PART I: GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW

CRIMINAL LAW DEFINED

- Criminal law is a branch of public law that defines the relationship of the State
to its inhabitants, insofar as it provides a set of rules that regulates behavior in
which the State, in its role in promoting peace and order, has an interest.
- E.G. People vs. Juan de la Cruz Criminal law is that branch of law that regulates
the behavior of Juan de la Cruz in so far as his behavior is considered wrong to
the people. It contemplates of wrongs that are considered harmful to the society,
and thus public in character.
- Simply put, criminal law is the set of rules that regulate socially harmful
behavior.
Criminal law defines the extent/limit of the power of the State to regulate socially
harmful behavior.
- The State cannot punish behavior that is beyond the scope of criminal law.
- Outside is the limit. Behavior, which is within the confines defined by law as
criminal, is punishable by the State.
- That is why criminal law is statutory. Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege:
There is no crime when there is no law punishing it.
A. Nature/Basic Principle of Criminal law:
- Underlying assumption of Criminal Law: Man is assumed to have free will to
follow or not to follow the law.
- Criminal law, being statutory, properly states what is right behavior. And to not
follow is to do wrong.
- It is mans choice whether to follow or not to follow. If he chooses not to follow,
it is his choice. But he has to be accountable for it.
GRIFFITH vs. COURT OF APPEALS
March 12, 2002
Facts: In 1985, Phelps Dodge Philippines leased its lot and factory building to
Lincoln Gerard. When Lincoln Gerard incurred rental arrearages, Geoffrey Griffith,
in his capacity as President, issued two checks that came with a written condition
that they should not be presented for payment without clearance from Lincoln
Gerard. However, Lincoln Gerard was unable to give such clearance owing to a
labor strike that paralyzed the business and affected the companys ability to
fund the checks. Still, Philips Dodge deposited the checks, which were
dishonored. Phelps Dodge filed criminal cases for violation of BP 22, but only
after two years and after notarial foreclosure and auction sale of the properties of
Lincoln Gerard earlier impounded by Phelps Dodge. Griffith was convicted of 2
counts of violation of BP 22, and sentenced with imprisonment for two
consecutive 6 month periods.
Issue: WON the conviction of Griffith for 2 counts of violating BP 22 must hold.
Held: NO. Since the failure to fund the checks had been validly communicated to
Phelps Dodge, and since Phelps Dodge has later on satisfied Lincoln Gerards
obligations through a notarial foreclosure and auction, there would be no more
reason to prosecute Griffith for issuing a bouncing check. Ratione cessat lex, et
cessat lex. When the reason for the law ceases, the law ceases.
- Law must define socially harmful behavior. Crime has to be defined by a statute
before it can be punished.
- There are NO common law crimes in the Philippines.
Magno v. Court of Appeals
June 26, 1992

Held: Thus, it behooves upon a court of law that in applying the punishment
imposed upon the accused, the objective of retribution of a wronged society,
should be directed against the actual and potential wrongdoers. In the instant
case, there is no doubt that petitioners four (4) checks were used to collateralize
an accommodation, and not to cover the receipt of an actual account or credit for
value as this was absent, and therefore petitioner should not be punished for
mere issuance of the checks in question. Following the aforecited theory, in
petitioners stead the potential wrongdoer, whose operation could be a menace
to society, should not be glorified by convicting the petitioner.
B. Purposes of Criminal law:
1. Identify wrongful behavior.
- List of dos and donts
- States acceptable behavior in a society.
2. Prescribe punishment for socially harmful behavior.
- Criminal law regulates by punishment. The regulation of behavior is in the
punishment. o Has the element of:
(a.) Retribution; and (b.) Prevention
- Deterrence
- Incapacitation
- Rehabilitation
Punishment is necessary in Criminal Law.
- All agree that punishment is indispensable component of Criminal Law. Why?
Because man has free will, and unless there is an adverse consequence, it will
not be exercised in a rational manner.
- This assumption flows from the utilitarian perspective that man moves to
maximize pleasure and minimize pain. The concept of pain is the common
denominator of all punishments.
Two schools of thought in Criminal Law:
1.) Classical school purpose of punishment is retribution a primitive instinct;
influenced the development of criminal law for centuries
- Punishment is a form of vengeance.
- Payment is in the suffering.
- Proportionality: the graver the wrong, the greater the penalty.
2.) Positivist school purpose of punishment is to prevent crime by
rehabilitating the offenders a movement resulted from the progress in our
understanding of human behavior.
- Punishment is reformative; purpose is to make man understand why his
behavior is wrong, why he should not do it again.
- Make the person understand the harm he is doing to his self and to society.
- Can also prescribe heavy penalty, i.e. death, but will take many things into
consideration in the prescription of punishment.
Philippine jurisdiction subscribes to both.
- Balance between classical and positivist theory.
- Largely based on classical theory, i.e. RPC proportionality of wrong and
punishment, but also adopts positivist elements such as revisions in the RPC,
allowance for good behavior, parole, Juvenile Justice and Welfare act.
(E.G. State prisons were called penitentiary before. Now they are termed
correctional)

DE JOYA vs. JAIL WARDEN OF BATANGAS CITY

December 10, 2003
Facts: Norma De Joya was accused and convicted for 2 separate counts of
violating BP No.22. During trial, petitioner jumped bail and failed to offer any
evidence on her behalf. Decision was promulgated in absentia. Petitioner
remained at large and made no appeal whatsoever. In the meantime, SC
Administrative Circular No.12-2000, as modified by Administrative Circular No.13
-2001, was issued. On 2002, or five years after the conviction, petitioner was
finally arrested while applying for an NBI clearance. Petitioner now prays for her
release on the theory that AC No.12-2000, which purportedly deleted the penalty
of imprisonment in BP 22 cases, should be applied retroactively, pursuant to
Art.22 of RPC.
Issues:
1.) Is petitioner entitled to the relief of habeas corpus?
2.) Did AC No.12-2000, as modified by AC No.13-2001, repeal the penalty of
imprisonment in BP 22 cases?
Held:
1.) NO. As per Sec.4, Rule 102 of Rules of Court, habeas corpus is not allowed if
the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer
under process issued by a court or judge or by virtue of judgment made by a
court with competent jurisdiction.
1.) NO. AC No.12-2000 merely lays down a rule of preference in deciding BP 22
cases. It does not remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty for violations of
BP 22. The judge may, in the exercise of sound discretion, choose to follow it or
not. Needless to say, the determination of whether the circumstances warrant
the imposition of a fine alone rests solely upon the judge. Should the judge
decide that imprisonment is the more appropriate penalty, AC No.12-2000 should
not be deemed as a hindrance.
Obiter: In imposing penalties for crimes, the courts must bear in mind that
Philippine penal law is based on Spanish penal code and had adopted features of
the positivist theory of criminal law.xxx Philippine penal law looks at the convict
as a member of society. Among the important factors to be considered in
determining the penalty to be imposed are: 1.) his relationship towards his
dependents, family and their relationship with him; and 2.) his relationship
towards society at large. The State is concerned... also in redeeming the
individual for economic usefulness and other social ends. The purpose of
penalties is to secure justice. Penalties imposed must not only be retributive but
must also be reformative.xxx The court must also take into account the
secondary elements of punishment, namely, the reformation of the offender, the
prevention of further offenses by the offender, the repression of offenses in
others.
C. Characteristics of Criminal Law
1. Statutory
- Written and codified
2. General
- Art. 2 of Revised Penal Code (RPC)
Art. 2: Application of RPC provisions. Except as provided in treaties and laws of
preferential application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only

within the Philippine Archipelago, including the 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 under Title One of Book Two of this Code.
- Criminal law is not limited to citizens of the Philippines. Everyone, even aliens,
for as long as they are within RP territory, are subject to our criminal laws.
Reason: anyone who is in RP territory elected to be part of a community. Hence,
all are subject to criminal law.
- Exceptions: those who are subjects of treaties and laws of preferential
application i.e. ambassadors under the principle of international comity; VFA
3. Territorial
- General rule: All wrongful behavior committed within Philippine territorial
jurisdiction will be subject to Philippine criminal law.
- Exception:
- Extraterritoriality principle in Philippine vessels (as stated in Art.2(1) and (4))
- 2 approaches: French rule and English rule
- Philippines uses the English rule
- Difference is procedural, i.e. in the burden of proving who has jurisdiction.
- English rule: assumption of jurisdiction over any vessel within Philippine seas.
Burden of proof is on he who claims otherwise.
- French rule: assumption of no jurisdiction over foreign ships. Burden to prove
jurisdiction is on the State.
- Crimes against the law of nations (Art.2 (5))
4. Prospective
- General rule: prospective application of criminal laws
- Criminal law is intended to regulate future, not past behavior o Exemption: Art.
22: Penal laws favorable to the accused
Art.22: Retroactive effect of penal laws. Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect
insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal
as this term is defined in Rule 5o f Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of
publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is
serving the same.
Rationale: Since society no longer considers a behavior socially harmful, those
who committed the behavior before should also benefit from the favorable
treatment given by subsequent amendments/revisions of penal statutes.
Except: if the person is a habitual offender under Art.62; and when the law
itself states that it shall not apply retroactively.
5. Morally condemnable
- One characteristic that distinguishes criminal law from all other branches of law.

- Criminal law itself expresses moral condemnation; a penalty carries with it an

expression of communal disapprobation/ communitys moral outrage or
condemnation.
- E.G. going to war, vs. death penalty
- Civil action fine does not carry condemnation; no sense of community
disapproval. o Criminal action fine carries moral condemnation, community
disapproval.
D. Sources of Criminal Law
- Revised Penal Code
- Special penal laws enacted by Congress
- Presidential issuances promulgated when the President was exercising
legislative powers.
- Penal provisions of other laws, i.e. Civil Code, Code of Commerce, are part of
Criminal Law.
E. Constitutional Limitations
- Constitutional rights are guaranteed, because violation of these results to a
greater harm to society
1. Due process and equal protection
- Criminal law judgments may deprive a person of life, liberty or property, so due
process must be ensured
- Due process: essentially requires fairness. It is the right to be treated fairly. On
the minimum, it requires that an
individual be afforded the opportunity to defend himself.
- Consists of two: procedural (notice, hearing) and substantive (begins with the
law itself)
- Test: Overbreadth doctrine when the language of the law is too broad that it
punishes behavior that is not socially harmful, then it is overbroad
State v. Metzger
August 10, 1977
Facts: Metzger lived in a garden-level apartment located in Lincoln, Nebraska. A
largewindow in the apartment faces a parking lot which is situated on the north
side of theapartment building. At about 7:45 a. m. on April 30, 1981, another
resident of theapartment, while parking his automobile in a space directly in front
of Metzger'sapartment window, observed Metzger standing naked with his arms
at his sides in hisapartment window for a period of 5 seconds. The resident
testified that he sawMetzger's body from his thighs on up.The resident called the
police department and two officers arrived at the apartment atabout 8 a. m. The
officers testified that they observed Metzger standing in front of thewindow
eating a bowl of cereal. They testified that Metzger was standing within a footof
the window and his nude body, from the mid-thigh on up, was visible.
Arguments:
Petitioner:
Metzgers action was in violation of Lincoln Municipal Code 9.52.100 which
states: It shall be unlawful for any person within the City of Lincoln ... to commit
any indecent, immodest or filthy act in the presence of any person, or in such a
situation
that persons passing might ordinarily see the same.

Respondent:The ordinance, as drafted, is so vague as to be unconstitutional.

The laws must be clear and concise to individuals to where they must not
interpret the law one way or another;laws may not be so vague to cast a net to
catch both the innocent and guilty.
Issue: WoN Licoln Municipal Code 9.52.100 is constitutionally infirm for being
broad
Held: The conviction was reversed. Since the ordinance in question is criminal
innature, it is a fundamental requirement of due process of law that such criminal
ordinance be reasonably clear and definite.
Test: (a.) wether the language may apply not only to a particular act about which
there can be little or no difference of opinion, but equally to other acts about
which there may be radical differences, thereby devolving on the court the
exercise of arbitrary power of discriminating between the several classes of acts;
(b.) dividing line between what is law and what is unlawful cannot be left to
conjecture.
WHITE LIGHT CORPORATION, et al. vs. CITY OF MANILA*
January 20, 2009
Facts: On December 3, 1992, Mayor Lim signed to law Ordinance No.7774, an
Ordinance prohibiting short time- admission, short time admission rates and
wash-up rate schemes in hotels, motels, inns, lodging houses, pension houses
and similar establishments in the City of Manila. Petitioners WLC, TC, and STDC,
all members of the Anito Group of Companies which owns and operates several
hotels and motels in Metro Manila questioned the constitutionality of the
Ordinance. RTC rendered a decision declaring the Ordinance null and void for
striking at the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed and jealously
guarded by the Constitution.
Issue: WON the Ordinance is a proper exercise of police power, and
assuming yes, whether it is overbroad for depriving individuals the
liberty to use such establishments for lawful purposes.
Held: YES. In the case at bar, the subject of the Ordinance, which seeks to
prevent inter alia illicit sexual activity, drug use, and prostitution, falls within the
ambit of police power. However, this exercise is not justified for:
1. Failing to show that the means employed is reasonably necessary to achieve
its purpose, the same being easily circumvented by paying 12 hours instead of
three.
2. Being unduly oppressive in the sense that it infringes upon individual liberty
and prohibits lawful use of the establishments. In seeking to proscribe short time
use of these establishments constitutionally protected liberties of the individual,
such as legitimate sexual behavior among consenting married or consenting
single adults, and other legitimate purposes, is unnecessarily curtailed.
Ruling: Petition GRANTED. Ordinance No.7774 declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

2. Freedom of expression
- Government regulation of expression is justified if the State is able to prove that
the action furthers an important governmental interest (i.e. preventing the evil of

public nudity), and the means employed is the bare minimum necessary to
achieve the States purpose (i.e. requiring at least G-strings and pasties).
BARNES vs. GLEN THEATRE
June 21, 1991
Facts: Indiana enacts a public indecency statute, which prohibits appearing in a
state of nudity in a public place. As such, female dancers are required to wear at
least pasties and a G-string when they dance. 2 establishments (Kitty Kat
Lounge and Glen Theatre) wish to provide totally nude dancing as entertainment
and brought an action to court on the ground that the statute impinges on the
freedom of expression under the First Amendment.
Court of Appeals held that non-obscene nude dancing performed for
entertainment is an expression protected by the First Amendment and that the
statute was an improper infringement because its purpose was to prevent the
message of eroticism and sexuality.
Issue: Whether the Indiana public indecency law violates free expression as
guaranteed in the First Amendment.
Held: NO. The statute does not violate the First Amendment.Test whether
government regulation is sufficiently justified:
1. Government regulation is within the governments constitutional power
2. Regulation furthers an important governmental interest
3. Governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression
4. Incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than
is essential to the furtherance of that interest Application of the Indiana statute is
justified. (1) It is within the states constitutional powers. (2) Although its
impossible to discern exactly what the governmental interests are in this case,
the statutes purpose of protecting societal order and morality can be traced
from its text and history and illustrates that the Indiana statue furthers a
substantial government interest. (3) It may be contended that prohibiting nudity
does not suppress expression, but prohibiting nude dancing does. The statute
does not prohibit nude dancing because of the message of eroticism it conveys
but it seeks to address the evil of public nudity. (4) There is a fit with the
requirement that dancers wear a least pasties and a G-string. This is the bare
minimum necessary to achieve the states purpose.
3. Freedom of religion
- The Free Exercise Clause does not exempt an individual from the obligation to
comply with an otherwise valid, facially neutral law of general application.
- Absent a showing that there is a sufficiently compelling State interest to justify
infringement of religious freedom, the individuals right to free exercise takes
primary importance.
ESTRADA vs. ESCRITOR* (June 22, 2006)
Facts: Alejandro Estrada filed an administrative complaint against Soledad
Escritor, a court interpreter in Branch 253, RTC of Las Pinas City, for immoral and
disgraceful conduct for having a live-in arrangement with a man not her husband
and subsequently having child with the latter. In defense, Escritor invokes her
religious freedom and testifies that, although she started living with Quilapio
more than 20 years ago, she was already a widow by 1998 and that their union is
in conformity with their religious beliefs as Jehovahs Witnesses.
Issues: WON Escritors should be exempted in the application of a general law on
account of her religious belief.

Held: YES. Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that enjoys a preferred
position in the hierarchy of rights. Absent a showing that the states interest in
preventing the exemption is compelling, and that the method used to promote
state interest is the least intrusive, Court rules in favor of Escritors exemption on
account of right to religious freedom. Hence, in this case, Escritor cannot be
penalized.
Obiter: Benevolent neutrality should be used in resolving claims involving
religious freedom in the Philippine jurisdiction, because this is the one most in
line with the intent behind our Constitution and the jurisprudence in this country.
Under this theory, what is sought is not the invalidation of an otherwise neutral
law, but the exemption from its application of its burdensome effect on
religiously motivated action.
Hence, in deciding respondents plea of exemption based on the Free Exercise
Clause, it is the compelling state interest test which must be applied. In this test,
when a law of general application infringes religious exercise, albeit incidentally,
the state interest sought to be promoted must be shown to be so paramount and
compelling as to override the free exercise claim. Compelling state interest has
three steps:
a. Has the stature or government action created a burden on free exercise of
religion?
b. Is there a sufficiently compelling state interest to justify this infringement of
religious liberty?
c. Has the state used the least intrusive means possible so that free exercise is
not infringed any more than is necessary?
4. No excessive fines, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment
- Punishment should be correlative to the crime
PEOPLE vs. DE LA CRUZ
Facts: Pablo de la Cruz sold a can of milk at ten centavos more than the ceiling
price (based from EO 331). The matter reached the City Fiscals office and
resulted in criminal prosecution under the authority of RA 509. De la Cruz was
sentenced to two years in prison and a fine of 5,000 pesos.
Issue: WON the punishment imposed was disproportionate to the
offense and therefore unconstitutional
WON RA 509 should be invalidated in so far as it prescribes excessive penalties.
Held: NO. The punishment prescribed by RA 509 is not unusual and cruel for the
time, the objective being to prevent profiteering at a time of scarcity. The
damage caused to the State is not measured exclusively by the gains obtained
by the accused, but inasmuch as one violation would mean others, and the
consequential breakdown of the beneficial system of price controls. HOWEVER,
taking into account the circumstances of the accused, who is a modest
storeowner with a family to feed, bound to suffer for a mere gain of 10 centavos,
the penalty is reduced to six months imprisonment and a fine of two thousand
pesos.
PEOPLE vs. ECHEGARAY
Issue: WoN the death penalty imposed in rape is violative of the
constitutional proscription against cruel, degrading or inhuman
punishment

Held: No. Accused relied heavily on the landmark case of Furman v Georgia to
show that the death penalty is a cruel, degrading, and in human punishment.
However, to say that the Furman ruling categorically ruled that the death
penalty is cruel, degrading, or inhuman is misleading. The Furman ruling cried
afoul of death penalty insofar as the implementing statues concerning it lack any
form of parameters, guidelines, or standards intended to lessen, if not altogether
eliminate, the intervention of personal biases, prejudices, and discriminatory acts
on the part of the trial judges and sentencing juries.
The accused asserts that the death penalty is an excessive, cruel, inhuman or
degrading punishment for the crime of rape insofar as rape does not involve the
taking of life (in stark contrast with Murder. Coker v. Georgia)
The United States Supreme Court ruled that death penalty is an excessive
penalty for the crime of rape based on: (a.) the public (through States laws) has
manifested its rejection of the death penalty as a proper punishment for the
crime of rape through the willful omission by the state legislatures to include
rape in their death penalty statues in the aftermath of Furman; and (b.) that
rape, while concededly a dastardly contemptuous violation of a womans spiritual
integrity, physical privacy, and psychological balance, does not involve the taking
of life.
In the Philippine context, the forfeiture of life simply because life was taken,
never was a defining essence of the death penalty in the context of our legal
history and cultural experience; rather the death penalty is imposed because of
unforgivably execrable acts that have so deeply dehumanized a person or
criminal acts with severely destructive effects on the national efforts to life the
masses from abject poverty through organized governmental strategies based on
a disciplined and honest citizenry, and because they have so caused irreparable
and substantial injury to both their victim and the society and a repetition of their
acts would pose actual threat to the safety of individuals and the survival of
government, they must be permanently prevented from doing so.