Criminal Law 1 Section D 930am to 1230pm

Assignment for September 1, 2019

1. Pro reo Doctrine (see previous assignment) and Equipose Rule

 Latin for "[when] in doubt, for the accused") means that a defendant may not be convicted by the court when doubts about
his or her guilt remain. The rule of lenity is the doctrine that ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the more lenient
punishment.

 The "equipoise doctrine" is the rule which states that when the evidence of the prosecution and the defense are so evenly
balanced the appreciation of such evidence calls for tilting of the scales in favor of the accused.

(7) Aoas vs. People, 547 SCRA 311, G.R. No. 155339] March 3, 2008
Facts:
 The private respondent, Naty Madon-ep, is a business woman engaged in buying and selling assorted beans.
 She has 4 stalls
 One of her stalls was adjacent to the stall of the Petitioner.
 The petitioner removes the partition between her stall and the private respondent’s stall, because she was planning on
putting up a canteen which did not materialize
 The private respondent discovered scattered beans on her floor as well as the petitioner’s floor. Later she found out
that 18 sacks of beans were missing
 She asks around who is the culprit and the barangay tanod who was assigned in the public say that it was the
petitioner because he saw her on three separate occasion putting up beans in a jeepney.
 The petitioner pleaded not guilty and denied the accusation against her. One of her friend who also buy and sell beans
testified in her favor that she is occupying the stall of the petitioner after business hours to kept her goods.
 The RTC rendered judgment convicting the accused, which the CA affirmed. Hence, this petition
Issue:
 Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime committed
Ruling:
 No. The court granted the petition and acquitted the petitioner. The prosecution has failed to show that the
circumstances invoked completely discount the possibility that persons other than petitioner could have perpetrated the
crime. Thus, where the proven facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is
consistent with innocence and the other with guilt, the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not
sufficient to convict the accused.

2. Construction of Penal Laws

 Criminal Statutes are liberally construed in favor of the offender. This means that no person shall be brought within their terms
who is not clearly within them, nor should any act be pronounced criminal which is not clearly made so by statute.
 The original text in which a penal law is approved in case of a conflict with an official translation.
 Interpretation by analogy has no place in criminal law

(8) People vs. Mangulabnan (99 Phil. 992), G.R. No. L-8919, Sept. 28, 1956
Facts:
 A gunfire shot awakened the family of Vicente Pacson, deceased
 Intruders were trying to enter their house
 He went outside his room and went to the ceiling to go hiding
 One of the intruders was recognized by the deceased’s wife, Mangulabnan, the petitioner
 Two other are unidentified, and one of those two fired in the ceiling which inflict wounds to the deceased
 The petitioner was arrested, tried and was convicted with a crime of robbery and homicide
Issue:
 Whether or not the charged crime of robbery and homicide was correct
Ruling:
 Yes. English version of Article 294, No.1, of the Revised Penal Code, defines the special, single and indivisible crime
of robbery with homicide only punished any persons guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of
any person. But the court ruled that the English version of the code is a poor translation of the prevailing Spanish text
of said paragraph, which reads “1. Con la pena de reclusion perpetua a muerte, cuando con motivo o con ocasion del
robo resultare homicidio.”

The court, therefore, that in order to determine the existence of the crime of robbery with homicide it is enough that a homicide
would result by reason of on the occasion of the robbery. Hence, crime committed in the case at bar, is a crime of robbery with
homicide.

(9) People vs. Escoto, Jr., G.R. No. 140756, April 4, 2003

Page 1 of 6
 (10) People vs. Deleverio, G.R. No. 118937-38, April 24, 1998
Causing vs. Comelec , G.R. No. 199139, Sept. 9, 2014 (No need to digest , just the ruling trlating to construction of
penal laws)

3. Theories in Criminal Law

Read any textbook on Classical Theory and Positivist Theory

CLASSICAL THEORY
 Basis of criminal liability is human free will and
the purpose of the penalty is retribution
 Essentially moral creature with an absolute
free will to choose between good and evil,
therefore putting more stress upon the effect
or result of the felonious act than upon the
man, the criminal itself.
 It has endeavored to establish a mechanical
and direct proportion between crime and
penalty.
 Scant (little) regard to the human element.
POSITIVIST THEORY
 Man is subdued occasionally by a strange and
morbid phenomena which constrains
(force/compel) him to do wrong, in spite of
contrary to his volition (willingness)
 Crime is essentially a social and natural
phenomenon, and as such, it cannot be
treated and checked by the application of
abstract principles of law and jurisprudence
nor by imposition of punishment.
 Enforcement of individual measures in a
particular case, conducted by a competent
body of psychiatrists and social scientist.

(11) Inmates of Bilibid vs. De Lima, et al., G.R. No. 212719, June 25, 2019

Give the facts as to why the petitioners attacked the IRR of R.A. 10592. What are the Articles in RPC amended by the
law?

4. RPC – Articles 3, 4, - Read any textbook.

 What is a felony?
 Acts and omissions punishable by law.
 Are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo)
but also by means of fault (culpa)

 What is an offense?
 It is punishable act

 What is an infraction or misdemeanor?

 Offenses lower than felonies, and generally punishable by less than a year in jail, or a fine.
 Also called petty offences, for which penalty is minor

 What is a crime?
 A crime is an act committed or omitted in violation of public laws forbidding or commanding it

 What are the elements of a felony?

 There must be an act or omission
 The act or omission must be punishable by the RPC.
 That the act performed or the omission incurred by means of dolo or culpa

 What is an “act” as stated in Article 3, RPC?

 An external act which has direct connection with the felony intended to be committed.

 What is an “omission” as stated in Article 3, RPC?

 Means 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.
e.g. Officer entrusted w/ tax collection fails to issue O.R. = guilty of illegal exaction

 What is actus reus?

 Latin term: guilty act
action or conduct which is a constituent element of a crime, as opposed to the mental state of the
accused.

 Crime 2 part: Actus reus = physical act of a crime; Mens rea = intent to do a crime

Page 2 of 6
The RPC generally classifies felonies according to the means by which they are committed – either dolo or culpa.
 What is dolo?
 Deceit
 Dolus which is equivalent to malice, which is intent to do an injury to another.

 What is culpa?
 Fault
 Performed without malice, but at the same time punishable through in a lesser degree and with an
equal result.
 E.g. of felonies committed by means of fault or culpa:
o Art. 217 – Malversation
o Art. 224 – Evasion
o Art. 365 – Imprudence or Negligence
 Crimes which cannot be committed through imprudence or negligence = murder, treason, robbery,
and malicious mischief.

 Is the word “deceit” in par. 2 of Art. 3 the proper translation of “dolo.”

 No. Dolo comes from a latin word dolus which is equivalent to malice

 What are the requisites of “dolo.”

 Freedom
If he acts w/o freedom, he is no longer a human being but a tool, thus a person who acts under the
compulsion of an irresistible force is exempt from criminal liability.
 Intelligence
Without this power, necessary to determine the morality of human acts, no crime can exist, thus
imbecile or insane and infant of 9 years of age and minor over 9 but less than 15, and acting
without discernment, have no criminal liability, because they act without intelligence.
 Intent
It is purely a mental process, presumed and the presumption arises from the proof of the
commission of an unlawful act.

 What is “freedom.”
 the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint

 What is “intelligence.”
 the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

 What is ‘intent.”
 the determination to do a certain thing, an aim or purpose of the mind. It is the design to resolve or
determination by which a person acts.

 Is demonstrated by the use of a particular means to bring about a desired result – it is not a state of
mind or a reason for committing a crime.

 What is criminal intent?

 General criminal intent is presumed from the mere doing of a wrong act. This does not require
proof. The burden is upon the wrong doer to prove that he acted without such criminal intent.

 Specific criminal intent is not presumed because it is an ingredient or element of a crime, like intent
to kill in the crimes of attempted or frustrated homicide/parricide/murder. The prosecution has the
burden of proving the same.

 What is “motive?”
 moving power which impels one to action for a definite result

 What is actus non-facit reum nisi mens sit rea?

 It expounds a basic principle in criminal law that a crime is not committed if the mind of the person
performing the act complained of be innocent. Thus to constitute a crime, the act must, except in
certain crimes made such by statute, be accompanied by a criminal intent.

(Conviction of a crime requires proof of a criminal act and intent)

(12) Manzanaris vs. People 127 SCRA 201[G.R. No. L-64750], January 30, 1984

Page 3 of 6
5. What is honest mistake of fact?
 Is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused injury to another.
 He is not, however, criminal intent which arises upon the commission of a felonious act.
 An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent which arises upon the
commission of a felonious act.
What are the elements of honest mistake of fact?
 That the acct done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be.
 That the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful
 That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused

(13) US vs. Ah Chong, 15 Phil. 488, [G.R. 5272], March 19, 1910.
Facts:
 The accused was a cook in Ft. McKinley (BGC)
 Rampant the killings of Chinese Citizen
 Before going to bed, he locked himself in his room by placing a chair against the door
 He was awakened by someone trying to open the door
 He called out twice, “Who is there”, but no answer
 Fearing that the intruder was a robber, he leaped from his bed and called out again “If you enter the room I will kill you”
 But at that precise moment, he was struck by the chair that had been places against the door and believing that he was
being attacked he seized a kitchen knife and struck and fatally wounded the intruder who turned out to be his
roommate.
Issue:
 W/N the accused is guilty on the crime of homicide.

Ruling:
 No, Ah Chong must be acquitted on the charged of homicide because it has the element to be considered as mistake
of fact, under Article 11, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, which requires, to justify the act, that there be:
1. Unlawful aggression on the part of the person killed
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
3. Lack of sufficient provation on the part of the person defending himself.

(14) People vs. Bayambao, 52 Phil. 309, [G.R. No. 29481], October 31, 1928.
(15)People vs. Oanis, 74 Phil. 257, [G.R. No. 47722]. July 27, 1943
Facts:
 Chief of Police Oanis and his co-accused Corporal Galanta were under instructions to arrest one Balagtas.
 A notorious criminal and escaped convict (if overpowered, get him dead or alive).
 Proceeding to the suspected house, they went into a room and on seeing a man sleeping with his back towards the
door, simultaneously fired at him with their revolvers, without first making any reasonable inquiry as to his identity.
 The victim turned out to be an innocent man, Tecson, and not the wanted criminal.
Issue:
 W/N the accused is guilty on the crime of murder.
Ruling:
 Yes, both accused are guilty of murder, the accused found no circumstances whatever which would press them to
immediate action. The person in the room being then asleep, the accused had ample time and opportunity to ascertain
his identity without hazard to themselves. Hence, the accused in the Oanis case were at fault when they shot the
victim in violation of the instructions given to them. They were also careless in not verifying first the identity of the
victim.

Lack of intent to kill the deceased, because his intention was to kill another, does not relieve the accused from criminal
liability

Error in personae – mistake in the identity of the victim, the principle of mistake of fact does not apply.

(16) People vs. Apego, 23 Phil. 391. [G.R. Np/ 7829], November 8. 1912.

6. What are the requisites of culpa?

By means of fault (culpa) – There is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack
of skill.

 Freedom
 Intelligence
 Imprudence, negligence, lack of skill or foresight
 Lack of intent

Page 4 of 6
Intent is demonstrated by the use of a particular means to bring about a desired result – it is not a state of mind or a reason for
committing a crime.

(Read RPC, Article 365, Par. 7)

Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without malice, doing or falling to do an act from which material damage results by
reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing of failing to perform such act, taking into consideration
his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and other circumstances regarding persons, time and
place.

Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those cases in which the damage impending to be caused is not
immediate nor the danger clearly manifest.

 What is imprudence?
 Indicates a deficiency of action;
 If a person fails to take the necessary precaution to avoid injury to person or damage to property.
 Usually involves lack of skill

e.g. A was driving a truck along a road. He hit B because it was raining – reckless imprudence.

 What is negligence?
 Indicates a deficiency of perception
 If a person fails to pay property attention and to use due diligence in foreseeing the injury or damage
impending to be caused
 Usually involves lack of foresight

(17) People vs. Buan, 22 SCRA 1383, [L-25366], March 29,1968

Facts:
 The accused was driving a passenger bus
 The bus hit the jeep and causes damage and turn turtle
 Six suffered slight physical injuries
 Three suffered serious bodily injuries
 Damage to the jeep to the extent P1,395.00
 The accused-petitioner is charged by slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence in the Justice of Peace Court
– Bulacan
 Another case is filed against the accused-petitioner, serious physical injuries and damage to property through reckless
imprudence, appeal a motion to squash on the ground of double jeopardy
Issue:
 W/N the accused is liable for reckless imprudence resulting to slight and serious injuries, and damage to property.
 W/N the charged for serious physical injuries and damage to property through reckless imprudence will be dismissed.
Ruling:
 Yes, the accused is liable for reckless imprudence pursuant to Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without malice, doing or falling to do an act from which material damage
results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing of failing to perform such act,
taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and other
circumstances regarding persons, time and place.
 No, because under the Spanish Jurisprudence and Supreme Court of Spain, there will be only ONE PUNISHABLE
ACT caused by the imprudent act and damages, since only one act was committed.

(18) People vs. Pugay, 167 SCRA 439,[L-74324],Nov.14,1988

Facts:
 Miranda and the accused Pugay are friends.
 Miranda used to run errands for Pugay and they used to sleep together.
 In the event of the town fiesta was held in the public plaza of Rosario Cavite.
 During midnight the accused Pugay and Samson with several companions arrived are all drunk
 They started making fun of Bayani Miranda.
 Pugay took a can of gasoline and poured its contents on the latter, Gabion (principal witness) told Pugay not to do the
deed.
 Then Samson set Miranda on fire making a human torch out of him.
 They were arrested the same night and barely a few hours after the incident gave their written statements.
Issue:
 W/N the accused is liable for reckless imprudence resulting to homicide.
Ruling:

Page 5 of 6
 Yes, because having failed to exercise diligence necessary to avoid every undesirable consequence arising from any
act committed by his companions who at
 the same time were making fun of the deceased.

Page 6 of 6