended party. It should also not be the dwelling of the offender. If the dwelling is both that of the offended party and the offender, dwelling is not aggravating. Whenever one is in his dwelling, the law is presuming that he is not intending to commit a wrong so one who attacks him while in the tranquility of his home shows a degree of perversity in him. Hence, this is an aggravating circumstance. Dwelling is aggravating if the offender is not also residing there and the crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party who has not given provocation Dwelling need not be owned by the offended party - It is enough that he used the place for his peace of mind, rest, comfort and privacy. The rule that dwelling, in order to be aggravating must be owned by the offended- party is no longer absolute. Dwelling can be
Page | 64

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
aggravating even if it is not owned by the offended party, provided that the offended party is considered a member of the family who owns the dwelling and equally enjoys peace of mind, privacy and comfort In the provinces where the comfort rooms are usually far from the house proper, if the offended party while answering the call of nature is killed, then dwelling is aggravating because the comfort room is a necessary dependency of the house proper. A person while in the room of his house, maintaining the room, was shot. Dwelling is aggravating. If the offender entered the house and the offended party jumped out of the house, even if the offender caught up with him already out of the house, dwelling is still aggravating. The reason is because he could not have left his dwelling were it not for the fact that the attacker entered the house. If the offended party was inside the house and the offender was outside and the latter shot the former inside the house while he was still outside. Dwelling is still aggravating even If the offender did not enter the house. A garage is part of the dwelling when connected with an interior passage to the house proper. If not connected, it is not considered part of the dwelling. Balcony is part of the dwelling because it is appurtenant to the house One-half of the house is used as a store and the other half is used for dwelling but there is only one entrance. If the dwelling portion is attacked/dwelling is not aggravating because whenever a store is open for business, it is a public place and as such is not capable of being the subject of trespass. If the dwelling portion is attacked where, even if the store is open, there is another separate entrance to the portion used for dwelling, the circumstance is aggravating. However, in case the store is closed/dwelling is aggravating since here, the store is not a public place as in the first case. Dwelling is aggravating in robbery with homicide because the crime can be committed without necessarily transgressing the sanctity of the home (People v. De Los Reyes, decided October 22, 1992). Abuse of confidence
Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. - The following are aggravating circumstances: 4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness.

Husband and wife quarreled Husband inflicted physical violence upon the wife. The wife left the conjugal home and went to the house of her sister bringing her personal belongings with her. The sister accommodated the wife in the formers home. The husband went to the house of the sister-in-law and tried to persuade the wife to come back to the conjugal home but the wife refused because she is more at peace in her sister's house than in the conjugal abode. Due to the wife's refusal to go back to the conjugal home and live with the husband, the husband pulled out a knife and stabbed the wife which caused her death. It was held that dwelling was aggravating although it is not owned by the offended party because the offended party is considered as a member of the family who owns the dwelling and that dwelling is where she enjoyed privacy. Peace of mind and comfort Even a room in a hotel it rented as a dwelling, like what the salesmen do when they are assigned in the provinces and they rent rooms, is considered a dwelling. A room in a hotel or motel will be considered dwelling if it is used with a certain degree of permanence, where the offended party seeks privacy, rest, peace of mind and comfort. If a young man brought a woman in a motel for a short time and there he was killed, dwelling is not aggravating. If a man was killed in the house of his common law wife, dwelling is aggravating in this case because the house was provided by the man. Dwelling Not the Same as Domicile - Dwelling should not be understood in the concept of a domicile. A person has more than one dwelling. So, if a man has so many wives and he gave them places of their own, each one is his own dwelling. If he is killed there, dwelling will be aggravating, provided that he stays there once in a while. When he is only a visitor there, dwelling is not aggravating. The term dwelling includes all the dependencies necessary for a house or for rest or for comfort or a place of privacy. If the place used is on the second floor, the stairs which are used to reach the second floor is considered a dwelling because the second floor cannot be enjoyed without the stairs. If the offended party was assaulted while on the stairs, dwelling is already aggravating. For this reason considering that any dependency necessary for the enjoyment of a place of abode is considered a dwelling. Dwelling is not limited to the house proper. All the appurtenances necessary for the peace and comfort, rest and peace of mind in the abode of the offended party is considered a dwelling.

Do not confuse this with mere betrayal of trust. This is aggravating only when the very offended party is the one who reposed the confidence. If the confidence is reposed by another, the offended party is different from the fellow who reposed the confidence and abuse of confidence in this case is not aggravating. The confidence must be a means of facilitating the commission of the crime, the culprit taking advantage of the offended partys belief that the former would not abuse said confidence. (People vs. Arojado, 350 SCRA, January 2001) It is usually hardly appreciated. The abuse of confidence is a state of mind and hence must be proven by the means employed.

A man was fixing something on the roof of his house when he was shot It was held that dwelling is aggravating. Roof is still part of the house.

A mother left her young daughter with the accused because she had nobody to leave the child with while she had to go on an errand. The accused abused the child. It was held that the abuse of confidence is
Page | 65

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
not aggravating. What is present is betrayal of trust and that is not aggravating. In a case where the offender is a servant, the offended party is one of the members of the family. The servant poisoned the child. It was held that abuse of confidence is aggravating. This is only true however, if the servant was still in the service of the family when he did the killing. If he was driven by the master already out of the house for some time and he came back and poisoned the child, abuse of confidence is no longer aggravating. The reason is because that confidence has already been terminated when the offender was driven out of the house. Band
Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. - The following are aggravating circumstances: 6. That the crime be committed in the nighttime, or in an uninhabited place, or 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.

A is on board a banca, not so far away B and C also are on board on their respective bancas. Suddenly, D showed up from underwater and stabbed B. Is there an aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place here? Yes, considering the fact that A -and C before being able to give assistance still have to jump into the water and swim towards B and the time it would take them to do that, the chances of B receiving some help was very little, despite the fact that there were other persons not so far from the scene. Evidence tending to prove that the offender took advantage of the place and purposely availed of It Is to make it easier to commit the crime, shall be necessary. Uninhabited place- this does not mean in the place where there is no houses. Even if there is no houses, if the place is regularly visited by people, so that the offenders would not dare to commit a crime in the midst of the number of people who are always there then it is not regarded as an uninhabited place even though there will be a time when offenders can take advantage of the place. Uninhabited place does not refer to the number of houses where the crime is committed. It refers to the condition of the place where the victim was denied the opportunity to receive from the people who may have been around in the place where the crime is committed. Nighttime - It is the taking advantage of darkness what makes this circumstance aggravating. Nocturnity is the period of time after sunset to sunrise, from dusk to dawn. As a rule, the crime must begin and end during the nighttime. If the crime started during the daytime and continued all the way to nighttime, this is not aggravating. Crime began at day and ended at night, as well as crime began at night and ended at day is not aggravated by the circumstance of nighttime. Taking advantage of the darkness is what makes this circumstance aggravating. Requisites: 1. especially sought by the offender; 2. taken advantage of by him to ensure certainty; 3. facilitated the commission of the crime by insuring the offender's immunity from capture; 4. the place where the crime was committed was not illuminated. (People vs. Espina, supra) One evening, a crime was committed near the lamp post The Supreme Court held that there is no aggravating circumstance of nighttime. Even if the crime was committed at night, but there was light, hence, darkness was not present, no aggravating circumstance just by the fact of nighttime alone. Even if there was darkness but the nighttime was only an incident of a chance meeting, there is no aggravating circumstance here. It must be shown that the offender deliberately sought the cover of darkness and the offender purposely took advantage of nighttime to facilitate the commission of the offense.

In band, there should at least be four persons. All of them should be armed. Even if there are four, but only three or less are armed, it is not a band. If the armed men were not the ones consummating the crime, it may fall under paragraph 8 "with the aid of armed men." Correlate this with Article 306 - Brigandage. The crime is the band itself. The mere forming of a band even without the commission of a crime is already a crime so that band is not aggravating in brigandage because the band itself is the way to commit brigandage. However, where brigandage is actually committed, band becomes aggravating. In aid of armed men
Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. - The following are aggravating circumstances: 8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity.

1. 2.

That armed men or persons took part in the commission of the crime, directly or indirectly; and That the accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when the crime was committed. (People vs. Amion, March 2001, 144 SCAD)

Uninhabited place
Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. - The following are aggravating circumstances: 6. That the crime be committed in the nighttime, or in an uninhabited place, or 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.

It is determined not by the distance of the nearest house to the scene of the crime but whether or not In the place of the commission of the offense, there was a reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help.

Page | 66

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
There are 2 tests that applied here (nighttime or nocturnity) by jurisprudence Subjective test - refer to the offender who had liberately or purposely sought the cover of darkness in the commission of the crime. so whether it helped him or not, the time he availed of the cover of darkness shows that he is criminally perverse. He wanted to commit the crime without possibly being identified Objective test the offender did not willfully or deliberately seek the cover of darkness, but during the commission of crime he was benefited by the cover of darkness. If he would take advantage by the cover of darkness even though he was not willfully invoked by him, nocturnity or nighttime will be aggravating. Different forms of repetition or habituality of the offender 1. Recidivism under Article 14 (9) - The offender 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 Revised Penal Code. 2. Repetition or reiteracion under Article 14 (10) - The offender has been previously punished for an offense which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty. 3. Habitual delinquency under Article 62 (5) - The offender within the 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 the any of said crimes a third time or oftener. 4. Quasi-recidivism under Article 160 Any person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment before beginning to serve such sentence or while serving such sentence shall be punished by the maximum period prescribed by law for the new felony. Recidivism - In recidivism, the emphasis is on the fact that the offender was previously convicted by final judgment of a felony and subsequently found guilty of another felony embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. The law considers this aggravating when a person has been committing felonies embraced in the same title because the implication is that he is specializing on such kind of crime and the law wants to prevent any specialization. Hence, ordinarily, when a person commits a crime under different titles, no aggravating circumstance is present. It is important that the conviction which came earlier must refer to the crime committed earlier than the subsequent conviction. Recidivism Two convictions are enough The crimes are not specified; must be embraced under the same title of the RPC Habitual Delinquency At least three convictions are required The crimes are limited and specified to: (a) serious physical injuries, (b) less serious physical injuries, (c) robbery, (d) theft,
Page | 67

There is no prescription between the first conviction and the subsequent conviction It is a generic aggravating circumstance which can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance. The circumstance need not be alleged in the information

(e) Estafa or swindling and (f) falsification There is a time limit of not more than 10 years between every conviction. It is a special aggravating circumstance; hence it cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance. The circumstance must be alleged in the information; otherwise additional penalty may not be imposed

In 1980, A committed robbery. While the case was being tried, he committed theft in 1983. He was found guilty and was convicted of theft also in 1983. The conviction became final because he did not appeal anymore and the trial for his earlier crime which was robbery ended in 1984 where he was also convicted. He also did not appeal this decision. Is the accused a recidivist? The subsequent conviction must refer to a felony committed later in order to constitute recidivism. The reason for this is as the time the first crime was committed, there was no other crime of which he was convicted so he cannot be regarded as a repeater. In recidivism, the crimes committed should be felonies. There is no Recidivism if the crime committed is a violation of a special law. Recidivism does not prescribe - No matter how long ago the offender was convicted, if he is subsequently convicted of a crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code, it is taken into account as aggravating in imposing the penalty. Pardon does not erase recidivism, even if it is absolute because it only excuses the service of the penalty, but not the conviction. If the offender has already served his sentence and he was extended an absolute pardon, the pardon shall erase the conviction including recidivism because there is no more penalty, so it shall be understood as referring to the conviction or the effects of the crime. In recidivism, it is necessary that the conviction must come in the order in which they are committed.

In 1975, the offender committed robbery. While the same was being tried in 1978, he committed theft. In 1980, he was convicted of theft and he did not appeal this decision. The trial, for robbery ended in 1981. May the judge in imposing the penalty for robbery consider the accused a recidivist considering that he was already convicted in 1980 for the crime of theft which is under the same title of the Revised Renal Code as that of robbery? No, because the robbery which was committed earlier would be decided later. It must be the other way around. This is because in 1975 when he committed the robbery, there was no crime committed yet. Thus, even though in imposing the penalty for the robbery, there was already a previous conviction, if that conviction is subsequent to the

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
commission of the robbery, he is not a recidivist If you will interpret the definition of recidivism, this would seem tobe covered but that is not so. Habitual delinquency - We have to consider the crimes in it and take note of the titles of crimes in the Revised Penal Code. If the offender had committed and was convicted of each of the crimes under each category so that no two crimes fall under the same title of the Revised Penal Code, you have a situation where the offender is a habitual delinquent but not a recidivist because no, two crimes fall under the same tide of the Code. If the first conviction is for serious physical injuries or less serious physical injuries and the second conviction is for robbery, theft or estafa and the third is for falsification, then the moment the habitual delinquent is on his fourth conviction already, you cannot avoid that he Is a habitual delinquent and at the same time a recidivist because at least, the fourth time will have to fall under any of the three categories. Habitual Delinquent and a Recidivist - When the offender is a recidivist and at the same time a habitual delinquent, the penalty for the crime for which he will be convicted will be increased to the maximum period unless offset by a mitigating circumstance. After determining the correct penalty for the last crime committed, an added penalty will be imposed in accordance with Article 62. The procedure states that when the prosecutor alleges habitual delinquency, it must specify the crimes committed, the dates when they were committed, the court which tried the case, the date when the accused was convicted or discharged. If these are not alleged, the information is defective. However, in a relatively recent ruling of the Supreme Court, it was held that even though the details of habitual delinquency was not set forth in the information, as long as there is an allegation there that the accused is a habitual delinquent, that is enough to confer jurisdiction upon the court to consider habitual delinquency. In the absence of the details set forth in the information, the accused has the right to avail of the so-called bill of particulars. Even in a criminal case, the accused may file a motion for bill of particulars. If the accused fails to file such, he is deemed to have waived the required particulars and so the court can admit evidence of the habitual delinquency, even though over and above the objection of the defense. Reiteracion or Repetition - It is necessary in order that there be reiteracion that the offender has already served out the penalty. If the offender had not yet served out his penalty, forget about reiteracion. That means he has not yet tasted the bitterness of life but if he had already served out the penalty, the law expects that since he has already tasted punishment he will more or less refrain from committing crimes again. Otherwise, such repetition will be considered an aggravating circumstance, If the offender committed a subsequent felony which carries with it a penalty lighter than what he had served, there is no reiteracion because the law considers that somehow, this fellow was corrected because instead of committing a serious crime, he committed a lesser one. Recidivism Previous conviction by final judgment, while serving or at large Under the same Title of the Code No requirement as to penalty imposed in the prior conviction Reiteracion After service of sentence

Need not be under the same Title Prior crime penalized of equal or greater penalty or 2 or more crimes with lighter penalty.

In reiteracion, it is aggravating when the offender was deemed to have never reformed by the fact that he already served the penalty imposed on him on the first conviction. The penalty for the second crime in reiteracion is relevant only if the penalty is imposable on the second conviction; when there Is a third conviction, the penalty for the subsequent crimes committed is irrelevant already. Even if the penalties for the subsequent crimes committed are lighter than the ones already served, since there are already two of them subsequently, the offender is already considered a repeater, hence, reitieracion is aggravating. However, if there is only a second conviction, pay attention to the penalty attached to the crime which was committed for the second crime. Reiteracion may not always be aggravating. If the penalty attached to the felony subsequently committed is not equal or higher than the penalty already served, even if literally, the offender is a repeater, repetition is not aggravating. Quasi-recidivism - This is found in Article 160. The offender must already be convicted by final judgment and therefore to have served the penalty already, but even at this stage, he committed a felony before beginning to serve sentence or white serving sentence.

Offender had already been convicted by final judgment Sentence was promulgated and he was under custody in Muntinlupa. While he was in Muntinlupa, he escaped from his guard and in the course of his escape, he killed someone. The killing was - committed before serving sentence but convicted by final Judgment He becomes a quasi-recidivist because the crime committed was a felony. Subsequent Crime must be a Felony The emphasis here is on the crime committed before sentence or while serving sentence which should be a felony, a violation of the. Revised Penal Code. In so far as the earlier crime is concerned, it is necessary that it be a felony. The offender was convicted of homicide. While serving sentence in Muntinlupa, he was found smoking marijuana. He was prosecuted for illegal use of prohibited drugs and was convicted. Is he a quasirecidivist? No, because the crime committed while serving sentence is not a felony.

Page | 68

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
Reverse the situation. Assume that the offender was found guilty of illegal use of prohibited drugs. While he was serving sentence, he got involved in a quarrel and killed a fellow inmate. Is he a quasirecidivist? Yes, because while serving sentence, he committed a felony. The emphasis is on the nature of the crime committed while serving sentence or before serving sentence. It should not be a violation of a special law. Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance. This cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance and the Imposition of the penalty in the maximum period cannot be lowered by any ordinary mitigating circumstance. When there is a privileged mitigating circumstance, the penalty prescribed by law for the crime committed shall be lowered by 1 or 2 degrees/as the case may be, but then it shall be imposed in the maximum period if the offender is a quasi-recidivist About these aggravating circumstances, the most important in the Revised Penal Code are those where the offender had already a previous conviction against them. There are 4 of these in the RPC. Recidivism Quasi-recidivism Reiteracion or Repetition Habitual Deliquency You must know the characteristics of each. 1. Recidivism (Par. 9 of Art. 14) this is a generic aggravating circumstance which can be offset by a an ordinary mitigating circumstance.
Art. 14. Aggravating circumstances. The circumstances: 9. That the accused is a recidivist. following are aggravating

4. Habituality - Where the offender had a previous conviction of 3 times or more, this is aggravating circumstance is referred to no longer as repetition but as habituality. Similar to habitual deliquency but habituality does not specify the felonies for which the accused must be convicted unlike in habitual delinquency where the felonies of which the accused should be convicted are specified and limited to: serious physical injuries less serious physical injuries theft robbery swindling or estafa falsification Take note the felonies for which habitual delinquency may arise as classified under 3 different titles of RPC. So it is possible that the accused is a habitual delinquent having been convicted for 3 times or more and yet he is not a recidivist, because the 3 convictions do not involve crimes embraced in the same title of the RPC. Where the convictions are for a 3 time, still it is possible that each of the felonies in which the habitual delinquent was convicted are not classified under the same title of the code so no recidivism. But because that is the 3 conviction for the specified crime and convictions must come at intervals of not more than 10 years, the offender after 3 convictions will be a habitual delinquent and yet not he is not a recidivist, because no 3 convictions involved felonies embraced in the same title of the code. The crimes less serious and serious physical injuries are crimes against persons. The crimes of theft, robbery, and swindling are crimes against property. The crime of falsification is a crime against public interest. So if the offender was convicted and already served sentence for one felony under each title of the code, no 2 convictions in both crimes under the same title, he cannot be recidivist. But because the convictions for these crimes are specified in par. 2 rd or in par. 5 of Art 62 the accused upon a 3 conviction will be habitual delinquent without being a recidivist because no 2 convictions are embraced in the same title of the RPC. It does not follow that the offender who is a habitual delinquent is necessarily a recidivist. In recidivism 2 convictions will suffice, while in habitual delinquency 3 convictions are required. But then in recidivism the convictions must be embraced under the same title of the RPC. If this is not present recidivism will not apply to the rd offender who is convicted even for the 3 and no convictions involved crimes embraced in the same title of the code. This is rd possible only on the 3 conviction. Beyond that no more. It cannot be avoided that the offender who is a habitual delinquent is a unavoidably recidivist also.
rd rd

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 this Code.

2. Quasi-recidivism (Art. 160 of the RPC) this is a special aggravating circumstance and therefore cannot be offset by any ordinary mitigating circumstance.
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.

3. Reiteracion or Repetition (Par. 10 of Art. 14)


Art. 14. Aggravating circumstances. The following are aggravating circumstances: 10. That the offender has been previously punished by an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.

Page | 69

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
Pay attention to the basis of each of these aggravating circumstances where the convicts having been convicted before, such conviction will be taken as aggravating. In recidivism it is required that conviction must be embraced in the same title of the code and it must be that the convictions of the same accused must come in the order that the crimes are committed by him. So recidivism contemplates 2 convictions only. If the 1 conviction was for a crime committed later than the crime for nd which the accused was convicted in the 2 prosecution. Since st the 1 conviction was for a crime that was committed after the nd nd 2 crime was committed at the time the 2 conviction came there was no conviction for any prior crime. So there is no recidivism. Recidivism arises if the crimes are committed in the order in which the convictions also came. So if one crime is theft committed in 2009, the other crime was for robbery committed 2005. If the conviction for the robbery which was committed ahead of theft came later than for the conviction of the crime of theft, the offender cannot be nd considered a recidivist because at the time the 2 conviction came there was yet no crime committed by the offender. You take it simply that for the offender having found guilty of crimes embraced in the same title of the RPC as liable as a recidivist, the convictions must come in the order or chronology those felonies have been committed. It should not be that the nd felony for which the 2 conviction came was committed before st the 1 conviction came ahead of the latter, because at the time nd the 2 conviction came there is yet no crime committed by the same accused. It must be in the order of the commission of the crime, the conviction should also come in that same order. Recidivism is taken as aggravating precisely because the penal law deemed that the offender who have been convicted for a crime embraced in the code was specializing in that crime or crimes. That is why there is no prescriptive period st nd when the 1 conviction came, when the 2 conviction came. Rather it is the fact that the convictions in both crimes classified by the RPC under the same title. That is a sign the offender is specializing on that kind of crime. So to discourage the offender from specializing in any kind of crimes making it difficult for the law enforcer to discover the culprit, every time that a person gets convicted for a certain kind of crime would again be convicted for a crime embraced in the same title of code as that of the first conviction recidivism will be aggravating. Repetition or Reiteracion st The convict must have served already the penalty for the 1 conviction. If after serving the same, he again committed the crime where the penalty is higher than the crime for which he was sentenced and for which he had served the implication is that the offender did not suffer enough under the sentence that he had served. The penalty is not enough to correct his criminal perversity. So this time when he committed another crime penalty of which is equal or higher than the one he had served, the fact that it
Page | 70
st

will be a 2 conviction, regardless of which crime it is, the same is aggravating. On the other hand, if the convict after release committed a crime where the penalty is lesser than the one he had served, the implication is that the convict was partially reformed because although he committed another crime yet he committed a crime of a lesser severity than the crime for which he was sentenced before. So it is said the reiteracion or repetition is not always aggravating. It will only be aggravating if the crime for which has was subsequently convicted carries the penalty higher or equal to the penalty he had already served as the sentence for the felony for which he was first convicted. That means the penalty imposed on that is not severe enough to correct him. So this time a more severe penalty will have to be imposed. But if the felony committed after having served sentence carry the penalty lesser than the sentence he had served, the law considers that somehow he is reformed although he have not forgotten his criminality he committed a crime of lesser penalty than the one he already suffered. But if it would be a 3 conviction already or more than 3, the circumstance is known as habituality similar to habitual delinquency. It is always aggravating. What is referred to as habituality in a matter of repeated convictions for a crime should not be equated with circumstance of habitual delinquency. They are different. In habitual delinquency the felonies are limited to those in par 5 of Art. 62 where there is 10 year period between conviction or from the date of last release. If the circumstance would have been habitual delinquency, but the conditions for this circumstance do not obtain, like felonies rd involved in the 3 conviction or more, are not limited to those specified in the article, the moment that there is a crime that is rd foreign to what is stated there, if that would be a 3 conviction only, the habitual delinquency will collapse, because it must be that the conviction must be shall be limited to those what were specified to par. 5 of Art. 62. So the moment that there is another felony there, i.e. homicide which is not among those enumerated, the circumstance of habitual delinquency will not stand instead it will be habituality. Although the felonies are those specified under par. 5 of Art. 62, if the interval between the convictions exceeded 10 years the offender cannot be considered as a habitual delinquent. But, that does not mean that there will be no aggravating. What will be aggravating will be habituality under par. 10 of Art. 14. In case of recidivism, it is possible only for crimes which are penalized under the RPC. The offender has a previous conviction against him for a felony and subsequently he has been prosecuted for a felony. Where the 2 felonies are embraced in the same title of the Code, recidivism will be aggravating. To be aggravating, the conviction should come in the same order that the crime was committed. If the crime which was committed later was a subject of an earlier conviction then there will be no recidivism when there are 2 convictions because the first conviction came when there is no conviction yet even though at the time the second conviction
rd

nd

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
comes, the conviction for the later crime has already become final and executory and that is because at the time the second crime was committed, the first conviction has not yet come. The felonies will give rise to recidivism as aggravating must be a subject of conviction in the chronology in which the convict had committed then, the earlier crime committed must bring about the earlier conviction, and the subsequent crime committed must bring about the subsequent conviction. If it is the reverse, no recidivism. When the convictions are already 3, this is habituality. In Habitual delinquency, the law makes it aggravating when the convictions are for felonies embrace in the same title of the code because the law considers that the convict is specializing on that line of crime. If earlier, he was convicted by final judgment for a crime against property and subsequently he was convicted for a crime against property, the law takes it as specializing in that line of crime. To discourage that, a higher penalty will be imposed for the second conviction. And there is no prescriptive period, in considering recidivism. No matter how long it goes the first conviction came, as long as the subject conviction will be for a crime subsequently committed, the conviction for the second crime at the time when the conviction for the first crime was already final and executory, will bring about the aggravating circumstance of recidivism in imposing the penalty for the second conviction. In the case of repetition or reiteracion, the offender had been convicted for any crime whether a felony or special violation, he must have serve the sentence for the crime for which he was convicted. The idea here is that the law considers that the convict who had served sentence had already experienced the hardships of undergoing the punishment for a crime. If upon discharged from such sentence, the same convict would again commit a crime where the penalty is equal to or higher than the one he had already served, the law considers that the penalty for the earlier conviction is not really grave enough to influence the offender to give up his criminal tendency. In reiteracion, it must be that the second conviction must be for a crime which carries a higher penalty or at least a penalty equal to the one he had already served and suffered. If the convict committed a felony after his discharge, while the penalty is lighter or less than the one he had already served, the law takes it that somehow the convict was partially reformed. Such that, although he cannot get away from his criminality, he committed a crime with a lesser penalty. This are true however when there are 2 convictions, if there are already 3 convictions, it is immaterial, whether the subsequent crime carries a penalty higher or lesser penalty. If there are already 3 convictions, that is the known as habituality. Habituality and Habitual delinquency are not the same. Habituality vs Habitual delinquency The difference is that the third conviction will not make the convict a habitual delinquent either because the convictions are all crimes which are not those mentioned article 62 par 5. There are only specific felonies, conviction for which the accused will be regarded as habitual delinquent if that would be a third time or more and thereby an added penalty will have
Page | 71

to be imposed over and above the penalty for the felony for rd which the offender was tried and convicted for a 3 time or more. Although the crime mentioned specifically under par 5, art 62, if the 10-year period between the first and the second conviction, nd rd rd 2 and 3 conviction or 3 and subsequent conviction, the convict is not a habitual delinquent. Habitual delinquency is premised on the convictions coming within an interval of not more than 10 years. If the 10-year period exceeded, the law does not consider habitual delinquency anymore. Where however the convict has already been discharged before the second conviction came, the 10-year period is based not on the date of conviction but on the date when he was discharged. If the accused had already been convicted for a 3 time or more, but the interval for habitual delinquency has not been rd complied with, 3 conviction will make the offender suffer the aggravating circumstance of habituality. Habituality is a generic aggravating circumstance. As regards with Quasi recidivism, which is subject of Article 160, the accused must convicted for a felony committed by him when he was already sentenced by final judgment for another felony or crime committed before he started serving the sentence or while he was serving sentence for an earlier conviction. The crime committed by the convict serving sentence must be a felony. If what was committed by the convict before serving sentence or while serving sentence is not a felony but a statutory offense having committed there while he was serving sentence, quasi recidivism does not apply to him. Not any convicted offender who would commit a crime while he was already serving sentence shall be affected by this special aggravating circumstance. It will only be so of the crime committed by the convict while serving sentence or about to serve sentence is a felony. It may happen that a convict who committed a crime while serving sentence or about to serve sentence had previously committed a crime embraced in the same title of the RPC. He is a recidivist and at the same time, because of the occasion when he committed the subsequent felony, he is a quasi recidivist. For instance, a person thus convicted for a crime of homicide. Conviction became final and executory, so the convict will have to serve sentence. While serving sentence, the convict quarreled with another prisoner inside the penal institution. And he inflicted serious physical injuries, upon the latter. Prosecuted for the serious physical injuries, he was found guilty and convicted. Is he a quasi-recidivist? No, he is a recidivist. Between recidivism and quasirecidivism, recidivism is favorable or lenient to the offender than quasi-recidivism. Since the circumstance, may bring about recidivism or quasirecidivism, you cannot just choose which one, the doctrine of pro reo, tells u to adopt that one which is lenient or liberal to the offender. Between recidivism and quasi-recidivism, recidivism is more lenient to the offender because this is a generic aggravating
rd

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
circumstance, while quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance. If the accused upon arraignment would plead guilty, the plea of guilty will be offset by the recidivism, as of there is no aggravating circumstance of recidivism. Appreciating aggravating circumstance For aggravating circumstance to be appreciated, there must be a specific provision of law to that effect because aggravating circumstance cannot be presumed, it must always be sanctioned a law and the same must be established according to the requisites laid down by the law. Under article 62, there are aggravating circumstances that were introduced to that article as an amendatory provision of article 62. In paragraph of article 14, the fact the offender is a public officer and he took advantage of his official position. This is only regarded as generic aggravating circumstance. But under the amendment, when advantage was taken by the offender of his public position, the penalty must be imposed in the maximum regardless of any mitigating circumstance. That means that the penalty affected by the aggravating circumstance cannot be lowered at all. The amendment made the aggravating circumstance as qualifying. Same is true in organized or syndicated crime group, it is also introduced to article 62 as an amendment to heinous crimes law. Under the RPC, the reference to the aggravating circumstance is identical to the reference to a felon who is selling anything ___ by 2 or more persons, because under the definition in article 62, there is an organized or syndicated crime group when 2 or more persons confederated or collaborated, mutually helped one another in the commission of the crime for purposes of gain. The definition would merely bring about conspiracy. It is in essence a conspiracy between or among the offenders and this organized crime group transcends the conspiracy, so it is not proper to understand the definition here, higher than conspiracy, whereas the essence is the same in conspiracy, so the SC said, it is not enough that 2 or more persons shall confederate or collaborate, mutually helped one another in the commission of the crime, otherwise this will be only a form of conspiracy and not all conspiracy will amount to a syndicated crime. So the SC in interpreting this particular aggravating circumstance said that to consider the participation of 2 or more persons as an organized or syndicated crime group, it must first be established that there is a group purposely formed or organized to undertake the commission of a particular crime. Otherwise, not because 2 or more crimes mutually collaborated or confederated, to carry out the commission of the crime, syndicated or organized crime group would be aggravating, that is more fitting to be considered as indicative of conspiracy. And the liability will be that of principal for both of the offenders, the circumstance is not only aggravating, it increases the liability of the participants. The language of the provision, that the penalties to be imposed regardless of any mitigating circumstance may attend the commission of the crime, that means no offsetting. If there is no offsetting, then it is more serious than the other aggravating circumstances which can be offset.
Page | 72

The organized crime group contemplated in the rulings of the SC is similar of that of the Koratong Baleleng. In consideration of a price, reward or promise
Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. - The following are aggravating circumstances: 11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward, or promise.

The Supreme Court rulings before Indicate that this circumstance aggravates only the criminal liability of the person who committed the crime in consideration of the price, promise, or reward but not the criminal liability of the person who gave the price, reward or consideration. Principal by Inducement is Included - However, when there is a promise, reward or price offered or given as a consideration for the commission of the crime, the person making the offer is an inducer, a principal by inducement while the person receiving the price, reward or promise who would execute the crime is a principal by direct participation. Hence, their responsibilities are the same. They are both principals and that is why the recent rulings of the Supreme Court are to the effect that this aggravating circumstance affects or aggravates not only the criminal liability of the receiver of the price, reward or promise but also the criminal liability of the one giving the offer. By means of Inundation or fire
Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. - The following are aggravating circumstances: 12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel or intentional damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice involving great waste and ruin.

Fire is not aggravating in the crime of arson. Whenever a killing is done with the use of fire, as when to kill someone, you burn down his house while the latter is Inside, this is murder. It is aggravating. There is no such crime as murder with arson or arson with homicide. The crime committed is only murder. If the victim is already dead and the house is burned, the crime is arson. It is either arson or murder. If the intent is to destroy property, the crime is arson even if someone dies as a consequence. If the intent is to kill, there is murder even if the house Is burned in the process. A and B were arguing about something. One argument led to another until A struck B to death with a bob. A did not know that C, the son of B was also In their house and who was peeping through the door and saw what A did. Afraid that A might kill him, too, he hid somewhere in the house. A then dragged B's body and poured gasoline on it and burned the house altogether. As a consequence, C was burned and eventually died too. As far as the killing of B is concerned, it is homicide since it is noted that they were arguing. It could not be murder. As far as the killing of C is concerned, the crime is arson since he intended to burn the house only. No such crime as arson with homicide. Law enforcers only use this to indicate that a killing occurred while arson was being committed. At the most, you could designate it as "death as a consequence of arson."

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
A and B fought. A told B that someday he will kill B. On Friday, A killed B. A and B fought on Monday but since A already suffered so many blows, he told B, This week shall not pass, I will kill you." On Friday, A killed B. Is there evident premeditation in both cases? None in both cases. What condition is missing to bring about evident premeditation? Evidence to show that between Monday and Friday, the offender clung to his determination to kill the victim, acts indicative of his having clung to his determination to kill B. Evident premeditation
Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. - The following are aggravating circumstances: 13. That the act be committed with evident premeditation.

What condition is missing to bring about evident premeditation? Evidence to show that between Monday and Friday, the offender clung to his determination to kill the victim, acts indicative of his having dung to his determination to kill B. Person Premeditated Different from the Victim A and B had a quarrel. A boxed B, A told B, "I will kill you this week." A bought firearms. On Friday, he waited for B but killed C instead. Is there evident premeditation? There is aberratio ictus. So, qualify. Insofar as B is concerned, the crime is attempted murder because there is evident premeditation. However that murder cannot be considered for C insofar as C is concerned, the crime is homicide because there was no evident premeditation. Evident Premeditation Absorbed in Treachery - While it is true that evident premeditation may be absorbed in treachery because the means, method and form of attack may be premeditated and would be resorted to by the offender. Do not consider both aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation against the offender. It is only treachery because the evident premeditation is the very conscious act of the offender to ensure the execution. But there may be evident premeditation and there is treachery also when the attack was so sudden. A and B are enemies. They fought on Monday and parted ways. A decided to seek revenge. He bought a firearm and practiced shooting and then sought B. When A saw B in the restaurant with so many people, A did not dare fire at B for fear that he might hit a stranger but instead, A saw a knife and used it to' stab B with all suddenness. Evident premeditation was not absorbed in treachery because treachery refers to the manner of committing the crime. Evident premeditation is always absorbed in treachery. - This is one aggravating circumstance where the offender who premeditated, the law says evident It is not enough that there is some premeditation. Premeditation must be clear. It is required that there be evidence showing meditation between the time when the offender determined to commit the crime and the time when the offender executed the act It must appear that the offender clung to his determination to commit the crime. The fact that the offender premeditated is not prima facie indicative of evident premeditation as the meeting or encounter between the offender and the offended party was only by chance or accident In order for evident premeditation to be considered, the very person/offended party premeditated against must be the one who is the victim of the crime. It is not necessary that the victim is identified. It is enough that the victim is determined so he or she belongs to a group or class who may be premeditated against. This is a circumstance that will qualify a killing from homicide to murder.

Evident premeditation or maybe simply termed as planning indicates a stubborn adherence to a decision to commit a felony. It is appreciated only with crimes against person. It must be premeditated against the same person who was killed or the victim. Evident premeditation shall not be considered when the crime refers to a different person other than the person premeditated against For evident evident premeditation to be aggravating, the following conditions must concur: (1) There must be evidence when the offender had determined to commit the crime (2) The time when the crime is actually committed (3) The interval of time when the offender concedes of committing the crime and when he actually committed the crime. The interval of time must be such as to provide the offender enough opportunity to ponder on the evil effect of the act he will do. A, on Monday, thought of killing B on Friday. A knew that B is coming home only on Friday so A decided to kill B on Friday evening when he comes home. On Thursday, A met B and killed him. Is there evident premeditation? None but there is treachery as the attack was sudden. No Evident premeditation in Accident - In evident premeditation, there must be a clear reflection on the part of the offender. However, if the killing was accidental, there was no evident premeditation. What is necessary to show and to bring about evident premeditation aside from showing that as some prior time, the offender has manifested that he clung to his intention in killing the victim, and subsequently killed the victim. A and B fought A told B that someday lie will kill B. On Friday, A killed B. A and B fought on Monday but since A already suffered so many blows, he told B, This week shall not pass, I will kill you." On Friday, A killed B. Is there evident premeditation in both cases? None in both cases.

A person who has been courting a lady for several years now has been jilted. Because of this, he thought of killing somebody. He, then bought a knife, sharpened it and stabbed the first man he met on
Page | 73

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
the street It was held that evident premeditation is not present. It is essential for this aggravating circumstance for the victim to be identified from the beginning. A premeditated to kill any member of particular fraternity. He then killed one. This is murder - a homicide which has been qualified into murder by evident premeditation which is a qualifying circumstance. Same where A planned to kill any member of the Iglesia ni Kristo. There are some crimes which cannot be aggravated by evident premeditation because they require some planning before they can be committed. Evident premeditation is part of the crime like kidnapping for ransom, robbery with force upon things where there is entry into the premises of the offended party, and estafa through false pretenses where the offender employs insidious means which cannot happen accidentally. Generally, if a crime was committed on a victim different from the one premeditated against, evident premeditation is not aggravating. It will mean that the circumstance did not anyway benefit the offender. however if the premeditation does not refer to a particular victim, but refer to a class of victims, even if the actual victim was not properly identified as long as he belong to the class, evident premeditation is aggravating. Example: if the offender was a member of a fraternity thought of killing anyone of the members of the other fraternity purposely the Grand chancellor. He killed somebody who is not the Grand chancellor but still a member of that fraternity Evident premeditation is still aggravating because the victim was still part of the class to which the intended victim belongs Craft
Article 13. Mitigating circumstances. - The following are mitigating circumstances: 14. That craft, fraud, or disguise be employed.

and that the offender took advantage such superior strength in committing the crime. The mere fact that there were two persons who attacked the victim does not per se constitute abuse of superior strength. (People v. Carpio, 191 SCRA 12). 1. Appreciated only in crimes against person, it takes place during the commission of a crime 2. Appreciated already in rape which is now a crime against person 3. Superior strength is not enough, there must be abuse of such strength 4. There must be an Intentional use of excessive force cut of proportion to the means of defense available to the offended party. Treachery
Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. - The following are aggravating circumstances: 16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia). There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

Treachery refers to the employment of means, method and form in the commission of the crime which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The means, method or form employed may be an aggravating circumstance which like availing of total darkness in nighttime or availing of superior strength taken advantage of by the offender, employing means to weaken the defense. Essence of Treachery - The essence of treachery is that by virtue of the means, method or form employed by the offender, the offended party was not able to put up any defense. If the offended party was able to put up a defense, even only a token one, there is no treachery anymore. Instead some other aggravating circumstance may be present but not treachery anymore. A and B quarreled. However A had no chance to fight with B because A is much smaller than B. A thought of killing B but then he cannot just attack B because of the latter's size. So, A thought of committing a crime at nighttime with the cover of darkness. A positioned himself in the darkest part of the street where B passes on his way home. One evening, A waited for B and stabbed B. However, B pulled a knife as well and stabbed A also. A was wounded but not mortal so he managed to run away. B was able to walk a few steps before he fell and died. What crime was committed? The crime is only homicide because the aggravating circumstance is only nocturnity and nocturnity is not a qualifying circumstance. The reason why treachery cannot be considered as present here is because the offended party was able to put up a defense and that negates treachery. In treachery, the offended party, due to the means, method or form employed by the offender, the offended party was denied the chance to defend himself because of the cover of darkness, B was not able to put up a defense and A was able to flee while B died, the crime is murder because there Is already treachery. In the first
Page | 74

Craft is the cunning or intellectual trickery or chicanery resorted to by the accused to carry out the evil design. Fraud constitutes deceit and is manifested by insidious words or machinations. Disguise is resorted to conceal the identity. The offenders should have used craft, fraud or disguise to facilitate the commission of the crime or should have taken advantage of by the offender in the course of assault. If despite disguise, the offender was recognized, it cannot be aggravating. Aggravating In a case where the offenders pretended to be bona fide passengers of a jeepney in order not to arouse suspicion, but once inside the Jeepney, robbed the passengers and the driver (People v. Lee, decided on December 20, 1991). Abuse of superior strength
Article 13. Mitigating circumstances. - The following are mitigating circumstances: 15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed to weaken the defense.

There must be evidence of notorious inequality of forces between the offender and the offended party in their age, size and strength,

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
situation, the crime was homicide only, the nighttime is generic aggravating circumstance. In the same manner, if the offender avails of the services of men and in the commission of the crime, they took advantage of superior strength but somehow, the offended party fought back, the crime is still murder if the victim is killed. Although the qualifying circumstance is abuse of superior strength and not treachery, which is also a qualifying circumstance of murder under Article 248. Treachery is out when the attack was merely incidental or accidental because in the definition of treachery, the implication is that the offender had consciously and deliberately adopted the method, means and form used or employed by him. So, if A and B casually met and there and then A stabbed B, although stabbing may be sudden since A was not shown to have the intention of killing B, treachery cannot be considered present. There must be evidenced on how the crime was committed. It is not enough to show that the victim sustained treacherous wound. Example: A had a gunshot wound at the back of his head. The SC ruled, this is only homicide because treachery must be proven. It must be shown that the victim was totally defenseless. Suddenness of the attack does not by itself constitute treachery. In the absence of evidence that the manner of the attack was consciously adopted by the offender to render the offended party defenseless (People v. llagan, 191 SCRA 643). But where children of tender years were killed, being one year old and 12 years old, the killing is murder even if the manner of attack was not shown (People v. Gahon, decided on April 30, 1991). In People v. Lapan, decided on July 6, 1992, the accused was prosecuted for robbery with homicide. Robbery was not proven beyond reasonable doubt Accused held liable only for the killings. Although one of the victims was barely six years old, the accused was convicted only for homicide, aggravated by dwelling and in disregard of age. Treachery not appreciated where quarrel and heated discussion preceded a killing, because the victim would be put on guard (People v. Gupo). But although a quarrel preceded the killing where the victim was atop a coconut tree, treachery was considered as the victim was not in a position to defend himself (People v. Toribio). Among the different aggravating circumstances, we should know those aggravating circumstances which cannot co-exist (only one of them) because they refer to the same nature as aggravating. For instance, Advantage taken of Superior Strength, it cannot coexist with treachery. If given these 2, we only appreciate one of them because the essences of the 2 are identical. Between treachery and employing means to weaken the defense, we cannot appreciate these both. In the circumstance of treachery, the contemplation of this circumstance is that the offended party was rendered totally defenseless and not able to retaliate because the offender resorted
Page | 75

to means, methods or forms of attack that rendered the offended party unable to defend himself or unable to put up a retaliation. If it was abuse of superior strength, if the abuse of superior strength rendered the offended party defenseless, then it is treachery that should be considered as aggravating. But id the abuse of superior strength did not rendered did not render the offended party defenseless, somehow he was able to put up a token defense, then treachery is out. The proper aggravating circumstance to be appreciated would be advantage taken of superior strength. Also, in means employed to weaken the defense, if the offender strikes his enemy when the latter is so much intoxicated to which he cannot stand anymore. So he is totally defenseless, the correct circumstance to appreciate is treachery. But even though he took an intoxicated drink, if, at the time the offender attacked him and somehow he was able to put up a defense against the offender though it was unsuccessful, the correct aggravating circumstance is not treachery anymore, but it is means employed to weaken the defense. We must understand the essence of treachery. The offender, here, must have consciously and deliberately adopted ways, means or methods of attack to ensure the execution thereof without risk to himself arising from the defense that the offended party may make. If the offender attacked the victim under a cover of darkness, killing him, if that cover of darkness denied the victim the opportunity to defend himself, the circumstance is treachery. And treachery does attend the killing renders the killing as murder. But if we appreciate nighttime in connection with the killing, it will not qualify the killing into murder. The killing remains as homicide because nighttime does not qualify the killing.
Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. - The following are aggravating circumstances: 17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act. 18. x x x x 19. x x x x 20. x x x x 21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its commission.

Ignominy shocks the moral conscience of man refers to the moral effect of a crime and it pertains to the moral order, whether or not the victim is dead or alive ignominy is adding insult to injury

Cruelty physical affliction pertains to, physical suffering of the victim so the victim has to be alive Injury itself

In a case where the crime committed is rape and the accused abused the victims from behind, the Supreme Court considered the crime as aggravated by ignominy. Hence, raping a woman from behind is ignominous because this is not the usual intercourse, it is something which offends the moral of the offended woman. This is how animals do it

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES In a case of homicide, while the victim after having been killed by the offender, the offender shoved the body inside a canal, ignominy is held aggravating. Cruelty and ignominy are circumstances brought about which are not necessary in the commission of the crime. A and B are enemies. A upon seeing B pulled out a knife and stabbed B 60 times. Will that fact be considered as an aggravating circumstance of cruelty? No, there is cruelty only when there are evidence that the offender inflicted the stab wounds while enjoying or delighted to see the victim in pain. For cruelty to exist as an aggravating circumstance, there must be evidence showing that the accused inflicted the alleged cruel wounds slowly and gradually and that he is delighted seeing the victim suffer in pain. In the absence of evidence to this effect, there is no cruelty. Sixty stab wounds do not ipso facto make them aggravating circumstances of cruelty. The crime is murder if 60 wounds were inflicted gradually; absence of this evidence means the crime committed is only homicide. Cruelty is aggravating in rape where the offender tied the victim to a bed and burnt her face with a lighted cigarette while raping her laughing all the way (People v. Lucas, 181 SCRA 315) Unlawful entry
Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. - The following are aggravating circumstances: 18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry. There is an unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a way not intended for the purpose Article 15. Their concept. - Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its commission. They are the relationship, intoxication and the degree of instruction and education of the offender. The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration when the offended party is the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degrees of the offender. The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstance when the offender has committed a felony in a state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit said felony; but when the intoxication is habitual or intentional, it shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

Alternative Circumstances - are those circumstances which are either aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and other conditions attending its circumstances. Four alternative circumstances 1. Relationship; 2. Intoxication; 3. Degree of instruction; and 4. Education. Use only the term alternative circumstance for as long as the particular circumstance is not involved in any case or problem. The moment it is given in a problem, do not use alternative circumstance, refer to it as aggravating or mitigating depending on whether the same is considered as such or the other. If relationship is aggravating, refer to it as aggravating. If mitigating, then refer to it as such. Except for the circumstance of intoxication, the other circumstances in Article 15 may not be taken into account at all when the circumstance has no bearing on the crime committed. So the court will not consider this as aggravating or mitigating simply because the circumstance has no relevance to the crime that was committed. Do not think that because the article says that these circumstances are mitigating or aggravating, that if the circumstance is present, the court will have to take it as mitigating, if not mitigating, aggravating. That is wrong, it is only the circumstance of intoxication which if not mitigating, is automatically aggravating. But the other circumstances, even if they are present, but if they do not influence the crime, the court will not consider it at all. Relationship may not be considered at all, especially if it is not inherent in the commission of the crime. Degree of instruction also will not be considered if the crime is something which does not require an educated person to understand. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCE Circumstances which the court may appreciate as mitigating or aggravating depending upon the nature of the crime committed and the circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime. This should not be applied if the purpose of the law is not complied with. It does not follow that if any of these circumstances are not mitigating, that the court should appreciate it as aggravating or if the court did not appreciate it as aggravating, it should be appreciated as mitigating. It is alternative only in the sense that, in the situation given circumstance may be mitigating or aggravating, it must affect the influence of the crime.
Page | 76

Unlawful entry is inherent in the crime of robbery with force upon things but aggravating in the crime of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons. Motor vehicle
Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. - The following are aggravating circumstances: 20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age or by means of motor vehicles, motorized watercraft, airships, or other similar means.

The Supreme Court considers strictly the use of the word committed" that the crime is committed with the use or a motor vehicle, motorized means of transportation or motorized watercraft There is a decision by the Court of Appeals that a motorized bicycle is a motor vehicle even if the offender used only the foot pedal because he does not know how to operate the motor so if a bicycle is used in the commission of the crime, motor vehicle becomes aggravating if the bicycle is motorized. This circumstance is aggravating only when used in the commission of the offense. If motor vehicle is used only in the escape of the offender, motor vehicle is not aggravating. To be aggravating, it must have been used to facilitate the commission of the crime. It Is Aggravating when a motorized tricycle was used to commit the crime.

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
Although the crime is attended by intoxication, if the reason for the law does not exist, do not apply the circumstance. Under the provision of ____, the first alternative circumstance will be appreciated only according to the nature and effect of the crime committed or the circumstances surrounding the same. A lawyer may have committed a crime of rape, being a lawyer is not aggravating because that does not make him a better offender, than the one who did not study law. The circumstance, whether to be taken by the court as mitigating or aggravating, must influence the commission of the crime. In the case of intoxication, even where the offender had taken of 2 cases of beer, when he and the other laborer who was enjoying at the time when they are drinking beer, the SC ruled that is not make the intoxication mitigating because there are persons who the more they drink, the more they become alert, the more they can understand what is right and wrong. Being intoxicated does not necessarily means that one is not aware of what he is doing. Whether that the offender is aware of what he is doing should be gleaned from the circumstances surrounding the crime. In a case for instance, the accused had a disagreement with his friend while they were drinking beer. The other fellow stabbed the other 7 times then he fled. The act of fleeing suggest that he knew what he had done is a crime. That is why he fled. On top of that, after fleeing, he called a tricycle and directed the driver thereof where to take him. All of these are all indication that he is aware of what he has done. He can still recognize his direction. The SC said that the intoxication is not mitigating. The basis of the criteria is not the quantity of the liquor but the effect of the drink taken. If the intoxication is intentional or deliberate, then this means that the offender deliberately drink the liquor to ____ himself to the commission of the crime. It will be aggravating, parallel to a case of premeditation. Intoxication is mitigating only if it was not habitual or intentional and at the time the offender committed a crime, he was no longer conscious of what he was doing. When an offender is a habitual drinker and at the time he committed a crime, he has partaken of alcoholic drink, even though with the quantity of the alcoholic drink he took, he is not really intoxicated, the circumstance is already aggravating. So the treatment is different when the intoxication is habitual than if it merely casual or incidental to the commission of the crime, this is the attitude of the SC because it is regarded that alcoholic people or habitual drinkers are troublemakers, that they are the source of trouble. Degree of instruction is the attainment of the offender himself while education refers to the family, or community or the place where resided and bred. The SC said considering that the accused had 3 brothers who are lawyers, 2 sisters who are physicians, even though he only attain second grade in the elementary school, he is educated because he came from a family who are learned of what is right and wrong. Relationship is generally aggravating in crimes against chastity and crimes against honor. It is generally mitigating in crimes against property. ABOLUTORY CAUSES Aside from these circumstances covered by Articles 11 to 15, elsewhere in the provision of the code, there are circumstances specifically mentioned in felonies defined and punished thereunder, the effect may be one exempting or mitigating. Those which would exempt from criminal liability like the exceptional circumstance under article 247, this has been held as Absolutory. Also that instigation as differentiated from entrapment, also absolutory. ABSOLUTORY CAUSES The effect of this is to absolve the offender from criminal liability, although not from civil liability. It has the same effect as an exempting circumstance, but you do not call it as such in order not to confuse it with the circumstances under Article 12. Article 20 provides that 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 exception of accessories who profited themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime. Then, Article 89 provides how criminal liability is extinguished: 1. Death of the convict as to the personal penalties, and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished if death occurs before final Judgment; 2. Service of the sentence; 3. Amnesty; 4. Absolute pardon; 5. Prescription of the crime; 6. Prescription of the penalty; and 7. Marriage of the offended woman as provided In Article 344. Under Artide 247, a legally married person who kills or inflicts physical injuries upon his or her spouse whom he surprised having sexual intercourse with his or her paramour or mistress is not criminally liable. Under Article 219, discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence of the ward by their guardian is not penalized. Under Article 332, in the case of theft, swindling and malicious mischief, there is no criminal liability but only civil liability, when the offender and the offended party are related as spouse, ascendant, descendant, brother and sister-in-law living together or where in case the widowed spouse and the property involved is that of the deceased spouse, before such property had passed on to the possession of third parties. Under Article 344, in cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness, and rape, the marriage of the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action.

Page | 77

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
Those which exempt the offender from criminal liability but not included under article 12 are referred to as absolutory causes. These are causes where a crime is committed without voluntariness on the part of the offender. The effect is exempting. These are circumstances which are taken with particular crime only, it only absolves the offender from criminal liability, but not in the same circumstance that may attend some other crime. Article 247, is a crime against the marital bond The so-called somnambulism, or commission of a crime while under asleep is also absolutory. BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME AS A DEFENSE Section 26, RA 9424. Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for Justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code. Note: It means that even without unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, the woman is absolved. Same absolutory effect will apply even when the means employed is not necessary to repel an act or even when there is a presence of provocation on the part of the woman and not only extenuating. In the determination of the state of mind of the woman who was suffering from battered woman syndrome at the time of the commission of the crime, the courts shall be assisted by expert psychiatrists/ psychologists. "Battered Woman Syndrome" as a Defense contemplates of an accused who at the time of the offense, is suffering from a state of mind engendered by cumulative abuse in a battering relationship that made her actually feared imminent harm from her batterer and thus believe honestly that there is" a need to use force against her batterer in order to save her life. The case of People vs. Genosa, GR 135981, January 15, 2004 was the case where the extenuating circumstance of battered woman syndrome was made basis of the law transforming it to be an absolutory circumstance; the law is RA 9242 or the Anti-Violence against Women Act of 2005. In the said case, the battered woman syndrome was only considered as extenuating circumstance, it was RA 9242 that made battered woman syndrome an absolutory cause notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for the Justifying circumstance of self-defense In Article 11 of the RPC. The battered woman syndrome admits of three phases in order to create a single cycle. The cycle must be repeated in order that the defense of battered woman syndrome to be valid. When the husband commits the same cycle of abuse, .the wife at any phase may defend herself at any cost necessary to free herself from the situation. The law refers to the syndrome as the result of "cumulative abuse" in a battering relationship. The "CYCLE OF VIOLENCE" three phases: 1. Tension building phase - consists of verbal abuses, blatant public humiliation and maltreatment by the husband, in a treatment not proper for a husband and wife, and which is extraordinary in character. 2. Violent phase or Acute Battering Stage - refers to violent abuses or the infliction of physical injury by the husband to his-wife like a master to his slave or in any means that may almost take the life of the wife. Forgiving phase or Tranquil Stage the husband asks for another chance and for reasons of love, support and maintaining the family, the wife cannot leave the husband.

3.

REQUISITES for a possible Justifying circumstance of self-defense arising from the battered woman syndrome 1. Each phases of the cycle of violence must be proven to have characterized at least two battering episodes between the accused and her intimate partner; 2. The final acute battering episode preceding the killing of the batterer must have produced in the battered person's mind an actual fear of an imminent harm from her batterer and an honest belief that she needed to use force in order to save her life 3. At the time of the killing, the batterer must have posed probable - not necessarily immediate and actual - grave harm to the accused, based on the history of violence perpetrated by the former against the latter. The TENSION-BUILDING PHASE, In this phase minor battering occurs - it could be verbal or slight physical abuse or another form of hostile behavior. The woman usually tries to pacify the batterer through a show of kind, nurturing behavior; or by simply staying out of his way. What actually happens is that she allows herself to be abused in ways that, to her, are comparatively minor. All she wants is to prevent the escalation of the violence exhibited by the batterer. This wish, however, proves to be double-edged, because her "placatory" and passive behavior legitimizes his belief that he has the right to abuse her in the first place. However, the techniques adopted by the woman in her effort to placate 'him are not usually successful, and the verbal and/or physical abuse worsens. Each partner senses the imminent loss of control and the growing tension and despair. Exhausted from the persistent stress, the battered woman soon withdraws 'emotionally. But the more she becomes emotionally unavailable, the more the batterer becomes angry, oppressive and abusive. Often, at some unpredictable point, the violence "spirals out of control" and leads to an acute battering incident

Page | 78

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
The ACUTE BATTERING PHASE, the incident is said to be characterized by brutality, destructiveness and, sometimes, death. The battered woman deems this incident as unpredictable, yet also inevitable. During this phase, she has no control; only the batterer may put an end to the violence. Its nature can be as unpredictable as the time of its explosion, and so are his reasons for ending it. The battered woman usually realizes that she cannot reason with him, and that resistance would only exacerbate her condition. At this stage, she has a sense of detachment from the attack and the terrible pain, although she" may later clearly remember every detail. Her apparent passivity in the face of acute violence may be rationalized thus: the batterer is almost always much stronger physically, and she knows from her past painful experience that it is futile to fight back. Acute battering incidents are often very savage and out of control, such that innocent bystanders or intervenors are likely to get hurt The final phase of the cycle of violence begins when the acute battering incident ends. During this TRANQUIL PERIOD, the couple experience profound relief. On the one hand, the batterer may show a tender and nurturing behavior towards his partner. He knows that he has been viciously cruel and tries to make up for it, begging for her forgiveness and promising never to beat her again. On the other hand, the battered woman also tries to convince herself that the battery will never happen again; that her partner will change for the better; and that this "good, gentle and caring man" is the real person whom she loves. A battered woman usually believes that she is the sole anchor of-the emotional stability of the batterer. Sensing his isolation and despair, she feels -responsible for his well- being. The truth, though, is that the chances of his reforming, or seeking or receiving professional help, are very slim, especially if she remains with him. Generally, only after she leaves him does he seek professional help as a way of getting her back. Yet, it is in this phase of remorseful reconciliation that she is most thoroughly tormented psychologically. The illusion of absolute interdependency is well-entrenched in a battered woman's psyche. In this phase, she and her batterer are indeed emotionally dependent on each other she for his nurturant behavior, he for her forgiveness. Underneath this miserable cycle of tension, violence and forgiveness, each partner may believe that it is better to die than to be separated. Neither one may really feel independent, capable of functioning without the other. As discussed in the case of People vs. Genosa, GR 135981, January 15,2004 SUMMARY and SALIENT FEATURES of RA 9262 "Anti-VioIence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 Coverage of the law: 1. Women, against b) husbands or ex-husbands; c) boyfriends or ex-boyfriends; d) those whom they have a common child; and e) whom she has or- had sexual or dating relationship 2. The Victim is: a) b) their common child or their children whether legitimate or illegitimate other Children under her care or custody

Considered a Public Crime Violence against women and their children shall be considered a public offense which may be prosecuted upon the fifing of a complaint by any citizen having personal knowledge of the circumstances involving the commission of the crime. "Stalking" refers to an intentional act committed by a person who, knowingly and without lawful Justification follows the woman or her child or places the woman or her child under surveillance directly or indirectly or a combination thereof. Note: this is a crime punishable by prision mayor under RA 9262 (Section 3[d], Section 5(h], and Section 6(f]) and therefore contemplates that the offender is or had been a spouse to the offended woman or has had sexual or dating relationship with her. Otherwise, the act may constitute "unjust vexation" under Article 287 of the RPC Dating relationship refers to a situation wherein the parties live as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or are romantically involved over time and on a continuing basis during the course of the relationship. A casual acquaintance or ordinary socialization between two Individuals in a business or social context is not a dating relationship. "Psychological violence refers to acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering of the victim such as but not limited to 1. Intimidation, 2. Harassment, 3. Stalking, 4. Damage to property, 5. Public ridicule or humiliation, 6. Repeated verbal abuse and 7. Mental infidelity. 8. Causing or allowing the victim to witness the physical, sexual or psychological abuse of a member of the family to which the victim belongs, 9. To witness pornography in any form or 10. To witness abusive injury to pets or 11. To unlawful or unwanted deprivation of the right to custody and/or visitation of common children. Economic abuse refers to acts that make or attempt to make a woman financially dependent which includes, but is not limited to the following: 1. withdrawal of financial support or 2. preventing the victim from engaging In any legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity, except In cases wherein the other spouse/partner objects on valid, serious and moral grounds as defined In Article 73 of the Family Code; 3. deprivation or threat of deprivation of financial resources and the right to the use and enjoyment of the conjugal, community or property owned in common;
Page | 79

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
4. 5. destroying household property; controlling the victims' own money or properties or solely controlling the conjugal money or properties. 7. Engaging in purposeful/ knowing, or reckless conduct, personally or through another, that alarms of causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to the woman or her child. This shall include, but not be limited to, the following acts: a. Stalking, or following the woman or her child in public or private places; b. Peering in the window or lingering outside the residence of the woman or her child; c. Entering or remaining in the dwelling or on the property of the woman or her child against her/his will; d. Destroying the property and personal belongingness or inflicting harm to animals or pets of the woman or her child; and e. Engaging in any form of harassment or violence; f. Causing mental or 'emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child, Including, but not limited to, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, and denial of financial support or custody of minor children of access to the woman's child/children.

A protection Order is an order issued under this act for the purpose of preventing further acts of violence, against a woman or her child specified in Section 5 of this Act and granting other necessary relief. Section 5. Acts of Violence Against Women and Their Children.- The crime of violence against, women and their children is committed through any of the following acts: 1. Causing physical harm to the woman or her child; 2. Threatening to cause the woman or her child physical harm; 3. Attempting to cause the woman or her child physical harm; 4. Placing the woman or her child in fear of imminent physical harm; 5. Attempting to compel or compelling the woman or her child to engage in conduct which the woman or her child has the right to desist from or desist from conduct which the woman or her child has the right to engage in, or attempting to restrict or restricting the woman's or her child's freedom of movement or conduct by force or threat of force, physical or other harm or threat of physical or other harm or intimidation directed against the woman or child. This shall include, but not limited to, the following acts committed with the purpose or effect of controlling or restricting the woman's or her child's movement or conduct: a. Threatening to deprive or actually depriving the woman or her child of custody to her/his family; b. Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her children of financial support legally due her or her family, or deliberately providing the woman's children insufficient financial support; c. Depriving or threatening to deprive the Woman or her child of a legal right; d. Preventing the woman in engaging in any legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity or controlling the victim's own money or properties, or solely controlling the conjugal or common money, or properties; e. Inflicting or threatening to inflict physical harm on oneself for the purpose of controlling her actions or decisions; Causing or attempting to cause the woman or her child to engage in any sexual activity which does not constitute rape, by force or threat of force, physical harm, or through Intimidation directed against the woman or her child or her/his immediate family;
Page | 80

INSTIGATION - In instigation the criminal intent originates in the mind of the instigator and the accused is lured into the commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him. The element which makes Instigation an absolutory cause is the lack of criminal Intent as an element of voluntariness. It is absolutory because in instigation, the offender simply acts as a tool of the law enforcers and, therefore, he is acting without criminal intent because without the instigation, he would not have done the criminal act which he did upon instigation of the law enforcers. Instigation is associated with criminal Intent Do not consider culpa in connection with instigation. If the crime is culpable, do not talk of Instigation. Requisites: 1.) he acted by reason of the instigation or inducement made by public authorities, or by law enforcers; 2.) he would not have performed such act were . it not for such Instigation. Accused must know the instigator is a law enforcer In Instigation, the private citizen only cooperates with the law enforcer to a point when the private citizen upon instigation of the law enforcer incriminates himself. It would be contrary to public policy to prosecute a citizen who only cooperated with the law enforcer and believed to perform a civic duty as a citizen. Effect of no knowledge of Identity of law enforcers If the person Instigated does not know that the person Is Instigating him is a law enforcer or he knows him to be not a law enforcer, this is not a case of Instigation. This is a ease of inducement, both will be criminally liable. Entrapment is the employment of ways and means for the purpose of trapping or capturing a lawbreaker; the idea to commit the crime originates from the accused. The accused is criminally liable.

6.

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
In entrapment, the person entrapped should not know that the person trying to entrap him was a law enforcer. The officer who entrapped him only lays down ways and means to have evidence of the commission of the crime, but even without those ways and means, the person entrapped is actually engaged in a violation of the law. A fellow wants to make money. He was approached by a law enforcer and was asked if he wanted to deliver a package to a certain person. When that fellow was delivering the package, he was apprehended. Is he criminally liable? This is a case of instigation; he is not committing a crime. ENTRAPMENT The mens rea originated from the accused Not absolutory as to the offender since he authored the evil idea Consistent with public policy Trap for the unwary criminal Law enforcer is without criminal liability for their acts are in accordance with law INSTIGATION Evil idea originated from the peace officer absolutory by reason of public policy EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES The effect of this is to mitigate the criminal liability of the offender. In other words, this has the same effect as mitigating circumstances, only you do not call it mitigating because this is not found in Art 13. 1.) Concealment of honor by mother in the crime of infanticide; 2.) Abandonment by the husband in the crime of adultery by the wife; 3.) Kleptomaniac is considered as that of suffering from an illness which diminishes the exercise of his will power, however, without depriving him of the consciousness of his act Similarly, those situations where in punishing the crimes, the law had appreciated certain circumstances which lowers the imposable penalty. We call that extenuating circumstances. The effect is identical to a mitigating circumstance. These circumstances are specifically identified in certain felonies and not in Art 13. For example, in the crime of adultery under art 333, the fact the that a married woman committed adultery while she was abandoned by his husband is punished by the code lower than one degree than the ordinary penalty upon the woman who committed adultery without being abandoned by her husband. The fact that he is abandoned by his husband, that is mitigating, we call that extenuating. A mother who shall kill her new born, in order to conceal her dishonor commit a crime of infanticide, when the infant is less than 3 days old when killed. Under the provision of art 265, the circumstance is the reason behind the commission of infanticide and the offender is the mother, the penalty goes down to more than 1 degree. In effect privilege mitigating. PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE In the anatomy of the crime, there are 3 factors that should be considered: Who the offender was The act or omission constituting the offense The consequent liability that may flow therefrom As to the offenders in the RPC, it is basic that under the RPC, the moral trait of the offender is taken into account. That is why the penalty is imposed at different degrees. Classification of offenders: 1.) Principal 2.) Accomplice 3.) Accessory This classification of offenders is necessary for purposes of imposing the penalty. You must have already learned that the penalties provided In the Revised Penal Code, unless otherwise stated to be the contrary, that penalty are the penalty upon the principal. If the felony is participated in by an accomplice or an accessory the penalty upon the accomplice is not the penalty provided in the article. The penalty upon the accomplice is one-degree lower that that prescribed in the Penal Code. And the penalty of the accessory
Page | 81

Contrary to public policy Trap for unwary innocent The peace officer is a principal by inducement

If the law enforcer were able to enter the house and mingle there, nobody would offer him a cigarette because he is unknown. When he saw somebody, he pleaded to spare him a smoke so this fellow handed to him the cigarette he was smoking and found out that it was loaded with a dangerous drug. He arrested the fellow. Defense was that he would not give a cigarette if he was not asked. Is he criminally liable? Yes, this is a case of entrapment and not instigation. Even if the law enforcer did not ask for a cigarette, the offender was already committing a crime. The law enforcer ascertained if it is a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The means employed by the law enforcer did not make the accused commit a crime. Entrapment is not an absolutory cause because in entrapment, the offender Is already committing a crime. In another Instance, a law enforcer pretended to be a buyer of marijuana. He approached a person suspected to be a pusher and prevailed upon this person to sell him two kilos of dried marijuana leaves and this fellow gave him and delivered them. He apprehended the fellow. Defense is Instigation, because he would not have come out for the marijuana leaves if the law enforcer had not instigated him. It is a case of entrapment because the fellow is already committing the crime from the mere fact that he is possessing marijuana. Even without selling, there is a crime committed by him: illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
is two degrees than that penalty. So the only reason for classifying offenders under the Revised Penal Code is to being about proportional penalty to bring about the importance of the participation of the offenders. This classification of the offenders would not apply in special laws when the crime is not punished in accordance with the penalties under the Code. In the crimes punished under special laws, the penalties are not subject to a graduated scale. There can be no lowering of the penalty by degree. That is why these stages of participation do not apply. But exceptionally, as rules in that case of People vs martinsimon?, if the special law adopted the nomenclature of penalties under the code, this was taken by the SC to demonstrate a legislative intention to punish the violation in the same manner that felonies under the RPC are penalized. The adoption of penalties under the RPC would necessarily call for the adoption of the graduated scale in Art 71. So the gravity of the penalties there are also adopted. Hence, although the crime penalized is a malum prohibitum, the penalties under the RPC being adopted, these penalties are subject to scale. Because the scale is also deemed adopted in such situation. So the degree of participation can be also be punished accordingly because the imposition of the penalty may also be graduated. The new firearms law adopted the penalties under the RPC whereas illegal possession of firearms and explosive is concededly a malum prohibitum. So that means the penalties under the code will be applied accordingly taking into account the importance of participation of the offender and circumstances which may be mitigating or aggravating. The classification of participants in the commission of a felony as principal, accomplice or accessory, shall not be applied: When there is only one offender we do not use the word principal because when we use this term, we imply that there are other participants of a lesser importance. When there is a clear conspiracy among those who took part in the commission of the crime because generally, when there is conspiracy the participants are all punished as co-principals because of the principle that the act of one is the act of all. This is routinary among prosecutors. The moment there are more than one participant in the commission of the crime, the prosecutor will allege in the information that the accused confederated, collaborated, and conspired with one another in the commission of the crime. this is of procedural importance because without the allegation of conspiracy, if there are plural offenders, every time the prosecutor will present evidence, he will have to specify against whom among the accused the evidence is being presented so that at the offer of the evidence the same can be properly considered. But if there was an allegation of conspiracy in the information, the prosecutor does not have to identify the particular accused against whom the
Page | 82

evidence is considered because the act of one is the act of all. However, SC, by itself, exceptionally, in some cases, although taking notice of existence of conspiracy, nevertheless, imposed the penalty upon some conspirators corresponding to the penalty upon an accomplice only. The SC considered that there was really a conspiracy, but for certain offenders, the SC applied a penalty one degree lower than the others. The reason given is that our RPC inclines towards a milder criminal responsibility. So although there was a conspiracy, if the participation of any of the co-conspirators was only nominal, that even without that participation, the accomplishment of the crime is as well assured, that added participation did not at all facilitate the commission of the crime. But the offender will have to be punished because he took part in the conspiracy, that being so, the SC tempered the liability of such nominal participant one degree lower than the others who participated in a significant manner. In other words, it is not absolute that when there is conspiracy, all participants shall be penalized in. the same extent or the same degree. Notwithstanding conspiracy, if a conspirator only cooperated, and the act of cooperation is only minimal, that even without the cooperation the crime could be accomplished just as well, the penalty to be imposed should be that of an accomplice only. But generally, when there is a conspiracy, the criminal liability of the participants is the same. So you do not classify them as principal, accomplice and accessory.
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 any other act without which it would not have been accomplished. ART. 18. Accomplices. - Accomplices are the persons who, not being included in Article 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.

Now as to what kind of participation in the commission of the crime will bring about the criminal liability of the principal, you have this in Art. 17. There are three enumerations there. You give attention only to the second and the third enumeration. The first one is rarely given In the Bar, because that is natural to be expected. The person who directly brings about the commission of the crime can be no other than the principal. Principal by Direct Participation there can be no argument here. One who directly participated in the execution of the crime should be liable as a principal unless he acted under duress, in which case he has no voluntariness in the execution of the crime. He cannot be a co-principal. Where the mind is not criminal, the act cannot be criminal.

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
Principal by Inducement - To hold the inducer criminally liable as a co-principal, it must be that the person who carried out the execution of the crime has no reason to commit the crime without the inducement. The inducement must be the sole consideration that goaded the participant who carried out the execution of the crime to do it. Against this, we have to take note whether the supposed inducement is really strong or influential enough to move a person to commit a crime, whereas he has no reason to commit the same. If that is so, then the inducer will be liable as a co-principal. But if the inducement was not really influential enough to make a person who has no reason to commit a crime to commit, then the suggestion is that the one who committed the crime has his own reason to commit the same. There are words uttered which in law is considered as nothing as an irresponsible statement. Where the utterance is not intended to be obeyed by the one who carried the execution of the crime, then the utterance made cannot be considered as an inducement. It will not render the one making the utterance liable as a co-principal. At most, the words of inducement will only be taken as a moral encouragement for the person who committed the crime to go ahead with the commission of the same. In such a case, the liability of the one who uttered the ill-considered statement will only be that of an accomplice. The question that we have to ask ourselves in a problem where this is an issue without the inducement would the person who carried out the execution of the crime had the crime executed? if the answer is no, he would not have committed the crime had it not been for the inducement, then the inducer becomes a co-principal. If the answer is yes, there is some resemblance of hate or resentment on the part of the person who is supposedly induced, then the inducement is only a moral encouragement for him to go ahead with the commission of the crime, the liability will be that of an accomplice. In case of doubt, we interpret it in favor of the milder criminal responsibility. As been discussed, the inducement, if made by word of mouth, may be nothing but an irresponsible statement which is not intended to be obeyed, then that is not considered in law as enough basis to render the one making the utterance a co-principal by inducement. The inducement must have been uttered by the person making the same with a clear intention for the person who committed the crime to obey the inducement. We have to consider the ascendancy by the person who made the statement over the one who carried out the execution of the crime. of the adversary. The adversary fell and his head struck in a hard object. He suffered less serious physical injuries. The father must be included in the indictment as a coprincipal for that utterance. The father has an influence over his son. Generally, the son followed what the father says, especially if the father who brutally handled his son. Under that circumstance, the father should indicted as a co-principal. BUT BECAUSE THIS WAS UTTERED WHEN THE CRIME IS ALREADY TAKING PLACE, it cannot be an inducement anymore. So at most, it is only an encouragement on how to carry out the execution of the crime. In inducement, it is essential that the crime would have been committed where it not for the inducement. If the crime is already being committed, what may be uttered cannot be an inducement. At most, it will only render the inducer incur the liability of an accomplice. Principal Indispensable Cooperation - The offender cooperates with the execution of the crime by acts indispensable thereto. The word indispensable does not carry the literal meaning under Webster dictionary. The word indispensable simply connotes that the crime may or may not be accomplished had there been no cooperation given by the one who yielded the same. So, it is not really indispensable in the sense that without the cooperation, the crime could not have been carried out. It is enough that there is no certainty in the achievement of a crime without the cooperation and that the cooperation made certain the accomplishment of the crime. Under the third enumeration, principal by indispensable cooperation, you must note that an accomplice participates In the commission of the crime also by cooperating. And an accomplice also cooperates in the commission of the crime, by prior or simultaneous acts. In other words, the cooperation yielded by an accomplice and a co-principal is similar in persons and in point of time. The only difference is lies on the importance of the cooperation to the execution of the crime. It is not really necessary that the cooperation be indispensable to the commission of the crime. It is enough that there is no certainty that the crime would be accomplished without the cooperation. That it is the cooperation which made certain the accomplishment of the crime. If this was so, that without the cooperation there is no certainty that the crime could be accomplished, it is the cooperation which made certain the accomplishment of the crime, the one who provided such cooperation will incur criminal liability for a coprincipal. On the other, hand, if even without the cooperation, the crime could be accomplished although it may take time, but the cooperation facilitated or hastens the accomplishment of the crime, the person who gave the cooperation will only incur criminal liability as an accomplice So you observe from the facts whether the cooperation only facilitated the accomplishment of the crime, that even without the cooperation, the crime would just as well be carried out, in such a case, the person who yielded the cooperation will incur the liability
Page | 83

In case where the father came home on his son, who is exchanging fist blows with an adversary. The father noted that his son does not know how to box. So he shouted at his son why dont you hit him on the head?! so the son started aiming his fist blows on the head

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
of an accomplice. But if, without the cooperation, there is no certainty, whether the crime will be accomplished or not, and it is the cooperation that made certain the accomplishment of the crime, then the person who yielded the cooperation will Incur the liability of a co-principal. This is illustrated in two parallel cases of rape where in one; the Supreme Court held that the felon who held the legs of the victim and stretched this while the rapist was on top of the victim incurs the liability of a co-principal by indispensable cooperation. But In another case, the same act was done and the High Court found that the person who held the legs of the victim and stretched this while the rapist was on top of her to be liable only as an accomplice. Now, actually, there is no contradiction or inconsistency with the decisions. The difference on the ruling lies on this point in the first case, the victim was as strong, if not stronger, than the rapist on top her. So that while the rapist was trying to effect the penetration, the victim kept on wiggling, and on, the rapist was dismounted. So there is even the possibility that the victim would be able to rise and run away. Now because of the situation noticed by the friend of the rapist, the friend held the legs of the victim, stretched this, and kept her on the ground in order to immobilize her. Now, that made certain the accomplishment of the rape. That is why the High Court considered such a person who held the legs of the girl to be liable as a co-principal. The importance of the cooperation given in the consummation of the crime was considered. In the second case, the victim, a small girl who is typical barrio lass and undernourished. The offender courting her was a farm boy. While the farm boy was abusing the girl, because he thought that was the easiest way of convincing the victim to agree to marry him, the father also joined and held the legs of the girl and stretched this while his son was on top of the girl. So obviously, the father wants the girl to be his daughter-in-law. But the girl filed, instead, a criminal case for rape against the father and the son. The Supreme Court held that the father in holding the legs of the victim, stretching this, to be liable only as an accomplice. And that is because under the circumstances, the consummation of the rape is already a foregone conclusion. Only, it will take time because the victim of the crime was resisting. So even without the cooperation, the rape obviously could be accomplished although it would require some time. Now the cooperation given by the father hastens the accomplishment of the crime. So it facilitated the accomplishment of the crime. That is why the Supreme Court held that the father has incurred the criminal liability only as an accomplice. So on this third classification of a co-principal and the participation of an accomplice, the demarcation line are only slight because it is matter of your appreciation of how important the cooperation is to the consummation of the crime. So I said, if without the cooperation there is no certainty that the crime would be accomplished, it is the cooperation that made certain the accomplishment of the crime, then the person who yielded the cooperation will incur criminal liability of a co-principal by indispensable cooperation. Now, otherwise, he will incur liability only of an accomplice. Now, the common tendency is that when in the commission of the crime, there was a "lookout who participated. The inclination of the trial court is to find the lookout liable only as an accomplice. The Supreme Court qualified this and made a distinction when a lookout should be liable as a co-principal, when he would be liable only as an accomplice. The Supreme Court said, if the offender who acted as a lookout was part of the planning on how the crime shall be committed even though during the commission of the crime he only acted as a lookout, his liability is that of a co- principal. Now, you will notice that is so, because if the lookout participated in the planning on how the crime would be committed, he in effect is a co-conspirator, because of that the act of one is the act of all. He will be equally liable as those who principally committed the crime. However, the Supreme Court pointed out that if the offender who participated as a lookout was only recruited when the criminal plan was already in place, such lookout incurs the liability of an accomplice. In other words, you do not simply decide the participation on the basis of the participation during the commission of the crime. You have to consider whether the person who acted, as a lookout was part of the planning or the designing of how the crime should be carried out. If so, he takes part in the commission of the crime just like a co-conspirator. And that is why his criminal liability is that of a co-principal. But if the lookout was not part of the planning, he was only recruited when the criminal design was already in place; the High Court ruled his liability is that of an accomplice. So you do not determine the liability Just because the offender acted only as a lookout. You have to consider whether he is part of the planning on how the crime should be committed.
ART. 19. Accessories. Accessories are those who having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequently to Its commission fn any of the following manners: 1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime; 2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or Instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery; 3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or Is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.

In order for an offender to incur the liability of an accessory, he should not be or as an accomplice, he should not be a participant in any of the manner that a principal participates. Otherwise, if he already participated as a principal, he cannot be an accomplice or an accessory to the crime committed; once a principal always a principal as to the same crime. So even if he participated with any of the acts of an accessory, he remains as a principal. Hence in one case, it was held that once a principal always a principal, once an accomplice always an accomplice, once an accessory always an accessory. But for different crimes, in one, the offender may be a principal, in the other crime he may only be an accomplice or an accessory. So it is possible only when there is more than one crime committed. Now the liability of an accessory; to be incurring the liability of an accessory, the offender should not have involved himself in the commission of the crime as a principal and as an accomplice. An accessory involves him only in the commission of the crime when the acts of execution from the crime Involved are already
Page | 84

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
terminated. That is why In Art 19 It is expressly stated that to be liable as an accessory, the offender must have knowledge of the commission of the crime and that is precisely because to be an accessory, one must have involved himself when the criminal act was already executed not necessarily consummated. Accessory - The accessory gets involved when the principal and the accomplice, if any, had already finished their participation in the execution of the crime. If the one who involved himself participated while the principal or the accomplice was still in the execution of the crime, the one who involved himself cannot be an accessory. He is at least an accomplice because he participated by simultaneous act. In the definition under Art 19, to render the participant liable as an accessory, the law requires that he must have knowledge of the commission of the crime. Suggesting that, when he took part the crime was not in the process of being carried out anymore, that does not mean that the crime is already consummated, it is simply that the principal and/or the accomplice was anymore acting in the execution of the crime. So he does not know whether there is a crime committed or not. But if he participated in any of the 3 situations mentioned in Art 19, he will incur the liability of an accessory if the crime was under the RPC. On Special laws, there are no accessories. Accessory vs Accomplice Accomplice is one who takes part in the execution of the crime either by prior or simultaneous acts Accessory participates after the act had already been carried out not necessarily accomplishing the crime already So the liability of one who should be an accessory is based on knowledge that a crime had been committed. This refer to the socalled corpus delicti. Without the corpus delicti, it cannot be said that the one who is held to be liable as an accessory has knowledge of the commission of the crime. If a policeman apprehended a snatcher, where he was able to recover the thing of value that was snatched, but he did not turn this over to the investigator who booked the snatcher. Instead, he kept the thing in value and gave it to his girlfriend. The girlfriend does not know that this policeman took the same from the snatcher. Although he may have profited from the effects of the crime, she cannot be held liable as an accessory because she has no knowledge that a crime has been committed. More important in relation to the liability of an accessory is the other laws that punished the same participation. While there are laws outside of the RPC punishing identical acts which under the RPC are in the form of an accessory, that participant stands liable either as an accessory to the crime under the RPC or a principal offender to the crime punished under special law. Example: in the crime of Fencing This crime may only be committed in respect of the proceeds of the crime of theft or robbery. If the crime was estafa or malversation,
Page | 85

Fencing cannot be incurred. There must be theft or robbery in order that there may be Fencing. The act that is considered as Fencing under the Anti-Fencing law (PD 1612) is the act of the accessory to the crime of theft or robbery under the RPC. The offender profiting by himself from the proceeds or effects of the crime or he assisted the offender to profit therefrom. So only an accessory to a theft or robbery may be prosecuted for fencing. An accomplice cannot be prosecuted for fencing under the Antifencing law because the act of fencing is that of an accessory. So if the offender participated not as an accessory, although the Antifencing law imputes criminal liability on one who gets involved in the proceeds of theft or robbery, if the one accused is an accomplice to the crime of theft or robbery, the accusation under the Anti-fencing law must collapse because the participation referred to as a violation of this law is that of an accessory not an accomplice. It follows such participant in the theft or robbery cannot be prosecuted both under the RPC as an accessory for theft or robbery and another under the Anti-fencing law. The prosecution cannot put an accessory as a fence, it is only either one, because the participation is the same. And you cannot penalize the same violation more than once without incurring double jeopardy. So such offender may be prosecuted as an accessory to the theft or robbery committed or he may be prosecuted only for fencing. Now, if he was prosecuted as an accessory for the theft or robbery committed, he is being made answerable for malum in se, hence, good faith or lack of criminal intent is a valid defense. But if such offender would be prosecuted under PD 1612 or the AntiFencing Law, good faith or lack of criminal intent or malice is not a defense, because the prosecution under the Anti-Fencing Law Is that for a crime malum prohibitum. Now, more than this, if the offender was prosecuted together with the principal and the accomplice involved in the commission of the theft or robbery, the venue of the action shall be at the place where the theft or robbery was committed. On the other hand, if such offender who profited to the proceeds or effects of the robbery would be prosecuted under the Anti- Fencing Law, his liability being that of malum prohibitum, the venue shall be at the place where the stolen property or the property proceeds of the theft or the robbery was being kept or held by him. Not necessarily where the theft or robbery was committed. So even if the property was stolen In Manila and sold in Bulacan where the accessory concealed and held the stolen property, if he were charged for theft or robbery he will be joined with the other accused in the same information filed in Manila. But if he were to be prosecuted for fencing, the criminal action will be filed in the place where the fence held the proceeds of the theft or robbery, not necessarily at the place where the theft or robbery was committed. Now, this is so because, fencing is not a continuing crime. So it cannot be prosecuted in the place where the theft or robbery was committed if the stolen property was not held or kept at that place. This is so because fencing is not a continuing crime. Although this may depend on the theft or robbery committed, yet it is different in so far as the criminal liability of the person who held the proceeds of the theft or robbery is concerned.

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
Now also, in relation to paragraph one of Article 19, you should go over PD 532 (Highway Robbery). And take note of Section 4 thereof. Although this crime of fencing is true when the crime committed by the principal and accomplice is that of theft or robbery, we have this kind of robbery known as Highway Robbery. It is governed by presidential decree 532. Although the essence of the crime of Highway Robbery is also robbery, the crime of fencing cannot be committed relative to the proceeds thereof because PD 532 has its own provision punishing one who shall received or accept any part of the loot of the brigands and under the decree, such person who received or accepted such loot of the brigand shall incur the liability of an accomplice as determined according to the rules of RPC. Under Section 4 of PD 532, a person who shall receive or acquire any part of the loot of the pirates shall be liable for the crime of aiding or abetting piracy or aiding or abetting brigandage, depending on whether the property benefited of was the proceeds of piracy in Philippine waters or it was the proceeds of the highway robbery or brigandage. You recall PD 532 punishes two crimes: piracy in Philippine Territorial Waters and Highway Robbery and Brigandage. Now, although, the Revised Penal Code on Piracy had been amended by the Heinous Crimes Law to Include Piracy in Philippine waters, yet the provisions of the Code will only apply to piracy in Philippine waters where the offender is neither a passenger nor a member of the complement of the vessel But under PD 532, for as long as the piracy is committed in Philippine Territorial Waters, whether the offender is a stranger to the vessel or passenger or member of the complement of the vessel, the crime of piracy shall be committed. So where it is PD 532 that is applied to a piracy committed in Philippine waters, a person who shall acquire or receive any property which is part of the loot of the pirates will incur criminal liability not as an accessory under Article 19, but for the crime of aiding or abetting piracy. This is provided in Section 4 of PD 532. And if the person who received or acquired the loot of the highway robbers or brigands, the liability of one who took part as an accessory would not be that of an accessory, but as a principal offender in the crime of aiding or abetting brigandage under Section 4 of PD 532. So you take note that in piracy in Philippine waters or in highway robbery under PD 532, one who shall profit from the proceeds or effects of the crime Is not an accessory, he is a principal offender to the crime of aiding or abetting piracy or brigandage, as the case may be. Take note of this provision. This Section 4 of PD 532 was given in the Bar Exams twice already. And In the Bar Exams where this was made subject of a problem, there is no specification in the coverage of the examinations then that PD 532 is included. So there were so many examinees who answered that the liability of the person who profited from the proceeds or effects of the crime is that of an accessory. So some credit was given by the examiner to such examinees, to all of them who answered that way. That is brought about by the fact that the supposed coverage of the examination does not include PD 532. So the examinees were not reminded of the provision of Section 4 thereof. Now you have this, if the principal committed _____
Page | 86

robbery, the accessory may be prosecuted for fencing, or if it was piracy or brigandage under PD 532, the participants who would have been an accessory under the Revised Penal Code will incur liability of a principal offender in the crime of aiding or abetting piracy or aiding or abetting brigandage, as the case may be. Under this Section 4 of PD 532, it is expressly provided that the offender liable under such section shall be punished as an accomplice according to the rules of the Revised Penal Code. So that means that the liability of this fellow who aided and abetted the piracy or the brigandage will be one degree lower than the penalty imposed upon a principal offender of the crime of piracy or brigandage. You do not apply Art 19 when the crime is under PD 532. Now you must have known already that the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on Piracy in Art 122 of the Code has been correspondingly amended by including as a case of Piracy the commission of the act of depreciation against persons in Philippine Territorial Waters. That is why now under the Code, it now includes already watercrafts like banca, motorboat, raft or any watercraft used by persons in commuting from one place to the other or in transporting their harvest or produce from one place to another. But under the Revised Penal code. Piracy, whether in the high seas or in Philippine waters can only be committed by those who are strangers to the vessel, not by any passenger or member of the complement of that vessel. Now, this brings about the difference between piracy in Philippine waters governed by the Revised Penal Code and Piracy in Philippine Waters governed by PD 532. So if that piracy in Philippine waters is governed by the Revised Penal Code, then the person who profits from the proceeds of the piracy will be an accessory because it will be the Revised Penal Code that you will apply. But if the piracy was committed in Philippine waters by passengers or members of the complement of the vessel the Revised Penal Code does not cover this kind of piracy, but PD 532 covers this, so you will apply PD 532. When you apply PD 532 there is no accessory, there is no accomplice, there is no principal. So the liability will be for the crime specified In Section 4 of the law. And the crime there is known as aiding or abetting piracy or aiding or abetting brigandage, but the penalty will be that for an. accomplice only, determined according to the rules of the Revised Penal Code. So that means one degree lower than the penalty imposable upon the principal. The second enumeration in Article 19 may also come within the violation of the Anti-Fencing Law for it was piracy or brigandage, then, also under Section 4 of PD 532.
Article 19. Accessories. - Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the following manners: 3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.

On the third participation of on who would incur liability as an accessory, you have there the act of concealing, harboring or helping in the escape of the offender. The offender who had been harbored or concealed or helper escape must be a principal. So if the person

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
concealed, harbored or helped escape was only an accomplice, there can be no accessory under paragraph three of Art. 19. When a problem was given on this point, the offender concealed, harbored and helped in the escape of an accomplice in the crime of kidnapping, many of the examinees answered that there is criminal liability and the liability is that of an accessory. There is no accessory when the offender concealed, harbored or helped to escape was only an accomplice, not a principal. In law, the accessory always follows the principal. There is no accessory to the accomplice. So you must make certain that the offender who was concealed, harbored or helped to escape was the principal in the commission of the crime. If he was only an accomplice, there is no liability for the accessory. In law, the accessory always follows the principal, not the accomplice. Now, you will note, in the provisions of paragraph three of Art 19, there are two classes of accessories there: 1) one who is a public officer, and 2) one who is only a civilian or a non-public officer. Now, you maintain a demarcation line between the two because when the offender who concealed, harbored or helped in the escape of the principal is a public officer, there is no specification of what crime the principal has committed. Unlike that of a civilian under the same paragraph where the liability as an accessory is limited only to a situation where the principal committed the crime of treason, parricide, murder, attempt on the life of the chief executive or where the principal is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime. There is no such requirement when it comes to a public officer who concealed, harbored, or helped in the escape of the principal. It is enough that in the case of a public officer so acting, to have acted with abuse of his public function. So in that abuse of public function, the act of concealment, harboring or helping in the escape of the principal will be incurred by a public officer, regardless of what crime may have been committed by the principal. So, paragraph three of Art 19 will not apply if this is not or anyone of them is not the crime committed. The participant is not a public officer and the crime committed by the principal is not any of the following crimes stated in the RPC, what liability does the participant who helped the principal to escape incurred? He cannot be an accessory because the act of concealing, harboring and helping the principal in this case will render a non-public officer incur the liability of an accessory if the crime is any of those specified in the RPC. If the crime is not one of those specified there, the governing law will be PD 1829 (Obstruction of justice) Now, moreover, you underscore in the provision of Art. 19, paragraph three, insofar as civilians are concerned, it is necessary that the principal whom the civilian concealed, harbored or helped to escape must have been guilty of any of those crimes. So the principal must be convicted by final judgment before the civilian who may have concealed, harbored or helped in the escape would incur criminal liability of an accessory. Now this is understandable because unless the principal is convicted by final judgment, legally he is considered still innocent. So one who will conceal, harbor or
Page | 87

help in the escape of an innocent person cannot, incur criminal liability, for to do so, the accessory would only incur criminal liability under that paragraph if he was a civilian and the person whom he concealed, harbored, or helped to escape is already convicted of a crime by final judgment, in such a case, he will be a fugitive from justice. If the participant will not be held answerable as an accessory then PD 1612 (anti-fencing law) or PD 1829 (obstruction of justice) will apply This was a subject of a bar examination question sometime in the late eighties. The question was, whether it is necessary that the principal be convicted first before the accomplice and the accessory may be convicted. Generally, that is not necessary, because as to who would incur liability of a principal, or of an accomplice, or of an accessory is determined on the basis of the evidence adduced in the prosecution. So only when the evidence are before the court may the court know whether the offender is liable as co-principal, liable as accomplice, or liable as an accessory only. And that is why this information is necessary. However, relative to paragraph three of Article 19, you should read PD 1829, particularly subsection (c) of Section (1) thereof. The said subsection (c), Section (1) of PD 1829 similarly punishes a person who shall conceal, harbor, or help in the escape of a person whom he knew to have committed a crime or whom he could have known with due diligence to have committed some crime. Under PD 1829, there is no specification of what crime may be committed by the principal that would render him liable under the Revised Penal Code or under PD 1829. PD 1829 punishes the act of obstructing apprehension, prosecution and conviction of one whom the offender knew or could have known as having committed a crime. So do not omit to read that decree particularly Section (1), subsection (c) thereof. The provision is substantially the same as paragraph three of Art. 19. So where paragraph three Art 19 does not apply, PD 1829 may be applied. So you have to take of this decree so that you will be guided properly on the participation of an offender.

Now here is a case which has not been made subject on the Bar Examinations, where an offender was held criminally liable and for the same penalty as was imposed on the two other offenders who stabbed the victim, although this particular one did not participate in the stabbing. The facts of this case: there were three young men walking along the road, opposite the three young men was another lone young man coming from the opposite direction. When this lone pedestrian came face to face with the three who were walking along the same road, two out of the three young men confronted the person coming from the opposite end of the road. Now, there was a heated altercation when suddenly, the two young men where the other one was there companion, pulled out batangas knives, started stabbing the line pedestrian. They have stabbed him so much number of times that the blood that was lost from him rendered him no longer moving. So he just collapsed and lay motionless on the ground. The third one was surprised from what happened because he was not a party to the discussion; he does not know the head and tail of the incident. So he just watched. And during the stabbing, he did not

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
lift any finger when the two were stabbing the victim. Now, after the victim fell to the ground already motionless because of so much blood that came out of his body, the two who jointly stabbed the victim wiped their Batangas knives and they directed the third one to bring the body of the victim to a place where he could hide the body. Now this one who did not take part in the stabbing, lifted the body of the victim and looked for a place where the body could be hidden. Now he found an old abandoned well still with water He dumped the body inside the well. After a day or two, the body was fished out of the well. This was brought to the local health officer where an autopsy was conducted. The autopsy report rendered by the medico-legal officer revealed that the victim died of drowning or asphyxiation because his lungs were filled with water and rudiments of the well indicative that he was still breathing, when the body was dumped inside the well. Eventually, the three young men were arrested. They were charged for murder. The trial court convicted all of them for the crime. So this one who did not join in the stabbing appealed to the Supreme Court claiming that there was no conspiracy between him and the two others, and therefore he should not be liable from the deeds done by the two others. Allegedly, he just stood watching when the two were committing the crime because he was afraid that the two might also stab him, of make him Join the victim. He claimed that he did not do any act at all. His act of dumping the body of the victim to prevent its discovery is allegedly an act of accessory only. So, he contends that if ever he would be held liable in the premises; his liability would only be of an accessory under paragraph two of Article 19. Examining the cause of death, which is asphyxiation, or said the fellow is not being indicted for the acts of the two who stabbed the victim. He is being held criminally liable for his own act of causing the drowning of the victim. So he would not be convicted as an accessory to the crime committed by the two who stabbed the victim. But he is being convicted for his own acts in causing the death of the victim by drowning the victim, because it was his act that was the proximate cause of the drowning. He dumped the body there. So the Supreme Court said, he cannot just be an accessory because he is the principal in the crime of putting the victim to death through drowning. Now he claimed that he is not aware that the victim was still alive when he dumped the body inside the well. The Supreme Court rejected this, inviting the attention to paragraph one of Article 4, that for as long as the act is felonious, one will be criminally liable for the consequences where his felonious acts was the proximate cause thereof. So admittedly, what this petitioner to the Supreme Court was doing was a felonious act that of trying to conceal the body of the victim which is the basis of liability of an accessory under paragraphs two of Article 19. But the offender cannot be an accessory because he is being indicted and penalized for his own act of causing the drowning of the victim. So, even if he did not participate in the act of the two others, he is criminally liable as a principal offender not in the stabbing but in his own act of drowning the victim by dumping the victim inside the well. If you would be encountering this case, you may give the argument that the offender should be liable only as an accessory because his purpose was to conceal only the body of the crime or to hide the effects thereof. But that is not accepted because his felonious act was the proximate cause of the drowning. He is not being indicted for the acts of the two others. He is being indicted for his own act. Now, his contention that the victim is already dead when he dumped the body inside the well is immaterial because of Article 4, one who performs a felonious act would be criminally liable for the consequences of such act if the act was the proximate cause of the consequence even though it may be different from what he has intended. So the contention of this contender that he believed that the victim is already dead when he dumped the body of the victim into the well was brushed aside by the Supreme Court, precisely because of the provision of paragraph one of Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code. So be informed of the facts of this case.
ART. 16. Who are criminally liable. The following are criminally liable for grave and less grave felonies: 1. Principals. 2. Accomplices. 3. Accessories. The following are criminally liable for light felonies: 1. Principals. 2. Accomplices.

The Code also considers the gravity of the felony committed in punishing the participants therein. If the felony is grave or less grave, all those who participated therein are criminally liable whether they arc principal, accomplice or accessory. They only differ as to the penalty to be imposed on each of them. When the felony is light, only the principal and accomplice incur criminal liability. Accessories are not criminally liable in light felonies. But even the principal and the accomplice would not incur criminal liability in a light felony when the same is not consummated, unless the felony that was consummated is against persons or against property. In such a case, only the principal and the accomplice will incur criminal liability, the accessory, whether the felony is against persons or against property, whether it Is consummated or otherwise, and the accessory does not Incur criminal liability in light felonies. Now, actually, there are two instances under the Revised Penal Code where an accessory does not incur criminal liability: 1.) when the felony committed is a light felony; 2.) When the accessory is related to the principal as a spouse, or as an ascendant or descendant, on as a brother or sister whether legitimate, natural or acknowledged, or as a relative by affinity in the same degree, unless the accessory himself profited from the effects on the proceeds of the crime or assisted the principal to profit therefrom. In which case, the relationship will not exempt the accessory from criminal liability.
Article 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.

Page | 88

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
Even if the principal and accomplice who should be liable for light felonies may incur liability therefore correlating Art 7 of the RPC, such principal or accomplice will not incur criminal liability if the light felony committed is not consummated unless the light felony which was not consummated is a crime against persons or property. PENALTIES
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: or temporary absolute SCALE PRINCIPAL PENALTIES Capital Punishment: Death Afflictive penalties: Reclusion perpetua Reclusion temporal Perpetual or temporary disqualification Perpetual or temporary special disqualification Prision mayor Correctional penalties: Prision correctional 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

not think that bond to keep the peace as included among the principal penalties in art 25 as identical with the so-called bond for good behavior. We should notice that under art 25, that if the convict had been sentenced to post a bond to keep the peace and he could not do so, the penalty is not destierro but imprisonment. Imprisonment for a period depending on whether the felony is grave or less grave or only a light felony or on a light penalty on one hand. You give your attention or focus your attention to the accessory penalties. This has always been asked: What are the accessory penalties under the Revised Penal Code? That question is not completely answered by simply enumerating the accessory penalties classified under Article 25 of the Revised Penal Code, because we cannot know the accessory penalties without knowing the principal penalties. Now you find this under Articles 40-45, where you are given the principal penalties and the accessory penalties which correspondingly follow the principal penalties. Penalties under the Code are so classified as principal and accessory, because if it was a principal penalty it cannot be imposed unless it is expressly stated in the sentence. On the other hand, accessory penalties are not stated in the sentence. It is not necessary to state the accessory penalties in the sentence because they simply follow the principal penalties by operation of law. It is the law that will say what accessory penalty follows the principal penalty. The rule is that only accessory penalties need not be stated in the sentence. Any penalty which is not an accessory penalty must be expressly stated in the sentence, whether it is a principal penalty of otherwise, as long as it is not an accessory penalty, it must be expressly stated in the sentence. Otherwise, the convict cannot be made to suffer the penalty which is not stated in the sentence. It is only the accessory penalties that the convict can be required to suffer or undergo even though it is not stated in the sentence, because these are provided by law, and ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith. So only accessory penalties need not be stated in the sentence, yet the same shall be suffered by the convict because they follow the principal penalty by operation of law. Only the penalties prescribed under the RPC may be imposed and the penalty prescribed for a particular felony for which the accused may be found guilty should be prescribed. The designation of the penalty under the RPC must be strictly followed. Under the RPC, the penalty of life imprisonment is never used, instead, the penalty is reclusion perpetua. If the court punished an offender convicted under the penal code under a crime thereunder with a penalty of life imprisonment, the judgment is null and void ab initio. It will never become final and executory even if the convict may have start serving the same. Such judgment must be corrected. Although the crime to which the accused may have been found guilty is punishable only with one penalty, we must understand that this is possible only if the crimes involved alleged in one
Page | 89

The penalties under the Revised Penal Code are primarily classified under Art 25 as: (1) Principal (2) Accessory Bond to keep the peace there is no felony at all in the RPC where this penalty is prescribed. On the other hand, we have a Bond prescribed by the RPC for the crime of grave threat and light threat respectively under Art 282, 283, it is known as Bond for good behavior found in art 284. Those found guilty on the crime of grave threat (art 282) or light threat (art 283) shall be required by the court upon conviction to post a bond for good behavior that they may not pursue to carry into execution the threat that they have done. If the offender cannot post a bond, he shall be sent on destierro. He shall be banished. So that he may not commit the threat that he had done. Bond for good behavior is not included in the penalties classified under art 25 of the RPC. Do

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
information. Although the crimes may be complexed or compound or composite and authorized as an exception to the rule against duplicity of offenses to be alleged in one information only, if the prosecutor committed mistake of splitting these felonies in to different informations, the court trying the accused on the basis of different informations cannot impose only one penalty. Per every information validly filed in court for which the accused was sentenced, the court must impose the penalty under that information. So although the crimes may be complexed in accordance with article 48, only one penalty will be imposed in the crimes which are to be complexed are alleged in one information only. If the prosecutor thought that the crimes may only be jointly tried but the crimes are actually distinct so that it may be subject of different informations, and then he filed a motion for joint trial, the court proceeded to try the accused under the informations filed. Upon conviction of the accused, it will be an error for the court to impose only one penalty. Only one sentence will be promulgated but there will be as many penalties imposed there as there are informations filed were the felonies charged are validly established. Understand that for every information validly proven, the court is mandated to impose the corresponding penalty. We will encounter similar rule implementing this under the so-called three fold Rule where the penalties are supposed to be embodied under different informations. Subsidiary Penalty
Article 39. Subsidiary penalty. - If the convict has no property with which to meet the fine mentioned in paragraph 3 of the next 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 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. 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. When the principal penalty imposed is higher than prision correccional no subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed upon the culprit. 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 deprivation as those of which the principal penalty consists. 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.

sentence imposes a fine. That sentence must provide that if the accused cannot pay the fine, he shall be made to undergo subsidiary penalty. If the sentence does not so provide, simply imposes a fine, and where the fine is to enforce against the convict but the convict has no property to satisfy the fine, the convict cannot be made to undergo the subsidiary imprisonment by way of subsidiary penalty. Since the subsidiary penalty is not an accessory penalty, if it is not stated expressly in the sentence, the convict cannot be required to suffer or undergo the same. This was subject to a bar problem before where the offender was convicted for a crime punishable by a fine. After the conviction became final and executory, the sheriff went to the place of the convict to levy on his property to pay the fine. But the sheriff returned the writ of execution explaining that that there is nothing to levy upon in the property of the convict which is not exempt from execution. So the writ of execution was returned to the court unsatisfied. Now, when the court learned of this, the Judge issued a warrant of arrest and ordered the convict to be brought to Jail to serve the subsidiary imprisonment for the non- payment of the fine. So the convict was arrested, brought to the penal establishment. The convict filed a petition for habeas corpus. Now the examinees were asked: Will the petition prosper? Why? In that problem, the petition clearly will prosper. The writ of habeas corpus is designed to bring person in _____ unlawfully deprived of their liberty. Although the subject of the writ was a convicted offender, but because he is being incarcerated for the non-payment of the fine, the incarceration is not by virtue of a sentence but by virtue of a subsidiary penalty for the non-payment of the fine under Art. 39. But it is a principle in criminal law that no penalty may be imposed or required of an offender which expressly stated in the sentence, except accessory penalties. So only accessory penalties need not be stated in the sentence. All other penalties which are not accessory, regardless of what the law calls it, the same cannot be imposed or the convict cannot be made to suffer the same if it is not expressly stated or prescribed in the sentence. This is the most important aspect of subsidiary penalty. So you take note of that. Although under Art 39, the court has the authority to require the convict to undergo or serve subsidiary imprisonment for the no payment of the fine, yet that is only so if there was an express statement In the sentence that for failure of the convict to pay the fine, he shall be made to undergo subsidiary penalty, otherwise, absent such statement in the sentence, the subsidiary, penalty cannot be imposed. This is because subsidiary penalty is not an accessory penalty. Currently, the subsidiary penalty will be in respect only of nonpayment of the fine not because of suit and it excludes the nonpayment of the damages or indemnity due to the offended party. Despite the convicts non-payment of the fine imposed in a sentence, that convict cannot be made to suffer the subsidiary penalty. Ordinarily, when the sentence imposes a fine and the convict is insolvent to pay the fine, there will be subsidiary penalty
Page | 90

2.

3.

4.

5.

As discussed earlier, where the penalty is not an accessory penalty and the same is not stated in the sentence, the convict cannot be forced to suffer the same. All penalties which are not accessory penalties, although authorized by the RPC must be expressly in the sentence. The penalty of subsidiary imprisonment for the non-payment of the fine under Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code is not an accessory penalty. So this must be expressly stated in the sentence where the

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
by way of imprisonment or by way of destierro (if the principal penalty is destierro). But in some instances, even though the sentence imposed a fine and the convict was insolvent to pay the fine, the convict cannot be made to undergo the subsidiary penalty anymore. The instances are: 1. When the penalty of fine was imposed with a principal penalty of imprisonment and the imprisonment is more than prision correccional or 6 years 2. When the fine imposed in the sentence goes with a principal penalty which has no fixed duration like public censure 3. When the sentence imposes a fine but failed to state that the convict shall be made to undergo the subsidiary imprisonment in case of the non-payment of the fine. If the fine imposed in the sentence goes with the penalty of destierro or with the penalty of suspension, the non-payment of the fine may be stated by the trial court to be served by way of subsidiary penalty in the form of destierro or in the form of suspension, since these 2 penalties have the same duration as that of prision correccional.
Article 38. Pecuniary liabilities. - Order of payment. - In case the property of the offender should not be sufficient for the payment of all his pecuniary liabilities, the same shall be met in the following order: 1. 2. 3. 4. The reparation of the damage caused. Indemnification of consequential damages. The fine. The costs of the proceedings. 3. Suspension from the employment of public office during the trial or in order to institute proceedings. Fines and other corrective measures which, in the exercise of their administrative disciplinary powers, superior officials may impose upon their subordinates. Deprivation of rights and the reparations which the civil laws may establish in penal form.

4.

5.

Article 29. Period of preventive imprisonment deducted from term of imprisonment. Offenders or accused who have undergone preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the service of their sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty, with the full time during which they have undergone preventive imprisonment if the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, except in the following cases: 1. When they are recidivists, or have been convicted previously twice or more times of any crime; and When upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence they have failed to surrender voluntarily.

2.

If the detention prisoner 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 fourfifths of the time during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment. (As amended by Republic Act No. 6127, June 17, 1970). Whenever an accused 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 accused may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after thirty (30) days of preventive imprisonment.

Art 38 enumerates the pecuniary liabilities that the convict has. In art 89 of the RPC in par 1 thereof, it was mentioned pecuniary penalties which also extinguishes if the convict should die before the judgment has become final and executory. In 2005 bar exams, it was asked to differentiate pecuniary liability as against pecuniary penalties. Going over the enumeration of pecuniary liabilities, the first 2 items are due to the offended party. We refer to art 104 of the RPC on what are the civil liability to the offended party includes. We find there, the first 2 items in art 38 of the accused. In the 3 and 4 items, these are payable to the government not to the offended party. It is not really a liability forming part of the civil liability to the offended party. Instead, it is payable to the government. These are what have been referred to as pecuniary penalties. The term pecuniary liabilities is broader than pecuniary penalties. Preventive Measures
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.
rd th

Under Art 24, you have there the preventive measure. You have deprivations which are in the character of penalties under the Revised Penal Code, like the preventive imprisonment, the suspension, the imposition of fines. These are the penalties under the Revised Penal Code. And this would be questionable if it would be imposed without the offender being convicted first. So to avoid any such question, Art 24 provides that these are only preventive measures not penalties. In the first enumeration under Art 24, you have there what is known as preventive Imprisonment, that of detaining a person accused of a crime or detaining a person by reason of public necessity when the person involved is suffering from violent insanity or suffering from a contagious disease which requires confinement in an asylum or any institution established by law for such purpose. In the 1995 Bar Exams, the examinees were asked: What do you understand by preventive imprisonment? Corollary to this, the question also was: What credit is given for preventive imprisonment under the Code? Also another question: Who are not entitled to the credit? Now the so-called preventive imprisonment is found in paragraph (1) of Art. 24. The subsequent questions on what credit will be given and who are not entitled to a credit are found in Art 29. So you correlate paragraph (1) insofar as preventive imprisonment is concerned with Art 29.

Page | 91

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
The so-called preventive imprisonment may take place in this situation: (1) in the case of an accused who is charged of a capital offense or a crime which is not bailable. So during the trial, he is under preventive imprisonment (2) In the case of an offender, although having committed a bailable offense, he cannot post the required bail. So he remains imprisonment under the so-called preventive provided he will agree in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners. Now if the accused has not requested that he be kept among the convicted prisoners. So that means he has not been sentenced before. So he prefers to be only with the detention prisoners. Since detention prisoners enjoy a greater liberty that those who are serving sentences, the credit given is only four-fifths of the number, 80% of the number of days that will be credited to the sentence If the sentence involves deprivation of liberty. So if the sentence imposes a fine, no credit. If the sentence imposes public censure, no credit. The credit is only given if the sentence imposes a penalty which involves deprivation of liberty. There is already a ruling that although the sentence imposed was destierro, the credit provided in Art. 29 for the preventive imprisonment shall be given unless the offender is one of those disqualified from such credit Now also, even where the penalty is reclusion perpetua, more so now, that this penalty has a fixed duration, the credit shall be given. Now those who cannot enjoy the credit, there are only two classes of offenders: (1) recidivists or those who have been previously convicted for two or more times; and (2) An offender who, after the sentence has become final and executory was summoned to appear in court for the execution of the sentence, but he failed to surrender voluntarily. In which case, the court will issue an arrest warrant for his arrest Now, whatever credit the convict may have earned before under the preventive imprisonment, the same shall not be accorded to him anymore. It shall be forfeited. Relative to this credit, under the new law RA 9344, that offenders who are minors and proceeded against under this law are entitled to full credit for whatever detention they may have under that in the youth detention homes or youth rehabilitation centers or agricultural camp where they may be held to be kept while the case against them is on suspended sentence. The period is in full even though they are not really held with convicted prisoners. Pardon by the offended party (effect)
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.

(3) In the case of an insane suffering from violent insanity or one who is suffering from a contagious disease requiring confinement in an asylum or in a hospital establishment for that purpose. This term is rather misleading. The correct term should be preventive detention. Because the word imprisonment signifies a penalty. But that is what it is referred to in criminal law. But understand it to be not really imprisonment but a detention only. Because on this point, the subject of the detention is not yet convicted by final Judgment So there are three instances where the so-called preventive imprisonment or preventive detention may take place. Now the question: What credit is given to an offender who had undergone preventive Imprisonment? You find this In Art 29. Under Art 29, a credit will only be proper where the accused is eventually convicted for the crime charged and the penalty imposed involved a depreciation of liberty. Also, provided the offender is not one of those disqualified from this credit under Art 29. Under the article, you will notice there that there are two situations where credit is given: One, where the offender even while he was yet on trial had already been under preventive imprisonment with convicted prisoners. So he is held not in the barracks of detention prisoners but in the barracks of convicted prisoners who are already serving sentence. Now, you may be thinking why he would be kept among the convicted prisoners when he is not yet convicted, still under trial. That can only be done upon the request of the accused himself. Where the accused is one who goes in and out of the penal establishment, you can be sure that he has more friends among the prisoners serving sentence than among the prisoners who are still under trial. So he prefers to be there. He may enjoy some status there. So he prefers to be there. He may be a senior citizen inside the barracks. So he is being served by neophyte convicts serving sentence. But the prison authorities cannot just grant his request He will only be allowed in his request if he would undertake in writing that he will abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed on the convicted prisoners. You have this in Art 29. But he will be allowed

Under Art 23, you have there the general rule that the pardon by the offended party will only extinguish the civil liability but not the criminal liability. This tells us that criminal prosecution, generally involves 2 aspects: the criminal aspect - which renders the offender

Page | 92

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
indebted to society for the crime he had committed for which he will have to serve the penalty. This covers the criminal liability. The second aspect is that the debt that the offender had to the offended party. The interest of the offended party that he had prejudiced with the commission of the crime, this covers the civil liability. The interest of the offended party cannot be controlled by the State except of matters of procedural enforcement. In the same manner, the interest of society cannot be controlled by the private offended party. If the offended party is not in conformity with the award made by the court in a criminal case, he can appeal only in the civil case. That appeal will not be in the name of the people of the Philippines. It will be in his own name. If there some deviation from the procedural applicable to the criminal aspects, private offended party has no right to appeal to the higher court, it must be done by the solicitor general. However, in a latest ruling of the SC, considering that the trial court acted without jurisdiction, even though it was the private offended party who appealed and raised this issue about the trial court gravely abusing discretion tantamount to acting without jurisdiction, SC said to dismiss to the petition because of the improper appeal would render the wrong done, without jurisdiction, uncorrected So as an exception to the rule that it should be an appeal to the solicitor general, the present appeal by private offended party should be given due course because the wrong pointed out and raised as an issue is one that strikes the very authority of the court to act on the case. The issue in that case involves the grant of bail. In those cases where bail is not a matter of right and the trial court granted bail without a benefit of a hearing. The court in that case, in granting bail, acted without jurisdiction. Under art 23, we have an exception exception that private offended party may extinguish the criminal liability and this is true only in the case of the so-called Marital Rape. Where the pardon by the wife of her husband will extinguish the criminal liability for that crime of marital rape and if the husband was already sentenced, the pardon will remit the penalty that had been pronounced against the husband. Corresponding to this, we have art 36, where the chief executive cannot pardon the civil liability that had been awarded to the offended party against the offender for the crime committed. The pardon by the chief executive cannot cover the civil liability which is due to the private offended party
Article 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.

Duration of Penalties
Article 27. Reclusion perpetua. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be from twenty years and one day to forty years. Reclusion temporal. - The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be from twelve years and one day to twenty years. Prision mayor and temporary disqualification. - The duration of the penalties of prision mayor and temporary disqualification shall be from six years and one day to twelve years, except when the penalty of disqualification is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case, its duration shall be that of the principal penalty. Prision correccional, suspension, and destierro. - The duration of the penalties of prision correccional, suspension and destierro shall be from six months and one day to six years, except when suspension is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case, its duration shall be that of the principal penalty. Arresto mayor. - The duration of the penalty or arresto mayor shall be from one month and one day to six months. Arresto menor. - The duration of the penalty of arresto menor shall be from one day to thirty days. Bond to keep the peace. - The bond to keep the peace shall be required to cover such period of time as the court may determine.

Art 27 states the duration penalties under the RPC. Familiarizing this will help us to remember the Graduated Scale under Art 71. We will notice that the penalty of destierro is a divisible penalty, it has a duration equivalent to the penalty of prision correccional. Also, the distinction between penalty of Life imprisonment and the penalty of reclusion perpetua have been engrafted under this art. There are at least 3 distinctions: (Life imprisonment vs Reclusion perpetua) Felonies under the RPC are punished with reclusion perpetua but never life imprisonment o If the crime for which the offender is found guilty is a felony, the penalty, if at all, will be reclusion perpetua, not life imprisonment. The SC said that the penalty if life imprisonment is substantially different for the penalty of reclusion perpetua. It is not just a matter of terminology. There is substantive variance o The penalty of reclusion perpetua is prescribed under the RPC, the penalty of life imprisonment is prescribed under special laws. o Although there are special laws that prescribes penalty of reclusion perpetua Penalty of reclusion perpetua has a fixed duration of imprisonment, starting from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years while penalty of life imprisonment has no fixed duration. It is literally for life subject only to this pardoning prerogative of the president Penalty of reclusion perpetua carries with it, accessory penalties while the penalty of life imprisonment has no accessory penalty

Page | 93

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
Another classification of penalty
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. 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 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.

Now we say that when the penalty has a fixed duration. It is a divisible penalty. How about reclusion perpetua? By nature or by the constitution of the penalty, it is divisible. Had it not been for the ruling of the Supreme Court that the penalty has remained to be indivisible, reclusion perpetua would have been a divisible penalty by now because it has a fixed duration. And In criminal law, when a penalty has a fixed duration it is divisible. And divisible penalties are imposed as a whole. For example In Art 249 of the Revised Penal Code, you have there the crime of homicide. The penalty prescribed there is reclusion temporal. The range of this is 12 years and 1 day to 20 years. If the accused was convicted of homicide, the court cannot impose the penalty of reclusion temporal. The court will impose the penalty only In the proper period. So recluslon temporal minimum, reclusion temporal medium, and reclusion temporal maximum. Because this is a divisible penalty. And divisible penalties are never imposed as a whole. Whenever you are asked what penalty would you impose? If the penalty is divisible, whether your answer is right or wrong, it must show that there is a period there, minimum, medium, maximum. At least that would show that you understand what you are writing. In fact, the Supreme Court itself treated reclusion perpetua as a divisible penalty in its earlier ruling. In the case of People vs. Conrado Lucas. In this case, the crime was simple rape. The trial court found the accused guilty, sentenced the accused to reclusion perpetua. This was after the Heinous Crimes Law took effect already after December 31, 1993. This case of Conrado Lucas was decided in 1994. On appeal by the accused, the Supreme Court admonished the trial court for imposing the penalty of recluslon perpetua. The second division of the Supreme Court called the attention of the trial court that reclusion perpetua is already a divisible penalty and therefore, is comprised of three periods. The Supreme Court in that ruling tried to impress the trial court, divided the duration of reclusion perpetua into three and setting forth in the resolution, but the mathematical computation was wrong. Because in the ruling of the Supreme Court, the three period are the ______. The medium period ended at 33, the maximum period began at 34 years to 40 years. So clearly, because the beginning of the next higher period must be the end of the immediately preceding period. You only add a day. So if the medium period ended at 33 years, the beginning of the maximum period would not be 34 years. It should be 33 years and 1 day. Because of that error, the Solicitor General filed a motion for clarification. And in that motion, the Solicitor General requested that the Supreme Court convene en banc and decide whether really, reclusion perpetua has become a divisible penalty. Because of the significance of the question involved, the Supreme Court granted the motion. And so, eventually convened en banc. It was in this en banc ruling that the Supreme Court arrived at a conclusion that reclusion perpetua has remained to be an indivisible penalty. The reason explained by the High Court there is, no clear legislature intention to make the penalty divisible since the other provisions of the Revised Penal code on this penalty have not been correspondingly amended. To rule that reclusion perpetua has become a divisible penalty, this provisions which are affected by that finding will no longer be operative. So many provisions of the
Page | 94

Penalties under the Code are also classified as: (1) Indivisible (2) Divisible You have this in the imposition of penalties under Art. 63 and 64. The penalty is divisible when it has a fixed duration susceptible to be divided into three portions. Each portion will form a period to known as the minimum, the medium, and the maximum. On the other hand, a penalty is said to be indivisible, when it has no fixed duration. Therefore, not susceptible to be divided into three portions. Under Art. 76, you have there the provision that every divisible penalty shall be understood by you as comprise of three periods, three portions. Bear in mind, divisible penalties are never imposed as a whole. Divisible penalties are imposed only by periods. Now at what period a divisible penalty shall be imposed, you are guided by the rules under Art. 64, whether it shall be imposed in the minimum period, medium period, maximum period. You have this in Art. 64 determined by the mitigating or aggravating circumstances present in the commission of the crime.

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
Revised Penal Code will be ordered inoperative, as it is the prerogative and duty of the Court to harmonize the law. The High Court claimed that it has to consider, the ruling to avoid many provisions of the Revised Penal Code from being considered already repealed. So the conclusion, despite the fix duration given, reclusion perpetua remained to be an indivisible penalty, it is because of this ruling that we treat reclusion perpetua as indivisible penalty ____. Without the ruling, _____ it would have been properly treated as a divisible penalty. Because the fixed duration will be divided into three by, Mandate of Art. 76 of the Revised Penal Code. So this is the history_____. Now the question then arose: If the intention was not to make reclusion perpetua a divisible penalty, then why was it given a fixed duration? Why was it not allowed to stay as it was, considering that before, reclusion perpetua was an Indivisible penalty? Now why was it given a fixed duration, if after all the intention Is not to make it a divisible penalty? The Supreme Court answered this question by simply stating that, reclusion perpetua was given a specific duration In order to comply with jurisprudence. The Jurisprudence referred to was the ruling in the case of People vs. Crescenda Reyes. That when the prison term already exceeds 20 years which Is reclusion temporal, the prison, term should already be within the degree of reclusion perpetua, and therefore, bail is no longer a matter of right. In the crime of Estafa under PD 818, up to the amount of P22.000, the penalty is reclusion temporal. Higher than that, per every P10.000, there should be added 1 year of Imprisonment, but all in all, it shall not exceed 30 years. There is no mention that the penalty will be reclusion perpetua. So when the trial court denied the application for bail of Crescenda Reyes, the accused went to the Supreme Court ...Because penalties under the Revised Penal Code are covered by the graduated scale in Art 71 reflecting its severity. There is no penalty higher than reclusion perpetua. So any imprisonment higher than 20 years should be reclusion perpetua. This is the Jurisprudence referred to by the Supreme Court in stating as reason for giving reclusion perpetua a fixed duration. Civil Interdiction
Article 34. Civil interdiction. - Civil interdiction shall deprive the offender during the time of his sentence of the rights of parental authority, or guardianship, either as to the person or property of any ward, of marital authority, of the right to manage his property and of the right to dispose of such property by any act or any conveyance inter vivos.

The rights which are deprived of are: Parental authority Marital authority Authority to manage his own property He cannot act as a guardian whether as the person or property of the ward He cannot execute any deed of conveyance inter vivos Now this disqualification attaches to the convict only when the principal penalty is reclusion temporal, reclusion perpetua, and death penalty, does has been commuted. Where the penalty is prision mayor or less than this, there is not accessory penalty of civil interdiction, and therefore, the disqualification mentioned in Art. 34 does not attach to the convict. So you take note of that in connection with Art. 34, that those disqualifications are true only with the penalty of reclusion temporal and higher, but not to penalty lower than reclusion temporal. Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments of the crime
Article 45. Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments of the crime. Every penalty imposed for the commission of a felony shall carry with it the forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime and the instruments or tools with which it was committed. Such proceeds and instruments or tools shall be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government, unless they be the property of a third person not liable for the offense, but those articles which are not subject of lawful commerce shall be destroyed.

Now, although the rule is that accessory penalties need not be stated in the sentence, yet the accessory penalty under Art 45 referring to the forfeiture and confiscation of the effects or instruments used in the crime is an accessory penalty, this must be stated in the sentence. So this is the exception where the accessory penalty must be stated in the sentence for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the thing Involved. This is what you call jurisdiction over the res. If this is not, stated in the sentence, the sheriff will not be able to levy on the property that is to be confiscated or forfeited in favor of the government Complex Crimes
Article 48. Penalty for complex crimes. - When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.

This penalty is essentially an accessory penalty, so the effects thereof will only last while the principal penalty continues. It is coterminous with the principal penalty because it is only an accessory penalty. When a convict is under a principal penalty which carries with it the accessory penalty of civil interdiction that convict will suffer the deprivations mentioned in art 34 of the RPC for a period coterminous with the principal penalty.

There are 2 classes of complex crime provided under Art 48 of the RPC: 1. Under the first form the offender committed a single act but 2 or more grave and/or less grave felonies resulted from the act committed. This is the so called COMPOUND CRIME 2. Under the second form the offender had to commit one crime as necessary means to be able to commit the intended crime. This is the REAL COMPLEX CRIME or COMPLEX CRIME PROPER For us to acquire understanding of art 48, we must bear in mind that in the light of Sec 13, Rule 110 of ROC. Sec 13 provides the so called duplicity of offenses which is prohibited in procedural law.
Page | 95

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
Section 13. Duplicity of the offense. A complaint or information must charge but one offense, except when the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses.

the morgue. The prosecutor filed an information for murder against the gunman who is already detained. Now, the next day, there were persons who came upon a dead body of a female, some fifty yards away with a bullet wound on the neck. They do not know who shot the victim. They simply brought the body to the local health officer. The autopsy disclosed that the same bullet that killed the victim of the first shot also is the same bullet that killed the woman. So another information for homicide was filed against the same accused. And the prosecutor moved for the consolidation of the cases, so that the two cases were jointly heard. The medico-legal officer testified that the accused fired only one shot but the bullet that went through the body of the victim of murder is the same bullet that killed the woman who was the victim under the information for homicide. Now, that being so, the court imposed only one penalty, the penalty for the more serious crime which is murder, and Imposed it in the maximum or death penalty. When this was elevated to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court ruled that the said Judgment is void. Art 48 does not apply because this article can only apply when the crimes are alleged in one information. Now, this is so Because Art 48 must be taken by you in relation to Section 13, Rule 110 on the rules of Criminal Procedure. Compound Crime - is one where the offender performs a single act from which more than one crime resulted. The compound crime punishes the act with one penalty. All of the resulting crimes must be alleged in one information. The first form of complex crime in Art. 48 where the offender performed a single act from which two or more grave and/or less grave felonies resulted. This is a modified form of a compound crime. The real compound crime does not take into account the gravity of the resulting crimes. So whether the resulting crimes are grave, less grave or light, as long as they are the product of a single act, they shall be taken up in one information only. So that only one penalty will be imposed. Originally, this was the provision of Art 48, but time came when the single act resulted to one light felony and grave felony. To complex the two crimes would bring about the imposition of the penalty for the grave felony. And it will be imposed in the maximum. It was found out that to complex a light felony with a grave or less grave felony would be disadvantageous to the offender. Because if the light felony would be prosecuted separately, the penalty at most is arresto menor and/or fine not more than P200. But the moment the light felony is complexed with the grave or less grave felony, the penalty for the grave or less grave wilt be the one imposed and in the maximum period. Now that maximum period would bring about an increase in the prison term of more than two years if slight physical injuries was to be prosecuted separately. Because of that, Art 48 was amended to limit the complexing of the felonies only when they are grave and/or less grave. Hence, light felonies now cannot be alleged in one information only. So they are not allowed to be complexed. If, let us say, a school bus with one hundred pupils inside figured in an accident All the one hundred pupils suffered slight physical injuries. The prosecutor should file one hundred information. No
Page | 96

Under sec 13, every information should charge only one offense. This is in order to avoid the possibility that the accused may not be fully informed of the nature and cause of the charge against him and he may be entering a plea which is not really what he have in mind. There is an exception, however, which is stated in there and that where the law itself prescribes a single penalty for various offenses. One of the exceptions is the so-called complex crime under art 48. There are 4 which duplicity of offenses do not stand because these are exception to the procedural rule: Compound Crime Complex Crime Proper Composite Crime (Special Complex Crime) Continued Crime In these 4 situations more than one offense may be alleged in one information as an exception to Sec 13 of Rule 110 and that is allowed because in these cases the penal law impose only a single penalty. Art. 48 can only be applied when the crimes are alleged in one information only. So the moment more than one Information is filed for the crimes covered by Art. 48, do not apply the article anymore. So if a single act brought about two or more grave and for less grave felonies, and the prosecutor filed more than one-information for each of the resulting felonies, do not apply Art. 48. Per every information where the crime charged is proven, the court is legally obligated to impose the proper penalty. So let us say, a single act resulted to two felonies because the second felony came to the knowledge of the prosecutor after the first felony was already a subject of an information, the prosecutor filed another information, but Then asked for a Joint trial. So the two informations proceeded before one court. The court found that the two crimes are the result of a single act. So the court applied only one penalty, the penalty for the more serious crime. Now, you are asked, is the Judgment correct? That Judgment is wrong because per every information where the crime alleged is proven, a court is legally obligated to impose the proper penalty. So if, let us say, the offender shot the victim from behind while the victim was having a drinking spree with some other persons. After the victim was shot, there was a commotion. So the victim who was then drinking simply fell because he was shot from behind. So the other persons in the drinking spree chased the gunman, and was able to capture him. They mauled him, brought him to the police headquarters. Little did they investigate how serious the bullet wound was. Nobody noticed that the bullet went through the body of the victim. They were all pre-occupied to take the victim to the hospital, but before the victim reached the hospital, he was pronounced dead on arrival. They brought him to

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
two light felonies may be taken up in one information because that means you are complexing the crime. And you are not allowed to do this under Section 13 of rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Another aspect of this first form of complex crime in Art. 48, the basis of one information for the grave and less grave felonies that resulted is based on the act, not the criminal impulse. So although the offender acted .out of one criminal impulse only, but if he performed more than one act, the article cannot apply anymore. The Supreme Court had already clarified that the earlier rulings in People vs. Lawas, People vs. Remdino, where the crimes were complexed despite the fact that the accused performed more than one act just because all the crimes were engendered by the same criminal impulse. The Supreme Court corrected the earlier rulings where the crimes have been complexed just because the offender was acting out of a single criminal impulse even though the offender performed more than one act. So the rulings you may have learned where the crimes resulted from more than one act, as long as they were brought about by the single criminal impulse, that is no longer true now. It is the singleness of the act done resulting to a felony that shall be the basis of complexing the crime under the first part of Art. 48. Now, if an automatic weapon is used like an M-16 armalite. The singleness of the act is not reckoned on the basis of the squeezing of the trigger. It is based on the number of bullets discharged by the firearm with one squeeze of the trigger. Since the firearm is automatic, the offender need only to squeeze the trigger once and several bullets are at on discharged. So if an offender made use of an armalite firearm, he squeezed the trigger once, six bullets were discharged, six persons were killed, the crimes cannot be complexed. Although the offender squeezed the trigger once, that is not the basis for determining the number of act because being an automatic weapon, the offender naturally will have to squeeze the trigger only once. So it is not the rule, that when an automatic firearm is used, the act shall be determined on the basis of-the bullets discharged from the firearm. So if an M-16 automatic rifle is used in the killing, five persons were killed, each of the killing will be subject of a separate information. They should be treated separately and distinctly because they cannot be said as the product of a single act. You can only apply Art 48 if it will be established that one bullet which killed a person went through the body of this person and then killed another person. Only when it is established that the same bullet killed another person that you will have a complex crime under the first form in Art 48. But if that cannot be established, do not apply art. 48. Complex Crime Proper - is where the offender has not performed one crime to be able to commit the other crime. The offender had to commit one crime to bring about the commission of the crime intended by him. This is the real complex crime. That is why this is known as the complex crime proper. The limitation that you should observe under this second form of complex crime in Art 48, although one crime was committed as a means to commit another crime, you will only complex the two crimes if they are both punished under the Revised Penal Code. So if one of the said crime is a malum prohibitum, another one a malum In se, you are not allowed to take this up in one information. You are not allowed to complex the two crimes because they are penalized on different philosophies, rules of procedure or appreciation of evidence. These must be made of separate informations. Another aspect of the second form of complex crime, you should make sure in the situation where you believe that complex crime is committed, make sure that one crime was committed not to conceal or cover up the other crime because it one crime committed not as a means to commit the other crime, but rather it was committed to conceal or hide or cover up the other crime. Art 48 cannot be applied The common problem given In the Bar on this: the offender is a cashier in a public office. He found a need for cash so extracted the cash from the fund which is under his custody. Now because he was authorized to pay some disbursement vouchers that which are already liquidated and paid by him. So he took one voucher, added a zero to conform to the amount extracted from his collection. The irregularity was discovered and the cashier was prosecuted for the crime of malversation through falsification. Is the charge correct?You know that the crime of malversation through falsification or estafa through falsification is a complex crime. But is it proper to complex the two crimes? Judging from the facts given, the offender is a cashier. So he has the cash in his possession or custody. He does not have to falsify any document to be able to extract the cash. All he has to do is to get the cash out of funds, pocket this and spend thins. The falsification committed by him is no means to commit the malversation. It is a means to hide or conceal the malversation, hence, two separate informations should be filed. Not one because the two crimes cannot be validly complexed. This is the common thrust of Bar problems involving complex crime proper. Composite Crime - like the crime of Robbery with Homicide, crime of Robbery with Rape, Robbery with Serious Physical Injuries. Also you have Rape with Homicide. A composite crime is a single indivisible offense which in the eyes of the law is penalized as one crime only but in substance is made up of several component crimes. A composite crime or what you call otherwise as special complex crime differs from a complex crime in that the component crimes in a complex crime are penalized under separate articles of the Revised Penal Code. Only, they are allowed to be alleged in one information because they were the product of a single act or one was a necessary means to commit the other. In the case of a composite crime, like robbery with Homicide, robbery with Rape, Robbery with Mutilation, Robbery with Arson. All the component crimes are subject of one provision of the Revised Penal Code, and treated only as one crime. Only one penalty is prescribed.
Page | 97

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
Composite crime VS Complex Crime in composite crime, the principal crime and the component crimes are punished under one article only of the RPC and in that article only one penalty is prescribed. In a complex crime under art 48, the component crimes are considered as a product of a single criminal resolution so that only one penalty will be imposed. In a complex crime, the component crimes are actually separate and distinct from the principal crime. The statement that the penalty for the more serious one shall be the one imposed implies each of the component crimes have their own distinct penalties. So there is a need to determine which among them has the more serious penalty, it shall be the penalty that will be prescribed. Such statement is not true with composite crime, only one penalty is prescribed in the article punishing that crime. That is why in a composite crime there is no application of Art 48 where the penalty for the more serious crime shall be applied in the maximum. Because all the component crimes in a composite crime are penalized with one penalty only. So there is no choosing which is the more serious among the penalties for each of the component crimes because all the component crimes are regarded as one. Continued crime - is one where the offender performs a series of overt acts. All the overt acts were performed at one place, at about the same time and all the offenses violate one and the same provision of the penal law. Hence, all the overt acts are deemed committed as one crime and driven by a single indivisible criminal resolution. So all the acts shall be punished only as one crime. That is the reason why all the acts are to be alleged in one information only so that only one penalty may be imposed to them. This is illustrated in the early case of People vs. de Leon, where the offender broke the chicken coop of the offended party and took three fighting cocks therefrom. Because the fighting cocks were entrusted only to the trainer training them and they were owned by different owners, there were three owners who were divested of their personal properties and so the prosecutor filed three informations. The lower court convicted the accused for three counts of theft. On review, the Supreme Court ruled, only one theft is committed because the taking took place in one and the same place at about the same time. All the taking amounts to the crime of theft. All of these are regarded as the product of a single indivisible criminal resolution. Only one information should be filed. All the fighting cocks taken will be alleged there. So the penalty is not on the basis of each overt act. The penalty is based on the whole of the acts. fact, impelled by a single indivisible criminal resolution. So only one penalty _____ will be Impose!? You may encounter this in the forthcoming Bar Exam (2004), subject of continued crime. So understand this carefully. What brings about the crime as continued crime? That all the acts are committed in one place, at about the same time, and all the acts constitute a common violation of the same provision of penal law. Because of this, all the crimes are regarded as the product, of a single indivisible criminal resolution.

In a case where the offender took a carabao by the rope tied to the nose of the carabao _____. To the tail of the carabao is tied another carabao, a mother carabao, and to the tail of that mother carabao there was a cow, a young male cow, tied on this. So because there were three taken, the offender was then prosecuted for three counts of qualified theft. At that time, there was yet no decree on Cattle Rustling. Again, the High Court said, only one because the taking was done in one and the same time, from one and the same place. All the taking constituted the same crime. In
Page | 98

In the case of Gamboa vs. CA, Gamboa was the City Prosecutor of Manila who authorized the filing of 75 informations against a salesman who defrauded his employer. The salesman was authorized to consign the eyeglasses that he was supposed to sell and also authorized to receive payment from the consignees. Since the payment were made on check payable to the optical company, his employer, this salesman opened a bank account In the name of the optical company, but the signature card of the deposit was only under his name. So that he alone can deposit and withdraw from such bank account. Some of the checks paid to him were deposited to a ______ in that bank account where he alone was the signatory. The other checks _________. Upon confirmation of the accounts _____ was conducted. The Irregularity was discovered. So an audit was conducted ._______ and it was found out._______ had deposited some of the checks in the bank account he had withdrawn against the deposit different amounts on different dates. All in all, he had made 75 withdrawals. So he was charged for estafa in 75 informations. Gamboa ____ that filing of the case. Now with that number of informations the accused cannot possibly file a bond. So he raised the question to the CA that he should only be prosecuted under one information because all the misappropriations committed by him were pursuant to one criminal intent, to defraud the employer. So even if the withdrawals were made on different dates, they are all integral part of that resolution, to defraud. So only one information should be filed. The Court of Appeals sustained the argument and directed Gamboa to file only one information. Gamboa elevated the matter to the Supreme Court Challenged the CA resolution. The Supreme Court reversed the resolution of the CA. The Supreme Court said, the order directing the filing of one information only proceeds on the proposition that what was committed was a continued crime. But the High Court said, this is not a continued crime because the withdrawals were made on different dates and on different amounts. So each withdrawal is the product of a distinct criminal resolution having been committed on different dates. That being so, the acts committed will not be taken as, one, because every withdrawal made on different dates and in different amounts are impelled by a separate and distinct criminal resolution thereof. So 75 informations were allowed to be filed.

The case filed against Senator Santiago before were also questioned on this basis. She was prosecuted under 32 informations for the violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. She contended that only one information should be filed because the act imputed is a continued crime. She was being prosecuted for having approved

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
the application for alien legalization of 32 unqualified Chinese. So 32 counts of alleged violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act The Supreme Court ruled that these applications which the accused signed as head of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation _______, could not have been signed by the accused _____ on different dates, different dates. The practice on applications like those are presented to the 'head of the office In one punch and that, the accused must have signed this in one setting and about the same time. So all of these 32 applications signed by her ______ only in one setting. All of them constitutes one violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act And that is why she was able to post a bond. Eventually she was acquitted. A thief manage to break through a boarding house of ladies and while inside the thief entered one of the rooms where there are 4 boarders renting the same. The boarders were out of that place at that time. The thief ransacks the place. The thief did not know that there are 4 boarders and the valuables there are owned by different persons (the boarders). In the process of taking, the offender may have taken personal property owned differently by the 4 boarders. But because the taking is in one the same place, about the same time, the law considers that they are all driven by one and the same criminal resolution and therefore one information only should be filed charging all of those component acts. This is what is known in American Jurisprudence as single larceny doctrine The Single Larceny Doctrine disregards the offended parties who were divested of personal properties. The crime of Larceny in common law is the equivalent of our crime of theft. This matter continued crime was brought to our jurisprudence in respect to the crime of theft. The reference is not to the number of persons divested of their personal property but the taking of the things of value which were deprived of the owner divested of this. Using the same case, under the separate larceny doctrine the thief will incur one count of theft per every offended party divested of his movable ____. So if all 4 boarders lost their valuables, there will be 4 counts of theft or larceny under common law. We do not adopt the separate larceny doctrine. What we have adopted is the rule in continued crime as its counter part of the single larceny doctrine. Continued Crime vs. Continuing Crime - When you say continued crime, you refer to the nature of the crime as made of series of overt acts which when committed in one place, at about the same time, and all of them violate a common provision of the penal law. So this refers to the substantive aspect of the crime. On the other hand, you must learn the term continuing crime has reference to the venue where the criminal prosecution may be instituted. Under Section 15 of Rule 110, you have there the rules on where a criminal action may be instituted. General rule, criminal
Page | 99

action shall be instituted only at the place where It was committed, unless the different ingredients thereof where committed in different places, in which case the criminal action may be instituted in any of those places where any essential ingredient of the crime was committed. That is the essence of the so-called continuing crime. The crime is deemed to be committed not only in a particular place but in different places where any of the essential Ingredient thereof was performed. That being so, the Rules on Procedure allowed the criminal prosecution to be filed in any of those places where the essential Ingredients of the crime must have been committed. But once the criminal action is filed in any of the courts of said places, that court will acquire jurisdiction over the crimes to the exclusion of the other courts. ... Continued crime has a substantive connotation whole a continuing crime has a procedural connotation. A continuing crime is also called a transitory crime of continues crime. A crime may be a continued crime but not a continuing crime, in the sense that, it cannot be prosecuted in more than one venue. In the same manner, a crime may be prosecuted in different venues but because only one act was committed in different venues, the crime is a continuing crime but not a continued crime. Sometimes the term used for continuing crime is continues crime. That is because the essential ingredients were not committed in one place but continues to different places. So the different places complete the consummation of the crime. In the crime of estafa, for instance, the goods subject of the transaction in the deed of sale at one place, to be sold in another place. The proceeds of the sale was misappropriated in another place. So all of these provide a proper venue for prosecuting the crime because all of these places taken together provide the violation. One does not amount to a violation yet. Receiving the goods in Manila to be sold in Dagupan. After it was sold in Dagupan, the salesman with the proceeds ________ dropped by Angeles City where he gambled the proceeds, the proceeds were lost. So you have the damage committed in Dagupan because that money was obtained, there is nothing to misappropriate in Angeles City without the money. So the essential Ingredients of the crime were committed in different venues. Criminal Procedure allows the filing of a criminal case in any of these places because the crime as a whole was committed in these three places. Receiving the goods entrusted in Manila, the goods were sold in Dagupan, the money which is supposed to be returned to the owner in Manila was misappropriated in Angeles City. So all of these constitute the crime of estafa. It is a transitory crime. There are certain crimes where the subject had to be transported to different places such that consummation of a crime is committed in different places. Procedures allow the crime to be prosecuted in any of those places where any of the essential ingredients of the crime was committed. There are crimes which are immediately consummated upon the taking of the property in one place. So even if the property is transported in several places, it is not a continuing crime because the law does not allow the prosecution of the crime in some other places.

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
In a case of theft of a motor vehicle, when the vehicle was taken from manila, it was driven away to Baguio. In the first night, it was in Caloocan City. Then, the offenders had to spend over night in Lingayen. Then to Baguio. Criminal prosecution was filed in Lingayen. Is the prosecution valid? In criminal cases, the place where the crime is prosecuted is not just a matter of venue. It is jurisdictional. So in criminal procedure, we do not use venue but we use the term territorial jurisdiction. In that case of theft, it is not a continuing crime. The moment that the taking is complete, the crime is consummated. Hence, the same can only be filed in the city of manila where the property was taken. The fact that the property was travelled to different places does not bring about a continuing crime because none of the essential elements of theft took place in different places. The term continuing crime connotes that the criminal action may be filed in more than one place where any of the essential ingredients of the crime was committed, but the moment that the criminal action was filed in any of the places where the essential ingredients of the crime was committed, that court will acquire jurisdiction over the offense to the exclusion of all other courts. It is only continuing crime for as long as the criminal action has not yet been filed in the proper court of the place where any of the essential ingredients of the crime was committed. delito continual Spanish term for continued crime As discussed earlier that these 4 (compound crime complex crime proper, composite crime, continued crime) are exception to the rule of duplicity of suits in one information. It does not follow that if several crimes are alleged in one information, that the court will impose one penalty upon finding the accused guilty because if the crimes that were alleged in one information are not compound crime, complex crime proper, composite crime or continued crime that information suffers from duplicity of offenses, it will not invalidate the information. The effect of duplicity is only to allow the accused to file a motion to quash on the ground that the information charges more than one crime which the law does not punish with a single penalty. If the accused will not file a motion to quash, the duplicity is waived. The court can proceed as though the crimes alleged in one information are charged in different information. As many crimes as are not proper to be alleged in one information will be treated as subject to a distinct information. If all the felonies are proven, the court will render one judgment but there are as many sentences as the crimes proven. The limitation under the rules on criminal procedure is that per every sentence, the court must make separate findings of fact and applicable law and jurisprudence Rules for the application of indivisible penalties; Rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods.
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. 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 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.

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.

When the penalty to be imposed in an indivisibIe penalty, you follow the rules in Art 63. When the penalty to be imposed in a divisible penalty, you follow Art 64. You will notice in Art 63, there is no mention of periods because indivisible penalties do not have periods. But under Art 64, in the imposition of the penalty, the law speaks of periods because, as I said earlier, divisible penalties are not imposed as a whole. And to arrive at the proper period, you have to abide by the rules in Art 64. Art 66 is the rule to follow, when the penalty prescribed is only a fine. Penalty prescribed vs Penalty imposed penalty prescribed is that which the law has provided as the penalty for the crime committed but that may not be the penalty that will be imposed because of the mitigating and aggravating circumstances that court will appreciate in determining the proper penalty to be imposed.

Page | 100

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
There are only two situations treated in Art 63: 1.) where the crime is penalized with a single indivisible penalty; 2.) Where the crime is penalized with two indivisible penalty The penalty is said to be indivisible when it has no fixed duration. The penalty is said to be divisible when it has a fixed duration and therefore susceptible to be the divided into 3 equal parts. Each part is the period that made up the divisible penalty. Art 76 tells us that every divisible penalty should be understood to be divided into 3 equal parts, the first is the minimum period, the next is medium period, and highest one is the maximum period. This, therefore, tells us that the word period is true only to a divisible penalty. If the penalty is indivisible, there is no period. When we talk of period in criminal law as a penalty, it is 1/3 portion of the overall duration of the penalty. Divisible penalties are never imposed as a whole, they are imposed only by periods. As to what is the proper period to be imposed art 64 provides the rules. Every penalty prescribed for a felony under the RPC shall be treated as a degree. This is for expediency purposes and uniformity because under the RPC there are felonies that are only with a period of a divisible penalty. There are felonies that are punished by 2 periods of a divisible penalty. In the crime of violation of the conditional pardon, a form of evasion of service of sentence, the penalty prescribed is prision correccional minimum. That is a degree (prision correccional minimum), every penalty prescribed for a felony is a degree. So if we go one degree lower, we have to move down following the constitution of the penalty prescribed for the felony. If the penalty prescribed for the felony as a degree is made up of one period of a divisible penalty, every degree, lower or higher, should be comprised only of one period of a divisible penalty. If the degree of the penalty prescribed for the felony is comprised of 2 periods of a divisible penalty like crime of Infanticide committed by the mother. The penalty there is prision mayor medium to maximum, that is the degree. The degree is comprised of 2 periods of a divisible penalty. An example of the first situation in Art 63, simple rape where the penalty is reclusion perpetua. An example of the second situation in art 63 is parricide, where the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death. Now, where the crime is penalized with a single indivisible penalty, no amount of ordinary mitigating and aggravating circumstances can affect that penalty. That is why, in simple rape, it would be useless to determine what are the ordinary mitigating circumstances attending the commission of the crime. Only a privileged mitigating can affect a single indivisible penalty. So I told you, where the crime is attended by a privileged mitigating circumstance, the first thing you should do, lower the given penalty into the proper period. Invariably, when you lower the penalty by the degree provided by a privileged mitigating circumstance, the lowered penalty would be divisible. So it is no longer the rules in Art 63 that you will apply, it will be the rules in Art 64. For example, crime committed, simple rape. Penalty, reclusion perpetua. Even if you have there, several ordinary mitigating, no aggravating, you cannot lower that one. But if let us say, the offender was a 17 year old boy, minority Is always privileged when there is criminal liability, and at that age, the penalty Is lowered by one degree. So, reclusion perpetua shall be lowered by one degree and that would land on reclusion temporal. Reclusion temporal is no longer an indivisible penalty. It is a divisible penalty. So, Art 63 will not operate anymore. It will now be Art 64 that you will follow. That is why, when a crime is attended by a privileged mitigating circumstance, the first thing you have to do, lower the penalty given to the proper degree because that degree, invariably, will be a divisible penalty. If the penalty for the crime originally was indivisible. So it will be the rules under Art 64 that you will have to follow. Under Art 63, when the crime is penalized with two indivisible penalties, like in parricide where the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death. This is also the penalty for murder now, as amended by the Heinous Crimes Law. The rules are: no mitigating, no aggravating, the lesser indivisible penalty, reclusion perpetua. There is mitigating, no aggravating, also the lesser indivisible penalty. There is aggravating, no mitigating, the higher indivisible penalty, so death. There are mitigating and aggravating, offset whatever remains, you apply the rule accordingly. The important thing here, even though there is no aggravating circumstance, even though there are five ordinary mitigating, you are not allowed to lower the penalty, by any degree. The lowering of the penalty to the next lower degree, when there are two or more ordinary mitigating is allowed only when the penalty is divisible. Where the penalty is indivisible, you are not allowed to lower the penalty by any ordinary mitigating. That penalty, can only be lowered by a privileged mitigating. So as long as it is ordinary, no amount of ordinary can lower that Now under Art 64, if there is no mitigating, no aggravating, medium period. There are mitigating, no aggravating, minimum period. There is aggravating, no mitigating, maximum period. There are mitigating and aggravating, offset. Whatever would standout, you apply the rule accordingly. Under this article, where the penalty is divisible, you have there paragraph 5. You take note of that paragraph. When a crime is punishable by a divisible penalty and there are two or more ordinary mitigating, no aggravating, the penalty to be imposed is the next lower degree. So you drop down by one degree. And it is the penalty lowered by one degree that will be imposed. If there are only two ordinary mitigating, as long as there is no aggravating, you can lower to the next degree. The penalty next lower in degree will be applied
Page | 101

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
in the medium period. But if there are three mitigating, no aggravating, two will lower the penalty to the next lower degree. The remaining mitigating shall bring the imposition of the lowered penalty in the minimum period. The points you shall guard against here, you are allowed to lower a divisible penalty to the next lower degree only when there is no aggravating circumstance whatsoever attending the commission of the crime. The moment there is an aggravating circumstance attending the commission of the crime, the most you could do, effect an offset And whatever remains, you apply the minimum period or the maximum period of the divisible penalty. You are not allowed to go down any degree lower when there is an aggravating circumstance. For instance, there are four ordinary mitigating, there is one aggravating. By offsetting, you still have three. So more than two. Do not apply paragraph 5. That paragraph 5 is only applicable when there Is no aggravating circumstance whatsoever. This was given in the Bar Exams before. Now also, a case was given, because this was due before to the municipal judge of Paranaque or Las Pinas. The crime is punishable by a divisible penalty. The same is attended by four ordinary mitigating, no aggravating. Because two mitigating would suffice to bring down the penalty to the next lower degree, there being four, the judge lowered the penalty twice. So the penalty is lowered by two degrees. Is the Judgment correct? That is not correct, Because Art 64 authorizes only the lowering of the penalty to the next lower degree. You cannot go any further. So even if you have all the mitigating, no aggravating, you can only lower this by one degree. And if there are more than two aggravating, that lowered penalty have to be imposed In the minimum period. But you cannot go down any degree lower. Several problems have been given on Art 64 paragraph 5. There is a mark. Countless problems have been given in this article. Paragraph 5 of Art 64 does not apply when the penalty is indivisible, Three-Fold Rule
Art. 70. Successive service of sentence. When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit otherwise, the following rules shall be observed: In the imposition of the penalties, the order of their respective severity shall be followed so that they may be executed successively or as nearly as may be possible, should a pardon have been granted as to the penalty or penalties first imposed, or should they have been served out. For the purpose of applying the provisions of the next preceding paragraph the respective severity of the penalties shall be determined in accordance with the following scale: 1. Death, 2. Reclusion perpetua, 3. Reclusion temporal, 4. Prision mayor, 5. Prision correccional, 6. Arresto mayor, 7. Arresto menor, 8. Destierro, 9. Perpetual absolute disqualification, 10. Temporal absolute disqualification. 11. 12. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the right to follow a profession or calling, and Public censure.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next preceding, the maximum duration of the convict's sentence shall not be more than three-fold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him. No other penalty to which he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those imposed equals the same maximum period. Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years. In applying the provisions of this rule the duration of perpetual penalties (pena perpetua) shall be computed at thirty years.

The next article you have to take note of, Art 70. The article provides for the so-called three-fold rule. This contemplates of an offender who had been convicted for several crimes and therefore, he has to secure several sentences. You apply this only when the several sentences are interlocking, that means, they are continuous. Sentences which have already been served before will not be counted anymore. Only the continuous sentences that the convict would serve. The rule applies whether all the sentences were handed down by one court, or the several sentences came from different courts throughout the Philippines. This is because the three-fold rule is applied not by the courts but by the prison authorities. This rule is observed during the service of the sentence, not during the imposition of the sentence. Under this Art 70, when the convict is to serve several sentences which he cannot serve simultaneously, but has to serve this successively, the most severe sentence will be multiplied by three. The product shall be the maximum duration that the convict will serve sentence. But in no case shall it be more than 40 years. The three-fold rule, however, is intended for the benefit of the convict and, therefore, you will only apply the three-fold rule if it is beneficial to the convict To determine whether applying the rule would be beneficial or prejudicial to the convict, you first add the duration of the sentences that the convict will serve. Then you take the most severe sentence, multiply it by three. If the total of the sentences added together is less than the product of the most severe multiplied by three, do not apply Art 70. The three-fold rule will not apply. Because this rule is intended for the benefit of the convict Now whether it is the sum total of the sentences added together that we will apply, or the product under the three-fold rule, the maximum duration cannot exceed 40 years. Do not fail to do, that it is not the court which apply this, it is the prison authorities. As far as the courts are concerned, whatever is the penalty imposable for the crimes committed, the court will impose that penalty. So you must have read or heard about these public officers of the Department of Public Works in Cebu, who were convicted by the
Page | 102

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
Sandiganbayan for multiple counts of Malversation, and they were all sentenced to 914 years. That all of them will not serve that long. They will only serve, at most, 40 years. So if the amount misappropriated are of the same small amount, then the most severe can be like the others. Multiply it by three, it may amount only to around 20 years. That is why, I said, this article now seems to encourage criminality. The common problem given In the Bar on this, the accused was charged before the court for multiple counts of violations. In imposing the sentence, the courts considered the maximum of the most severe sentence, multiplied this by three, and the court Imposed the product of the penalty. That is wrong because the three-fold rule is not for the court to apply. It is the prison authorities who computes this, list down the number of days that each convict had spent in the penal institution. Now also, you will note here, in the last provision of Art 70, it is stated there that for purposes of applying the provision, perpetual penalties shall be given the equivalent of thirty years. If one of the sentences that the convict will serve was reclusion perpetua, you will have to give it the equivalent of 30 years only although the duration is 40 years. The Supreme Court ruled on this, and stated that reclusion perpetua is one of the perpetual penalties under the Revised Penal Code. Now since, this last provision of Art 70 provides that the perpetual penalties, for purposes or the provision, shall be given the equivalent of 30 years, reclusion perpetua should only be given the equivalent of 30 years because the article has not been amended. So that means, if one of the sentences was reclusion perpetua, the duration cannot be pegged at reclusion perpetua because although that is 40 years and the maximum, under the three-fold rule is 40 years, for the purposes of the three-fold rule, that is given only the equivalent of 30 years. So the convict will still serve another penalty of the penalties to complete the 10 years. So all in all, 50 years. This was the ruling of the High Court on this matter. Although reclusion perpetua is given the duration of 40 years, for purposes of the three-fold rule, determining the maximum duration that the convict will serve, reclusion perpetua will only be given the equivalent of 30 years. Now, in as much as the convict will have to serve the maximum of 40 years, so one reclusion perpetua will not suffice, there will still be a balance of 10 years. So you wilt still serve other sentences to complete the (30 years)... or the 40 years. Now, you have there Art. 70, the scale In which the penalties are to be served, when they cannot be served simultaneously, they will have to be served successively, and you will notice here, the convict must first serve arresto menor before destierro. Although under the graduated scale of penalties in Art 71, destierro comes ahead of arresto menor. It is a graver penalty than arresto menor. But for the purposes of the three-fold rule in the service of the sentence, arresto menor must be served first before destierro. Now you understand this, as brought by the fact that destierro is
Page | 103

served outside of the prison walls. So if you allow the convict on destierro before serving all the prison sentences, probability, he will not comeback anymore. So he is required to serve all the sentences that is to be served within the prison walls and thereafter he can go on destierro Lowering the penalty by degree
Art. 71. Graduated scales. In the case in which the law prescribed a penalty lower or higher by one or more degrees than another given penalty, the rules prescribed in Article 61 shall be observed in graduating such penalty. The lower or higher penalty shall be taken from the graduated scale in which is comprised the given penalty. The courts, in applying such lower or higher penalty, shall observe the following graduated scales: SCALE NO. 1 1. Death, 2. Reclusion perpetua, 3. Reclusion temporal, 4. Prision mayor, 5. Prision correccional, 6. Arresto mayor, 7. Destierro, 8. Arresto menor, 9. Public censure, 10. Fine. SCALE NO. 2 1. Perpetual absolute disqualification, 2. Temporal absolute disqualification 3. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the right to follow a profession or calling, 4. Public censure, 5. Fine.

Another important aspect of your knowledge in the area of penalties is how to lower a penalty by degree In one Bar exam, the examinees were asked to differentiate degree from period of the penalties The degree of the penalty is the relative severity of the penalties as provided in the graduated scale in article 71. You have there the penalties arranged according to their severity. Each penalty there is a degree. So you have there the highest is the death penalty. Followed by reclusion perpetua. Followed by reclusion temporal. Followed by prision mayor. So reclusion perpetua is one degree lower than death penalty. Reclusion temporal is 2 degrees lower than the death penalty. But one degree lower that reclusion perpetua. So the term degree us applicable whether the penalty is divisible or indivisible. But the term period is applicable only to divisible penalties. Indivisible penalties do not have periods The term period refers to the portion in which divisible penalties are to be divided in accordance with article 76. Under the article, every divisible penalties shall be divided into 3 portions. Each portions to constitute the period, the minimum, the medium and the maximum.

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
This purposely is provided for the application of Art.64. Now, although, it is as simple as this, yet you must understand that every penalty prescribed for a crime (s a degree even though the penalty as prescribed is comprised of a period only of a divisible penalty. For example, the penalty is prision correccional maximum, that is a degree. Every penalty prescribed for a crime in the Revised Penal Code is understood as a degree. In determining the penalty one-degree lower from two degrees lower, you" follow the constitution of the degree as prescribed. If the degree is made up of one period of a divisible penalty, every degree lower or higher as been made up of one period also. So if the penalty is prision mayor medium, one degree lower is prision mayor minimum, one degree higher is prision mayor maximum. Now if the penalty prescribed is made up of two periods of a divisible penalty, that is a degree. For example, you have in Infanticide, prision mayor medium to maximum. Now that is a degree, the degree is comprised of two period. So every degree, lower or higher must be comprised of two periods also. So if the penalty given Is prision mayor medium to maximum, one degree lower would be prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum. You will have to read the penalties in the order of their severity under the graduated scale in Art 71. Every penalty there which is divisible should be understood by you as made up of three periods. For instance, you have there, reclusion temporal. Now, that should be understood by you as made up of the minimum, the medium, the maximum. Followed by prision mayor, also a divisible penalty. So again, made up of the minimum, medium, maximum. So if the penalty prescribed 'is reclusion temporal minimum to medium, you have a degree made up of two periods. So one degree lower will also be made up of two periods. It will then be prision mayor medium to maximum. You have to follow this. Now then the penalty or the degree is made up of three periods of a divisible penalty. For every degree lower of higher must be made up of three periods. That is why, if the penalty is reclusion temporal, that is comprised of three periods; One degree lower, prision mayor. Also comprised of three periods. Now if the degree is comprised of three periods taken from different penalties when the degree, lower or higher, shall also be taken from the same penalties. For instance, penalty prescribed is prision mayor maximum or reclusion temporal medium. So you have here a degree comprised of three periods, the prision mayor maximum, the reclusion temporal minimum and the reclusion temporal medium. Now one
Page | 104

degree lower, you will start from prision mayor medium. Go down to prision mayor minimum. Then go down to prision correccional maximum. So one degree lower .In the penalty which Is comprised of three periods like this would be prision correccional maximum to prision mayor medium. What is Important is you know the relative severity of the scale under Art. 71. Now the instances where the penalty has to be lowered by degree: One, when the penalty is frustrated only, the penalty is one degree lower than the given penalty. In the Bar Exam, what they give you is the penalty for -the consummated stage. Because that is the penalty prescribed by the provisions of the Revised Penal Code. Now if the felony is only attempted, you have to lower the given penalty by two decrees. They always give you the penalty. That will be your starting point. The frustrated, go down one degree. If attempted, go down two degrees. Also, if there were accomplice and accessories participating in the commission of the crime, as far as the accomplice is concerned, the penalty is one degree lower than the given penalty. And as far as the accessories are concerned, the penalty shall be two degrees lower than the given penalty. Now if you combine accomplice with frustrated, then you have to lower two degrees. One degree lower as a frustrated, stage. Another degree lower as an accomplice. To the accomplice is one degree lower than a consummated stage or than the penalty upon the principal and that is the consummated stage. Now also, when the crime is attended by a privileged mitigating circumstance, lower the penalty by one degree or more, depending on what the provision of-.the Code provides in so far as that privileged mitigating is concerned. Every privileged mitigating is covered by a specific provision of the Code, mandating the lowering of the penalty by degree. Remember you will come upon a provision of the Revised Penal Code directing the lowering of the penalty by degree. Then that is a privileged mitigating. Hence, you cannot offset any aggravating circumstance. Now also, when the crime is punishable by a divisible penalty and there are two or more ordinary mitigating^ provided there is no aggravating, the penalty one-degree lower shall be imposed. This is paragraph 5 of Art 64 of the Revised Penal Code. I mentioned before the crime of adultery in Art. 333 of the provision of the Code, where it specifically states that the penalty one-degree

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
lower shall be imposed if the married woman committed adultery "while being abandoned by her husband without Justification. So when you encounter that provision, you have to lower the penalty. Imposition of Fines
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.

Death Penalty (Penalty higher than reclusion perpetua in certain cases)


Art. 74. Penalty higher than reclusion perpetua in certain cases. In cases in which the law prescribes a penalty higher than another given penalty, without specially designating the name of the former, if such higher penalty should be that of death, the same penalty and the accessory penalties of Article 40, shall be considered as the next higher penalty.

Now under Art 74 ______ . It is a principle penalty cannot be imposed if it is not expressly prescribed by law. So if the provision of the law is only to Increase the penalty by one or two degrees without specifying what is that penalty, if it would happen that the penalty one degree' or two degrees higher is the death penalty, that death penalty cannot be imposed because the death penalty can only be imposed where it is expressly prescribed by law. A case reached the Supreme Court on this. The crime involves a truck driver who connived with third parties in highjacking the cargo truck. The cargo truck was worth P300.000. Theft of a motor vehicle is Qualified Theft. Also, committed by an offender who enjoys the confidence of the employer. The grave abuse of that confidence, the theft committed by such offender will be Qualified Theft. Under Art 310, the penalty for Qualified Theft shall be the penalty prescribed for the simple theft, but it shall be imposed two degrees higher. So whatever is the penalty for the value as simple theft, if it were qualified, then you go up by two degrees. Now under this case, the motor vehicle which was highjacked was worth P300.000. At that value, the penalty, if it were simple theft is reclusion temporal. Because it is Qualified Theft, that penalty for simple theft will be raised by two degrees. So if you will raise reclusion temporal by two degrees, you will land at the death penalty. Reclusion temporal, one degree higher is reclusion perpetua. Another degree higher death penalty. But you cannot impose the death penalty, where it is not expressly prescribed by law. So the question: what will be the penalty to be Imposed? Under Art 74, where the penalty is death, and it cannot be imposed, the penalty next lower which is reclusion perpetua shall be imposed plus the accessory penalty under Art 40. If you will go over the accessory penalties under Art 40 and compare this to the accessory penalty under Art 41, you will find that under Art 40, the accessory penalty to the death penalty that had been commuted or not carried out is perpetual absolute disqualification and civil interdiction for thirty years. Whereas if the penalty is reclusion perpetua, the accessory penalties are perpetual absolute disqualification and civil interdiction for life. So this is absurd. Where the penalty is death which has not been carried out, the accessory penalty is lighter than that of redusion perpetua. The Supreme Court noted this in the case of People vs. Canales. So the High Court considered this as absurd. If it Is death penalty, civil Interdiction is for 30 years. If it is reclusion perpetua, the civil Interdiction is for life.
Page | 105

Now in the lowering of the penalty according to mitigating and aggravating, where the crime is punishable only by a fine, you do not apply Art 64, you have here Art. 66. As to how the mitigating will lower the fine or how the aggravating will increase the fine, you have Art. 66 for this. There is no hard and fast rule. Instead, the penalty shall be determined by the judge primarily on the basis of the financial capacity of the offender to pay the fine. So it is not the mitigating or aggravating. It is the capacity of the convict to pay the fine. You find that in Art 66.
Art. 75. Increasing or reducing the penalty of fine by one or more degrees. Whenever it may be necessary to increase or reduce the penalty of fine by one or more degrees, it shall be increased or reduced, respectively, for each degree, by one-fourth of the maximum amount prescribed by law, without however, changing the minimum. The same rules shall be observed with regard of fines that do not consist of a fixed amount, but are made proportional.

Where, however, the fine is to be lowered by a degree or Increased by degree, you have to apply Art 75. To lower the penalty of fine by degree, you have to take one-fourth (1/4) of the maximum amount of the fine prescribed without changing the minimum amount of the fine. Now you subtract 1/4 from the maximum amount of the fine. The difference will be the fine one-degree lower. To illustrate this: Let us say this is the fine prescribed for the crime. This is the fine for an impossible crime, P200 - P500. In accordance with Art. 75, you take of this. So P125. You deduct and that will give you P375. The P200 will remain constant If you have to go another degree-lower you subtract another P125. And that will give you P250. The minimum amount of the fine will remain constant So another degree lower, _____ if you were to go down by another degree, you cannot go lower than P200 because that is the minimum amount of the fine.

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
So the High Court consulted the different books on criminal law. And ultimately, the Supreme Court relied the view of Justice Albert, that in such a case, where the penalty Is reclusion perpetua because the death penalty cannot be imposed, the accessory penalties under Art 40 shall be applied but the convict shall not be pardoned until after 40 years. So the Supreme Court considered this to be the more reasonable. Impose this penalty, reclusion perpetua plus accessory penalties under Art 40, but the convict shall not be pardoned after 40 years. The view of Justice Albert was made when reclusion perpetua has no fixed duration yet. At that time, the provision of Art 27 simply provide that a person sentenced to reclusion perpetua may be pardoned after serving 30 years, unless he is not deserving of the pardon. But now, reclusion perpetua has a fixed duration up to 40 years. It cannot be more than 40 years. penalty is death but the imposition of the death penalty is already prohibited. So, we start from reclusion perpetua. If there was an accomplice in qualified rape, if we start from death, then the penalty for the accomplice is reclusion perpetua (one degree lower than death). That cannot be, so the SC said that for all intents and purposes, death penalty should be preceded as out of the scale already. The starting point should be reclusion perpetua. So if there was an accomplice, the penalty is reclusion temporal.

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW The system of Parole which one of the causes of the partial extinction of criminal liability of a convict. The system of Parole is brought about the indeterminate sentence law The convict will not get the benefit of parole if the indeterminate sentence law does not also apply to his case. The objective of this law is to avoid an unnecessary prolonged imprisonment of a convicted offender. Since our system of punishment is purportedly based on reforming or correcting the offender, the law takes it that where the offender is already reformed, he could be taken out from the prison walls. To allow him to remain there, it might prove to be destructive to his being reformed rather than being constructive or corrective to him. The longer the convict will be kept inside the prison walls exposes him to the influence of the more harden offenders because even within the penal institution, there are incorrigible elements that try to influence other convicted offenders who are not really criminally minded. Under the ISLAW, the moment the convict proved to be reformed, he should be taken out from the prison walls and allow to serve the remaining deprivation imposed under the sentence outside of the prison walls. This is the so-called PAROLE There are conditions that he had to comply with while he is allowed to join the mainstream of society as long as it is shown that he will not be a menace to the law abiding members of society. ISLAW is applied only when the sentence imposes a prison term. If the sentence does not impose imprisonment, then ISLAW does not apply. If the sentence for the crime committed was destierro, ISLAW does not apply Although the sentence imposed by the court may be imprisonment, if the duration or term of imprisonment does not exceed 1 year then ISLAW is not applied anymore. The convict is not given the benefit of parole anymore because 1 year is regarded as too short to reform a convicted offender. If the prison term prescribed by law for a crime committed does not exceed 1 year, the sentence will be a straight penalty of 1 year or less. When we say it is a straight penalty, it implies that the ISLAW does not apply.
Page | 106

So the question arises: out of this ruling of the Supreme Court, what is there to pardon after 40 years? So that the view of Justice Albert had sense at that time it had been advanced by him. .But now, it has no more sense because reclusion perpetua has a maximum duration of 40 years. So that ruling of the High Court in the case of Canales appears to be Insensible because of the amendment to Art 27 giving reclusion perpetua a fixed duration of 40 years. But whatever it is, if you will encounter this problem Involving qualified theft, and by raising the penalty by two degrees as provided In Art 310, if that would land on the death penalty, the penalty instead would be reclusion perpetua plus the accessory penalties under Art 40. But the convict shall not be pardoned until after 40 years. Because of this Art 74, a question was asked before: what is the penalty higher than reclusion perpetua but lower than the death penalty? If you would go over the graduated scale In Art. 71, you will not see a penalty higher than reclusion perpetua but lower than the death penalty. But because of the provision of Art. 74, you have that penalty. Where the death penalty which is the penalty higher than reclusion perpetua cannot be imposed, the penalty that will be Imposed will be reclusion perpetua plus the accessory penalties under Art 40, but the convict cannot be pardoned until after 40 years. But that is to take the place of the death penalty because the death penalty cannot be imposed. Death penalty - In the case of people vs alfredo won, in a crime of simple rape, the penalty is reclusion perpetua. If there was an accomplice involved, the penalty will be reclusion temporal (one degree lower than reclusion perpetua). If it was qualified rape, the

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
If ISLAW applies, the courts are required to pronounce a sentence that reflects a MINIMUM term and MAXIMUM term. This is the indication of whether ISLAW was applied or not. If the sentence imposes a penalty that would show a minimum and a maximum, the implication is the court in rendering the judgment applied ISLAW If ISLAW is not applicable, the sentence should only impose a straight penalty. If ISLAW is applicable, but the court imposed sentence without a minimum or maximum, the judgment is patently wrong because if ISLAW is applicable the sentence that the court should impose should unavoidably reflect a minimum term or a maximum term. NOTE: we are not referring to the penalty; we are referring to the sentence. The words minimum and maximum do not add the word period. When we say, in criminal law, minimum period or Maximum period we are referring to the penalty not the sentence. When the crime is punished under the RPC, the maximum of the indeterminate sentence is arrived at by taking into account mitigating and aggravating circumstances. If the crime is punished under a special law or outside the RPC, there are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances to appreciate. So the manner of determining the maximum of indeterminate sentence differs from the crime punished under the RPC and a crime punished under a special law. An exception to this is that although the crime is punished under a special law, if the special law adopted the nomenclature of penalties under the RPC, the crime shall be penalized in the same manner that crimes under the RPC are penalized. So accordingly, the same application of the ISLAW shall be followed. The minimum of the sentence for the crime punished under the RPC shall be fixed within the penalty 1 degree lower than the penalty prescribed by the RPC. It is the law that mandates that the minimum of the indeterminate sentence for a crime punished under the RPC shall be within the ranged of the penalty I degree lower than what the code prescribes for the crime committed. If the crime is punished under a special law, since, special laws do not for degree of penalty or period of penalty unless the scale in art 71 of the RPC is adopted, then the ISLAW requires that the court shall fix the minimum term or the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence within the penalty prescribe by the special law as long as the maximum term of the sentence imposed by the court does not go beyond the penalty prescribe by the special law and the minimum term of the sentence does not go below the penalty prescribe by the special law. Within the penalty therefore prescribed by the special law, the courts have the discretion to determine the minimum term and the maximum term of a sentence. There is no lowering of the minimum term of the sentence by any degree when the crime is punished under a special law. Instances where ISLAW is not applicable Even though the convict may have appeared to be reformed already before the minimum term of the sentence is completed, he is not eligible for parole yet. It the court that will determine the minimum and whatever minimum is stated in the sentence must be fully served by the convict. It is after the convict has completed the minimum term of the sentence that the sentence in reality becomes indeterminate because after the convict had completed the minimum term of the sentence whether he will continue serving sentence for a longer period or for a shorter period depends already on how he conducts himself. If he conducted himself in a way indicative that he is not reformed, then he will continue to serve his sentence up to the maximum term fix in the sentence. So after completing the minimum term of the sentence, the convict will then be on his own, that is why we say the sentence is already indeterminate. The convict will be the one to show whether he deserves to stay there longer or shorter as the case may be. Sec. 2. This Act shall not apply: to persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life-imprisonment; to those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason; to those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage; to those convicted of piracy; to those who are habitual delinquents; to those who have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence; to those who having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive shall have violated the terms thereof; to those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year, to those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of approval of this Act, except as provided in Section 5 hereof.

The benefit of ISLAW applies whether the offender was convicted for a crime punished in the RPC or under a penal law outside the RPC. Except in those cases where the law itself specifies when the ISLAW does not apply The MAXIMUM reflected in the sentence is the penalty The MINIMUM reflected in the sentence is not the penalty, but it is only a grace period to fix when the convict becomes illegible for parole. So the court reflects a minimum term in the sentence, to give notice to the prison authorities particularly the board of pardon and parole, that convict should not be given the benefit of parole before he has completed the minimum term of the sentence.

Page | 107

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
Mechanics of the ISLAW Example: Homicide (Art 249) Penalty: Reclusion Temporal MAXIMUM of the sentence: It must be within Reclusion temporal If the penalty is divisible, it is never imposed as a whole. The reason why it is made divisible is because it should be divided into 3 periods (art 76). So divisible penalties should be imposed in the proper period. Whether minimum, medium or maximum period, for that purpose, reference is Art. 64 So, either Reclusion Temporal Minimum, Reclusion Temporal Medium or Reclusion Temporal Maximum. If the homicide committed is without any mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, pursuant to art 64, the penalty that should be imposed should be in the medium period. If the homicide is attended with aggravating circumstances, the penalty shall be imposed in the maximum period If the homicide is attended with one mitigating, none aggravating, the penalty shall be imposed in the minimum period If the homicide is attended with mitigating and aggravating, an offsetting will have to be effected. If there are 2 or more mitigating provided there is no aggravating circumstances or whatsoever, the penalty next lower in degree than the prescribe penalty (Reclusion Temporal) shall be imposed Lets say, the crime of homicide is not attended with any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, so the penalty is Reclusion Temporal Medium. Reclusion Temporal Medium 14yrs, 8mos and 1day to 17yrs and 4mos This means to say that the court can impose a sentence, the maximum of which should not be lower than 14 years14yrs, 8mos and 1day nor higher than 17yrs and 4mos MINIMUM of the sentence The MINIMUM of the indeterminate sentence is not the penalty but the grace period. The court specifies the minimum by way of giving notice to the prison authorities particularly the Board of pardon and parole, that convict should not be given the benefit of parole until he had completely served the MINIMUM of the sentence. Under the ISLAW, if a crime is punished under the RPC, the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence may be fixed by the court within the range of the penalty one degree lower than the penalty prescribed by the code for the crime committed.
Page | 108

Since, in the example, the penalty prescribed for homicide by the RPC is reclusion temporal, one degree lower from the Minimum will be prision mayor Prision Mayor: 6yrs and 1day to 12yrs In determining the MINIMUM, we do not apply art. 64, because this is not the penalty. The minimum of the indeterminate sentence law is not a penalty, it only specifies when the convict may be given the benefit of parole. So the court may fix the minimum of the indeterminate sentence for 6yrs and 1day or 6yrs and so many months, for as long as it will not be lower than 6yrs and 1day or higher than 12yrs. Therefore: If the court would fixed a sentence of 6 years and 1 day to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day that means the convict must complete serving the imprisonment for 6 years and 1 day before the board of pardon and parole would consider him eligible for parole. It does not follow that if the court fixes the minimum of 6 years and 1 day, that after such term, the convict will be given parole. Parole is conditioned to his good behavior The maximum of the sentence which the court fixed at 14 years, 8 months and 1 day, will be the limit of the imprisonment that the convict may suffer. That means no matter for incorrigible the convict maybe, prison authorities cannot keep him behind bar for a period more than 14 years, 8 months and 1 day, otherwise this prison authorities would be committing the crime of arbitrary detention. If the felony was attended by a privilege mitigating circumstance, before anything else, LOWER THE PRESCRIBE PENALTY to the proper degree that would lowered by the attendant privilege mitigating circumstance. Lets say the privilege mitigating circumstance is Minority, BEFORE APPLYING ISLAW, lower the penalty of reclusion temporal by 1 degree or 2 degrees as the case may be. If the penalty is lowered by 2 degrees, the Maximum of the indeterminate sentence will be at prision correccional, and if we would adhere to the provisions of the ISLAW, that the minimum term of the sentence shall be within the range of the penalty 1 degree lower (the penalty 1 degree lower is prision mayor). So if we would fix the minimum within the range of prision mayor whereas the maximum is within the range of prision correccional, we will arrive at a situation where the maximum of the sentence is lower than the minimum of the sentence, that is absurd. So if the penalty is lowered to prision correccional, so that in computing the indeterminate sentence that will be the penalty we will reckon from, so that there will be no mistake to the proper minimum term or maximum term of the indeterminate sentence.

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
ISLAW is not applicable if the sentence is life imprisonment or death. The law does not mention reclusion perpetua. It does not follow that because the law did not mentioned reclusion perpetua, that even when the sentence has a prison term of reclusion perpetua that we will apply ISLAW. ISLAW does not apply when the penalty of imprisonment is indivisible. It applied only when the prison term prescribes for the crime is divisible. We have to differentiate a situation where the penalty is simply reclusion perpetua that means that is the prescribe penalty, so we will not apply ISLAW for that case, from a situation where penalty is reclusion temporal maximum to reclusion perpetua. The Reclusion perpetua there is not the penalty, the reclusion perpetua is only a period of a penalty. So we differentiate where reclusion perpetua is the penalty itself from a situation where reclusion perpetua is only a period of the penalty prescribed. If the reclusion perpetua is only a period for the penalty prescribed, then ISLAW will still apply. Example: Malversation (Art 217) Penalty: reclusion temporal maximum to reclusion perpetua (if the amount misappropriated is 22k) The reclusion perpetua is the maximum followed by a divisible penalty which is reclusion temporal maximum. So this should be divide into 3, the first 1/3 shall comprise the minimum, the next higher 1/3 is the medium and the highest 1/3 is the maximum period. Reclusion perpetua shall be Maximum period of the penalty Computing the Medium and minimum period Reclusion temporal Maximum - 17yrs, 4mos and 1day to 20 years In computing, disregard the 1day Get the interval between 17yrs, 4mos to 20yrs So: 20 yrs (minus) 17 yrs and 4mos = 2yrs and 8mos Divide 2yrs and 8mos by 2 So: 2yrs and 8mos 2 = 1yr and 4 mos Therefore: the minimum period of the penalty is 17yrs, 4mos and 1 day to 18yrs and 8mos (we arrive at 18yrs and 8mos by adding 17yrs and 4mos to 1yr and 4mos [17yrs and 4mos + 1yr and 4mos = 18yrs and 8mos]) Medium period of the penalty We begin with 18yrs, 8mos and 1day. So 18yrs, 8mos and 1day to 20yrs (we arrive at 20yrs by adding 18yrs and 8mos to 1yr and 4mos [18yrs and 8mos + 1yr and 4mos = 19yrs and 12 months or 20yrs]) The amount swindled is 72k, hence there will be added 5yrs to the imprisonment One group of magistrates contends that the starting point of the penalty prescribe which is prision correccional maximum should not be affected by the incremental penalty because the incremental penalty arises only when the amount swindled exceeds already the maximum of the amount where the penalty prescribe is prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum. The view is to consider the incremental penalty in the nature of a special aggravating circumstance that will increase only the maximum of the sentence, but should not affect the minimum of the sentence for purposes of parole. Another group of penalties contends that the incremental penalty should be taken to affect the penalty as prescribe for the crime both minimum and maximum Between the 2 views, we adopt the first view pursuant to the doctrine of pro reo. Penal laws should be construed in favor or lenient to the convict. So, if the malversation is attended with a mitigating circumstance and no aggravating, the court will have to impose a sentence with a penalty of not lower than 17yrs, 4mos and 1day to 18yrs and 8mos. If the malversation is attended without a mitigating circumstance and aggravating, the court will have to impose a sentence with a penalty of not lower than 18yrs, 8mos and 1day to 20yrs If the malversation is attended with an circumstance, the penalty is reclusion perpetua. aggravating

Applying ISLAW to malversation Minimum Term is Prision Mayor maximum to Reclusion Temporal Medium Maximum Term is Reclusion Perpetua Incremental penalty in relation to ISLAW Incremental penalty arises where the RPC prescribes a fix penalty for a crime committed but if the amount involved is higher than what the law has figured to be covered by the penalty, the RPC prescribes additional penalty of 1 year imprisonment based on the amount as it increases. Example: Swindling (Estafa) If the amount swindled exceeds 12k but does not exceed 22k, pealty is prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum. The RPC imposes that penalty only up to 22k. If the amount swindled exceeds 22k, this penalty of prision correccional max to prision mayor min shall be imposed in the maximum period plus imprisonment of 1 year per every 10k. So everytime the amount increase by 22k there will be an added 1 year imprisonment but in no case it shall go beyond reclusion temporal. prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum : 4yrs, 2mos and 1day to 6yrs TO 6yrs and 1day to 8yrs

Page | 109

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
ISLAW with incremental penalty of 5 yrs Minimum term will start at arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional medium Maximum term is prision mayor minimum (as provided by law) + 5 years (incremental penalty) = 13 yrs Therefore, the incremental penalty will only affect the maximum of the indeterminate sentence. The penalty 1 degree lower, for purposes of parole, will still be based on the penalty as originally prescribed by the code. The incremental penalty will therefore be treated as a special aggravating circumstance that would affect only the maximum of the indeterminate sentence. ISLAW in relation to Special law The offender was convicted for violation of the special law which provides a penalty of 5 years to 10 years imprisonment. Neither mitigating nor aggravating will have to be appreciated if the crime is punished under the special penal law provided that the special law did not adopt the scale of penalties under the RPC. The sentence reflecting the minimum and the maximum shall be within the penalty prescribe by special law as long as the minimum will not go below the penalty prescribed by the law and the maximum will not go beyond the penalty prescribed provided that the minimum is lower than the maximum Section 1. x x x if the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. When and how a penalty is to be executed
Art. 78. When and how a penalty is to be executed. No penalty shall be executed except by virtue of a final judgment. A penalty shall not be executed in any other form than that prescribed by law, nor with any other circumstances or incidents than those expressly authorized thereby. In addition to the provisions of the law, the special regulations prescribed for the government of the institutions in which the penalties are to be suffered shall be observed with regard to the character of the work to be performed, the time of its performance, and other incidents connected therewith, the relations of the convicts among themselves and other persons, the relief which they may receive, and their diet. The regulations shall make provision for the separation of the sexes in different institutions, or at least into different departments and also for the correction and reform of the convicts.

prison authorities were already in their respective places. The executioner is already there to pull down the switch to the electric chair. At that time, the death sentence is to be carried out by electrocution. The convict was strapped to the electric chair. Now when the signal to pull down the switch or before the signal to pull down the switch could be given, there was a power failure throughout the zone. So the death penalty could not be carried out The prison superintendent is aware that the death convict must be put to death before sunset. So he chose six elite prison guards and he directed them to bring the convict to the prison yard, put him against the wall, execute him by musketry. Now the question asked, is there a crime committed? Now based on that Art 78, no penalty can be carried out or executed in a manner not provided by law. So since the law provides for electrocution, no other way would be legal to put the convict to death. I wonder, it was said that when this fellow Echegaray committed rape, the lethal injection law was not yet in effect. The death penalty then was still to be carried out by electrocution. But the electric chair in the death chamber was burned. And the estimate of the government, it will require P6M to restore the death chamber. You wonder what kind of chair that is that will cost P6M. So the electric chair was never restored. Instead, the lethal Injection. If this was not the penalty when the sentence was imposed, more so, when the crime was committed, the death penalty cannot be carried out by lethal injection because the penalty at the time the crime was committed must be the penalty to be imposed. And under Art 78, that penalty cannot be executed in a manner different from what the law provides. So if this point was raised, the poor fellow may be alive up to now because the government does not have the money to restore the electric chair. The government cannot say that lethal injection is better, it is less painful. Now it is not for the government to say that. It is for the convict The prohibition against ex post facto law is for the benefit of the citizen. Now, if the citizen says I like electrocution, had I known that the penalty is through lethal injection, I would not have committed a crime- So you cannot impose on the penalty that would be executed in a manner different from what the law provides when if committed the crime. This is the thrust of Art 78. That is why that article is important. You take note of that.

Now finally in the area of penalties Art. 78 The article requires that the penalty imposed upon the convict shall not be carried but in a manner different from what the law prescribes. A problem was given on this before when Justice Puno was the examiner in Criminal Law at the time when he was only a solicitor in the Solicitor General Office. The facts of the problem given run like this: A convict who was sentenced to death was led to the death chamber for execution. The
Page | 110

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
Extinction of Criminal Liability
Article 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. By service of the sentence. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects. By absolute pardon. By prescription of the crime. By prescription of the penalty. Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties shall prescribe in fifteen years. 7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Article 344 of this Code. Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall prescribe in ten years; with the exception of those punishable by arresto mayor, which shall prescribe in five years. The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year. The crime of oral defamation and slander by deed shall prescribe in six months.

Pardon is a private act of the President. He is answerable only to his conscience. But amnesty is a public act of the President. It is also subject to the power of the Senate. The amnesty will not be valid without the concurrence of the Senate. Pardon may cover common crimes or political crimes, but amnesty, generally, covers political offenses only Prescription of Crimes
Article 90. Prescription of crime. - Crimes punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or reclusion temporal shall prescribe in twenty years.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Extinction may be total or partial. Of these causes of extinction of criminal liability, you concentrate on prescription of the crime. Under the causes, firstly, you should know the difference in legal consequence between pardon and amnesty. This has been subject of many Bar problems. Now pardon excuses the convict from serving the sentence. So to be valid, there must be a sentence already. If the sentence has not yet become final and executory, and the pardon was given, the pardon is not valid. So a premature pardon is not valid. Because pardon merely excuses the convict from serving the sentence, the effect of conviction stays. So, if the convict after such pardon will commit a crime embraced in the same title of the code are that covered by the pardon, recidivism becomes an aggravating circumstance because the effect of conviction remains. Now, amnesty on the other hand, erases the criminal complexion of the act committed, as though the act was innocent when it was committed. So amnesty erases even the effects of the conviction. If therefore, a rebel was convicted for rebellion, he was granted pardon. After pardon, he returned to the hills to join his co-rebels. Then again, he engaged in Rebellion he was again captured and prosecuted for Rebellion. Is his recidivism aggravating? The answer is yes. Although he was pardoned, that pardon excused him from serving the sentence. Pardon will not erase the effects of conviction, unless expressly stated in the pardon. Now, if it were amnesty, the offender committed rebellion, he was given the benefit of amnesty even though he would go back to the mountain, again he engaged in Rebellion. Then, he is again captured and prosecuted, recidivism is not aggravating because the amnesty erases the criminal complexion of the act committed, including the effects thereof. Now pardon is generally given to Individual convicted offenders. Amnesty is given to a class of offenders before prosecution, during prosecution conviction. Amnesty can be given anytime. Pardon is generally given for non-political crimes.
Page | 111

Light offenses prescribe in two months.

When the penalty fixed by law is a compound one, the highest penalty shall be made the basis of the application of the rules contained in the first, second and third paragraphs of this article. Now on prescription of the crime. It is not the period of prescription that is important. It is when the prescriptive period will commence to run. Even though the prescription is only for a short number of years, but if it has never commenced to run, the prescription will never set in. For instance, this may be encountered by you, the officers of the Philippine National Bank were subject of a criminal complaint for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for allegedly extending behest loan. The complaint was filed with the way back in 1988 and 1989. This was filed with the Ombudsman. It was only about 3 years ago when the Ombudsman made a resolution finding the loans, behest loans, and filing the case In the Sandiganbayan for the violation of the Anti- Graft and Corrupt Practices Act At the time this behest loans were granted, the prescriptive period for the violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act was only 10 years. It is only sometime in 1992 that this was amended to Increase up to 15 years. But the 15-year period will not apply to violation committed before the amendment of the law. So only 10 years. When the Ombudsman filed the information with the Sandiganbayan, the accused filed a motion to quash on the ground that the crime had already prescribed because between 1988 and the filing of the information sometime in 2000 and 2001 is ________ more than 10 years. The Solicitor General's Office opposed the motion to quash claiming that upon the filing of the criminal complaint with the Ombudsman,

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
the period of prescription is tolled or interrupted. Just like the filing of the criminal complaint with the prosecutors office. The Supreme Court rejected the contention of the OSG that the prescriptive period of the violation is interrupted upon the filing of the criminal complaint with the Ombudsman. The Supreme Court pointed out that when it comes to the prescription of violations of special laws, the governing law is Act 3326, not the RPC And when Act 3326, the period of prescription will only be suspended when judicial proceedings are already instituted. The word judicial connotes the filing of the case with the court. So the filing of the criminal complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman did not interrupt the running of the prescriptive period. If at all, the period of prescription had commenced to run. But the Supreme Court called the attention that prescription of the crime may be governed either by the Discovery Rule or the Constructive Notice Rule. Under the Discovery Rule, the prescription of the crime will only commence to run when the crime is discovered by the offended party or discovered by the agents of the government. In this case, the offended party is the government It is not the filing of the criminal complaint that marks the commencement of .the prescriptive period of the violation because the granting of loans is not per se a crime. Precisely, the Ombudsman had to investigate the nature of the loan with a view to determine whether really a violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act has been committed. So during the time that the Ombudsman is precisely investigating the nature of the loan to find out whether really the loan 'is behest and amounts to a violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the violation for the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act is not yet determined. So under the Discovery Rule, the commencement of the period of prescription of 10 years does not begin to run because it will only commence to run when the offended party who is the government in this case, has already learned of the commission of the crime. So during that period, the Ombudsman Is investigating these loans, the violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act has not yet been discovered. It is only when the Ombudsman resolved that indeed the loans are behest loans and, therefore, constitutes a violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Only then, is the crime deemed discovered. So only then will the prescriptive period of 10 years begin to run. Now this has not yet been given in the Bar Exams. So you bear this in mind because this raises the essential points involved in the prescription of the crimes. First, when it will begin. Then, when it is suspended. Generally, prescription of crimes commences to run on the day the crime is committed provided that the crime is committed publicly not concealed or committed clandestinely If the crime is committed clandestinely or concealed, 2 rules govern: In the commencement of the prescriptive period, you have either: Constructive Notice Rule Discovery Rule The Constructive Notice Rule, however, applies only to documents involving title to, or possession of, real property which are recorded or registered In the Registry of Deeds. The Constructive Notice Rule does not operate in entries recorded in other public registries. So it does not operate in entries recorded In the Civil Registry. So although, a bigamous marriage was recorded In the CMI Registry, after the bigamous marriage was celebrated or solemnized, the prescriptive period of the crime will not run until the offended spouse has discovered or learned the bigamous marriage. So the prescriptive period is not to be determined from the time the bigamous marriage was recorded In the Civil Registry. But only from the time the offended party or the offended spouse learned of the bigamous marriage. Now this is so because there is no basis to apply the constructive notice rule to entries In the Civil Registry or any other Public Registries. The reason why the constructive notice rule applies to transactions recorded In the Registry of Deeds Is because there Is a specific provision In the Property Registration Decree (PD 1529) that the recording of the document Involving title to, or possession of, real property with the Registry of Deeds shall operate as a constructive notice of the contents of that document, so that the whole world is notified, including the offended party of any falsification committed in respect of that document. A problem was given on the constructive notice rule in the 1993 Bar Exams. This was the number one problem in the examination in Criminal Law in that year. So when the issue of prescription involves transaction in the Registry of Deeds, if the transaction is in respect of title to, or possession of, real property or interest therein on the time the document is recorded in the Registry of Deeds, that document will bring about constructive notice of the contents of the document So that the offended party is charged with notice of any falsification committed in respect of the title to, or possession involved in the document that was recorded. The Constructive Notice Rule does not apply to any other instance. Instead, it is the discovery rule that will govern. Under the Discovery Rule, no matter, how long the crime had been committed, if the offended party or through the agents of the government has not learned or discovered the commission of the
Page | 112

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
crime, the period of prescription thereof will never commence to run. Once the prescriptive period has commenced to run, the next thing that you should know is when the running of the prescriptive period will be interrupted or suspended. For purposes of prescription 2 laws are considered: RPC as far as prescription of the felonies are punished thereunder are concerned Act 3326 so far as crimes punished under laws outside of the RPC are concerned For purposes of the interruption and suspension of the running of the prescriptive period, the view BEFORE for those crimes punished under the RPC, the filing of the criminal complaint with the prosecutors office will already interrupt or suspend the running of the prescriptive period. On the other hand, the violation of special laws or those crimes punished outside the RPC, the running of the prescriptive period will only be interrupted and suspended when the case is already filed in court whether for preliminary investigation or for trial in the merits. NEW RULE RULE All complaints filed with government offices created by law to handle the investigation for certain specific matters shall be considered as equivalent to the filing of the complaint with the prosecutors office. It will interrupt or suspend the running of the prescriptive period of the violation committed because eventually the result of the investigation will be filed in court. So, there is no difference between preliminary investigation conducted by the prosecutor and preliminary investigation conducted by these executive offices which the law has specifically created because of their expertise on the subject of the violation or irregularity. Hence, mentioned is made on the SEC, which is authorized to conduct investigation involving violations of the SRC, that investigation is equivalent with the investigation of cases filed with the prosecutors office. It is suspended from the moment a criminal complaint is filed in whatever office created by law to undertake the investigation of the violation involved While it may be observed that the term "judicial proceedings" in Sec. 2 of Act No. 3326 appears before "investigation and punishment" in the old law, with the subsequent change in set-up whereby the investigation of the charge for purposes of prosecution has become the exclusive function of the executive branch, the term "proceedings" should now be understood either executive or judicial in character: executive when it involves the investigation phase and judicial when it refers to the trial and judgment stage. With this clarification, any kind of investigative proceeding instituted against the guilty person which may ultimately lead to his prosecution should be sufficient to toll prescription. (Luis
Page | 113

Panaguiton vs Department of Justice, Justice, G.R. No. 167571, 167571, November 25, 2008) 2008)
Art. 91. Computation of prescription of offenses. The period of prescription shall commence to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and shall commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to him. The term of prescription shall not run when the offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago.

In the last paragraph or last statement in Art. 91, you take note of the provision. The prescriptive period shall not rune when the offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago. This was subject of a criminal case not so long ago. The husband filed a criminal case for bigamy against the wife because the wife turned out to have a previous marriage before she married the husband, complainant. Obviously, the complainanthusband was only extorting money from the wife because initially he files an administrative complaint with the Civil Service Commission against the wife, But somehow the administrative complaint was withdrawn because the wife, who had a business interest abroad, may have taken a sizeable amount. Now that the complaint states when the husband learned of the previous marriage of the wife. So that will now mark the beginning of the prescriptive period. The wife had been catering to the extortion of the husband. Now when, however, 15 years had lapsed, the wife stopped giving money to the husband. So the husband threatened the wife that he will file a criminal complaint for Bigamy. The wife did not mind it because the crime had already prescribed. So the husband filed a criminal complaint for Bigamy against the wife. The wife moved to dismiss on the ground that from the time the complainant admittedly learned of the first marriage of the respondent, more than 15 years had lapsed. The husband invoked that provision that the period of prescription shall not run when the offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago. So the husband brought out his records of when the wife had been leaving the Philippines now and then, attending to her business abroad. So sometimes, she was absent from the Philippines for weeks, sometimes for months, sometimes for days. And the husband after adding up those days and months when the respondent wife was absent from the Philippine Archipelago, he subtracted this from the number of years. And it turned out that less than 14 years had lapsed. So he invoked that provision and the prosecutor agreed with him. So he files the case with the court The accused went to the Supreme Court to seek a resolution on whether the crime had already prescribed or not yet The Supreme Court ruled that the crime has prescribed.

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
The absence referred to in that provision of Art 91 does not refer to physical absence from the Philippines, where as in this case the accused kept on returning to the Philippines because she is still residing in the same house which belonged to her from this time she had established that house. So she only left the Philippines because of her business Interest abroad. But she never lost her residence and Philippine Citizenship. She is still under the jurisdiction of the Philippine Courts. The absence contemplated in the provision is one where the offender left the Philippines and his whereabouts are unknown, such that Philippine Courts cannot acquire Jurisdiction over the offender. Now, in this case, since the accused is still residing in the same place where she had been residing for years, she never lost her residence in the Philippines. So even though she was travelling abroad, there is nothing to prevent the complainant from filling the case in court because the Philippine courts still has jurisdiction over the accused It is not necessary/said the Supreme Court, that to file a criminal complaint, the offender must be within the Philippine Archipelago. As long as the Philippine courts can acquire jurisdiction and serve processes, judicial process, upon the offender, the criminal complaint may be filed. And upon the filing of that criminal complaint, the running of the prescriptive period will be suspended So the High Court ruled temporary absence is not covered by that provision. You may be given this case. So you take note of that last paragraph of Art. 91. The absence referred to here is not just temporary absence because the offender has some business interest out of the country The absence referred to there is one where the whereabouts of the offender who had left the Philippines is unknown, so that the Philippine Courts cannot acquire Jurisdiction over the offender. Prescription of the Penalties
Article 92. When and how penalties prescribe. - The penalties imposed by final sentence prescribe as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. Death and reclusion perpetua, in twenty years; Other afflictive penalties, in fifteen years; Correctional penalties, in ten years; with the exception of the penalty of arresto mayor, which prescribes in five years; Light penalties, in one year.

Prescription of penalty will only commence to run if the convict had commenced serving the sentence and evaded the service of the sentence. So without the convict beginning to serve the sentence, the prescription of the penalty will never begin to run In the provision of the code on prescription of the penalty, before the prescriptive period of penalty will commence to run, the convict must evade the service of his sentence. So, it is said evasion of service of sentence is a condition precedent to the prescription of the penalty. So, no mattter how long the convict may go into hiding, if he had never commenced to serve sentence and then escaped to evade service of the sentence, the prescriptive period of the penalty will never commence to run. Assuming that the convict had escaped from his service of the sentence, if he would depart from the Philippines and go to a foreign country with whom the Philippines has no extradition treaty and that his whereabouts in that country were unknown such that Philippine courts cannot reach him with any judicial notices, the running of the prescriptive period of the penalty will stop. It will only continue is the convict had gone to a foreign country with whom the Philippines has extradition treaty because that means that the government is not powerless to bring the convict back to Philippine Jurisdiction. Or, if the convict who has escaped from the service of the sentence, would commit another crime while he was at large, that commission of another crime will stop the running of the prescriptive period of the penalty imposed on him. If he would surrender or be apprehended, the running of the prescriptive period will also be interrupted. Relative to this, we must be familiar with the promulgation of judgment in absentia because that will mark the finality of the judgment in a criminal case. Before, if on the schedule date of judgment, the accused who should appear in court for the promulgation of the sentence, failed to appear, the promulgation is postponed and records of the case are archived until the said the offender has surrendered or arrested for the promulgation of the sentence. This would also tell us that the judgment in criminal cases, unlike in civil cases, are not only rendered but moreover promulgated. So even it is rendered, it is not a judgment at all until it is promulgated. Promulgation is done publicly. The promulgation is an essential part of the binding effect of the judgment. Otherwise, the finality of the judgment will not run. The 15-day period for the finality of the judgment will run in a criminal case, on the time the judgment is promulgated. In civil cases, we count it from the time the plaintiff or defendant received notice of judgment. Penalty, will only prescribe when it has become final and executory. For that purpose, the sentence imposing the penalty must not only be rendered but must be promulgated. Currently, promulgation
Page | 114

Article 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.

Now on prescription of penalties, bear in mind, no matter how long after the accused was convicted, he had gone into hiding, the penalty will never begin to prescribe.

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
may be done in absentia. After the accused had been duly notified and without any satisfactory explanation, he failed to appear in court from the promulgation of the sentence, the promulgation will nevertheless be carried out in absentia. Marriage of the offender with the offended party Marriage of the offender with the offended party. The reference is to Art. 344. This refers to crimes against chastity Now since the crime of rape has been removed from title XI as a crime against chastity, marriage of the offender with the offended party under Art. 344 is no longer applicable. So a problem was given in the last bar exams where the offender in the case of rape married the offended woman. And question was, whether the marriage extinguished the criminal liability if the offender? The reference to Article 89 about the marriage of the offender makes the answer wrong. Because that cause of extinction of criminal liability does not apply to rape anymore. But just the same, marriage of the offender with the offended woman, in the crime of rape extinguishes the criminal liability by express provision of the New Rape Law which has been incorporated as Chapter 3 of title VIII. Under Art. 266C, it is expressly provided that the marriage of the offender with the offended woman in the crime of rape extinguishes the criminal liability as well as the penalty already imposed. But you should know, under the New Rape Law, the marriage will only extinguish the criminal liability of the rapist. If he has committed the rape with a co-principal by Inducement or co-principal by Indispensable cooperation, or rape with accomplices or accessories/the criminal liability of these participants are not extinguished. The extinction of criminal liability under the New Rape Law is different from the extinction of the criminal liability under Art 344. Now, Art. 344 still applies to the crimes under Title XI which would require a complaint from the offended woman. So for private crimes, and that would cover seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness, in these crimes the marriage of the offender with the offended woman will extinguish not only the criminal liability of the offender but also criminal liability of co-principal by inducement, coprincipal by indispensable cooperation, and that of accomplice and accessories. You examine the provision of Art. 344. It is not the same as the provision of the New Rape Law. Under the New Rape Law, the criminal liability and the penalty already imposed wilt only be extinguished insofar as the rapist who married the offended woman. Co-principals by inducement, by indispensable cooperation, and those who are accomplice and accessories will not benefit from the marriage. The provision of Art. 344 is different. But that will not apply to Rape anymore because Rape had been taken out of Title XI already. That will only apply with the private crimes left under Title XI. And these are: Acts of Lasciviousness, Seduction and Abduction. Pardon by the offended spouse in marital rape Now in addition to the causes of total extinction, you now can add pardon by the offended-spouse in the crime of marital rape. This is covered by Art 266-C of Title VIII because this is provided under the New Rape Law. Now it is Marital Rape only if the marriage between the offended spouse and the offender is valid. If the marriage is not valid, it will not be marital rape. And therefore pardon will not be effective. The only way that the offender may bring about the extinction of the criminal liability and the penalty if the marriage is not valid is to remarry the offended woman. Pardon is only allowed when the marriage is valid because the offender can no longer marry the offended woman. Partial extinction of criminal liability
Article 94. Partial Extinction of criminal liability. - Criminal liability is extinguished partially: 1. 2. 3. By conditional pardon; By commutation of the sentence; and For good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while he is serving his sentence.

Now for causes for partial extinction, you add to the grounds mentioned In Art 94 two more grounds: 1.) parole under the ISLAW 2.) Probation under the Probation Law, as amended.
Article 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. Article 96. Effect of commutation of sentence. - The commutation of the original sentence for another of a different length and nature shall have the legal effect of substituting the latter in the place of the former. Article 97. Allowance for good conduct. - The good conduct of any prisoner in any penal institution shall entitle him to the following deductions from the period of his sentence: 1. 2. During the first two years of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of five days for each month of good behavior; During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of eight days for each month of good behavior; During the following years until the tenth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of ten days for each month of good behavior; and During the eleventh and successive years of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of fifteen days for each month of good behavior.

3.

4.

Article 98. Special time allowance for loyalty. - A deduction of one-fifth of the period of his sentence shall be granted to any prisoner who, having evaded the service of his sentence under the circumstances mentioned in article 158 of this Code, gives himself up to the authorities within 48 hours following the issuance of a proclamation announcing the passing away of the calamity or catastrophe to in said article. Article 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.

Page | 115

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
It must be understood, however, that the grounds under art 94 will operate as partial extinction of the criminal liability of the convict if the convit faithfully complied with the conditions with the pardon, parole or probation. Because if the convict at anytime would violate the conditions thereof, he will be required to resume or continue serving the sentence that was remitted by the conditional pardon, parole or probation. So it will only bring about the partial extinction of criminal liability if the convict faithfully complied with the conditions such that the conditions had been served or complied with and the pardon, parole or probation during that period is correspondingly extinguished Probation Law Take note that although the penalty imposed is a fine, the convict may apply for probation. So do not answer this in a layman's thinking that because the sentence imposes a fine, probation is not necessary. You know that if the convict cannot pay the fine, he will undergo subsidiary Imprisonment. For him to avoid that, he should, file an application for probation. In fact, the Probation Law specified the duration of the probation shall not be less than the period of the subsidiary imprisonment Effect of Appeal x x x if convicted by the trial court. If he would appeal the conviction to appellate court, by that appeal, he losses the chance to apply for probation at once. Even though under the Judgment of the trial court, the offender is not qualified to apply for probation. So even if he wants to apply, he cannot apply, still, if he would appeal the Judgment of the trial court, and the appellate court would render Judgment lowering the penalty Imposed or finding him liable for a probationable offense, still, he cannot apply for probation anymore. This is because before the case will be remanded to the trial court, the judgment of the appellate court must first become final and executory. There must be an entry of Judgment of the appellate court. So when the records are remanded to the court of origin, the court of origin has no more Jurisdiction to entertain any Incident of the case, except to have the same executed. It cannot be reasoned out that it is not the fault of the offender that under the Judgment of the trial court, even if he wanted to apply for probation, he cannot apply. This is no reason at all because probation is not a right Probation is only a privilege. So it does not follow that just because the offender is not among those disqualified under the Probation Law, that he would be given the benefit of probation. In the case of Pablo Francisco vs. CA, a 1995 ruling, the Supreme Court already made a pronouncement that the amendment to Section 4 of the Probation Law does not qualify what kind of appeal will prevent an application for probation. So since the law does not qualify nor make exception, the courts are not competent to make any qualification or exception. So in that case, the Supreme Court clarified, whatever appeal is taken, that appeal will preclude a subsequent application for probation. The Supreme Court observed, the wordings of the amendment started with a negative word "no no application for probation shall be entertained or granted, if an appeal had been perfected from the judgment of conviction. The Supreme Court said, when a provision of law starts with a negative, it is mandatory unless the context of the provision as a whole would show otherwise. So it is now settled that any appeal from the judgment of conviction by the trial court will preclude the offender from applying for probation later on. The appeal contemplated is the appeal from the trial court. So although the offender did not appeal from the judgment of the appellate court, that is irrelevant to the application for probation. It is the appeal from the judgment of the trial court that will operate to preclude any further application for probation. Regarding this effect of an appeal, do not lose sight of the fact that this was brought about only by the amendment of the Probation Law by PD 1990. Before this amendment was made, an offender may appeal from the judgment of conviction as much as the opportunity to appeal is available to by him. And after an appeal proved unsuccessful, may he then apply for probation. It was precisely this reason that prompted the amendment of the probation law because it was found but that offenders after conviction do not apply for probation. They gamble on the outcome of an appeal. And so the law was amended to make the offender choose whether to appeal or to avail of probation. But the amendment did not foresee that under the Judgment of the trial court, the offender may not be qualified to apply for probation. So he has no choice but to appeal it is only under the judgment of the appellate court that he becomes, for the first time, qualified for probation. This, notwithstanding, bear in mind, whatever be the appeal, as long as he appealed, he cannot thereafter apply for probation. The reason is because, before the case or the records of the case is remanded to the trial court, it must first be final and executory, because it has to be entered in the book of entry of judgment. And by the time it is remanded, it is already entered in the book of entry of judgment, that means, it is executory. The trial court has no more jurisdiction to entertain an application for probation. The trial court can only exercise its ministerial duty to bring about the execution of the judgment of the appellate court No other. Another aspect of probation that you should get clear, although the period of probation has already, or rather, on this period of appeal, the amendment to Section 4 took effect July 16, 1986.

Page | 116

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
If the appeal was taken before this date, that appeal will not preclude an application for probation because before July 16, 1986, the amendment which prohibits an appeal, is not yet in effect. Although the Supreme Court has made a resolution stating the effectivity of the amendment on two days, one, July 16, 1986, the other one July 15, 1986. Yet in the subsequent ruling, the Supreme Court reiterated that the amendment took effect July 16, 1986. That is the cut-off date. If the appeal was taken before this date, that appeal will not disqualify the offender from applying for probation because at that time, the amendment was not yet in effect. But if the appeal was taken after July 16, 1986, that appeal will already preclude an application for probation. So this must be taken note by you, when the appeal was taken. Whenever the problem gives you date, and I think you will be encountering problems like this, x x x, observe the date because that will determine what law you will apply. Probation Period Now on the probation period, although the period of probation set by the court had already lapsed, the offender, as a probationer should continue with the conditions of the probation. If the trial court' for instance, placed the offender on probation for two years. For two years, the probationer had been complying with the conditions of probation. Let us say he had been complying for four years already. Now he recalled that the probation period is only two years. So he stopped. What is the effect of the stopping? The Supreme Court in Bala vs. Judge Martinez, said that for as long as the court which placed the offender on probation has not yet released him therefrom, by issuing the order of final discharge from probation, the probationer should continue complying with the conditions of probation. Compliance with the conditions of probation is not co-terminus with the period of probation. Now if the probationer simply stopped complying with the conditions of probation without the trial court releasing him from probation, the probation shall be deemed violated. And, the court which place the offender on probation, may order his arrest and make him serve sentence already, even though he stopped after the period of probation had already lapsed. The High Court said, probation is not a service of a sentence. Probation is only an interlocutory order. For as long as the court, which placed the offender on probation, has not issued the order of final discharge, the probationer should continuously comply with the conditions of probation. Conditions of probation may either be mandatory conditions or discretionary conditions. The mandatory conditions are those imposed by the Probation Law. Discretionary conditions are those which the court may impose. The court may impose any condition as long as it does not violate the constitutional right of the probationer. Civil Liability
Article 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. - Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. Article 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. - The exemption from criminal liability established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of article 12 and in subdivision 4 of article 11 of this Code does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced subject to the following rules: First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of article 12, the civil liability for acts committed by an imbecile or insane person, and by a person under nine years of age, or by one over nine but under fifteen years of age, who has acted without discernment, shall devolve upon those having such person under their legal authority or control, unless it appears that there was no fault or negligence on their part. Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile or minor under his authority, legal guardianship, or control or if such person be insolvent, said insane, imbecile, or minor shall respond with their own property, excepting property exempt from execution, in accordance with the civil law. Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of article 11, the persons for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have received. The courts shall determine, in sound discretion, the proportionate amount for which each one shall be liable. When the respective shares cannot be equitably determined, even approximately, or when the liability also attaches to the Government, or to the majority of the inhabitants of the town, and, in all events, whenever the damage has been caused with the consent of the authorities or their agents, indemnification shall be made in the manner prescribed by special laws or regulations. Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of article 12, the persons using violence or causing the fears shall be primarily liable and secondarily, or, if there be no such persons, those doing the act shall be liable, saving always to the latter that part of their property exempt from execution. Article 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietors of establishments. - In default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and any other persons or corporations shall be civilly liable for crimes committed in their establishments, in all cases where a violation of municipal ordinances or some general or special police regulation shall have been committed by them or their employees. Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods taken by robbery or theft within their houses from guests lodging therein, or for the payment of the value thereof, provided that such guests shall have notified in advance the innkeeper himself, or the person representing him, of the deposit of such goods within the inn; and shall furthermore have followed the directions which such innkeeper or his representative may have given them with respect to the care of and vigilance over such goods. No liability shall attach in case of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons unless committed by the innkeeper's employees. Article 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.

You give attention to the instances where there is Subsidiary Civil Liability, You have this in Art. 102, Art 103, In the case of the exempting circumstances In paragraph 5 and 6, then under Art 110. In the case of an employer being made subsidiarily civilly liable, there are certain requisites before the -employer may be subsidiarily civilly liable. These requisites you should know. 1.) the employer must be engaged in an industry where he utilizes the convicted employee; An industry, has been defined for this purpose, an any human endeavor where capital and labor are utilized to generate profit A hospital, has been ruled, as not an Industry.
Page | 117

CRIMINAL LAW I - 2010 Notes + 2011 Bar review Updates By Marx + UST 2007 TAPSI NOTES
So subsidiary civil liability will not ___ against the hospital as an employer of a convicted employee. 2.) the convicted employee must have committed the crime in respect of the duties to him to render the employer subsidiarily civilly liable; 3.) The conviction of the employee must have been final and executory already and the writ of execution against the convicted employee must have been returned unsatisfied. This is so because the liability of the employer is only subsidiary. 4.) A motion for the Issuance of a subsidiary writ of execution must be filed, and the employer must be properly served with notice of such motion to provide him an opportunity to be heard. That motion cannot be resolved validly ex parte. It is always filed with notice to the employer. The Supreme Court called attention, the employer is not a party to the criminal case, so to make him answerable for the civil liability arising from that case, he should be given the benefit of due process. He must be given the opportunity to heard. To resolve the motion for a writ of execution against the employer ex parte would violate the Constitutional prohibition against the deprivation of property without due process of law. Now in connection with the subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers and tavern keepers, proprietors of hotels and similar establishments under Art. 102, you go over the provisions of the Civil Code on Necessary Deposits, Arts. 1998 up to Art 2004; You will notice, the provisions of the Civil Code on Necessary Deposit are substantially similar to the provision of Art. 102 of the Revised Penal Code. And said provision of the Civil Code are more comprehensive than the provision of the Revised Penal Code. What you may not find under Art. 102, you will find it there in the Civil Code. The law considers that when a guest checks into a hotel or a tavern or an inn, a necessary deposit of this belongings is created. And management becomes obligated to him as a depositary. The requirement under the Revised Penal Code, however, also applies that the guest must have given notice to management of the valuables that he is bringing into that premises. And he must obey the instruction of the management regarding the safekeeping of his valuables. Practically the same provision that you have under Art. 102. This article had been the predicate of many Bar Problems. You know there that when the crime is Robbery with violence against or intimidation of person, the management is not civilly liable, unless the offender was a worker or employee of the management
Page | 118

So it is only a case of Robbery with force upon things that the innkeeper, the tavern keeper, the proprietors of hotels and similar establishments will suffer subsidiary civil liability. Read the provisions of the Civil Code on Necessary Deposits, and you will be more enlightened on this. Extra-civil Liability of One who committed Rape, Abduction, and Seduction You should also take note of Art 345, regarding the Extra-civil Liability of on who committed Rape, Abduction, and Seduction. The convict is required to support the child who may be born out of the commission of the crime. This will be assigned from the damages, to be paid to the offended woman. One of the civil liabilities required there also Is for the offender to acknowledge the child born out of the Rape, the Abduction, or the Seduction. But the prevailing rule now, if the offender, convicted of these crimes was a married man, he cannot be required to acknowledge the child. The Supreme Court deemed this as contrary to law. The earlier ruling of the High Court are better. The purpose of the acknowledgment here Is not to confer a status but only to establish the filiation of the child to make it appear that the child did not come out of this world of his own making. Now the Supreme Court, for no explanation at all, suddenly turned around and made a resolution that when the offender is a married man he cannot be required to acknowledge the child. The earlier ruling was totally the contrary. And Justice Feliciano explained that. That is so even if the offender is a married man because the purpose of the acknowledgment required here is not to confer status upon the child. That status is no longer allowed under the Family Code. The purpose of the acknowledgment is only to establish the filiation of the child so that it will be known that the child did not come out of this world without a father. Now, this is the better view. But the Supreme Court had adopted a ruling contrary to this.

Вам также может понравиться