I.

COMPLEX CRIME & SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME:

Article 48. Penalty for complex crimes. –

When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or
when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other,
the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed,
the same to be applied in its maximum period.

Complex Crime
Composed of 2 or more crimes punished in different provisions of the Revised Penal Code.
Penalty imposable is the most serious crime in its maximum period.

Special Complex Crime

Made up of 2 or more crimes which are considered as components of a single indivisible offense.
Penalty imposable is specifically provided by law.

II. PERSONS WHO ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE:

Article 17. Principals. - The following are considered principals:

1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act;
2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it;
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not
have been accomplished.

Article 18. Accomplices. - Accomplices are those persons who, not being included in Article 17,
cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.

Article 19. Accessories. - Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime,
and without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its
commission in any of the following manners:
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in order
to prevent its discovery.
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime, provided the
accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of
treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be
habitually guilty of some other crime.

III. MALA IN SE vs MALA PROHIBITA

There are three distinctions between mala in se and mala prohibita:

1. A crime mala in se is a natural wrong. On the other hand, an offense mala prohibita is a wrong only
because it is prohibited by law;

2. In the commission of a crime mala in se, intent is an element whereas in the commission of an offense
mala prohibita, criminal intent is immaterial; and

3. Crimes mala in se are punished by the Revised Penal Code although the Revised Penal Code may cover
special laws while offense mala prohibita are punished by special laws.

IV. While X was is at the beach, he saw a woman half naked, X then had intercourse with the woman
who turned out to be dead. Is this a case of impossible crime?

V. S the son of C the Chief of Police assaulted X without any justifiable reason, thereby inflicting
upon X physical injuries. C with abuse of his public function, did not enter in the police blotter the
incident in question. When charge with the crime of slight physical injuries and a warrant of arrest
was issued, C prevented the execution of the warrant of arrest against his son. Is C, the Chief of
Police, criminally liable? If so, to what class of offender does he belong?

VI. May a person be held criminally liable when he has no criminal intent?
Yes. Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa). There is
deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent and there is fault when the wrongful act results from
imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
VII. With intent to kill, Alex hacked Mario with a sharp bladed bolo, to repel the attack Mario parry the
bolo with a lead pipe hitting not only the hand of Alex holding the bolo but also the head of a
bystander who died as a result of the injuries the latter sustained. Is Mario criminally liable for the
death of the bystander?

Article 4. Criminal liability. - Criminal liability shall be incurred:

1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that
which he intended.

VIII. ABERRATIO ICTUS: ERROR IN PERSONAE; AND PRAETER INTENTIONEM

Aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow occurs when the offender delivered the blow at his intended victim
but missed, and instead such blow landed on an unintended victim. The situation generally brings about
complex crimes where from a single act, two or more grave or less grave felonies resulted, namely the
attempt against the intended victim and the consequence on the unintended victim. As complex crimes, the
penalty for the more serious crime shall be the one imposed and in the maximum period. It is only when the
resulting felonies are only light that complex crimes do not result and the penalties are to be imposed
distinctly for each resulting crime.

Error in personae or mistake in identity occurs when the offender actually hit the person to whom the blow
was directed but turned out to be different from and not the victim intended. The criminal liability of the
offender is not affected, unless the mistake in identity resulted to a crime different from what the offender
intended to commit, in which case the lesser penalty between the crime intended and the crime committed
shall be imposed but in the maximum period (Art. 49. RPC).

Praeter intentionem or where the consequence went beyond that intended or expected. This is a mitigating
circumstance (Art. 13, par. 3, RPC) when there is a notorious disparity between the act or means employed
by the offender and the resulting felony, i.e., the resulting felony could not be reasonably anticipated or
foreseen by the offender from the act or means employed by him.

IX. While in the heat of anger Doctor Andal shot his driver D thereby inflicting upon D a fatal gunshot
wound, while D was in pain, Doctor Andal pitted him, he took D to the hospital and perform the
surgical operation that save the driver’s life. Is Dr. Andal criminally liable? If so, what is the proper
offense chargeable?

When Dr. Andal treated his own victim, this amounted to desistance, it obliterated the intent to kill, then he
can be liable for physical injuries inflicted depending upon the duration of the injuries sustained.

Effect of Desistance?
The spontaneous desistance of a malefactor exempts him from criminal liability for the intended
crime but it does not exempt him from the crime committed by him before his desistance

THREE STAGES IN THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME

Article 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. -

Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.

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

There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly or over
acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of
some cause or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance.

What is Over Act?

is some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more than a
mere planning or preparation, which if carried to its complete termination following its natural
course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by voluntary desistance of the
perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense.
 What is Proximate Cause?
that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause,
produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.

X. When X was then at the parking area, Y pick pocketed the wallet of X. While the wallet was in Y’s
possession, he noticed that it was his own wallet that was lost a week ago. Is Y criminally liable?

Article 4. Criminal liability. - Criminal liability shall be incurred:

2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it
not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the employment of
inadequate or ineffectual means.

XI. May the provisions of the Revised Penal Code enforce outside the jurisdiction of the Philippines?

Article 2. Application of its provisions. - Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential
application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago,
including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against
those who:

1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship

2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and
securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and
securities mentioned in the presiding number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their
functions; or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title
One of Book Two of this Code.

XII. A team of investigators was sent to California, with Ligaya as the stenographer, while they were
there, a certain Trixie falsified the work of Ligaya both employees of the Philippine Government.
Can Trixie, who falsified the TSN of Ligaya be held liable for falsification of public document
committed in California?

No. offense committed not in relation to official function. While it is true that they are both employees of
the Philippine Government, the act committed by Trixie in falsifying the work of another employee does not
fall under Art 2. par 4 of the RPC.

Article 2. Application of its provisions. - Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential
application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago,
including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against
those who:

4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their
functions

Article 7. When light felonies are punishable. - Light felonies are punishable only when they have been
consummated, with the exception of those committed against person or property.

Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. — The following do not incur any criminal liability:
There is no crime committed, the act being justified.
No crime committed
No civil liability
With Civil liability for Par.4

Art. 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. —exempt from criminal liability:
No criminal liability
With civil liability
No Civil liability for Par.4

Prescription of the crime – is the forfeiture or loss of the right of the State to prosecute the offender after
the lapse of a certain time.

Prescription of the penalty – is the loss or forfeiture of the Government to execute the final sentence after
the lapse of a certain time. there be final judgment
period of time prescribed by law for its enforcement has lapsed.
BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME (BWS)
People vs Genosa G.R. No. 135981. January 15, 2004

In order to be classified as a battered woman, the couple must go through the battering cycle at least
twice. Any woman may find herself in an abusive relationship with a man once. If it occurs a second time,
and she remains in the situation, she is defined as a battered woman.

More graphically, the battered woman syndrome is characterized by the so-called cycle of violence, which
has three phases: (1) the tension-building phase;
(2) the acute battering incident; and
(3) the tranquil, loving (or, at least, nonviolent) phase.

During the tension-building phase, minor battering occurs -- it could be verbal or slight physical
abuse or another form of hostile behavior. The woman usually tries to pacify the batterer through a show
of kind, nurturing behavior; or by simply staying out of his way. What actually happens is that she allows
herself to be abused in ways that, to her, are comparatively minor. All she wants is to prevent the escalation
of the violence exhibited by the batterer. This wish, however, proves to be double-edged, because her
placatory and passive behavior legitimizes his belief that he has the right to abuse her in the first place.

However, the techniques adopted by the woman in her effort to placate him are not usually successful, and
the verbal and/or physical abuse worsens. Each partner senses the imminent loss of control and the growing
tension and despair. Exhausted from the persistent stress, the battered woman soon withdraws emotionally.
But the more she becomes emotionally unavailable, the more the batterer becomes angry, oppressive and
abusive. Often, at some unpredictable point, the violence spirals out of control and leads to an acute battering
incident.

The acute battering incident is said to be characterized by brutality, destructiveness and, sometimes,
death. The battered woman deems this incident as unpredictable, yet also inevitable. During this phase, she
has no control; only the batterer may put an end to the violence. Its nature can be as unpredictable as the
time of its explosion, and so are his reasons for ending it. The battered woman usually realizes that she
cannot reason with him, and that resistance would only exacerbate her condition.

At this stage, she has a sense of detachment from the attack and the terrible pain, although she may later
clearly remember every detail. Her apparent passivity in the face of acute violence may be rationalized thus:
the batterer is almost always much stronger physically, and she knows from her past painful experience that
it is futile to fight back. Acute battering incidents are often very savage and out of control, such that innocent
bystanders or intervenors are likely to get hurt.

The final phase of the cycle of violence begins when the acute battering incident ends. During this
tranquil period, the couple experience profound relief. On the one hand, the batterer may show a tender
and nurturing behavior towards his partner. He knows that he has been viciously cruel and tries to make up
for it, begging for her forgiveness and promising never to beat her again. On the other hand, the battered
woman also tries to convince herself that the battery will never happen again; that her partner will change
for the better; and that this good, gentle and caring man is the real person whom she loves.

A battered woman usually believes that she is the sole anchor of the emotional stability of the batterer.
Sensing his isolation and despair, she feels responsible for his well-being. The truth, though, is that the
chances of his reforming, or seeking or receiving professional help, are very slim, especially if she remains
with him. Generally, only after she leaves him does he seek professional help as a way of getting her back.
Yet, it is in this phase of remorseful reconciliation that she is most thoroughly tormented psychologically.

The illusion of absolute interdependency is well-entrenched in a battered womans psyche. In this phase, she
and her batterer are indeed emotionally dependent on each other -- she for his nurturant behavior, he for
her forgiveness. Underneath this miserable cycle of tension, violence and forgiveness, each partner may
believe that it is better to die than to be separated. Neither one may really feel independent, capable of
functioning without the other.

We now sum up our main points. First, each of the phases of the cycle of violence must be proven to have
characterized at least two battering episodes between the appellant and her intimate partner. Second, the
final acute battering episode preceding the killing of the batterer must have produced in the battered persons
mind an actual fear of an imminent harm from her batterer and an honest belief that she needed to use force
in order to save her life. Third, at the time of the killing, the batterer must have posed probable -- not
necessarily immediate and actual -- grave harm to the accused, based on the history of violence perpetrated
by the former against the latter. Taken altogether, these circumstances could satisfy the requisites of self-
defense. Under the existing facts of the present case, however, not all of these elements were duly
established.