Criminal Law -branch/division of law which defines crimes,
treats of their nature and provides for their punishment
Crime - act committed or omitted in violation of a public law
forbidding or commanding it
*No common law crimes in the Philippines
*State has authority under its police power to punish crimes and to
lay down the rules of criminal procedure.
*Right of prosecution and punishment for a crime belong to
sovereign power
Limitations on power of lawmaking body to enact penal legislation
No Ex post facto law or Bill of attainder shall be enacted
No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without
due process of law
Ex post facto law is one which:
 Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law
 Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was
 Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater
punishment
 Alters legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction
upon less or different testimony than the law required
 Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only
 Deprives a person accused of crime some lawful
protection
*Bill of Attainder - legislative act which inflicts punishment
without trial
*Giving a law retroactive application to prejudice of accused is to
make an ex post facto law
Construction of Penal Laws Liberally in favor of the accused
strictly against the State
Doctrine of Equipoise
– when the evidence of the prosecution and of the
defense is equally balanced, the scale should be tilted in favor of
the accused in obedience to the constitutional presumption of
innocence.
Doctrine of Pro Reo
– when a circumstance is susceptible to two interpretations, one
favorable to the accused and the other against him, that
interpretation favorable to him shall prevail
Constitutional rights of the accused
1. Right to Speedy disposition of cases
2. Right to Due process of law
3. Right to Bail (except reclusion perpetua)
4. Presumed innocent until contrary
5. Not be compelled to be witness against himself
6. No excessive fines
7. No double jeopardy
8. Free access to courts
Statutory rights of accused
Presumed innocent until proven contrary
Informed of Nature and cause of accusation against him
Present and defend in person by counsel at every stage
Exempt from being a witness against self
Testify as witness in his own behalf subject to cross
examination
Confront and cross-examine witnesses against him
Compulsory process
Speedy, impartial public trial
Appeal in all cases allowed and prescribed by law
Characteristics of Criminal (Penal) Laws
1. General– means that the criminal law of the country governs all
persons within the country regardless of their race, belief, sex, or
creed.
*It is well settled that a consul is not entitled to the privileges and
immunities of an ambassador or minister, but is subject to the laws
and regulations of the country to which he is accredited.
Schneckenburger vs. Moran, 63 Phil. 250 (1936)
2. Territorial – penal laws of the country have force and effect
within its territory.
3. Prospective– penal laws only operate prospectively (moving
forward); also called irretrospectivity.
*When military courts take cognizance of the case of person
subject to military law, Articles of War apply not RPC/other
law
Exceptions to general application of Criminal Law
PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES
ART 16. WHO ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE:
 GRAVE/ LESS GRAVE FELONIES
1) Principals
2) Accomplices
3) Accessories
 LIGHT FELONIES
1) Principals
2)Accomplices
Treble division of persons criminally responsible for an
offense rest upon the very nature of their participation in
the commission of the crime.
*Crime commited by many
- without being equally shared by all
- a different degree of responsibility imposed
- liable as Principal, Accomplice, Accessories
Accesories are not liable for light felonies
- commission of light felonies (social wrong, individual
prejudice) so small that penal sanction is deemed not
necessary.
Rules relative to LIGHT FELONIES:
 1. Only punishable when consummated (ART.7)
2. Against persons/property punishable even if
ATTEMPTED/FRUSTRATED stage of execution (ART.7)
3. Principals and Accomplices are Liable(ART.16)
4. Accessories are NOT LIABLE for Light Felonies (ART.16)
In all crimes there are 2 parties
- ACTIVE SUBJECT (CRIMINAL)
-PASSIVE SUBJECT(INJURED PARTY)
*Passive subject of a crime - holder of injured rights (The
Man, the Juristic Person, The Group, The State)
*Corporation/Partnership CANNOT be the Active subject,
but can be the Passive subject of a crime.
(People VS Campos)
*Criminal actions are restricted/limited to the officials of the
corporation and never directed against the corporation itself.
In criminal cases, defendants are brought before the court
through warrants of arrest which are issued only against natural
persons. (West Coast Life Ins Co. VS Hurd)
Juridical persons are criminally liable under certain special laws.
Corporations may be fined for certain violations of provisions
on:
 B.P. Blg. 68 (Corporation Code of the Philippines)
 Com. Act No. 146 (Public Service Law)
 The Securities Law
 Election Code

*Only natural persons can be active subject of a crime
because of the highly personal nature of criminal
responsibility;
*A Natural person can be the subject of the crime, because
he alone by his act can set in motion a cause or by his
inaction make the completion of a developing modification
in the external world.
Only officers of the Corporation who participated are liable:
- Principals by direct participation or
- Principals by induction/by cooperation or
- as Accomplices in the commission of an act punishable by law
General Rule:
A director/ other officer of a corporation is criminally liable for
his acts, though in his official capacity, if he participated in the
unlawful act either directly/ as an aider, abbettor or accessory.
BUT NOT LIABLE criminally for the corporate acts of other
officers or agents .

Rationale: Manager of Partnership is liable even if there is no

a) RPC requires culprit should have acted with personal malice evidence of his participation in the commission of the
or negligence offense.
b) Juridical person cannot commit a crime when willful purpose- Manager of Partnership is criminally liable, even in the
/ malicious intent is required absence of evidence regarding his direct participation in the
c) There is substitution of deprivation of liberty(subsidiary commission of the offense.
imprisonment) for pecuniary penalties in case of insolvency of - Although the General Rule is that a
the accused. Corporation/Partnership can only act through its officers and
Emphasis: their agents, the President/Manager can be held criminally
 Culprit should have acted with personal malice/ liable for the violation of a law by the entity. (People VS Lao
negligence; Artificial/juridical person cannot act with Chio)
malice or negligence
 Corporation cannot commit a crime in which willful *CORPORATION
purpose/malicious intent was required -only officers who participated in the commission of an act
 There is substitution of deprivation of liberty for punishable by law are liable (Principals by direct
pecuniary liberties in cases of insolvency participation, by induction, by cooperation; as Accomplices)
d) Other penalties consisting in IMPRISONMENT, and other -acted in his official capacity but participated in the unlawful
DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY, like destierro, can be executed act directly, as an aider, abettor, accessory
against individuals.
*PARTNERSHIP
Officers are criminally liable. Not the Corporation -Manager of Partnership is criminally liable even in the
Rationale: absence of evidence regarding direct participation in the
- A Corporation can act only through its officers/incorporators;commission of the offense.
- Any violation of the law committed by an officer of a
corporation, in the exercise of duties, criminally answers for his*CORPSE/ANIMAL cannot be PASSIVE SUBJECT
acts and not the corporation which he belongs to; -Dead and Animals have no rights that may be injured
- An artifical person cannot be prosecuted criminally. EXCEPTION:
 ART 353 Defamation may be committed if the imputation
tends to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
ART. 17 PRINCIPALS
Those who:
1) Take a direct part in the execution of the act
2) Directly force/induce others to commit it
3)Cooperate in the commission of the offense by another
without which it would not have been accomplished
2 or more persons participating in the crime
*SINGLE INDIVIDUAL commits crime
-no difficulty in determining participation
-always a principal by direct participation
*2 or More persons involved
-necessary to determine participation of each
a. Principals by direct participation (Par 1)
b. Principals by induction (Par 2)
c. One Principal by direct participation and the other a
Principal by indispensible cooperation (Par 3)
Illustration
- A promises money and reward, induces B to Kill C, person
living on an island far from the mainland.
- D owner of only motor boat in the place and knowing the
criminal designs of A and B offered to transport and actually
transported B to island.
-B alone killed C.
*A - Principal, directly induced B to kill C
B - Princpial, directly participated in execution of felony support a finding of conspiracy
(killing C)
D - Principal cooperated in the commission of the offense
by another act, without which the commission of the offense appreciable length of time prior to execution of purpose
would not have been accomplished
Difference between Principal and Co-Conspirator
Principal - Criminal Liability is limited to his own acts
Co-Conspirator - Responsibility includes acts of his fellow expressly/impliedly, to commit felony and forthwith decide
conspirators
Par. 1 Principals by Direct participation
Take direct part in execution of the act
- one who personally executes the act
- one who personally commits crime in obedience to an
order or because of inducement
ex.
killing another - principal by direct participation in crime of
homicide
burning house of another - direct participation in arson
*Person who orders or induces another to commit a crime
is NOT a PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION
2 or more offenders as principals by direct participation
*2 or more persons who took part in commission of crime
are principals by direct participation
Requisites:
1) They participated in the criminal resolution
2) Carried out their plan and personally took part in its
execution by acts which directly tended to the same end.
1st REQUISITE Participation in criminal resolution
-conspiracy at the time of commission of crime charged.
-conspiracy or unity of purpose and intention commission of
crime charged
Conspiracy
- when 2 or more come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a crime and decide to commit it
-must be established that he performed an act in
furtherance of the conspiracy (active participation, moral
assistance)
*Mere knowledge, acquiescence, approval of act without
cooperation/agreement to cooperate does not constitute
Conspiracy; There must be intentional participation in the
transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common
design and purpose.
Silence does not make one a conspirator
-not a circumstance indicating participation in crime
Conspiracy transcends companionship
-2 accused left together, 1 gave warning to victim, cannot
Existence of conspiracy
-does not require necessarily an agreement for an
-conspiracy exists: at the same time of the commission of
the offense, accused had same purpose and united in its
execution (People VS Binasing)
- rises at the very instant plotters agree,
to pursue it. (People VS Talla)
Proof of Conspiracy
a. DIRECT EVIDENCE consists of:
-Interlocking extra judicial confessions of several accused
-testimony of one of the accused who is discharged and
made a witness against co-accused
*if NO COLLUSION - confessions may confirm/corroborate
evidence
*2 or more extrajudicial confessions given separately
untainted by collusion and tally with each other, are
admissible as evidence of conspiracy of the declarants.
b. ESTABLISH CONSPIRACY -which is not possible without previous knowledge of criminal
-proof of agreement and decision to commit NOT purpose (People VS Cruz)
ESSENTIAL
-malefactors shall have acted in concert pursuant to same People VS Ortiz and Zausa
objective ESSENTIAL/SUFFICIENT Facts:
-Bancoyo deceased, accused Ortiz and Zausa
Formal agreement/Previous acquaintance among persons -Bancoyo asked for water from nearby occupants before
not necessary in conspiracy going home
It is SUFFICIENT that: -Bancoyo asked Ortiz for water, declined, claiming they had
 their minds meet understandingly; bring about no water to serve him
intelligent and deliberate agreement to commit -Ortiz descended from house with shotgun pointing at
offense charge deceased; struggled for possession of weapon
 at the time of aggression all accused manifested -Zausa took spear from house, stabbed deceased in left side
common intent/desire to attack by their acts so that of abdomen, intestines protruded. Died of peritonitis.
act of one accused becomes act of all. Held:
IMPLIED CONSPIRACY: Defense contended Ortiz should be acquitted because he did
a. Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence. not take part in attack made by Zausa and there was no
Proof that 2 or more persons aimed accomplishment previous agreement between them to commit crime.
of unlawful object, even if acted independently, but Court held no plan or agreement between them to carry out
were in fact connected and cooperative, indicating a attack as interval of time in commission of crime is insufficient
closeness of personal association and concurrence of to give rise to criminal agreement alleged in information.
sentiment CONSPIRACY EXISTS and may be inferred
though no actual meeting among them is proved

b. Conspiracy is shown where

-Offenders were all present at the scene of the crime
-acted in concert in attacking victims by their concerted
action
Conspiracy must be established by positive and conclusive
evidence
-may be IMPLIED from circumstances attending commission
of crime BUT must be ESTABLISHED BY POSITIVE AND
CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE
-Proof beyond reasonable doubt needed
-Mere presence at scene of crime - not itself sufficient to
establish conspiracy. (People vs Taaca)
-Accused to be GUILTY AS CO-PRINCIPAL:
 Actively participated in commission of crime
 lending moral assistance(present at the crime)
 exerting moral ascendancy
(People VS Peralta)
NO Conspiracy, offender is LIABLE only for act performed
- No conspiracy or unity of purpose and intention
- no participation in criminal resolution
*HOMICIDE - immediate participation in criminal design of
slayer is essential , when one who alleged to have taken part b. ACTIVE COOPERATION by all the offenders in perpetration
in killing but not materially contributing to injury
Participation in Criminal Resolution essential
Cooperation which law punishes is :
-ASSISTANCE which is knowingly and intentionally given and NECESARY that assailants are animated by one and same
No conspiracy shown by acts of defendant
-harm or injury caused by accused did not cause death of
victim nor materially contribute to it in order that he may be
held liable, liability is only limited to injury caused. (People VS
Quiosay)
-spontaneity of the respective reactions of several accused
resulting in an attack where they all participated rules out
existence of conspiracy; liabilities determined by nature of
individual participation in felonious act (People VS Lacao)
Conspiracy shown by circumstances
Conspiracy is Implied when the accused had a common
purpose and were united in its execution.
Unity of purpose and intention in commission of crime
a. SPONTANEOUS AGREEMENT at the moment of the
commission of the crime is sufficient to create joint
responsibility
EX. 2 accused accept challenge of deceased; acceptance of
challenge and their concert of attack show community of
purpose and design.
of crime creates JOINT RESPONSIBILITY
*No participation in criminal design when the act of one came
so close upon the heel of the other
-NOT SUFFICIENT that attack is joint and simultaneous,
purpose
 - If a number of persons agree to commit and enter upon the
c. CONTRIBUTING BY POSITIVE ACTS to the realization of a commission of a crime, which endangers human life such as
common criminal intent also creates joint responsibility robbery, all of them are responsible for the death of person
EX. that ensues as a consequence ( Boyd VS US)
1. Homicide committed by act of one of 2 accused in shooting EXCEPTION:
the deceased with a gun, supplied by co-accused, latter Liability of offenders in robbery committed by a band:
contributed to commission of homicide by various other any member of a band is liable for any assault committed by
significant acts. BOTH CONVICTED AS PRINCIPALS other members of a band, unless it be shown that he
(People VS Agbuya) Family feud/Bad blood- criminal intent attempted to prevent the same.

2. Wound which caused victim's death not inflicted by Conspiracy to commit a felony all conspirators are liable for its
accused but by his co-accused, being the instigator and consequences
aggressor, calling aid of his harvesters (co-accused) criminal
act is started by him. Common criminal intent shown by unity Conspirator is not liable for another's crime which is not an
of purpose and intention of all offenders. (People VS Mancao) object of conspiracy/not logical consequence thereof.
- Other conspirators not held liable for killings of persons not
d. PRESENCE during the commission of the crime by a band covered by the conspiracy
and LENDING MORAL SUPPORT, creates joint responsibility -Other acts done outside contemplation of co-conspirators
with material executors. /not necessary and logical consequence of intended crime,
EX. Accused by concerted action met together and witnessed only actual perpetrators are liable.
capture and killing of deceased. JOINTLY RESPONSIBLE - When conspirators select particular individual to be their
-some took direct part in commission of crime victim, another person killed by one of them, conspirator
-others determined as instigators induced others to commit who killed another person would be liable .
-remainder cooperated in the same by their presence and
lending their moral support. (US VS Ancheta)
5 of a band among them accused, took Americans from house Conspiracy may cover persons previously undetermined
and led them away. Americans killed by 2 members of band in -Accused liable for all natural and inherent consequences
presence of accused and other 3 of band. when there is a general plan to kill anyone who puts up
Held: It is no importance that accused did not himself strike violent resistance.
blow/blow which victims were killed. It is sufficient that he
was present at the place of the commission of the act, *All conspirators are liable for consequences of conspiracy
augmenting with his arms and presence . to commit a felony
- one who voluntarily lent his assistance of thought and EXCEPTION:
action for realization of criminal object, increasing strength of  Consequence not object of conspiracy/logical
band. (US VS Santos) consequence (individual liability incurred)
 Outside contemplation of co-conspirators
*Conspiracy is presumed when crime is committed by a band
Persons in conspiracy with others, who desists before crime
Conspiracy even if no evident premeditation of accused is committed is not criminally liable
-an agreement for an appreciable time prior to occurrence
NOT NECESSARY Conspiracy, not necessary to ascertain specific act of each
-CONSPIRACY EXISTS at the time of commission of offense, conspirator
accused had same purpose and were united in execution. -ACT OF ONE ACT OF ALL;
-All persons taking part in crime guilty as principals
Liability of participants where there is conspiracy -Each responsible for acts of others done in furtherance of
-ACT OF ONE ACT OF ALL; collective criminal responsibility conspiracy
 where conspiracy adequately proven, all conspirators -Degree of actual participation is immaterial
are liable as co-principals regardless of the extent and
character of their participation When there is Conspiracy, the fact that an element of the
 all will be held equally guilty as principals irrespective offense is not present as regards one of the conspirators is
of individual participation in material act of crime immaterial.
Complex crime of seduction by means of usurpation
Liability of conspirator for another conspirators acts which -accused pretended to be minister authorized to perform
differ radically and substantially from that which they marriage ceremonies
intended to commit
-simulated marriage ceremony with co-accused and a girl to Profession driver criminally liable as co-principal of
deceive her
-performance of official function present to accused only
-court held both are guilty
In multiple rape each rapist equally liable for other rapes selling adulterated coffee
-defendant is not only responsible for rape personally
committed but also for rape committed by others
-each cooperated in commission of rape perpetrated by
others, by acts without which it would not have been
accomplished
EXCEPTIONS
1. PARRICIDE
- WIFE and SON killed deceased - both Parricide
- WIFE and STRANGER
WIFE - Parricide
STRANGER - Homicide/Murder
*Personal relations of offender with offended party
Aggravates liability
2. MURDER WITH TREACHERY
-All offenders must have knowledge of employment of
treachery at the time of the execution of act/cooperation
Illustration
A and B conspired to kill C
a. only A employed treachery but B was present during
killing and knew employment of treachery
BOTH LIABLE FOR MURDER
b. B not present during killing (remained at gate of C) and
did not know employment of treachery
A liable for MURDER
B liable for HOMICIDE
*RATIONALE:
means employed to accomplish crime shall serve to
AGGRAVATE LIABILITY of persons who had knowledge of
them at the execution of the act/cooperation therein.
No conspiracy to commit an offense through negligence
-injuries inflicted due to reckless imprudence/negligence of
2 or more persons - NO CONSPIRACY
*CONSPIRACY - presupposes agreement and decision to
commit felony
Criminal Negligence/Crimes punishable by special law
Allowing/Failing to prevent an act performed by another
makes one a co-principal
EX.
a. -Driver allows conductor to drive truck
-bumps a jeepney, kills a passenger
homicide and damage to property through reckless
negligence . BOTH CO-PRINCIPALS(People VS Santos)
b. Store owner held crim. liable for act of his employee in
-Store owner did no not coffee was sold by his employee
BOTH CO-PRINCIPALS (US VS Siy Cong Bieng and Co Kong)
2nd REQUISITE Carried out their plan and personally took
part in its execution
Principals by direct participation must be
at the scene of the crime
personally taking part in its execution
EXCEPTION:
Conspiracy to kidnap and kill victim
-by kidnapping the victim he already performed his part and
the killing was done by his co-conspirators in pursuance of
conspiracy
Acts of each offender must directly tend to same end
Principals by direct participation personally take part in
execution of common purpose NOT NECESSARY each of
them perform a positive act directly contributing to
accomplishment of common purpose.
EX.
-Murder; offenders previously agreed to commit
-one inflicts fatal wound
-one holds down victim
-one waits at door to prevent any help rendered
*Acts of all directed to same end - killing their victim
COLLECTIVE CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
One who serves as guard pursuant to conspiracy is a
Principal by Direct Participation
- keeps others away/warns fellow-conspirators of danger of
discovery
-takes direct part in commission of crime
-guard - is present, aiding and abetting in commission of
crime.
EXCEPTION
-Accused acts as guards near place of crime
-did so in obedience of superiors
-without knowledge deceased would be killed
*RATIONALE:
Mere passive presence at the scene of another's crime does
not constitute complicity
*When 2nd REQ lacking, only Conspiracy
Conspiracy alone without execution of its purpose is not a
crime punishable by law except in special instances (ART.8)
Par. 1 Principals by Induction
-Those who directly force/induce others to commit it
-comprises price, promise of reward, command pacto
Principal by Induction/Inducement becomes liable only
when the principal by direct participation committed the act
induced
-One cannot be held guilty of having instigated the
commission of the crime, without first being shown that the
crime was actually committed.
Ways of becoming Principal by Induction
1) directly forcing another to commit crime
2) directly inducing another to commit crime
1) directly forcing another to commit crime
a) using irresistible force
b) causing uncontrollable fear
*No conspiracy; One using force/causing fear is criminally
liable. Material executor not criminally liable because of
ART 12, par 5 and 6
2) directly inducing another to commit crime
a) giving price/offering reward/promise
*one giving price/offer/promise (Principal by Inducement)
*one committing crime in consideration therof (P by Direct
Participation)
*BOTH PRINCIPALS; COLLECTIVE CRIM. RESP.
b) using words of command
*person who used words of command
*person who commits crime
*BOTH LIABLE; COLLECTIVE CRIM. RESP.
PRINCIPAL BY INDUCEMENT
REQSTS:
1. Inducement be made directly with intention of procuring
commission of crime
2. Such inducement - determining cause of commission of
crime by material executor
*Inducer - must have
-most positive resolution
-most persistent effort to secure commission of crime
-presentation to person induced very strongest kind of
temptation to commit crime.
Thoughtless expression without intention to produce result
- NOT AN INDUCEMENT TO COMMIT CRIME
-thoughtless expression WITHOUT expectation/intention
that it would produce result NOT INDUCEMENT
(IMPRUDENT ADVICE)
-persons who gave advice had no intention to procure
commission of crime
*Inducement
-by acts of command, advice, influence, agreement for
consideration
Words of advice/ Influence must gave actually moved hands
of Principal by Direct Participation
Minor - no discernment, susceptible to inducement
influence of inducer - determining cause of commission of
crime
*Words of command of Father may induce son to commit
crime - DOMINANCE, ASCENDANCY
2ND REQ
-Inducement - determining cause of commission of crime
-without such inducement, crime would not have been
commited
*If Principal by Direct Participation had personal reason to
commit crime, even without inducement, 2nd req does not
exist.
Inducement must
*precede that act induced
* so influential in producing criminal act that without it act
would not have been performed
*Price given after crime, without prior promise to
pay/reward NO INDUCEMENT
By using words of command
-imprudent utterance not a command
-inciting words must have great dominance and influence
over person who acts
-efficacious and powerful as physical /moral coercion
*Inducement made in a way as to become
-determining cause of crime
-inducement was uttered with intention of producing
result
Persons using WORDS OF COMMAND may be liable as
Principal By Inducement:
5 REQUISITES
1) One uttering words of command must have intention of
procuring commission of crime
2) One who made command must have acted in ascendency
or influence over person who acted
3) words used must be so direct/efficacious/powerful as to
amount to moral coercion
4) words of command prior to commission of crime
5) Material executor has no personal reason to commit
crime
Ascendancy/Influence as to amount to moral coercion not
necessary in Conspiracy
-ascendancy/influence of words so efficacious and powerful
unnecessary when there is promise to condone
indebtedness

One who planned crime committed by another is a Principal

by Inducement

Crime committed not contemplated in order given,

Inducement is immaterial and not determining cause
- death of women and children not included in order to kill.
Accused not guilty of their murder.

Principal by inducement in falsification

-employee innocent agent of accused, employee not
criminally liable because he had no knowledge of falsity of
facts supplied by accused.

Distinguish
Principal by inducement from
Offender who made proposal to commit feloy