Contents

Art. 1 TIME WHEN ACT TAKES EFFECT....................................................2

Art. 2 APPLICATION OF ITS PROVISIONS.................................................2
TITLE ONE: FELONIES & CIRCUMSTANCE W/C AFFECT CRIMINAL
LIABILITY.................................................................................................4
C 1 : FELONIES........................................................................................4
Art. 3 DEFINITION...................................................................................4
Case: PEOPLE VS SILVESTRE & ATIENZA..........................................4
Case: PEOPLE VS RAMIREZ..............................................................5
Case: PEOPLE VS LOPEZ...................................................................5
REQUISITES of Dolo/Culpa:..................................................................6
Cases Concept: CRIMINAL INTENT (INTENTIONAL FELONIES)...........7
Cases Concept: CULPABLE FELONIES...............................................8
Cases Concept: NO INTENT/NO FAULT = NOT CRIM. LIABLE............9
3. Third class of crime PENALIZED UNDER SPECIAL LAWS...............9
(Mala in se VS Mala prohibita)..........................................................9
Cases Concept: Mala prohibita.........................................................9
MOTIVE..............................................................................................10
Case:.................................................................................................11

REVISED PENAL CODE

Art. 1 TIME WHEN ACT TAKES EFFECT
-

Jan 1, 1932
Theories:
CLASSICAL
- FOCUS: act
- BASIS: human free will

POSITIVIST
- FOCUS: actor

- PURPOSE: retribution
- MAN: moral creature with an
absolutely free will to choose
between good and evil

-MAN: subdued occasionally by a

strange and morbid phenomenon
which constrains him to do wrong,
in spite of or contrary to his
volition

- STRESS: on effect/result
- MECHANICAL & DIRECT
PROPORTION between crime and
penalty

- NO FIXED PENALTY
- Enforcement of individual
measures in each particular case
after a thorough, personal &
individual investigation conducted
by a competent body of
psychiatrists and social scientists.

Art. 2 APPLICATION OF ITS PROVISIONS

SCOPE:
1. w/in Phil. Archipelago
2. outside of its jurisdiction in certain cases (1-5)/ abroad.
a. offense on ship/airship
- (/) national territory beyond 3 miles from seashore
- (X) if ship in foreign territory
- (/) vessel registered in Phil. Bureau of Customs, NOT
the citizenship of the owner
b. forge/counterfeit coin/currency note
c. liable for the introduction of obligations & securities
d. offense of public officer/employee
2

- direct/indirect bribery, fraud against public treasury,

possession of prohibited interest, malversation of public
funds/property, failure of accountable officer to render
accounts, illegal use of public funds or property , failure to
make delivery of public funds or property, and falsification by
a public officer or employee committed w/ abuse of his official
position
e. crime against national security & law of nations
- conspiracy & proposal to commit treason, inciting to war &
giving motives for reprisals, violation of neutrality,
correspondence w/ hostile country, flight to enemys country,
and piracy and mutiny on the high seas

RTC original jurisdiction

Sample of triable & non-triable cases
TRIABLE
- continuing crime committed
on board a Norwegian vessel
by failing to provide suitable
means for securing animals
while transporting them (US
vs Bull)
- on board of foreign merchant
vessel on Phil. Waters (US vs
Bull)
-

disorders w/c disrupt peace &

security of the State
landing/using opium (US vs
Look Chaw)

foreign merchant vessel not in transit but in Phil. Terminal

port, & the person is in
possession of opium
Smoking opium
-

within Phil. Ljurisdiction:

NOT TRIABLE

committed on high seas on

board a foreign merchant
vessel (US vs Fowler)
disorders w/c disrupt peace
among members of the ship
mere possession of opium
aboard
no breach of public order

Foreign warships
territory of the country w/c
they belong & not subjected
to laws of another state

Rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard

foreign merchant vessels:
1. FRENCH RULE (X)
- triable if affecting peace & security of territory / endangering its
safety
2. ENGLISH RULE (/)
- triable if things within the vessel or they refer to the internal
management thereof

EXTRA-TERRITORIALITY (RA 9372)

aka: Human Security Act of 2007
Punishable acts:
1. offenses punished in the Act w/in terrestrial domain, interior
waters, maritime zone, & airspace
2. commit/conspire/plot
3. crimes on board a Phil. ship/airship
4. w/in embassy, consulate or diplomatic premises of Phils.
5. Crimes against Phil. Citizens/persons of Phil. Descent, where
citizenship/ethnicity was a factor in committing the crime
6. Direct crime against govt.

TITLE ONE: FELONIES & CIRCUMSTANCE W/C

AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY
C 1 : FELONIES
Art. 3 DEFINITION
Elements of felonies:
1. Act/omission
o ACT = any bodily movement w/c produces some effect in the
external world
o EXTERNAL ACT only punished; X internal act
o OMISSION = inaction of what is required by the law
1. Abandonment of persons in danger
2. Illegal exaction = tax collector voluntarily fails to issue
receipt
3. Misprision of treason = nondisclosure of knowledge of
conspiracy against the govt.
Case: PEOPLE VS SILVESTRE & ATIENZA
Concept: act/omission
4

F:

CRIME: ARSON
Atienza = principal by direct participation
Silvestre = accomplice, listened to her co-defendants threat
w/o raising a protest, & did not give the alarm when the latter
set fire to the house.
H: NOT PUNSIHABLE:
1. Mere passive presence at the scene of anothers crime
2. Mere silence & failure to give the alarm
3. w/o evidence of agreement or conspiracy
DP ACQUITTED Silvestre
:
2. Punishable by RPC law
o Maxim: nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege
= (there is no crime if there is no law punishing it)
3. w/ dolo/culpa
o classification of felonies:
1. INTENTIONAL dolo/deceit
= (+) malice: with deliberate intent
= e.g. murder, treason, robbery, malicious mischief
2. CULPABLE culpa/fault
= (-) malice: w/o intent
= e.g. malversation, evasion
a. IMPRUDENCE/LACK OF SKILL
= def. of
action
b. NEGLIGENCE/ LACK OF FORESIGHT = def. of
perception

Reason for punishing negligence:

- man must use common sense, & exercise due
reflection in all his acts; it is his duty to be cautious,
careful, & prudent, if not from instinct, then through
fear of incurring punishment.
Case: PEOPLE VS RAMIREZ
Concept: reckless imprudence
F
Hunter shot his companion thinking that he was a deer 50m away
from him.
H
Act is VOLUNTARY but with NO DELIBERATE INTENT but should
have exercised all the necessary diligence to avoid every
undesirablemaccident.
DP Hunter GUILTY of HOMICIDE through RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE

Case: PEOPLE VS LOPEZ

Concept: reckless imprudence
F
The truck which Lopez drove struck the girl.
Lopez claimed no intent of causing injury.
H
Acts executed negligently are voluntary, although done w/o
malice. Lopez was not compelled to refrain or prevented from
taking the precaution necessary to avoid injury to persons.
DP Lopez GUILTY of HOMICIDE through RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE

REQUISITES of Dolo/Culpa:
DOLO/MALICE
1. FREEDOM
*Art. 12 (5): a person who acts
under the compulsion of an
irresistible force
*Art. 12 (6): a person who acts
under the impulse of an
uncontrollable fear of an
equal or greater injury
2. INTELLIGENCE
*Art. 12 (1,2,3):
imbecile/insane, <9, 9-15
3. INTENT
- a mental state; an existence
of which is shown by the
overt act of a person
- Maxim: actus non acit
reum, nisi mens sit rea
= (act is not criminal if the
mind is not criminal)
- NO intent = NO felony by
dolo

CULPA/FAULT
1. FREEDOM
2. INTELLIGENCE
3. IMPRUDENCE,
NEGLIGENCE, LACK OF
FORESIGHT, LACK OF
SKILL
- no longer intentional
- w/o malice
- X Mistaken identity
-

MISTAKE OF FACT (error

in personae)
- Maxim: ignorantia facti
excusat
(ignorance/mistake of fact is
excusable)
= misapprehension of fact of
the person committing an
offense = NO INTENT
- Requisites:
1. acts are lawful as the
accused believed them to be

2. intention is lawful
3. mistake w/o
fault/carelessness
LACK OF INTENT
INFFERED FROM FACTS OF
THE CASES
CRIMINAL INTENT
- Maxims:
1. Actus non facit reum nici
mens sit rea (the act itself
does not make a man guilty
unless his intention were so)
2. Actus me invite factus
non est meus actus (an
act done by me against my
will is not my act)

Cases Concept: CRIMINAL INTENT (INTENTIONAL FELONIES)

Case
Details
Inte
nt
Soriano vs - [D] carried away articles belonging to another
+
People
& concealed them from the owner = INTENT OF
GAIN shown by overt acts
US vs
- Intent to kill (mental act) can be deduced from
+
Mendoza
external acts
People vs - F: Accused took watch w/o owners consent
+
Sia Teb
(THEFT) but alleges that the prosecutor failed
Ban
to prove intent
- H: FREE & DELIBERATE ACT = INTENT
US vs
- Criminal intent & the will to commit a crime are
Apostol
always presumed to exist on the part of the
person who executes an act w/ the law
punishes, unless the contrary shall appear
US vs
- NO CRIMINAL INTENT arises from NOT
Catolico
UNLAWFUL ACTS
US vs
- F: accused minor after marrying w/o parental
Penalosa
consent but was proved to have acted w/o
malice due to MISTAKE OF FACT where she had
always believed that she was born in 1879 as
given by her parents though she was actually
not
- H: MISTAKE OF FACT = NO CRIMINAL
INTENT
People vs
- F: sleepwalking w/ bolo on hand w/c wounded
7

Taneo

her wife
H: NOT VOLUNTARY for having acted in a dream
= NO INTENT
CRIME: MURDER; military major killed Borjal
(who was guilty of treason) in GOOD FAITH
under the orders of his superior officers
*Art. 11 Justifying Circumst. xxx (6) Any
person who acts in obedience to an order
issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.
H: LAWFUL ACT = NO INTENT = NOT LIABLE
CRIME: PERJURY; accused claimed he had never
violated a law but has failed to mention his
offense of unjust vexation thinking that it was
not necessary to mention since it did not
involve moral turpitude
The accused gave the same answer in 2 prev.
cases
ERROR OF JUDGMENT = NO INTENT

People vs
Beronilla

People vs
Formaran

*US VS
AH
CHONG

F: -

H
:
* PEOPLE
VS OANIS

People vs
Gona
US vs
Bautista

R afraid of bad elements so he locked

himself in his room and placed a chair
against the door. Someone tried to open
the door, and he called out twice Whos
there? but no one answered, If you
enter the room I will kill you!
- The chair struck him but believing he was
attacked, he seized a kitchen knife and
fatally wounded the intruder who turned
out to be his roommate.
ACQUITTED b/c of mistake of fact

F: -

Chief Police Oanis and co-accused

Corporal Galanta killed an innocent man,
Tecson, after thinking he was their target,
Balagtas, because the former slept with
his back facing them.
H GUILTY OF MURDER
: - Yes, mistake of fact BUT is UNLAWFUL & is
d/t NEGLIGENCE.
- Killing one man instead of another = acted
maliciously & willfully
- One who resists, believing that the peace
officer is a bandit, but who submits to the
arrest immediately upon being informed that

(-)
liable

(-)
liable
-

People vs
De
Fernando

latter was a policeman = X CRIME OF

RESISTANCE
F: accused (policeman) directly fired at a man
(thinking he was one of the escaped convicts)
who was going up the stairs of a house calling
for someone (the daughter of the house owner
was w/ accused) who turned out to be the
nephew of the house owner.
H: GUILTY OF HOMICIDE THROUGH RECKLESS
NEGLIGENCE. The accused could have verified
the identity of the victim to the daughter.
NEGLIGENCE = NOT A DEFENSE IN
MISTAKE OF FACT

Cases Concept: CULPABLE FELONIES

Case
Details
People vs
Guillen

F: -

H
:

Killed those surrounding the Pres. (w/o

intent) though his main purpose was to
kill the Pres. alone by hurling the bomb
into the crowd.
CA erred to convict w/ only homicide
through reckless imprudence since his
intention to kill the Pres. is still w/ malice
= liable
Deliberate intent is INCONSISTENT w/
reckless imprudence.

(-)
Liabl
e
d/t
negli
g.

Inte
nt
+

Cases Concept: NO INTENT/NO FAULT = NOT CRIM. LIABLE

Case
Details
Inte
nt
US vs
- F: While 3 were hunting, Catangay stumbled
Catangay
against an embankment causing his gun to
accidentally discharge & kill Ramos.
- H: No intent/no fault = mere accident = NOT
liable
*Art. 12 Exempting circumst. xxx (4) any
person who acts by mere accident, w/o fault
or intention of causing it.
- But if a gun is discharged in a public place =
+
unlawful
- *Art. 155
9

3. Third class of crime PENALIZED UNDER SPECIAL LAWS

(Mala in se VS Mala prohibita)
-

MALA IN SE
Intent to commit
Criminal intent

Wrongful from their nature

So serious = unanimous
condemnation

Is there intent?
Inherently immoral (even
though punished under special
law)

MALA PROHIBITA
Intent to perpetrate
Prohibited act is done free &
consciously
Wrong b/c prohibited by a
statute
Violations of mere rules of
convenience to secure an
orderly society
Is the law violated?

Cases Concept: Mala prohibita

Case
Details
US vs Siy
Cong
Bieng

US vs Go
Chico

People vs
Orquijo
*PEOPLE
VS
SUNICO

F: -

Co Kong sold adulterated coffee w/o guilty

knowledge.
H - Liable accdg to Pure Food and Drugs Act
:
No. 1655 of the Phil. Commission since
the legislature forbid certain acts in
limited class of cases making it criminal
even w/o regard to the intent.
- V: Statutory enactments =
PUNISHABLE even w/o crim. intent
- F: exposes to public view any flag, banner,
emblem, or device used during the late
insurrection in the Phils.
- V: Sec. 1 of Act No. 1696 of the Phil.
Commission b/c injurious to public welfare
- Mere unlicensed possession is sufficient to
convict w/ illegal possession of firearms (*RA 4)
- Good faith NOT valid defense.
F: -

Voters were not allowed to vote by the

accused b/c of the omission of their
names in the list. Accused claims good
faith. RTC ruled malum prohibitum d/t V:
Sec. 101&103 of Revised Election Code.

Inte
nt
(-)
Liabl
e

(-)
Liabl
e
(-)
Liabl
e
MALA
PER
SE
10

H
:

Not mala prohibita but MALA PER SE b/c

inherently immoral even if punished
under a special law.
Omission or failure to include a voters
name in the registry list is not only wrong
b/c it is prohibited; it is wrong per se b/c it
disenfranchises a voter & violates one of
his fundamental rights.
But in this case, NO crim. Liab. b/c no
clear showing of intent, will, & malice.

MOTIVE
- Different from intent = purpose to use a particular means to effect
such result
= moving power w/c impels one to action for definite result
= NOT essential element of crime, need not be proved
Relevance:
RELEVANT
IRRELEVANT
- identity of the accused is in
- commission of the crime is
dispute
proven
- antagonistic theories/versions
- evidence of identification is
- unreliable source/inconclusive
convincing
testimony
- positive identification of
- no eyewitnesses
assailant
- evidence is merely circumstantial - defendant admits killing
- guilt is established by sufficient
evidence
- no more doubt
Proved by EVIDENCE: (1) testimony of witnesses & (2) statements of
the accused
Disclosure of motive = aid to prove crime
But proof of motive alone is NOT sufficient to support conviction
Lack of motive may be an aid in showing the innocence of the
accused

Art. 4 CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Par. 1 wrongful act done different from that w/c he
intended.

Maxim: el que es causa de la causa es causa del mal

causado (he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil
caused)
11

Cases Concept: Criminal Liability Para. 1

Case
Details
People vs
Mario
Mariano
US vs
Divino

People vs
Bindoy

Intended: Rape
Not intended: Death d/t hitting of the head on
the pavement during struggle
Intended: Provide remedy (not a medical
practitioner), tied a girl & wrapped her feet with
rags saturated w/ petroleum & set them on fire
Not intended: Burns

Intended: accused disengaged bolo but Pacas

caught it. The two struggled, the accused trying
to retain possession of the bolo.
- Not intended: while struggling, the bolo struck
the chest of Emigdio who was behind him.
H: ACQUIT b/c NO deliberate intent to kill Emigdio
& b/c he has the RIGHT TO DEFEND HIS OWN
POSSESSION
* If the accused attempted to kill Pacas instead of
merely retaining his bolo, he could have been
convicted of attempted homicide.

Liabl
e
+
N/A
Crim.
Negli
g. &
not
Crim.
Liab.
-

12

Causes of different results:

1. ERROR IN
Mistak (see People vs Oanis, pp. 8)
PERSONAE en
identit Case: People vs Gona
y
- Intended: assault Dunca w/ bolo
- Not intended: killed Mapudul by
mistake b/c of darkness
- H: LIABLE
2. ABERRATI
Mistak Case: People vs Mabugat
O ICTUS
e in
- Intended: fire at Juana
the
- Not intended: wounded Perfecta d/t
blow
lack of precision
- H: LIABLE Guilty of Frustrated
Murder w/ Treachery
3. PRAETER
Injurio Case: People vs Cagoco
INTENTION us
- Intended: struck victim w/ his fist
EM
result
at the back of the head, causing
GREAT
the victim to fall down
ER
- Not intended: victim hit his head
than
on the asphalt pavement =
intend
fracture = death
ed
- H: LIABLE
Case: People vs Tomotorgo
- Intended: maltreat wife by
throwing pieces of wood at her
- Not intended: wife died after
severe chest pains
- H: LIABLE Guilty of Parricide

REQUISITES of Art. 4, Para. 1

1. Intentional Felony is committed
a. Act/omission punishable by RPC
b. No justifying circumst.
Case: People vs Salinas
Intended: Crisanto held his father, Severinos, neck to prevent him
from going against a rivalry duel downstairs.
Not intended: death of Jaime (1-mo. Old) when mother Mercuria fell
over the baby while she struggled to freed her husband
H: NOT LIABLE no direct result

13

2. Wrong done is direct, natural, & logical consequence of the

felony committed
a. Threatened/
Case: US vs Valdez
chased
- Intended: accused chased victim w/ a
knife
- Not intended: victim jumped into the
water & died of drowning d/t strong
current & inability to swim
b. Remove
Case: PEOPLE VS QUIANSON
drainage from - Intended: Doctor applied drainage to
the wound
wound.
- Not intended: Victim took out the
drainage b/c of extreme pain &
restlessness l/t peritonitis l/t death
c. Other causes
cooperated as
long as the
wound
inflicted is
dangerous
d. Internal
malady
1. Blow was
Case: People vs Illustre
efficient
- w/ TB, given fist blows on right
COD
hypochondrium bruising of the liver
internal hemorrhage death
2. Blow
Case: People vs Rodriguez
accelerated - w/ internal malady, given fist blows in
death
back & abdomen inflammation of
spleen & peritonitis acceleration of
death
3. Blow was
Case: People vs Reyes
proximate
- w/ CHD, stabbed w/ a knife on chest,
COD
hitting bone only & not thoracic cavity
shock death
e. Refused to
Case: US VS MARASIGAN
submit to
- Accused drew his knife & struck
surgical
Mendoza
operation
- Mendoza, attempting to ward off the
blow, was cut in the left hand severing
his extensor tendon l/t non-usability of
his middle finger
- Mendoza not obliged to submit to a
surgical operation
f. Resulting
Case: People vs Red
14

injury
aggravated by
infection

Intended: wound victim w/ bolo

Not intended: no anti-tetanus injection
l/t infection
H: LIABLE for all consequences of
his acts

PROXIMATE CAUSE
= that cause, w/c, in natural & continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, & w/o w/c, the result
would not have occurred.
-

NATURAL = occurrence in the ordinary course of human life/events

LOGICAL = rational connection bet. The act of the accused & the
resulting injury/damage

= cause (felonious act) & effect (injury/death)

Case:
Concept:
F
H
DP

Art. 6 CONSUMMATED, FRUSTRATED, AND

ATTEMPTED FELONIES
Consumm
ated
Felony

all the elements necessary for its execution and

ACCOMPLISHMENT are present
- death of the victim is an element of the offense; if the
victim does not die it is either attempted or frustrated
When not all the elements of a felony are proved.
- TAKING PERSONAL PROPERTY: element of intent to
gain is lacking, no THEFT committed
- PROSECUTION FOR ESTAFA: element of deceit or
abuse of confidence is not proved, there is no crime,
only CIVIL LIABILITY. But if element of damage only is
not proved, may be found GUILTY OF ATTEMPTED OR
FRUSTRATED ESTAFA
- PROSECTUION FOR ROBBERY with violence against
persons: element of intent to gain is not proved, may
be found GUILTY OF GRAVE COERCION, another felony
15

PROSECUTION FOR FORCIBLE ABDUCTION: element of

lewd designs is not proved, LIABLE FOR KIDANPPING
AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION, another felony
ALL ELEMENTS MUST BE PRESENT FOR IT TO BE IN
CONSUMMATED STAGE.
NATURE OF CRIME
- ARSON: necessary that the property is TOTALLY
DESTROYED BY FIRE, consummated even if only a
portion of the wall or any other part of the house is
burned. It does not depend upon the extent of the
damage caused (PEOPLE VS. HERNANDEZ)
- Frustrated only if: setting fire to some rags but no part
of the house began to burn (U.S. VS. VALDES)
- Attempted only if: poured gasoline under the house
and was about to strike a match but was apprehended
but if there was a blaze but not part is burned it is
FRUSTRATED.
ELEMENTS CONSTITUTING THE FELONY
- It is CONSUMMATED when: the thief is able to take or
get hold of the thing even if he was not able to carry it
away; in estafa, the victim must actually be damage
or prejudiced
- THEFT
Case: (U.S. vs Adiao)
F Customs inspector hid a leather belt of Japanese
and it was found by other customs employees.
H Court of 1st instance convicted him of frustrated
theft but the Supreme Court considered it
consummated because all the elements necessary
for execution and accomplishment are present.
D Consummated Theft
P
Case: U.S. vs. Dominguez
F Accused had received P7.50 for selling but instead
of giving it to the cashier he put it in his pocket.
H All the acts necessary for execution was performed
but no damage caused. In estafa: Abuse of
confidence and damage, these elements should be
present
D Frustrated Estafa
P
Case: People vs. Dio
F Truck loaded with stolen boxes of rifles
16

Because of its discovery before it could pass the

check point. The fact determinative of
consummation in the crime is the ability of the
offender to dispose freely of the articles stolen.
Frustrated Theft

D
P
Case: People vs. Espiritu
F Accused removed from the pile nine pieces of
hospital linen and took them to the truck. Found by
a corporal of the MP guards
H Thieves were able to get hold of the hospital linen
only thing that was frustrated, was the use or
benefit of the thieves from the committed offense
D Consummated theft
P
- Example of attempted estafa
Case: People vs. De la Cruz
F Accused was found in a jeep where the padlock of
said jeep had been forced open.
H Accused already commenced the action but has
not performed all the acts of execution because of
the arrival of the MP
D Attempted Theft
P
- Example of frustrated estafa
Case: People vs. Gutierrez
F Accused asked 3.80 for x-ray and kept five
centavos in his pocket.
H Policeman placed the accused under arrest, no
damage was caused
D Frustrated estafa
P
- mere removal not sufficient to consummate the crime
of robbery by use of force upon things
Case: People vs. Del Rosario
F Culprits broke the floor of the bodega, removed a
sack of sugar from the pile but was caught
H He was not able to carry out of the building the
thing taken to consummate the crime
D Frustrated Robbery
P
- in robbery with violence the moment the offender gets
hold of the thing it is consummated
Element of intent to kill, when present in inflicting
physical injuries.
17

Frustrated
Felony

any of the physical injuries inflicted with intent to kill

would either be attempted or frustrated parricide or
murder as the case may be.
Manner of committing the crime.
1. Formal crimes consummated in one instant, no
attempt
a. slander
b. sale of marijuana and other prohibited drugs
2. Crimes consummated by mere attempt or proposal
or by overt act.
a. flight to enemys country
b. corruption of minors
c. no attempted crime of treason
3. Felony by omission
a. omits to perfrom an act with the law requires
him to do
4. Crimes requiring the intervention of two person to
commit them are consummated by mere
agreement
a. betting in sport contest and corruption of public
officer
5. Material Crimes
a. consummated rape
b. frustrated rape: People vs. Eria
- endeavored to have sex with a 3 and 11months old
girl.
- In other cases, an penetration of the female organ by
the male organ is sufficient.
c. Attempted rape: People vs. Brocal
- accused placed himself on top of girl and raised her
skirt but not succeeding in penetrating the girl
d. consummated homicide
e. frustrated murder
f. attempted homicide
There is no attempted or frustrated impossible
crime.
- person intending to commit an offense has already
performed the acts for the execution of the same, but the
crime is not produced by reason that by its nature is an
impossible accomplishment or the means employed are
inadequate or ineffectual.
- ELEMENTS of frustrated felony:
1. performs all the acts of execution
- in homicide or murder, the crime is CONSUMMATED if
the victim DIES, if the victim SURVIVES the crime is
FRUSTRATED
18

The Supreme Court in certain cases has

emphasized belief of the acused.
Case: People vs. Sy Pio
F Fired at the Sy and was hit fatally also firing at
Kiap, hitting him on the right shoulder. Accused
was declared guilty of frustrated murder in the
court of first instance.
H Kiap was able to escape, the accused had the belief
that he was not able to hit his victim at the vital
part of the body. accused therefore knew he has
not performed all acts of execution.
D Attempted Murder, not performed all the acts of
P execution for purpose and intention of killing his
victim
- (U.S. vs. Lim) believed that he had performed all the
acts necessary to consummate the crime but it did not
result to death. So, it is FRUSTRATED MURDER
- (U.S. vs. Eduave) thought he had killed but did not
result to death. So he is guilty of FRUSTRATED
MURDER
In the following cases, the stage of execution was
held to be frustrated, because the wound inflicted
was mortal:
a. People vs. Honrada: victim stabbed in the
abdomen, penetrating the liver, and in the chest
but was given medical treatment and saved his life.
b. People vs. Mercado: victim was wounded in the left
abdomen with a sharp-edged weapon, serious
enough to have produced death
c. People vs. David: victim hit by a revolver in the
upper side of the body, perforating the lungs but
was saved due to adequate and timely intervention
of medical science
In the following cases, the stage of execution was
held to be attempted, because there was no
wound inflicted or the wound inflicted was not
mortal.
a. U.S. vs. Bien: accused threw victim in deep water,
victim dont know how to swim but kept himself
afloat, accused was prevented by some other
persons.
b. People vs. Kalalo: accused fired shots to the victim
and victim escaped and saved his own life.
Accused failed to perform all acts of execution even
with the intention to kill.
c. People vs. Domingo: 2 physician attest that the
19

wounds would not produce death even without

medical assistance
d. People vs. Somera: victim merely grazed by the
shot that hit him but the wound far from being fatal
2. acts performed would produce the felony as a
consequence
Case: People vs. Boringa
F Accused stabbed victim from the back but accused
only hit the back of the chair of the victim which
did not cause even the slightest injury.
H Without inflicting a deadly wound on a vital spot of
the victim, the victim should have died.
D Attempted murder
P
- same with the above case (People vs. Kalalo): murder,
require that the victim should die to consummate the
felony but if only a mortal wound is inflicted then it is
frustrated
-

3. but the felony is not produced

acts performed by the offender do not produce the
FELONY because if it was produced it would be
CONSUMMATED

4. by reason of causes independent of the will of the

perpetrator
- This cause is independent of the will of the
perpetrator:
a. intervention of third persons, preventing the
commission of the offense
Frustrated Felony distinguished from Attempted Felony
Frustrated
Attempted
- has not accomplished his - has not accomplished his
criminal purpose
criminal purpose
- has performed all the
- merely commences the
acts of execution
commission of a felony
- does not perform all acts
of execution
- reached the OBJECTIVE
- has not passed the
PHASE
SUBJECTIVE PHASE
- not intervention of a
- there is intervention
foreign or extraneous
apart from his own
cause or agency
spontaneous desistance

20

Attempte
d Felony

Requisites of a frustrated felony:

1. has performed all the acts of execution
2. felony is not produced due to causes independent
of the perpetrators will
- ELEMENTS of attempted felony:
1. commences the commission of the felony directly
by overt acts(physical activity or deed)
Two Requisites present:
a. external acts
Preparatory acts and overt acts, distinguished.
- Mere buying of poison is a preparatory act but it has
no direct connection with crime. But if the poison is
mixed in the food of a person this constitutes the
overt acts thus the EXTERNAL ACT is performed with
the intention to commit the crime murder.
- Drawing or trying to draw a pistol is not an overt act
of homicide.
Case: People vs. Tabago
F Tabago made a motion to draw his pistol but the
Chief of police embraced him and prevented him to
draw his pistol. Tabago told his 2 companions to fire
but was not aimed at anybody.
H The action done can have different interpretations.
D Not convicted of the crime of attempted homicide
P
-

Raising a bolo as if to strike the offended part with it is

not an overt act of homicide.
Case: U.S. vs. Simeon
F Accused raised his bolo as if to strike or stab the
offended part and the latter shouted for help and
ran away. No blow was struck nor a proof of threats
to kill.
H Act committed was only that of threatening another
with a weapon and if the act of striking was done
that would be the over act of the crime homicide.
D Crime committed was only that of threatening
P
b. external acts have direct connection with
the crime intended to be committed
CASE: People vs. Lamahang
F the accused was caught by a policeman while
making an opening with an iron bar on the wall of a
store of cheap goods
21

D
P

his intention was disclosed by his act of making

and opening through the wall, and that was to
enter the store against the will of the its owner who
was living there.
Crime committed was attempted Trespass
- Acts susceptible of double interpretation, that is,
in favor as well as against the accused, and which
show an innocent as well as punishable act, must
not and cannot furnish grounds by themselves for
attempted crime.
2. does not perform all the acts of execution
3. not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance
4. non-performance of all acts of execution due to
cause or accident

Indeterminate offense: the purpose in performing an

act is not certain
- For example, in people vs. lamahang the objective
may be to rob, to cause physical injury, or to commit
an offense but since he only executed the use of force
upon things in entering the place he can only be
charged by attempted trespass. NO JUSTIFICATION OF
OTHER CRIMES
The intention of the accused must be viewed from
the nature of the acts executed by him, and not
from his admission.
Case: People vs. Lizada
HELD: The Supreme Court of Spain, declared that for
overt acts to constitute an attempted offense, it is
necessary that their objective be known and established
or such that acts be of such nature that they themselves
should obviously disclose the criminal objective
necessarily intended, said objective and finality to serve
as ground for designation of the offense.
1. Directly by overt acts.
2. Does not perform all the acts of execution.
3. By reason of some cause or accident
4. Other than his own spontaneous desistance.
Desistance should be made before all acts of
execution are performed.
- Desistance may be through fear or remorse, not
necessary that it be actuated by good motive.
- The discontinuance of the crime comes from the
person who has begun it.
- He stops of his own free will
22

The desistance which exempts from criminal

liability has reference to the crime intended to be
committed, and has no reference to the crime
actually committed by the offender before his
desistance.
Case: Araneta, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals
F Shot the victim but have inflicted only a slight
wound but victim died due to a fatal wound caused
by co-accused
H Slight wound did not cause the death nor
materially contributed to it. He should only be
liable for the slight injury caused. However, there is
intent to kill therefore liable for attempted
homicide and not merely for slight physical injury.
D Liable for attempted homicide
P
Subjective Phase of the Offense: portion of the acts
constituting the crime, starting from the commission of
the crime to that point where he has still control over his
acts.
- in attempted felony, it never passes the subjective
phase
- if stopped by any cause outside his voluntary
desistance, subjective phase has not been passed and
it is an ATTEMPT
- if not stopped but continues till he performs the last
act it is FRUSTRATED provided that the crime is not
produced, it reached the OBJECTIVE PHASE
Development of Crime: (STAGES)
1. INTERNAL ACTS: ideas in the mind of the person, not punishable
2. EXTERNAL ACTS: covers,
a. Preparatory acts ordinarily they are not punishable, such as
possessing instruments like guns, picklocks and etc. to
produce a felony.
b. Acts of Execution - punishable, stages: 1st attempted, 2nd
frustrated, 3rd - consummated

Art. 7 WHEN LIGHT FELONIES ARE PUNISHABLE

LIGHT FELONIES: infractions of law, commission of which the penalty of
arresto menor and a fine not exceeding 200
Light Felonies:
1. slight physical injuries
2. theft
3. alteration of boundary marks
23

4. malicious mischief
5. intriguing against honor
- ONLY punishable when CONSUMMATED
- EXCEPT: if committed against persons or property
Example of light felonies against person: slight physical injuries
Example of light felonies against property: theft by hunting or fishing,
theft where the stolen property was prompted by hunger, poverty,
alteration of boundary marks, malicious mischief

Art. 8 CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT

FELONY
General Rule: conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable
Exception: punishable only in the cases which the law specially
provides a penalty therfor
RPC specially provides a penalty for mere conspiracy:
1. Art 115 conspiracy to commit treason
*Should not actually commit treason, if they commit it they shall
be liable for Treason already. The conspiracy will then be just a
manner and it is not a separate offense.
2. Art 136 conspiracy to commit coup detat, rebellion or
insurrection
3. Art 141 conspiracy to commit sedition
Case: People vs. Geronimo (Indications of conspiracy)
F Defendants by their acts aimed at the same object, one
performing one part and the other performing another part to
complete it.
H Even though apparently independent but were in fact indicating
closeness of personal association. Same goal.
D Defendants engaged in CONSPIRACY
P
Case: People vs. Pugay (The acts of the defendants must
show a common design)
F Deceased Miranda and Pugay were friends. Pugay and Samson
saw the deceased walking nearby and started making fun of
him. Pugay took a can of gasoling and poured it to Miranda and
Samson set him on fire.
H No records showing a conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose.
Accused merely wanted to make fun of the deceased. Criminal
liability arising from different acts, each of them is liable only for
the act that each have committed.
D Different criminal liabilities, not collective
P
Requisites of conspiracy:
1. that two or more persons came to an agreement
24

2. that the agreement concerned the commission of a felony

3. that the execution of the felony be decided upon
1st element: agreement presupposes meeting of the minds of two
or more persons
2nd element: the agreement must refer to the commission of a
crime. Must be an agreement to act, to effect, to bring about
3rd element: conspirators have made up their minds to commit
the crime
- Direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy
- Quantum of proof is required to establish conspiracy
RPC specially provides a penalty 8for mere proposal:
1. Art 115 proposal to commit treason
2. Art 136 proposal to commit coup detat rebellion or
insurrection
- Treason or rebellion should not actually be COMMITTED
Requisites of proposal:
1. That a person has decided to commit a felony
2. That he proposes its execution to some other person or person
There is no criminal proposal when
1. the person who proposes is not determined to commit the felony
2. there is no decided, concrete and formal proposal
3. it is not the execution of a felony that is proposed
-

not necessary that the person to whom the proposal is made agrees
to commit treason or rebellion
proposal as an overt act of corruption of public officer
crimes in which conspiracy and proposal are punishable are against
the security of the state
reason why conspiracy and proposal to commit a crime is
punishable in crimes against external and internal security of the
State

Art. 9 GRAVE FELONIES, LESS GRAVE FELONIES,

AND LIGHT FELONIES
-

The gravity of the felonies is determined by the penalties attached

to them by law
IMPORTANT WORDS AND PHRASES:
1. to which the law attaches the capital punishment (death penalty)
2. or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive
afflictive penalties: reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal,
perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification, perpetual or
temporary special disqualification, prisyon mayor
3. penalties which in their maximum period are correctional
correctional penalties: prision correctional, arresto mayor,
suspension, destierro
25

4. the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos,

or both, is provided

Art. 10 OFFENSES NOT SUBJECT TO THE

PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE
Important words and phrases:
1. special laws
- provisions of RPC on penalties cannot be applied to offenses
punishable under special laws
- attempted or frustrated stage of the execution of an offense
penalized by a special law is not punishable unless the special law
provides a penalty therefor
- special law has to fix penalties for attempted and frustrated crime
- when a special law covers the mere attempt to commit the crime,
the attempted stage is punishable by same penalty provided by that
law
- this article is not applicable to punish an accomplice under the
special law
- plea of guilty is not mitigating in illegal possession of firearms,
punished by special law
2. supplementary
Case: People vs. Moreno
F Accused drove a car in a reckless manner, he struck the railing
of the bridge and crushed the left side of the car. Person seated
at the left side died.
H That special law has no provision regarding indemnity to heirs
of the deceased and subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency
D Homicide thru reckless imprudence and violation of the Motor
P Vehicle Law
Case: People vs. Navarro
F 13 yr. old girl prosecuted for selling cocoa more than the selling
price fixed by government
H Prosecution failed to establish that she acted with discernment.
State has the burden of proving the minor guilty.
D Prosecuted under a special law. Art. 12 par. 3
P
3. unless the latter should specially provide the contrary

26