Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Examples:
I. BASIC PRINCIPLES
Philippines and the US on Mar. 14, 1947
Characteristics and
expired on Sept. 16, 1991.
1. Generality
2. Territoriality signed on
3. Prospectivity Feb. 10, 1998.
1. GENERALITY
b. Laws of Preferential Application
Art. 14, NCC. The penal law of the country
Examples:
is
binding on all persons who live or sojourn in
Members of Congress are not liable for libel
Philippine territory, subject to the principles
or slander for any speech in Congress or in
of
any committee thereof. (Sec. 11, Art. VI,
public international law and to treaty
1987 Constitution)
stipulations
Any ambassador or public minister of any
foreign State, authorized and received as
Generality of criminal law means that the
such by the President, or any domestic or
criminal law of the country governs all
domestic servant of any such ambassador or
persons within the country regardless of
minister are exempt from arrest and
their race, belief, sex or creed. However, it is
imprisonment and whose properties are
subject to certain exceptions brought about
exempt from distraint, seizure and
by international agreement. Ambassadors,
attachment.3 (R.A. No. 75)
chiefs of states and other diplomatic officials
are immune from the application of penal
A warship of another
laws when they are in the country where
country, even though docked in the
they are assigned.
Philippines, is considered an extension of
the territory of its respective country. This
Note that consuls are not diplomatic
also applies to embassies.
officers. This includes consul-general, vice-
consul or consul in a foreign country, who
b. Principles of Public International
are therefore, not immune to the operation or
Law
application of the penal law of the country
where they are assigned.
Art. 14, NCC. xxx subject to the
principles of
Generality has no reference to territory.
public international law and to treaty
Whenever you are asked to explain this, it
stipulations.
does not include territory. It refers to
persons that may be governed by the penal
law.
The following persons are exempt from the
[Take note of the Visiting Forces provisions of the RPC:
Agreement, Art. V, which defines Criminal (1) Sovereigns and other heads of state
Jurisdiction over United States military and (2) Ambassadors, ministers, plenipotentiary,
civilian personnel temporarily in the minister resident and charges d affaires.
Philippines in connection with activities (Article 31, Vienna Convention on
approved by the Philippine Government (see Diplomatic
attached supplement).] Relations)
Note: Consuls and consular officers are
NOT
Limitations:
exempt from local prosecution. (See Article territory (Art. 2, RPC) (ASKED 4 TIMES
41, IN BAR
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations) EXAMS)
Public vessels of a friendly foreign power Art. 2 embraces two scopes of applications:
are not
subject to local jurisdiction. General rule - Intraterritorial refers to the
application of the RPC within the Philippine
territory
2. TERRITORIALITY (land, air and water).
within the atmosphere over a subjacent state (1) The new law is expressly made
that exercises control, then its criminal law inapplicable to
will govern. pending actions or existing cause of actions;
3. Absolute Theory (adopted by the or
Philippines) - The subjacent state (2) The offender is a habitual criminal.
has complete jurisdiction over the
atmosphere above it subject only to Effects of repeal of penal law
the innocent passage by aircraft of a (1) If the repeal makes the penalty lighter in
foreign country. the
new law,
Under this theory, if the crime is committed (a) The new law shall be applied,
in an aircraft, no matter how high, as long as (b) EXCEPT when the offender is a habitual
it can be established that it is within the delinquent or when the new law is made
Philippine atmosphere, Philippine criminal not applicable to pending action or existing
law will govern. causes of action.
GENERAL RULE: Acts or omissions will (3) If the new law totally repeals the existing
only be law so
subject to a penal law if they are committed that the act which was penalized under the
AFTER old
a penal law has taken effect. law is no longer punishable,
(a) The crime is obliterated.
Conversely, acts or omissions which have (b) Pending cases are dismissed.
been (c) Unserved penalties imposed are remitted.
committed before the effectivity of a penal
law (4) Rule of prospectivity also applies to
could not be penalized by such penal law. judicial
decisions,7
EXCEPTION: administrative rulings and circulars.
Art. 22 RPC. Penal laws shall have a
retroactive Acts or omissions will only be subject to a
effect, insofar as they favor the person penal law if they are committed after a penal
guilty of a law had already taken effect. Vice versa, this
felony who is not a habitual criminal, as act or omission which has been committed
this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 before the effectivity of a penal law could
of this Code, although at the time of the not be penalized by such penal law because
publication of such laws a final sentence penal laws operate only prospectively.
has been pronounced and the convict is
serving the same. In some textbooks, an exemption is said to
exist when the penal law is favorable to the
offender, in which case it would have
retroactive application (RPC Art. 22);
Art. 62(5) RPC. xxx For the purpose of this provided that the offender is not a habitual
article, a delinquent and there is no provision in the
person shall be deemed to be a habitual law against its retroactive application.
delinquent,
if within a period of 10 years from the date The exception where a penal law may be
of his given retroactive application is true only
release or last conviction of the crimes of with a repealing law. If it is an original penal
serious or law, that exception can never operate. What
less serious physical injuries, robo(robbery), is contemplated by the exception is that
hurto(theft), estafa, or falsification, he is there is an original law and there is a
found repealing law repealing the original law. It is
guilty of any crimes a third time or oftener the repealing law that may be given
retroactive application to those who violated
the original law, if the repealing penal law is
EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION: more favorable to the offender who violated
the original law. If there is only one penal turn was copied from the French Code of
law, it can never be given retroactive effect. 1810 which is classical in character, it is
said that our Code is also classical. This is
no longer true because with the American
Underlying Philosophies occupation of the Philippines, many
Classical or Juristic Philosophy provisions of common law have been
Best remembered by the maxim An eye for engrafted into our penal laws. The Revised
an eye, a tooth for a tooth. [Note: If you Penal Code today follows the mixed or
want to impress the examiner, use the latin eclectic philosophy. For example,
version- Oculo pro oculo, dente pro dente.] intoxication of the offender is considered to
The purpose of penalty is retribution. The mitigate his criminal liability, unless it is
offender is made to suffer for the wrong he intentional or habitual; the age of the
has done. There is scant regard for the offender is considered; and the woman who
human element of the crime. The law does killed her child to conceal her dishonor has
not look into why the offender committed in her favor a mitigating circumstance.
the crime. Capital punishment is a product
of this kind of school of thought. Man is
regarded as a moral creature who
understands right from wrong. So that when
he commits a wrong, he must be prepared to
accept the punishment therefore. MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA
In crimes punished under special laws, the Note: This is peculiar only to criminal law.
act gives rise to a crime only when it is
consummated; there are no attempted or
frustrated stages, unless the special law
expressly penalizes a mere attempt or
frustration of the crime. Equipoise Rule
A crime under the Revised cause. This may be a cause which is far and
Penal Code is referred to as a felony. remote from the consequence which sets
Do not use this term in reference to into motion other causes which resulted in
a violation of special law. the felony.
The term felony is limited only to
violations of the Revised Penal Code. An impossible crime is an act which would
When the crime is punishable under be an offense against person or property
a special law you do not refer to this were it not for the inherent impossibility of
as a felony, it is to be understood as its accomplishment or on account of the
referring to crimes under the employment of inadequate or ineffectual
Revised Penal Code. means.
(Intod v. CA)
Until the Intod case, the prevailing attitude
Physical or factual impossibility: Extraneous was that the provision of the Revised Penal
circumstances unknown to the actor or Code on impossible crime would only apply
beyond his control prevent the when the wrongful act, which would have
consummation of the intended crime. constituted a crime against persons or
property, could not and did not constitute
Note: In the Philippines, impossibility of another felony. Otherwise, if such act
accomplishing the criminal intent is not constituted any other felony although
merely a defense but an act penalized by different from what theoffender intended, the
itself. 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
(4) That the act performed should not where criminal liability shall be incurred, to wit:
constitute a violation of another provision of
the RPC. Article 4. Criminal liabilityCriminal
liability shall be incurred:
Modified Concept of impossible crime 1. By any person committing a
felony (delito) although the
In a way, the concept of impossible crime wrongful act done be different
has been modified by the decision of the from that which he intended.
Supreme Court in the case of Intod vs. CA,
et. al., 285 SCRA 52. In this case, four 2. By any person performing an act
culprits, all armed with firearms and with which would be an offense
intent to kill, went to the intended victims against persons or property, were
house and after having pinpointed the it not for the inherent
latters bedroom, all four fired at and riddled impossibility of its
the said room with bullets, thinking that the accomplishment or on account of
intended victim was already there as it was the employment of inadequate or
about 10:00 in the evening. It so happened ineffectual means.
that the intended victim did not come home
on that evening and so was not in her Paragraph 1 refers to a situation where the
bedroom at that time. Eventually the culprits wrongful act done constituted a felony
were prosecuted and convicted by the trial although it may be different from what he
court for attempted murder. The Court of intended. Paragraph 2 refers to a situation
Appeals affirmed the judgment but the where the wrongful act done did not
Supreme Court modified the same and held constitute any felony, but because the act
the petitioner liable only for the so-called would have given rise to a crime against
impossible crime. As a result, petitioner- persons or against property, the same is
accused was sentenced to imprisonment of penalized to repress criminal tendencies to
only six months of arresto mayor for the curtail their frequency. Because criminal
felonious act he committed with intent to liability for impossible crime presupposes
kill: this despite the destruction done to the that no felony resulted form the wrongful act
intended victims house. Somehow, the done, the penalty is fixed at arresto mayor or
decision depreciated the seriousness of the a fine from P200.00 to P500.00, depending
act committed, considering the lawlessness on the social danger and degree of
by which the culprits carried out the criminality shown by the offender(Article
intended crime, and so some members of the 59), regardless of whether the wrongful act
bench and bar spoke out against the was an impossible crime against persons or
soundness of the ruling. Some asked against property.
questions, was it really the impossibility of
accomplishing the killing that brought about There is no logic in applying paragraph 2 of
its non-accomplishment? Was it not purely Article 4 to a situation governed by
accidental that the intended victim did not paragraph 1 of the same Article, that is,
come home that evening and, thus, unknown where a felony resulted. Otherwise, a
to the culprits, she was not in her bedroom at redundancy or duplicity would be
the time it was shot and riddled with bullets? perpetrated.
Suppose, instead of using firearms, the
culprits set fire on the intended victims In the Intod case, the wrongful acts of the
house, believing that she was there when in culprits caused destruction to the house of
fact she was not, would the criminal liability the intended victim; this felonious act
be for an impossible crime? negates the idea of an impossible crime. But
not begin a felony, criminal liability desistance will NOT negate criminal
correspondingly does not begin. In criminal liability.
law, there is such a thing as preparatory act.
These acts do not give rise to criminal b. Frustrated Stage
liability.
Elements
a. Attempted Stage (1) The offender performs all the acts of
execution;
Elements: (2) All the acts performed would produce
(1) The offender commences the the felony as a consequence;
commission of the felony directly by overt (3) But the felony is not produced;
acts; (4) By reason of causes independent of the
(2) He does not perform all the acts of will of the perpetrator.
execution which should produce the felony;
(3) The non-performance of all acts of The end of the subjective phase and the
execution was due to cause or accident other beginning of the objective phase.
than his ownspontaneous desistance.
Objective phase the result of the acts of
Marks the commencement of the subjective execution, that is, the accomplishment of the
phase: crime.
Subjective phase - That portion of the acts If the subjective and objective phases have
constituting a crime, starting from the point been passed there is a consummated felony.
where the offender begins the commission
of the crime to that point where he still has Crimes which do not admit of frustrated
control over his acts including their (acts) stage
natural course
(a) Rape
If between those two points, the offender is essence of the crime is carnal
stopped by reason of any cause outside of knowledge.
his own voluntary desistance, the subjective er what the offender may do to
phase has not been passed and it is merely accomplish a penetration, if there was no
an attempt. penetration yet, it cannot be said that the
offender has performed all the acts of
Illustration: The subjective phase for Ernie execution.
was from the moment he swung his arm to
stab Bert up until he finished his stroke. This We can only say that the offender in rape
is the interim where he still has control of has performed all the acts of execution when
his actions. he has effected a penetration.
is penetration, no matter how
Desistance is an absolutory cause which slight it is, the offense is consummated
negates criminal liability because the law
encourages a person to desist from (b) Arson
committing a crime say that the offender, in the
crime of arson, has already performed all the
But, it does not negate all criminal liability, acts of execution which could produce the
if the desistance was made when acts done destruction of the premises through the use
by him already resulted in a felony, of fire, unless a part of the premises has
begun to burn.
The offender will still be criminally liable he crime of arson is therefore
for the felony brought about by his act. consummated even if only a portion of the
wall or any part of the house is burned. The
What is negated is only the attempted stage, consummation of the crime of arson does
but there may be other felonies arising from not depend upon the extent of the damage
his act. caused. (People v. Hernandez)
Note: Desistance is true only in the (c) Bribery and Corruption of Public
attempted stage of the felony. Officers
manner of committing the crime
If the felony is already in its frustrated stage, requires the meeting of the minds between
the giver and the receiver.
meeting of the minds, there is offender does not execute acts, he omits to
consummated bribery or consummated perform an act which the law requires him to
corruption. do.
(f) Theft
e is unlawful taking, theft is b. The Elements of the Crime
consummated.
(1) Along with the manner of execution,
of the stolen goods is not an there are crimes wherein the existence of
element of theft under the RPC. certain elements becomes the factor in
determining its consummation.
Rule of thumb: Felonies that do not require (2) In the crime ofestafa, the element of
any result do not have a frustrated stage. damage is essential before the crime could
be consummated. If there is no damage,
Factors in Determining the Stage of even if the offender succeeded in carting
Execution of a Felony away the personal property involved, estafa
a. The manner of committing the crime; cannot be considered as consummated.
b. The elements of the crime; and (3) On the other hand, if it were a crime of
c. The nature of the crime itself. theft, damage or intent to cause damage is
not an element of theft.
These three factors are helpful in trying to (4) What is necessary only is intent to gain,
pinpoint whether the crime is still in its not even gain is important.
attempted, frustrated or consummated stage. (5) In the crime of abduction, the crucial
element is the taking away of the woman
a. The Manner of Committing the Crime with lewd designs.
(1) Formal Crimes - consummated in one c. The Nature of the Crime Itself
instant, no attempt.
(a) Ex. Slander and false testimony In defining of the frustrated stage of crimes
(b) There can be no attempt, because involving the taking of human life
between the thought and the deed, there is (parricide, homicide, and murder), it is
no chain of acts that can be severed. indispensable that the victim be mortally
wounded.
(2) Crimes consummated by mere attempt or
proposal by overt act. Hence, the general rule is that there must be
(a) Ex. Flight to enemys country (Art. 121) a fatal injury inflicted, because it is only
and corruption of minors (Art. 340) then that death will follow.
Under Article 219, discovering secrets through felony is grave, or less grave,
seizure of correspondence of the ward by their
guardian is not penalized. all participants are criminally liable.
felony is only light, only the
Under Article 332, in the case of theft, swindling
and malicious mischief, there is no criminal
principal and the accomplice are liable. The
liability but only civil liability, when the offender accessory is not.
and the offended party are related as spouse, only when the light felony
ascendant, descendant, brother and sister-in-law
living together or where in case the widowed spouse is against persons or property that criminal
and the property involved is that of the deceased liability attaches to the principal or
spouse, before such property had passed on to the accomplice, even though the felony is only
possession of third parties.
attempted or frustrated, but accessories are
Under Article 344, in cases of seduction, abduction, not liable for light felonies.
acts of lasciviousness, and rape, the marriage of
the offended party shall extinguish the criminal
action. I. Penalties
1. Definitions/Classifications/Kinds
Absolutory cause has the effect of an exempting
circumstance and they are predicated on lack of Relate to RA 9346 Prohibiting the
voluntariness like instigation. Instigation is imposition of the death penalty
associated with criminal intent. Do not consider
culpa in connection with instigation. If the crime is
culpable, do not talk of instigation. In instigation, 2. Duration and effect
the crime is committed with dolo. It is confused 3. Rules for the application(with
with entrapment.
computations)
Entrapment is not an absolutory cause. Relate to: Act 4104 The Indeterminate
Entrapment does not exempt the offender or Sentence Law
mitigate his criminal liability. But instigation
absolves the offender from criminal liability PD 968 TheProvation Law as amended
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
4. Execution and Service
instigation, he would not have done the criminal
act which he did upon instigation of the law J. Extinction of Criminal Liability(Total
enforcers.
v. Partial)
H. Persons Criminally liable for felonies
K. Civil liability of persons guilty of
Principals, Accomplices, and Accessories
felony
Relate to: P.D. 1612 The Anti-Fencing
III. CASES in BOOK ONE
Law
A. Utilitarian Theory
PD 1829 Obstruction of Justice
MAGNO V. CA 210 SCRA 471 June 26,
Under the Revised Penal Code, when more
1992
than one
person participated in the commission of the
In Magno vs. CA, decided on June 26, 1992, the
crime, Supreme Court acquitted Magno of violation of
the law looks into their participation because Batas PambansaBlg. 22 when he acted without
malice. The wrongdoer is not Magno but the lessor
in who deposited the checks. He should have returned
punishing offenders, the Revised Penal Code the checks to Magno when he pulled out the
classifies them as: equipment. To convict the accused would defeat the
noble objective of the law and the law would be
tainted with materialism and opportunism.
A. PRINCIPAL
B. ACCOMPLICE FACTS:
C. ACCESSORY Petitioner was in the process of putting up a
car repair shop sometime in April 1983, but
This classification is true only under the a did not have complete equipment that
RPC and is not applied under special laws, could make his venture workable. He also
because the penalties under the latter are had another problem, and that while he was
never graduated. going into this entrepreneurship, he lacked
funds with which to purchase the necessary
Do not use the term principal when the equipment to make such business
crime committed is a violation of special operational. Thus, petitioner, representing
law (use the term Ultra Sources International Corporation,
offender/s, culprit/s, accused) approached Corazon Teng, (private
complainant) Vice President of Mancor
As to the liability of the participants in the Industries (hereinafter referred to as
grave, less grave or light felony: Mancor) for his needed car repair service
equipment of which Mancor was a O.G. 6904, Note also Justice Pablo's view in
distributor, (Rollo, pp. 40-41) People v. Piosca and Peremne, 86 Phil. 31).
Having been approached by petitioner on his
predicament, who fully bared that he had no xxx the element of "knowing at the time of issue
sufficient funds to buy the equipment that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit
needed, the former (Corazon Teng) referred with the drawee bank for the payment of such check
in full upon its presentment, which check is
Magno to LS Finance and Management subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for
Corporation (LB Finance for brevity) insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been
advising its Vice-President, Joey Gomez, dishonored for the same reason . . . is inversely
that Mancor was willing and able to supply applied in this case. From the very beginning,
the pieces of equipment needed if LS petitioner never hid the fact that he did not have the
funds with which to put up the warranty deposit and
Finance could accommodate petitioner and as a matter of fact, he openly intimated this to the
provide him credit facilities. (Ibid., P. 41) vital conduit of the transaction, Joey Gomez, to
The arrangement went through on condition whom petitioner was introduced by Mrs. Teng. It
that petitioner has to put up a warranty would have been different if this predicament was not
deposit equivalent to thirtyper centum (30%) communicated to all the parties he dealt with
regarding the lease agreement the financing of which
of the total value of the pieces of equipment was covered by L.S. Finance Management.
to be purchased, amounting to P29,790.00. WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is
Since petitioner could not come up with REVERSED and the accused-petitioner is
such amount, he requested Joey Gomez on a hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged.
personal level to look for a third party who
could lend him the equivalent amount of the B. Doctrine of Pro REo/ Equipoise Rule
warranty deposit, however, unknown to
petitioner, it was Corazon Teng who PP V. PABIONA 433 SCRA 301 June 30,
advanced the deposit in question, on 2004
condition that the same would be paid as a FACTS: this case involves the death of
short term loan at 3% interest Roberto. Witnesses include his cousin
Pagayon, but was not able to clearly
HELD: pinpoint who caused the injuries as he
Under the utilitarian theory, the "protective happened to pass by the scene 10 meters
theory" in criminal law, "affirms that the away. He only heard a cry for help but the
primary function of punishment is the identity of the victim was unknown. The he
protective (sic) of society against actual and saw the accused. H two weeks later, he
potential wrongdoers." It is not clear heard a radio news that Robert died after
whether petitioner could be considered as falling into a well on the date he witnessed
having actually committed the wrong sought appellants mauling an unknown victim. He
to be punished in the offense charged, but on then narrated what he saw on the night of
the other hand, it can be safely said that the Nov. 20, 1996 to his wfe. Two months later,
actuations of Mrs. Carolina Teng amount to Pagayon recounted what he witnessed to the
that of potential wrongdoers whose mother of the victim.
operations should also be clipped at some RTC and CA: ConvitedPabiona et.al.
point in time in order that the unwary public SC: reversed CA
will not be failing prey to such a vicious
transaction (Aquino, The Revised Penal Equipoise Rule; Where the evidence on an
Code, 1987 Edition, Vol. I, P. 11) issue of fact is in equipoise or there is doubt
Corollary to the above view, is the on which side the evidence preponderates,
application of the theory that "criminal law the party having the burden of proof loses.
is founded upon that moral disapprobation . . the court must acquit the accused because
. of actions which are immoral, i.e., which the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral
are detrimental (or dangerous) to those certainty and therefore is insufficient to
conditions upon which depend the existence support a judgment of conviction.
and progress of human society. This In the case at bar, two antithetical
disappropriation is inevitable to the extent interpretations may be inferred from the
that morality is generally founded and built evidence presented. The pieces of
upon a certain concurrence in the moral circumstantial evidence do not inexorably
opinions of all. . . . That which we call lead to the conclusion that appellants are
punishment is only an external means of guilty of the crime charged.
emphasizing moral disapprobation the The circumstances proffered by the
method of punishment is in reality the prosecution and relied upon by the trial
amount of punishment," (Ibid., P. court only create suspicion that appellants
11, citing People v. RoldanZaballero, CA 54 probably perpetrated the crime
charged. However, it is not sufficient for a
conviction that the evidence establishes a to Sambong Street where the explosion took
strong suspicion or probability of guilt.[63] place. Thereafter, they saw complainant
The basis of acquittal in this case is Leoselie John Baaga being chased by a
reasonable doubt, the evidence for the certain Gil Gepulane. Upon learning that
prosecution not being sufficient to sustain Baaga was the one who threw the
and prove the guilt of appellants with moral pillbox2 that caused the explosion, petitioner
certainty. By reasonable doubt is not meant and his companions also went after him.
that which of possibility may arise but it is On reaching Baagas house, petitioner,
that doubt engendered by an investigation of Cabisudo and Amante knocked on the door.
the whole proof and an inability, after such When no one answered, they decided to hide
an investigation, to let the mind rest easy some distance away. After five minutes,
upon the certainty of guilt.[64] An acquittal Baaga came out of the house. At this
based on reasonable doubt will prosper even juncture, petitioner and his companions
though the appellants innocence may be immediately apprehended him. Baaga's
doubted, for a criminal conviction rests on aunt, Marilyn Alimpuyo, followed them to
the strength of the evidence of the the barangay hall.
prosecutionand not on the weakness of the Baaga was later brought to the police
evidence of the defense station.
Held:Alimpuyo admitted that she did not see who
actually caused the bloodied condition of Baagas
PP V. DIMALANTA 440 SCRA 55 face because she had to first put down the baby she
was then carrying when the melee started.17 More
October 1, 2004 importantly, Alimpuyo stated that she was told by
Equipoise Rule; In the case at bar, the Baaga that, while he was allegedly being held by the
evidence for the prosecution is concededly neck by petitioner, others were hitting him. Alimpuyo
weak. In such cases, even if the evidence for was obviously testifying not on what she personally
defense is also weak, the accused must be saw but on what Baaga told her.
duly accorded the benefit of the doubt in While we ordinarily do not interfere with the
view of the constitutional presumption of findings of the lower courts on the
innocence that an accused enjoys. When the trustworthiness of witnesses, when there
circumstances are capable of two or more appear in the records facts and
inferences, as in this case, one of which is circumstances of real weight which might
consistent with the presumption of have been overlooked or misapprehended,
innocence while the other is compatible with this Court cannot shirk from its duty to sift
guilt, the presumption of innocence must fact from fiction.
prevail and the court must acquit We apply the pro reo principle and the
equipoise rule in this case. Where the
FACTS: On November 10, 1999, appellant evidence on an issue of fact is in question
was charged with Estafa under Article 315, or there is doubt on which side the
paragraph 2 (d) of the Revised Penal Code, evidence weighs, the doubt should be
as amended by Presidential Decree No. 818 resolved in favor of the accused.18 If
inculpatory facts and circumstances are
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, capable of two or more explanations, one
the appealed decision of the Regional Trial consistent with the innocence of the accused
Court of Caloocan City, Branch 121, in and the other consistent with his guilt, then
Criminal Case No. C-58083 (99), is the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant certainty and will not justify a conviction
Josefina M. Dimalanta is ACQUITTED on
grounds of reasonable doubt. The civil
action is DISMISSED, without prejudice to C. Intent/ Motive
the filing of a separate action to recover the
civil liability under the transaction. PP V. DELIM 396 SCRA 386 January 28,
2003
AMANQUITON V. PP 596 SCRA 366 It bears stressing that in determining what
August 14, 2009 crime is charged in an information, the
FACTS: Petitioner Julius Amanquiton was material inculpatory facts recited therein
a purok leader of Barangay Western Bicutan, Taguig, describing the crime charged in relation to
Metro Manila. As apurok leader and barangay tanod, the penal law violated are
he was responsible for the maintenance of controlling. Where the specific intent of
cleanliness, peace and order of the community. the malefactor is determinative of the
At 10:45 p.m. on October 30, 2001, crime charged such specific intent must
petitioner heard an explosion. He, together be alleged in the information and proved
with two auxiliary tanod, Dominador by the prosecution.
Amante1 and a certain Cabisudo, proceeded
The guilt of petitioner was proven beyond found GUILTY of the crime of
reasonable doubt. MALTREATMENT, as defined and
The crime of Estafa under Article 315, punished by Article 266, par. 3 of the
paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code Revised Penal Code. He is accordingly
has the following basic elements: sentenced to suffer the penalty of
Postdating or issuance of a check in imprisonment of arrestomenor of 10 days.
payment of an obligation contracted Considering that appellant has been
simultaneously at the time the check was incarcerated since 2004, which is well-
issued; beyond the period of the penalty herein
The postdating or issuance was done when imposed, the Director of the Bureau of
the offender had no funds in the bank, or Prisons is ordered to cause appellants
that his funds deposited therein were not IMMEDIATE RELEASE, unless appellant
sufficient to cover the amount of the check; is being lawfully held for another cause, and
and to inform this Court, within five (5) days
Damage to the payee thereof (Justice Luis B. from receipt of this Decision, of the
Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Thirteenth compliance therewith.
Edition 1993, Book Two, p. 693; People v. D. Mistake of fact
Panganiban, 335 SCRA 354). US V. AH CHONG 15 Phil. 488
FACTS:
The existence of the foregoing elements of Ah Chong worked as a cook at the
the crime was concretely established by the Officers quarters No. 27, Fort McKinley,
prosecution through convincing evidence, Rizal Province. The said place was a
warranting petitioners conviction of the detached house around 40 meters away from
offense of Estafa. the nearest building. It also served as the
officers mess room. Only Ah Chong and
PP V. MAPALOG.R. No. 172608 PascualGualberto, a muchaho slept in that
February 6, 2007 place. It was not furnished with a permanent
lock. O August 14, 1908, around 10o clock
HELD: Homicidal intent must be evidenced by the in the evening, Ah Chong was suddenly
acts that, at the time of their execution, are awaken because someone had been trying to
unmistakably calculated to produce the death of the open the room. Out of fear, I shouted who
victim by adequate means.97 We cannot infer intent to
kill from the appellants act of hitting Piamonte in the
is there but none replied. Instead, the other
head with a lead pipe. In the first place, wounds were person kept on forcing his entry. Ah Chong
not shown to have been inflicted because of the act. believed that it was a thief, and shouted
Secondly, absent proof of circumstances to show the again if you enter, I will kill you! Again
intent to kill beyond reasonable doubt, this Court none replied. Upon entry, and out of fear
cannot declare that the same was attendant.
Ah Chong inflicted a wound. When he
When the offender shall ill-treat another by
realized, that person was Gualberto. He
deed without causing any injury, and
immediately called his employers and
without causing dishonor, the offense is
dressed Pascuals wound.
Maltreatment under Article 266,98 par. 3 of
ISSUE:
the Revised Penal Code. It was beyond
Whether or not should Ah Chong should
reasonable doubt that by hitting Piamonte,
be exempt from criminal liability?
appellant ill-treated the latter, without
HELD:
causing any injury. As we have earlier
YES. The Supreme Court held that
stated, no proof of injury was offered.
A careful examination of the facts as
Maltreatment is necessarily included in
disclosed in the case at bar convinces us
Murder, which is the offense charged in the
that the defendant Chinaman struck the fatal
Information. Thus:
blow alleged in the information in the firm
ART. 266. Slight physical injuries and
belief that the intruder who forced open the
maltreatment. The crime of slight physical
door of his sleeping room was a thief, from
injuries shall be punished:
whose assault he was in imminent peril, both
x xxx
of his life and of his property and of the
3. By arrestomenor in its minimum period or
property committed to his charge; that in
a fine not exceeding 50 pesos when the
view of all the circumstances, as they must
offender shall ill-treat another by deed
have presented themselves to the defendant
without causing any injury.
at the time, he acted in good faith, without
The duration of the penalty of arrestomenor
malice, or criminal intent, in the belief that
in its minimum period is 1 day to 10 days.
he was doing no more than exercising his
legitimate right of self-defense; that had the
Appellant Bernard Mapalo is ACQUITTED
facts been as he believed them to be he
of the charge of MURDER for lack of
would have been wholly exempt from
evidence beyond reasonable doubt. He is
criminal liability on account of his act; and MUPAS & MUPAS V. PP 172834 February
that he can not be said to have been guilty of 5, 2008
negligence or recklessness or even
carelessness in falling into his mistake as to VALENZUELA V. PP 160188 June 21,
the facts, or in the means adopted by him to 2007
defend himself from the imminent danger
which he believe threatened his person and PP V. QUINANOLA 126148 May 5, 1999
his property and the property under his
charge. PP V. ORANDE 415 SCRA 699 November
12, 2003
E. Mala in Se/ Mala Prohibita
LONEY V. PP 482 SCRA 195 February 10. H. Conspiracy
2006 PP V. PAGALASAN 404 SCRA 275
GARCIA V. CA 484 SCRA 617 March 14, PP V. CASTILLO 425 SCRA 136
2006
PP V. LARRANAGA 421 SCRA 530
F. Article 4: Proximate Cause Theory &
Impossible CeimeDocteine FERNAN et. al. V. PP 145927
Cinsolidated Cases of Villareal V. PP, G.R.
No. 151258 PP V. GARCHITORENA 597 SCRA 420
J. Principals/Accomplices/Accessories
PP V. OCO 412 SCRA 190