CRIM REV o Final Exam

August 23, 2020 o Mock Bar

 Weight of mockbar is
Classroom Policy: different from the Final
1. Attendance exam.
- Connection problems or brownout, may  Most important exam.
excuse. But inform reason for lost.  There will be a different
2. Joint classes professor who will create
3. Exams: the mock bar exam.
- Exams and quizzes 11. Syllabus: 2020 Bar exam coverage. Have a copy
- Every first meeting of the class, there is of the 2020 Bar exams.
quiz. But due to problems, there will be 100-
item quiz.
- There will be Pre-lims and other Major Your determination to become a lawyer is your source of
Exams strength.
- No special exams. But if there are reasons
If you keep on sleeping even while having class, your
beyond our control, there may be special
dream of becoming a lawyer will remain just a dream.
quiz.
- No cheating. Every time you cheat, you are
cheating yourself.
4. Classroom rule: blazer. Haircut for boys
5. Avoid disturbances.
6. No oral recitations.
7. Make notes. Notes now may be used as notes for
the bar.
8. Books, no need to worry. May use older books.
Suggest: buy latest edition of books. Don’t rely
only on the codal. It is grossly insufficient.
9. Discussions: Codal based, will incorporate
jurisprudence.
10. Grading: 3 exams
- Midterm Grade:
o Quizzes (there will be more than 1
quiz. Before major exams, there will
be a major quiz, at least 100 items)
 Passing:
 MCQ 70%
 Essay 60%
o Pre-lim exam
o Midterm exam
o All will have equal weight.
- Final Grade:
o Midterm Grade
o Quizzes (There will be a lot of
quizzes before end of subject
because of the mock bar. Before the
mock bar, there will be at least 2
major quizzes. Before final exam,
there will be another quiz.)
Discussion Proper:
What do you mean by criminal law?
- A branch of criminal law that defines crimes
and provides for their nature.
What is a crime?
- A crime is an act or omission that violates a
penal law.
How does a criminal law differ from criminal
procedure?
Crim Pro- provides for methods or procedure on how a
person who has committed a crime shall be tried and
punshed. It tells us how a criminal case is filed, how an
accused is being prosecuted, tried and punished in case
of conviction.
Is there a common law crime in the Ph?
No. Unless there is a written provision of law that
punishes an act or crime, there is no criminal liability of
a person who has committed an act, no matter how
morally wrong that act is. If there is no law penalizing an
act, there is no crime. (nollum crimen, nolla poena sine
lege There is no crime if there is no law punishing such
act)
- Art202 of RPC before, vagrancy is
considered a crime. But RA 10158,
vagrancy is no longer a crime.’
Sources of PH Criminal Law:
1. Revised Penal Code and its amendments (main
source)
2. Special Penal Laws
- Crimes not penalized under RPC
- Penal laws which were passed by Congress
or by the legislative branch
- Ex: RA 9165
3. Presidential Decrees
- Penal laws enacted by the President.
- These were enacted by
- Eg: PD1866
- Eg: PD 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law)
4. Local Ordinances
- City government has passed an ordinance
penalizing non-wearing of masks and non-
carrying of quarantine pass.
Are court decisions considered sources of criminal
law? (BarQ)
- No. Court decisions merely apply the laws
as enacted by the legislative branch of the
government.
- The power of the State to enact penal laws
have limitations.
Limitations:
1. No ex-post facto law or bill of attainder shall be
enacted.
2. No person shall be held to answer for criminal
offenses without due process of Law
What is an ex-post facto law?
It is a law which either:
- Makes criminal an act done before the
passage of a criminal law.
- Example: a penal law given a retroactive
effect.
o The penal law may be declared
unconstitutional
o Example: There is a proposal that
death-penalty will be imposed. Such
cannot be given a retroactive effect.
o Example: a penal law that increases
the penalty
o Example: changing the amount of
evidence required for the case
(cannot change ) a penal law giving
retroactive effect is a form of ex-
post facto law.
o Read: Case of Lacson vs Exec
Secretary GR 128096
What is a bill of attainder?
It is a law which inflicts punishment without judicial
trial.
- Under PH judicial system, you cannot be
automatically convicted. You may be
imprisoned, but you have to be given a day
in court.
- If a law will be passed by congress that will
automatically convict offenders without
trial, it is a bill of attainder. It can be
declared unconstitutional.
In essence, it is a substitution of a legislative act for the
determination of guilt. It violates due process clause of
the Constitution.

What are the rights of the accused?
1. Constituational Rights:
- Rights provided by the Constitution,
particularly in Article III Bill of Rights
o Judge reco: pagbawn ug at least 5
rights.
2. Statutory Rights:
- Rights granted by other laws other than the
Constitution
o Example: Right to cross-examine,
right to appeal
What are the rights of the accused that can be waived
and those that cannot be waived?
Rights personal to the accused can be waived. Rights
which involve public interest cannot be waived.
Can:
- Right to cross-examination
- Right to speedy disposition of cases
Can’t:
- Right to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation against him
o Must be present during
arraignement.
Characteristic of criminal law (bar fave)
1. Generality
- It means our criminal laws are binding on all
persons who live or sojourn in the
Philippines, citizens or foreigners. Citizens
or foreigners are obliged to obey our laws as
long as they are in our country.
o Example: Dutch national charged
under RA9262.
 Dutch refused to give
support to his children.
 During trial, the Dutch
reasoned that he can’t be
held liable under said law
because in their country,
parents are not obliged to
give support to their
children. As a Dutch
national, he argued that he
is governed by his national
law. He said that he is not
liable under VAWC.
 Argument not tenable. As
long as a person, citizen or
foreign national, if he is in
our country, he is bound to
our penal laws.
o Case: Del Socorro vs Van Hussen
(pls check)
- Military Personnel? Do our courts have jd
over them when they commit crimes?
o Civil courts have concurrent jd with
military courts or general court
martial. This holds true even in time
of war as long as civilian courts are
functioning. However, if before
arraignment of the accused who is a
member of the military, it is
determined that the crime
committed by him is service
connected, the case may be
transferred to the court martial (the
military courts).
 However, even if
considered service-
connected, the President of
PH, in the interest of
judgment, may direct before
arraignment that the crime
be tried before civilian
courts. (RA 7055, and
pursuant to Navales vs
Abaya GR162318
Oct25,2004)
o Military Courts are part of the
executive, not of the Judiciary.
- Exemptions of Generality:
o By virtue of a treaty, exempting
the citizens from execution before
PH courts
 Example: (before) Military
bases agreement with US.
But this has been abrogated.
 Example: (Now) Visiting
Forces Agreement
 US Military
authorities shall
have primary rights
to try us military
personnel in
relation to offenses
 solely against the
property or person
of US personnel, or
any acts or
omission done in
pursuance of an 2. Territoriality
official duty.
o Laws of Preferential Application
 Laws giving preference to
certain persons.
 That our
congressmen or
senators, for a crime
committed
punishable only by
6yrs imprisonment
or less, is immune
from arrest.
 De Lima is in jail.
Why? Penalty
charged is carries
penalty of more
than
 Grant of immunity from suit
from foreign domestic
(including domestic
servants)
o Principles of Public International
Law
 Chiefs of State, Kings,
Prime Ministers,
ambassadors, Charge de
affairs, diplomats, are
immune from suit under
PIL.
 If these persons commit
crime, they can be declared
persona non grata
(unwelcomed visitors)
 Shauff vs Ca 191 SCRA, PP
vs Liam
 Doctrine Immunity
of Suit can’t be
applicable if such
person is sued in
their individual
capacity.
 Consuls, vice-consuls, do
not have immunity from suit
or arrest, unless there is a
treaty with their country and
Ph exempting them from
suit.
- Our Penal laws are effective only within our
territory.
o Remember Archipelago theory
- If a crime is committed outside of our
country, no jd
- Case: A married Filipino went to Singapore.
Met somebody (a married woman). While in
SG, contracted marriage with the woman.
Accused returned to PH with 2nd wife. Wife
charged bigamy.
o SC: No jd. Bigamy was committed
outside our territory.
o Supposed if charged with
concubinage, different. If committed
in PH, then may now charge.
- Case: Violation of VAWC. Accused went to
Singapore. While in SG, met with
somebody. He stopped supporting his family
in Ph. The wife charged him with violation
of VAWC on the ground of marital
infidelity and psychological violence.
o Is defense of accused meritorious?
 No.
 Case: AAA vs BBB
(January 11, 2018)
 SC: Ph courts have jd over a
case for violation of VAWC
based on psychological
violence, even if sexual
infidelity was committed
abroad.
 SC: While the cause of
abuse was committed
abroad, the emotional and
mental anguish felt by
victim is within PH. It is
however necessary for our
courts to have jd that the
victim be a resident of the
place where the case is
filed.
- Exceptions to Territoriality Rule
o Mentioned in Article 2 of RPC
(memorize!!), providing for extra-
territorial effect of the crime.
Article 2:
1. If a crime is committed on board Ph
ship or airship.
 For our courts to have jd,
the ship (or airship) must be
Ph registered.
 Not the ownership but the
registration which
determines jd over the
crime.
 Suppose: Ph ship or airship
is within the territory of
other country. In a case of
killing, for example. Ph may
still have jd. But
considering the crime is
committed in another
country, if the court in such
country takes cognizance of
the case, Ph will no longer
take cognizance of the case.
If the foreign court will not
take cognizance, Ph court
may then take the case.
 This is because
some countries
adopt the French
rule (depends on the
flag)
 Case: If a Panamanian ship,
owned by Lucio Sy, a rich
Ph businessman, Binoy
stabbed Siomai Binoy
charged with homicide.
Binoy filed motion to
quash. Meritorious?
 TN of the
registration of the
ship. In the case, it
is a Panamanian
registered ship. No
jd, even if ship is
owned by a
Filipino.
 Case: If a foreign ship, if a
war ship, Ph has no jd.
Warship is considered an
extension of the country
where it belongs. If it is a
foreign commercial ship, we
adopt the English rule (as
long as ship is within our
territorial waters, we have
jd of the crime committed
on board foreign ship,
unless if the crime
committed mainly affects
management of the ship)
 If commercial ship is
merely in transit, the rule is
if the foreign commercial
ship, offensive not
involving public order, Ph
has no jd.
 Carrying of drugs,
no jd.
 Usage, triable.
(Case: Wong
Cheng)
3. Prospectivity
- Our penal laws cannot be given retroactive
effect, especially if such law is not favorable
to the accused.
- If it is given retroactive effect, it can be
declared unconstitutional for being an ex-
post facto law.
- Exc:
o Favorable to the accused who is not
a repeat offender (Art22 RPC)
- Case: Hernan vs SB
o In this case, the SC gave effect to
two new laws (RA10951), the law
which increases the amount or the
value of the property subject to the
offense.
 For example, for theft, if the
value of the property
exceeds 1k, more than 6 yrs
imprisonment. Now, it was
increased to 1.2M to be
charged before RTC.
o In the case, accused was charged
with malversation for misuse of
 public funds worth 11,200.
Sentenced to 7yrs min, 11yrs max.
o Was not able to appeal, decision
became final
o 3 yrs after, filed a motion to reopen
case before Sandiganbayan. Motion
denied. Filed MR. Denied. Filed
Motion for Certiorari before SC.
 SC sustained. Reopened the
case not to allow the
accused to present evidence
but to modify the penalty
imposed by the court. It is
because of the passage of
RA10951. Penalty was
changed for an amount of
11,200, imprisonment will
only be months.
Downgraded to 6months-
3yrs.
 SC gave retroactive effect to
the law.
- Another retroactive effect application: RA
10707, changing probation law
o Prior the law, accu
o Now, if accused has filed an appeal
and not probationable, but upon
appeal was lowered, may now apply
for probation. (will come out
2020/2021)
o Question:
 Are considered penal laws.
Because although does not
define crimes, these laws
can be considered penal
laws because they have
something to do with the
service or imposition of
penal laws.
- Ra 10592, increasing period for good
conduct.
 Case: Inmates of New
Bilibid Prison vs De Lima
June 25, 2019
 May be given
retroactive effect
because favorable
to the accused.
 SC: Although does
not define a certain
act as a crime, but
considering that it
has something to do
with the….
o Beneficial effect of a penal law
cannot be given retroactive effect if
habitual offender, recidivist, or
quasi-recidivist.
ARTICLE 2
- Instances where our penal laws can be given
extra-territorial application
Par. 1 (discussed above)
Par.2
- Even if crime of counterfeiting is committed
outside, still triable
Par. 4
- If crimes committed by public officers in
connection with their duties.
Par. 5
- Crimes committed against our national
security and the law of nations
- Example: treason.
o Even if committed abroad, Ph may
have jd of crime
Doctrine of Equipoise
- “equi”, meaning equal
- Amount of evidence is proof beyond
reasonable doubt.
- If the weight of evidence is equal, the
accused shall be acquitted.
Doctrine of Pro Reo (check)
- Related to Doctrine of Equipoise
- When a circumstance is susceptible of 2 or
more interpretations, the interpretation
favorable to the accused shall be adopted.
School of Thoughts in Criminal Law
1. Classical Theory
- The basis of criminal liability is human free
will. The purpose of penalty is retribution.
 The criminal is given a penalty
commensurate to the crime he committed.
o “An eye for an eye.”
- Further, under this theory, man is essentially
a moral creature with absolute free will to
choose between evil and good.
- If a person commits a crime, then he should
suffer all the consequences.
2. Positivist Theory
- The penalty is considered reformative,
preventive and individualized.
- A man is considered as a social being, and
his acts are attributable not just to his will
but also by other circumstances which
constrained him to do wrong against his
will.
- Under this theory, a person may complain(?)
not because it is his intention to commit the
same, but there are circumstances which
compelled him to commit the same.
- Penalty is individualized, intended to reform
a person, to prevent him from committing a
crime again.
RPC is mainly based on this theory.
o RPC originates from Europe, basing
classical theory. But there are
provisions that are based on
positivist theory.
 Example: Mitigating
circumstance.
 Example: Probation Law
 Example: ISLAW
ARTICLE 3
What do you mean by felony?
- It refers to an act or omission punishable by
the RPC.
- Crime is a generic term, which refers to an
act or omission penalized by the RPC or the
SPL.
- Usage of the term felony means
Felonies are commited by deceit (dolo) or fault
(culpa)
- Deceit: when act is committed by deliberate
intent, tinuyo, dolo.
- Fault: nagdanghag. Act committed by
imprudence, lack of skill, or negligence,
lack of foresight.
A felony may be committed by an act or omission.
- Act – overt act
o Example: homicide, parricide
- Omission – failure to do an act required by
law to be done. Wa kay gibuhat.
o Eg.: Art125, which provides that an
arresting officer shall charge a
person within the period of 12, 18 or
36 hours, unless prevented by
insuperable cause. Otherwise, peace
officer will be charged.
o Eg.: Art 116, RPC. Misprision of
treason. A person has an
information to a conspiracy
involving treason.
o Eg.: Failure to issue an official
receipt. Art213 RPC
- Failure to report a crime: not a crime. There
is no law compelling a person who has
witnessed a commission of the crime to
report to the police.
o But, Art 275 provides that it is
punishable for a person who fails to
render assistance of a person in an
uninhabited place, when such is not
detrimental to his person.
TN: Requisites of Dolo (The accused must have: )
1. Freedom
- No irresistible force or uncontrollable fear
- Case: A drunk person in Mabolo. Forced
driver to rape helper. Both were charged
with rape. Employer is liable. Is driver
liable?
o Exempting circumstance. There was
an irresistible force. No freedom.
-
2. Intelligence
- Not insane, imbecile
3. Intent (General Criminal Intent)
- Criminal intent is presumed from the
commission of a criminal act. But the
presumption is rebuttable. It is not
conclusive.
 o Accused may present evidence that
he had no intent to kill the victim.
- It is a matter of mental activity which cannot
be discerned.
- Case: There was a cook who was very
afraid. He had a roommate. Cook placed a
chair by the door. He was awaken that
somebody was trying to open the door. He
asked “who are you” but there was no
answer. He said that if the person will not
identify himself, there may be
consequences. He stabbed the person whom
he believed to be an intruder when he was
hit by the chair. However, it was his
roommate who was making fun of him.
o Charged of homicide. Liable?
o Cook argued that he had no intent to
kill. He said that what he did was
lawful self-defense.
o SC: Acquitted the cook based on the
Doctrine of Mistake of Fact
Doctrine of Mistake of Fact
- When there are misapprehension of the facts
of the person causing the injury.
- Requisites:
o The act is lawful had the facts been
as the accused believed them to be.
 In the case, if it were a real
intruder
o That the intention of the accused is
lawful
 Intention of the cook was
lawful. It is not a crime to
defend oneself.
o There must be no fault or
carelessness on the part of the
accused.
 No carelessness on the part
of the cook. He asked for
the identity of the victim,
even warned him not to
enter.
(Case: US vs Ah Chong)
- Case: Involving a chief of police of a town.
The subordinate of the chief served a
warrant of arrest of a notorious criminal.
Both went to the house of the accused.
When they arrived, they saw a person
sleeping on a bamboo bench, with the back
of the person facing them which resemble to
the back of the subject.
- Believing that he was the person they were
looking for, the two immediately fired at
him. Both were charged for murder.
- Argued mistake of fact. Liable? Yes.
o Basing on the 1st requisite, the act
was not lawful.
o Defense not meritorious.
o Case: People vs Oanis (74 PHIL
257)
TN: Remember that criminal intent is not required in
crimes classified as mala prohibita. The defense of lack
of criminal intent is available in crimes considered as
mala inse. The defense of good faith is not available in
mala prohibita.
Mala in se
- Crimes wrongful by their nature.
- Good faith or lack of criminal intent is a
valid defense. It can relieve accused of
criminal offense.
Mala prohibita
- Crimes because they are prohibited by law.
Mere fact that you committed the prohibited
act constitutes a crime.
- Good faith is relevant.
- Did the accused commit the act which is
prohibited by law?
- Eg.: Illegal Possession of Firearm.
o If you are carrying a firearm,
although without criminal intent,
you are to be liable of carrying a
firearm with you.
TN: Most, but not all, crimes under RPC is mala in se.
Most, but not all, crimes penalized under SPL is mala
prohibita.
- Case: (People vs Isidoro, Nov2012) The
Mayor of a town in Samar, the town hit by a
storm. To encourage the persons to self-help
from the destruction in the storm, there is an
incentive of free-food for those who will
help with the construction.
 o There was no more budget for the
free-food, so the budget for the food
for school children were used. But
there was no ordinance re-aligning
the funds.
o Mayor was charged with technical
malversation (for an amount of only
3k)
o Defense of mayor: Good faith, that
he had no criminal intent.
o SC: The crime of technical
malversation, even if penalized
under RPC is malum prohibitum.
Good faith is not a defense.
- Plunder: considered malum in se. Wrongful
per se. Good faith can be a defense. (Case:
People vs Sandiganbayan)
- Case: Involving dagdag-bawas, penalized
under Omnibus Election Code. According to
SC, malum in se. (PP vs Garcia)
- PP v Dungo (2015) hazing
TN: Requisites of Culpa (Negligence)
1. Freedom
2. Intelligence
3. Imprudence or Negligence
- Imp – lack of skill
- Neg – lack of foresight
- Example: Driving a car. Was texting. Ran
over a pedestrian. There is negligence or
imprudence. But penalty is lower compared
to that which was intentional.
Particular, Specific Criminal Intent
- There are intentional crimes committed by
means of dolo which requires particular,
specific criminal intent.
- Eg: attempted or frustrated homicide or
murder.
o In these crimes, there must be a
particular, specific intent to kill.
o If prosecution fails to prove a
specific criminal intent, accused
can’t be convicted of AFHM. But it
does not mean accused will not be
acquitted, IF there is proof that it is
really him who injured. May be
convicted only by physical injuries
(which requires only general
criminal intent)
- Eg: Crime of theft, must have intent to gain.
Abduction, there must be leud design.
Criminal Intent vs Motive
Motive
- refers to the moving power that impels a
person to commit the crime.
- It is the reason why a person commits a
crime.
- Ex. X vs Y sumbagay. Y lose, Y comes back
and stabs X for “revenge”. Motive: Criminal
motive
- Ex. A thinks of running against B. B is
threatened so iyang gihipos si A. Motive:
political motive.
- Ex. A vs B and C, selos si B. Motive: selos
- As a rule, proof of motive is not essential in
the prosecution of the crime, therefore not
necessary for the conviction of the accused.
- But there are instances where motive is
important in determining guilt of the
accused, especially if evidence of accused is
only circumstantial.
o “Kinsa may nagtinguha sa pagpatay
ana niya?”
- Proof
o Doubt to the guilt of the accused
o Evidence of prosecution is merely
circumstantial.
Intent:
- There must be proof of criminal intent for an
accused to be convicted of the crime
charged.
- Intent is the purpose to use a particular
means to effect a result ??
ARTICLE 4
- Refers to a person’s criminal liability in
court.
- Criminal liability is incurred by any person
committing a felony.
- If a person commits a crime, he could be
held criminally liable.
 - A person is criminally liable even if the
crime committed is different from the crime
which he intends to commit
- Example: If Mr. X intended to kill Y. But
when he fired at Y, it was not Y who was hit
but Mr. A. Mr. A is his close friend who
happens to be near Y. Liable? Yes. Criminal
liability is committed by a person although
the felony committed is different from
which the offender intended to commit.
o For the intended crime, if the
intended victim is present, he can
also be held liable.
TN: Possible instances/scenarios wherein the crime
committed is different from the crime intended to be
committed: (mugawas sa quiz!!!)
1. Aberatio ictus (mistake in the blow)
- There is another victim, other than the
intended victim.
- In the scenario, it may result to a complex
crime under Art 48 (accused committed a
single act, and his act produces two or more
crimes)
- Crime: as far as Mr. A is concerned, Mr X
may be liable for attempted murder.
- If: weapon was powerful, bullet penetrated
through the body, Mr X is liable for double
murder.
2. Error in Personae (mistake in the identity)
- IF: Mr. X intended to kill Y. In order to kill
Y, Mr X waited for Mr Y at a dark alley.
When Mr X saw a person coming which
resembled Y, X fired at him. It turned out, it
was the father of X.
o Is X liable for parricide? Even if he
did not intend to kill his father? Yes.
Art4. Although criminal act is
different from
- Accused shall be imposed of the lower
penalty. If actual crime is parricide, and
intended is homicide. Will be convicted for
parricide, but liable for homicide (basis:
Art49)
3. Praeter Intentionem (Lack of intent to
commit so grave a wrong)
- IF: Mr. X is so angry with Mr. Y. Y keeps
sending messages to X’s girlfriend. But Mr
Y persisted on sending messages. Because
of this, X waited for Y, punched Y. Y fell to
the ground, skull cracked, hemorrhage,
resulted to the death of X.
o Liable for homicide?
o Mr X had no intent to kill Y. His
intention was to inflict physical
injuries. But considering that the
victim died, although the intended
felony is a light offense, Mr X is
liable.
TN: (Case) Accused boarded a jeep, staged a robbery.
One of the passengers who happened to sit on the
entrance of the jeep, jumped out of the jeepney and died.
Is the accused liable for robbery with homicide? Yes.
The accused is liable for all direct, natural and logical
consequences of his felonious act. He is liable even if
the crime committed is different from that he intended to
commit.
- TN: The accused must have an intent to
commit the crime. The intended act must
constitute a felony. Otherwise, he may not
be held liable for the resulting crime, unless
there is negligence or imprudence on his
part.
- Eg: Suicide case from 2 yrs ago. Person
wanted to end his life. Before he jumped off
the bridge, he prayed for guidance and
enlightenment whether or not his suicide is
right. He closed his eyes, and turned. When
he opened his eyes, he saw the Nike sign
and read “Just do it.” He jumped, but fell on
the boatman who was spear fishing.
o Is the person who wanted to commit
suicide, but survived, and caused the
death of the fisherman under Art4?
No. Art 4 applies only if a person
commits an unlawful act but the
actual crime committed is different
from that was committed.
 Unless if there was
negligence on his part.
Article 4 is applicable only if accused intended to
commit a felonious act but a different felonious act was
committed.
 - Example: If a person was punched, died
because of TB. If a person was punched,
died because of heart attack. Are these
persons liable? Y. Art 4
- Example: A person punched a victim.
Person died because of serious infection.
Liable for serious physical injuries? Y.
To be liable under Art 4, there must be a relation to the
actual crime to be committed. It must be the proximate
cause. It must be proven that the actual crime committed
was the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the
act of the accused. (pls check)
- Case: Vda. De Bataclan
- Death was considered the proximate cause
of the negligence of the driver. Liable.
Is there a possibility that accused cannot be held liable
for the injury of the victim? Yes, if the injury cannot be
considered is not the proximate cause, or has no logical
connection or relation to the felonious act of the victim.
- Such as: if there is efficient intervening
cause, or when there is an active force which
intervenes between the felony and the
resulting injury.
- Case: (foreign) Accused punched the victim.
Victim fell, horse nearby startled an jumped
on the victim. Victim died. Accused not
liable for the intervening cause.
- Case: (People vs Villacorta Sept 2011)
Accused stabbed victim using bbq stick.
Victim died 22 days later due to tetanus
infection.
o SC: No sufficient proof that death
was due to the felonious act of the
accused.
o Death occurred 22 days after
commission. Acquitted based on
reasonable doubt.
- Case: If the victim sustained injuries due to
his intentional act.
o Accused boxed the victim. Despite
the victim knowing very well that he
had injury, submerged himself in a
dirt-pool. SC: Accused can’t be held
liable for crime charged.. Injury was
due to the intentional act of the
victim. (US vs De los Santos)
- Accused may be held liable only if the
injury is due to the direct, natural, and
logical consequence of the act.
- Case: Accused was cleaning gun. After
cleaning, he tried to test the gun by shooting
a cat he saw. He hit is neighbor, not the cat.
Is the accused liable? Shooting at an animal
is malicious mischief. Actual crime
committed is homicide. Liable for homicide
Yes. Art. 4
- If: X attacked Y by pointing a gun at him.
Robbery. “Ihatag nimog iPhone or mamatay
ka?” Y wrestled with X to disarm X. In the
process, Y intentionally placed his finger on
the trigger and the firearm fired and hit
bystander A. Liable? No. Under Art 4,
accused must have the intention to commit a
felony to be liable. Defending oneself does
not constitute commission of a crime.
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
What is an impossible crime? Bar fave
- Art4P2 It refers to an act which would be an
offense against persons or properties, were it
not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or on account of
employment of inadequate or infectual
means?
- Only crime penalized under book 1
- Penalty: Art59, arresto mayor or fine
IC, Requisites:
1. There is an act performed which is against
persons or properties
- Applicable only against persons or property
2. There must be an evil intent on the part of the
accused
3. That its accomplishment is inherently
impossible or that the means employed is either
inadequate or ineffectual.
4. The act performed should not constitute another
violation under RPC