Mary Ann P.
Masangcay 4LM2 - Article III (Bill of Rights) of the 1987 Constitution provides the
CRIMES AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM WEEK 1
A. DECS VS SAN DIEGO
B. LAW ACCORDING TO ST. THOMAS AQUINAS
- Law is nothing other than a certain dictate of reason for the common
good, made by him who has the care of the community and
promulgated.
C. THREE INHERENT POWERS OF THE STATE
a. Police Power - is the power of promoting the public welfare
by restraining and regulating the use of both liberty and property of
all the people.
b. Eminent Domain - affects only property rights; it may be exercised
by some private entities; a property is taken for public use or
purpose upon payment of just compensation.
c. Taxation – affects only property rights and may be exercised
ONLY by the government; the property taken shall be intended for
a public use or purpose; used solely for the purpose of raising
revenues, to protect the people and extend them benefits in the
form of public projects and services.
D. CRIMINAL LAW
- Criminal law is that branch or division of law which defines crimes, treats
of their nature, and provides for their punishment.
- branch of public law which defines criminal offenses and prescribes
specific punishment for them
- branch of public law because it treats of acts or omissions of the citizens
which are deemed primarily as wrongs against the State more than against
the offended party
E. CRIME
- an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or
commanding it.
- Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege – there is no crime when there is
no law punishing it
F. SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW
- The Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) and its amendments.
- Special Penal Laws passed by the Philippine Commission, Philippine
Assembly, Philippine Legislature, National Assembly, the Congress of
the Philippines, and the Batasang Pambansa
- Penal Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law.
G. CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATION ON PENAL LEGISLATION
following limitations on the inherent right of the State through
Legislature to enact penal laws:
o “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without the due process of law, nor shall any person be denied
the equal protection of the laws.” (Section 1) Thus, the law
must be general in application so as not to violate the equal
protection clause.
o “No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other
means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him.
Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other
similar forms of detentions are prohibited. (Section 12[2]) No
law, therefore, must be passed imposing cruel and unusual
punishment or excessive fines.
o “No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted”
(Section 22)
▪ An ex post facto law is a penal law which is given
retroactive application to the prejudice of the
accused.
▪ makes criminal an act done before the passage of the
law and which was innocent when done, and
punishes such an act;
▪ aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was,
when committed;
▪ changes the punishment and inflicts a greater
punishment than the law annexed to the crime when
committed;
▪ alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes
conviction upon less or different testimony than the
law required at the time of the commission of the
offense;
▪ assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in
effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for
something which when done was lawful;
▪ deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful
protection to which he has become entitled, such as
the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a
proclamation of amnesty. (In re: Kay Villegas Kami,
Inc., 35 SCRA 429, 431)
▪ A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts
punishment without trial. Its essence is the
substitution of a legislative act for a judicial
determination of guilt. (People vs. Ferrer, 48 SCRA
382, 395)
1

H. THREE MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW
- GENERAL, in that criminal law is binding on all persons who live or
sojourn in Philippine territory. (Art. 14, new Civil Code)
o Exception: There are cases where our Criminal Law does not
apply even if the crime is committed by a person residing or
sojourning in the Philippines. These constitute the exceptions.
The opening sentence of Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code
says that the provisions of this Code shall be enforced within
the Philippine Archipelago, "except as provided in the treaties
and laws of preferential Article 14 of the new Civil Code
provides that penal laws and those of public security and
safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in
Philippine territory, subject to the principles public
international law and to treaty stipulations.
- TERRITORIAL
o Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the
provisions of said code shall be enforced within the Philippine
Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and
maritime zone.
o Exceptions:
▪ The same Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code
provides that its provisions shall be enforced outside
of the jurisdiction of the Philippines against those
who:
• Should commit an offense while on a
Philippine ship or airship;
• Should forge or counterfeit any coin or
currency note of the Philippines or
obligations and securities issued by the
Government of the Philippines;
• Should be liable for acts connected with the
introduction into the Philippines of the
obligations and securities mentioned in the
preceding number;
• While being public officers or employees,
should commit an offense in the exercise of
their functions;
• Should commit any of the crimes against
national security and the law of nations,
defined in Title One of Book Two of the
Revised Penal Code.
- PROSPECTIVE, in that a penal law cannot make an act punishable in
a manner in which it was not punishable when committed. As
provided in Article 366 of the Revised Penal Code, crimes are
punished under the laws in force at the time of their commission.
o Exception:
▪ Whenever a new statute dealing with crime
establishes conditions more lenient or favorable to
the accused, it can be given a retroactive effect.
• But this exception has no application:
o Where the new law is expressly
made inapplicable to pending
actions or existing causes of action.
(Tavera vs. Valdez, 1 Phil. 463,
470-471)
o Where the offender is a habitual
criminal under Rule 5, Article 62,
Revised Penal Code. (Art. 22,
RPC)
I. HOW ARE PENAL LAWS CONSTRUED?
- Penal laws are strictly construed against the Government and liberally
in favor of the accused. (U.S. vs. Abad Santos, 36 Phil. 243; People
vs. Yu Hai, 99 Phil. 728) The rule that penal statutes should be strictly
construed against the State may be invoked only where the law is
ambiguous and there is doubt as to its interpretation. Where the law is
clear and unambiguous, there is no room for the application of the
rule. (People vs. Gatchalian, 104 Phil. 664)
- In the construction or interpretation of the provisions of the Revised
Penal Code, the Spanish text is controlling, because it was approved
by the Philippine Legislature in its Spanish text. (People vs. Manaba,
58 Phil. 665, 668)
J. TWO THEORIES IN CRIMINAL LAW
- Classical or Juristic Theory
o Basis of criminal liability — human free will. The subscribers
to this theory believe that man has the capacity to choose
between right and wrong, good and evil. Hence, when he does
or omits to do an act, he does so willingly and voluntarily with
full knowledge of the effects and consequences thereof.
o Purpose of the penalty — retribution — “an eye for an eye; a
tooth for a tooth.” In view of the voluntariness of the act or
omission of the offender, he should be given the penalty that
he deserved. Justice is for the offended party also which
requires that the offender be repaid with commensurate
punishment.
o Determination of penalty — predertermined and rigid
established by a specific and predetermined penalty for the
2
 offense committed. The penalty is mechanically determined in
direct proportion to the crime committed. Thus, homicide is
penalized with reclusion temporal; murder with reclusion
perpetua; kidnapping and serious illegal detention with
reclusion perpetua, and so on.
o Emphasis of the law — on the offense and not on the offender.
- Positivist Theory
o Basis of criminal liability — the proponents are of the view
that man is inherently good, but the offender is socially sick.
He is a product, not only of biological factors, but also of is
environment. His thoughts and actions are influenced by his
upbringing, social environment and associations.
o Purpose of the penalty — reformation. Since the offender is
not inherently evil but only made so by his environment, then
the penalty should be corrective or curative to reform him or
bring him back to his good nature. (thus, jails are also called
reformatories.)
o Determination of the penalty — case to case basis — arrived
at after an individual examination of the offender. The penalty
should be suited to the individual offender precisely because
purpose is to reform him.
o Emphasis of the law — on the offender and not on the offense.
- The basic principle in our criminal law is that a person is criminally
liable for a felony committed by him. Under the classical theory on
which the RPC is mainly based, the basis of criminal liability is
human free will. Man is essentially a mora; creature with an
absolutely free will to choose between good and evil. When he
commits a felonious or criminal act (delito doloso), the act is
presumed to have been done voluntarily, i.e., with freedom,
intelligence and intent. Man therefore, should be adjudged or held
accountable for wrongful acts so long as free will appears unimpaired.
(People v. Genosa, G.R. 135981, September 29, 2000)
- The rigid penalty in Book II under the classical theory is tempered by
factors approximating the positivist theory, e.g.:
o Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL)
o Modifying Circumstances
o Extenuating/absolutory circumstances
o Probation Law
o Three-fold rule on multiple penalties
o 40-year maximum limit for penalty and
o Executive clemency under Articles 5 and 70 and the
Constitution
*** ECCLECTIC (OR MIXED PHILOSOPHY) — combines the good features of
both classical and positivist theories. Ideally, the classical theory should be applied
to grievous and heinous crimes, whereas, the positivist is made to apply on economic
and social crimes. ***
K. ARTICLE 2 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE
- 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.
L. ENGLISH RULE
- The host country has jurisdiction over crimes committed in the vessel
unless they involve the internal management of the vessel.
- Strictly territorial
M. FRENCH RULE
- Recognizes the jurisdiction of the flag country over crimes committed
within the vessel except if the crime disturbs the peace and order of
the host country.
- Not that “strictly territorial”
*** THE PHILIPPINES ADHERES TO THE ENGLISH RULE ***
N. WHICH PHILIPPINE COURT SHALL TAKE COGNIZENCE OF
CRIMES COMMITTED OUTSIDE OF THE PHILIPPINES, BUT
3
 PUNISHABLE UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE REVISED PENAL
CODE?
- The crimes punishable in the Philippines under Art. 2 are cognizable
by the Regional Trial Court in which the charge is filed.
- The crimes committed outside of the Philippines but punishable
therein under Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code shall be cognizable
by the Regional Trial Court in which the charge is first filed. (Rule
110, Sec. 15[d], Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)
- Regional Trial Courts (formerly CFI) have original jurisdiction over
all crimes and offenses committed on the high seas or beyond the
jurisdiction of any country on board a ship or Warcraft of any kind
registered or licensed in the Philippines in accordance with its laws.
(Sec. 44[g], Judiciary Act of 1948, Rep. Act No. 296)
O. MAY PHILIPPINE COURTS EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER
CRIMES COMMITTED ON BOARD A FOREIGN WARSHIP WHILE
INSIDE PHILIPPINE TERRITORIAL WATER?
- Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over offenses committed on
board foreign warships in territorial waters. In case vessels are in the
ports or territorial waters of a foreign country, a distinction must be
made between merchant ships and warships; the former are more or
less subjected to the territorial (See U.S. vs. Bull, 15 Phil. 7; U.S. vs.
Look Chaw, 18 Phil. 573; and People vs. Wong Cheng, 46 Phil. 729)
- Warships are always reputed to be the territory of the country to which
they belong and cannot be subjected to the laws of another state. A
United States Army transport is considered a warship. (U.S. vs.
Fowler, 1 Phil. 614)
P. ARTICLE 3, REVISED PENAL CODE
- Article 3. Definitions. - Acts and omissions punishable by law are
felonies (delitos).
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.
-
Q. FELONY
- Felonies (delitos) are acts or omissions punishable under the RPC.
Felonies are classified on the basis of how they are committed either
as dolo or culpa which are classifications crimes thereunder. Crimes
involving special laws are properly called offenses; violations of
ordinances are infractions.
-Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by
means of fault (culpa)
R. ELEMENTS OF FELONIES
- The elements of felonies in general are:
o That there must be an act or omission.
o That the act or omission must be punishable by the Revised
Penal Code.
o That the act is performed, or the omission incurred by means
of dolo or culpa. (People vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 80762,
March 19, 1990, 183 SCRA 309, 324)
S. MEANING OF ACT
- By act must be understood any bodily movement tending to produce
some effect in the external world, it being unnecessary that the same
be actually produced, as the possibility of its production is sufficient.
(See People vs. Gonzales, supra)
- But the act must be one which is defined by the Revised Penal Code
as constituting a felony; or, at least, an overt act of that felony, that is,
an external act which has direct connection with the felony intended to
be committed. (See Art. 6)
- Only external act is punished. The act must be external, because
internal acts are beyond the sphere of penal law. Hence, a criminal
thought or a mere intention, no matter how immoral or improper it
may be, will never constitute a felony.
T. MEANING OF OMISSION
- By omission is meant inaction, the failure to perform a positive duty
which one is bound to do. There must be a law requiring the doing or
performance of an act.
- The omission must be punishable by law. Because there is no law that
punishes a person who does not report to the authorities the
commission of a crime which he witnessed, the omission to do so is
not a felony.
U. CLASSES OF FELONIES ACCORDING TO THE MEAN BY WHICH
THEY ARE COMMITTED
- Intentional felonies
o the act or omission of the offender is malicious. In the
language of Art. 3, the act is performed with deliberate intent
(with malice). The offender, in performing the act or in
incurring the omission, has the intention to cause an injury to
another.
- Culpable Felonies
o the act or omission of the offender is not malicious. The injury
caused by the offender to another person is "unintentional, it
4
 being simply the incident of another act performed without
malice." (People vs. Sara, 55 Phil. 939) As stated in Art. 3, the
wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of
foresight or lack of skill.
V. DOLO
- When there is deceit;
- When the act is performed with deliberate intent
- The word "deceit" in the second paragraph of Art. 3 is not the proper
translation of the word Dolus is equivalent to malice, which is the
intent to do an injury to another. (I Wharton's Criminal Law 180)
- When the offender, in performing an act or in incurring an omission,
has the intention to do an injury to the person, or right of another, such
offender acts with malice. If the act or omission is punished by the
Revised Penal Code, he is liable for intentional felony.
- Most of the felonies defined and penalized in Book II of the Revised
Penal Code are committed by means of dolo or with malice.
- fault, is not criminally liable under the Revised Penal Code. Since
W. REQUISITES OF DOLO
- Freedom of action
- Intelligence; and
- Intent
X. MISTAKE OF FACT
- That mistake which had the facts been true to the belief of the
offender, can justify his act.
- It is such mistake that will result in negative criminal liability
(ignorantia facti excusat) because of the absence of the element of
intent. However, if the offender is negligent in ascertaining the true
sate of facts, he may be free from dolo but not from culpa.
Y. REQUISITES OF MISTAKE OF FACT AS A DEFENSE
- The requisites of mistake of fact as a defense are as follows:
o That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been
as the accused believed them to be
o Intent of the accused is lawful
o Mistake must be without fault or carelessness
Z. MISTAKE OF FACT VS ERROR IN PERSONAE OR MISTAKE IN
THE IDENTITY OF THE VICTIM
- Mistake of fact refers to the situation itself
- Error in personae or mistake in the identity, the offender committed a
mistake in ascertaining the identity of the victim.
AA. CULPA
- By means of fault;
- There is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence,
negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skills.
- Between an act performed voluntarily and intentionally, and another
committed unconsciously and quite unintentionally, there exists
another, performed without malice, but at the same time punishable,
though in a lesser degree and with an equal result, an intermediate act
which the Penal Code qualifies as imprudence or negligence.
BB. REQUISITES OF CULPA
- Therefore, in order that the act or omission in felonies committed by
means of fault or culpa may be considered voluntary, the following
requisites must concur:
o He must have FREEDOM while doing an act or omitting to do
an act;
o He must have INTELLIGENCE while doing the act or
omitting to do the act;
o He is IMPRUDENT, NEGLIGENT or LACKS FORESIGHT
or SKILL while doing the act or omitting to do the act.
***A person causing damage or injury to another, without malice or
felonies are committed either by means of deceit (dolo) or by means
of fault (culpa), if there is neither malice nor negligence on the part of
the person causing damage or injury to another, he is not criminally
liable under the Revised Penal Code. In such case, he is exempt from
criminal liability, because he causes an injury by mere accident,
without fault or intention of causing it. (Art. 12, par. 4, Revised Penal
Code) ***
CC. MALA IN SE
- Acts wrong in themselves
- Acts or omissions which are inherently evil (mala — evil; in se — by
itself.)
- Generally, mala in se are felonies defined and penalized under the
RPC.
- Crimes mala in se are those so serious in their effects on society as to
call for almost unanimous condemnation of its members.
- In acts mala in se, intent governs.
DD. MALA PROHIBITA
- Acts which would not be wrong but for the fact that positive law
forbids them.
- Acts are wrong because the law forbids them.
- Acts that were made evil because there is a law prohibiting the same.
- Refers generally to acts made criminal by special laws.
- crimes mala prohibita are violations of mere rules of convenience
designed to secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs of society.
- In acts mala prohibita, the only inquiry is, has the law been violated?
EE. MOTIVE VS INTENT
5
 -Motive is the moving power or force which impels a person to commit
acts toward a desired result. Generally, motive is immaterial in
incurring criminal liability
- Intent refers to the use of a particular means to bring about the desired
result.
*** A crime may be committed without criminal intent ***
FF. WHEN IS MOTIVE RELEVANT
- Motive becomes relevant when:
o Where the identity of a person accused of having committed a
crime is in dispute, the motive that may have impelled its
commission is very relevant.
o Generally, proof of motive is not necessary to pin a crime on
the accused if the commission of the crime has been proven
and the evidence of identification is convincing.
o Motive is essential only when there is doubt as to the identity
of the assailant. It is immaterial when the accused has been
positively identified
o Where the defendant admits the killing, it is no longer
necessary to inquire into his motive for doing the act
o Motive is important in ascertaining the truth between two
antagonistic theories or versions of the killing.
o Where the identification of the accused proceeds from an
unreliable source and the testimony is inconclusive and not
free from doubt, evidence of motive is necessary.
o Where there e are no eyewitnesses s to the crime, and where
suspicion is likely to fall upon a number of persons, motive is
relevant and significant.
o If the evidence is merely circumstantial, proof of motive is
essential.
o Proof of motive is not indispensable where guilt is otherwise
established by sufficient evidence.
o While the question of motive is important to the person who
committed the criminal act, yet when there is no longer any
doubt that the defendant was the culprit, it becomes
unimportant to know the exact reason or purpose for the
commission of the crime.
- Where the identity of the assailant is in dispute, motive becomes
relevant, and when it is supported with sufficient evidence for a
conclusion of guilt, a conviction is sustainable. (People v. Macoy,
G.R. Nos. 96649-50, July 1, 1997) Motive becomes important when
the evidence on the commission of the crime is purely circumstantial
or inconclusive. (People v. Crisostomo)
GG. HOW IS MOTIVE PROVEN?
- Generally, the motive is established by the testimony of witnesses on
the acts or statements of the accused before or immediately after the
commission of the offense. Such deeds or words may indicate the
motive.
- Motive is proved by the evidence.
- Disclosure of the motive is an aid in completing the proof of the
commission of the crime.
- But proof of motive alone is not sufficient to support a conviction.
The existence of a motive, though perhaps an important consideration,
is not sufficient proof of guilt.
- Mere proof of motive, no matter how strong, is not sufficient to
support a conviction if there is no reliable evidence from which it may
be reasonably deduced that the accused was the malefactor.
- Even a strong motive to commit the crime cannot take the place of
proof beyond reasonable doubt, sufficient to overthrow the
presumption of innocence. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the
mainstay of our accusatorial system of criminal justice.
- Lack of motive may be an aid in showing the innocence of the
accused.

- Motive alone will not give rise to criminal liability because under the
RPC, there must be an overt act or an omission. No matter how evil
the internal thought is, as long as there are no overt acts, no crime is
committed. The rule is that proof of motive is unnecessary to impute a
crime on the accused if the evidence concerning his identification is
concerning. A converso, if the evidence of identification is unclear,
then the jurisprudential doctrine is that proof of motive is paramount
necessity. (People v. Bautista, G.R. Nos. 120898-99, May 14, 1998)