ARTICLE 1 – DATE OF EFFECTIVENES

- This Code shall take effect on 1 January 1932

ARTICLE 2 – APPLICATION (Territory: 12nm from the archipelagic baseline) [contiguous zone: 24nm;
exclusive economic zone (eez): 200nm; and continental shelves]

- EXCEPT in the treaties and laws of preferential application, the provisions of this Code shall be
enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago… but also outside of its jurisdiction, against
those who:
1. Should commit an offense while on Philippine ship or airship;
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the PH Islands or obligations
and securities issued by the Government of the PH Islands;
3. [Should be liable for acts connected with introduction to these Islands of the obligations
and securities mentioned in the preceding 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.

↓↓↓

1. PH ship or airship
a. EXCEPTIONS: When the ship or airship is in the territory of a foreign country
i. it is subject to laws of that foreign country
b. Registration is needed to be bound by the law
i. PH court has no jurisdiction over the crime of theft committed… if the vessel (or
aircraft is not registered or licensed in the PH (US vs Fowler, 1 Phil. 614; p. 34)
2. Counterfeit of PH currency or other obligations and securities
a. Violation: Art. 163 or Art. 166
3. *in connection with number 2*
4. Public officer or employees in the exercise of their functions
a. Violations:
i. Direct bribery (Art. 210)
ii. Indirect bribery (Art. 211)
iii. Frauds against treasury (Art. 213)
iv. Prohibited interest (Art. 216)
v. Malversation of public funds or property (Art. 217)
vi. Failure to render accounts (Art. 218)
vii. Illegal use of public funds or property (Art. 220)
viii. Failure to make delivery of public funds or property (Art. 221)
ix. Falsification by public officer or employee committed with abuse of his official
position (Art. 171)
5. Crime against national security and the law of nations
a. Violations:
i. Treason (Art. 114)
ii. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason (Art. 115)
 iii. Espionage (Art. 117)
iv. Inciting to war and giving motives for reprisals (Art. 118)
v. Violation of neutrality (Art. 119)
vi. Correspondence with hostile country (Art. 120)
vii. Flight to enemy’s country (Art. 121)
viii. Piracy and mutiny on the high seas (Art. 122)
- Crimes punishable in the PH under Art. 2 are cognizable by the RTC in which the charge is filed

CRIMES COMMITTED ON BOARD A FOREIGN MERCHANT SHIP OR AIRSHIP

- Extension of the territory of the country to which it belongs = not triable by our courts
- EXCEPTION: Continuing offense on board a foreign vessel (or aircraft)
1. Norwegian merchant vessel sailing to PH, failing to provide stalls for animals in transit in
violation of Act No. 55, is triable in the PH

RULES AS TO JURISDICTION OVER CRIMES COMMITTED ABOARD FOREIGN MERCHANT VESSELS (while
in the territorial waters of another country)

Such crimes are not triable in the courts of that country, UNLESS:

1. French Rule – their commission affects the peace and security of the territory or the safety of
the state is endangered
2. English Rule – they merely affects within the vessel or they refer to the internal management
thereof

Under UNCLOS, the criminal jurisdiction of the coastal State should not be exercised on board a foreign
ship passing through the territorial sea to arrest any person or to conduct any investigation in
connection with any crime committed on board the ship during its passage, EXCEPT:

1. If the consequences of the crime extend to the coastal State (coastal – intermediary zone =
contiguous zone: 24nm)
2. If the crime is of a kind to disturb the peace of the country or the good order of the territorial
sea
3. If the assistance of the local authorities has been requested by the master of the ship or by a
diplomatic agent or consular officer of the flag State; or
4. If such measures are necessary for the suppression of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs or
psychotropic substances

However, the coastal State has the right to take any steps authorized by its laws for the purpose of an
arrest or investigation on board a foreign ship passing through the territorial sea AFTER leaving internal
waters

EXCEPTION: (1) crime committed before the ship entered the territorial sea (2) if the ship, proceeding
from a foreign port is ONLY PASSING through the territorial sea WITHOUT ENTERING internal waters

DO THE PH COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE CRIME OF HOMICIDE COMMITTED ON BOARD A
FOREIGN MERCHAN VESSEL BY A MEMBER OF THE CREW AGAINS ANOTHER?
 - Felonious homicide is a subject for the local jurisdiction, and that if the proper authorities are
proceeding with the case in the regular way, the consul has no right to interfere to prevent it
(Mali and Wildenhus vs Keeper of the Common Jail, cited in People vs Wong Cheng; pg. 38)

CRIMES NOT INVOLVING A BREACH OF PUBLIC ORDER COMMITTED ON BOARD A FOREIGN

MERCHANT VESSEL IN TRANSIT NOT TRIABLE BY OUR COURTS

- Mere possession of opium aboard a foreign merchant vessel in transit is not triable in PH courts
1. EXCEPTIONS:
 Landing or using opium
 When a foreign merchant vessel is not in transit because the PH is its terminal
port  guilty of illegal importation of opium

PH COURTS HAVE NO JURISDICTION OVER OFFENSES COMMITTED ON BOARD FOREIGN WARSHIPS IN

TERRITORIAL WATERS

- Warships are always reputed to be the territory of the country to which they cannot be
subjected to the laws of another state

EXTRA-TERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF RA 9372 “HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007”

- Subject to the provision of an existing treaty of which the PH is a signatory and to any contrary
provision of any law of preferential application, the provision of the Act shall apply”:
1. Individual persons who commit any of the crimes defined and punished in the Act within
PH territories — maritime zone
2. Individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the PH,
commit, conspire or plot any of the crimes defined and punished in the Act inside the
territorial limits of the PH (possible crime in PH territory)
3. [physically outside] commit any of the said crimes on board PH ship or airship
4. (5) [physically outside] commit said crimes against PH citizens or persons of PH descent,
where their citizenship or ethnicity was a factor in the commission of the crime
5. (6) [physically outside] commit said crimes directly against the PH government
6. (4) Individual persons who commit any of said crimes within any embassy, consulate or
diplomatic premises belonging to or occupied by the PH government in an official
capacity

FELONIES

ARTICLE 3 – DEFINITION

- Acts and omissions punished by law (delitos)

- Felonies are committed not only by 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

ELEMENTS OF FELONIES

1. There must be an act or omission

2. Must be punishable by the RPC
 3. The act is performed, or the omission incurred by means of dolo or culpa

ONLY EXTERNAL ACT IS PUNISHED

- Criminal thought or mere intention will never constitute a felony

OMMISSION – inaction

- Anyone who fails to render assistance to any person wounded or in danger  abandonment of
persons in danger (Art. 275, par. 1)
- Officer entrusted with collection of taxes who fails to issue receipt  illegal exaction (Art. 213,
par. 2[b])
- Failure to disclose knowledge of any conspiracy against the government  misprision of treason
(Art. 116)

MAXIM IN CRIM LAW

- Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege or there is no crime where there is no law punishing it
1. Punished by RPC and not by special law

OMISSION MUST BE PUNISHABLE BY LAW

- There is no law that punishes a person who do not report to the authorities the commission of
a crime which he witnessed

CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES ACCORDING TO THE MEANS BY WHICH THEY ARE COMMITTED

1. Intentional felonies – offense is malicious or with intent (dolo)

2. Culpable felonies – unintentional (culpa)
 Evasion through negligence – Art. 224
 Imprudent or negligent acts, which, had they been intentional, would constitute
grave, less grave or light felonies.
 EXCEPTIONS: murder, treason, robbery, and malicious mischief

A PERSON WHO CAUSED AN INJURY WITHOUT INTENTION TO CAUSE AN EVIL, MAY BE HELD LIABLE
FOR CULPABLE FELONY

- US vs Divino, 12 Phil. 175, 190; p. 46

IMPRUDENCE, NEGLIGENCE, LACK OF FORESIGHT

1. Imprudence – deficiency of action

 If a person fails to take the necessary precaution (lack of skill)
2. Negligence – deficiency of perception
 If a person fails to pay proper attention and to use due diligence in foreseeing
the injury or damage impending to be caused (lack of foresight)

REASON FOR PUNISHING ACTS OF NEGLIGENCE (CULPA)

- A man must use common sense, and exercise due reflection in all his acts, if not from instinct,
then through fear of incurring punishment
INTENTIONAL AND CULPABLE FELONIES ARE VOLUNTARY

- (culpable) Reckless imprudence (Art. 365) – reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but
without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results
- A criminal act is presumed to be voluntary

ACTS EXECUTED NEGLIGENTLY ARE VOLUNTARY

EXAMPLE:

- Hunter who seemed to have seen with his lantern something like the eyes of a deer about 50m
from him and then shot it, but he found out that it was his companion
1. Voluntary act – discharging his gun
2. Resulting to homicide without malice – do not have the intent to kill his companion
 But the hunter, knowing he had two companions, should have exercised all the
necessary diligence to avoid every undesirable accident

THREE REASONS WHY THE ACT OR OMISSION IN FELONIES MUST BE VOLUNTARY

1. Classical Theory – free will

2. Man is a rational being  one must prove that his case falls under Art. 12 to show that his act
or omission is not voluntary
3. Dolo – necessarily be voluntary
Culpa – voluntarily but without malice (to be considered voluntary: see requisites of dolo)

REQUISITES OF DOLO OR MALICE

1. Freedom – when a persons acts without freedom, he is no longer human but a tool
a. Person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force is exempt from criminal
liability (Art. 12, par. 5)
b. Person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater
injury is also exempted (Art. 12, par. 6)
2. Intelligence – necessary to determine morality of human acts
a. Imbecile or insane
b. Infant under 9 years of age
c. Minor over 9 but less than 15, acting without discernment, have no criminal liability
(Art. 12, pars. 1, 2, and 3)
3. Intent

INTENT PRESUPPOSES THE EXERCISE OF FREEDOM AND THE USE OF INTELLIGENCE

- One who acts without freedom necessarily has no intent

- One who acts without intelligence has no such intent
- BUT a person who acts with freedom and with intelligence may not have the intent . A person
who caused an injury by mere accident had freedom and intelligence, but since he had no fault
or intention of causing it, is not criminally liable (Art. 12, par. 4)

INTENT TO KILL IS DIFFICULT TO PROVE, BUT CAN BE DEDUCED FROM THE EXTERNAL ACTS
PERFORMED BY A PERSON
CRIMINAL INTENT IS PRESUMED FROM THE COMMISSION OF AN UNLAWFUL ACT

BUT THE PRESUMPTION OF CRIMINAL INTENT DOES NOT ARISE FROM THE PROOF OF THE
COMMISSION OF AN ACT WHICH IS NOT UNLAWFUL (possible rebut of the accused)

- Actus non facit reum or a crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing to act
complained be innocent
1. The act of a person does not make him a criminal, unless his mind be criminal
- Actus me invito factus non est meus actus “act done by me against my will is not my act”

MISTAKE OF FACT

- Ignorantia legis non excusat or ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith

Vs

- Ignorantia facti excusat or ignorance or mistake of fact relieves the accused from criminal
liability
1. An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent

REQUISITES OF MISTAKES OF FACT AS A DEFENSE

1. The act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be
2. Intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful
3. The mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused

NO CRIME OF RESISTANCE WHEN THERE IS A MISTAKE OF FACT

- One who resists an arrest believing that the peace officer is a bandit, but who submits the arrest
immediately upon being informed that he is a policeman is not guilty of crime of resistance

DISTINCTION BETWEEN GENERAL INTENT AND SPECIFIC INTENT

- Specific intent is required in certain crimes

1. Property – intent to gain (Art. 293 – robbery; Art 307 – theft)
2. Frustrated or attempted homicide – intent to kill

RPC (mala in se; based on intent)

1. Intentional felonies
2. Culpable felonies

SPL (mala prohibita; based on violation of an act)

1. Crimes punished by municipal or city ordinances

DOLO IS NOT REQUIRED IN CRIMES PUNISHED BY SPL

- It is sufficient that the offender has the intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by the SPL

INTENT (willingness) – purpose to use a particular means to effect such result

VS
MOTIVE (reason) – the moving power which impels one to action for a definite result; not an essential
element of crime, and need not to be proved for purposes of conviction

MOTIVE WHEN RELEVANT AND WHEN NOT

1. IDENTITY OF ACCUSED
a. The identity of the accused who committed a crime is in dispute
b. When there is doubt as to the identity of the assailant
i. Immaterial when the accused has been positively identified
c. Identification of the accused proceeds from an unreliable source
d. NOT – defendant admits the crime
2. ANTAGONISTIC THEORIES
a. Motive is important in ascertaining the truth
3. NO EYEWITNESSES
4. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OR SUFFICENT EVIDENCE
a. Circumstantial – motive is essential
b. Sufficient – NOT

MOTIVE PROVED BY EVIDENCE

DISCLOSURE OF THE MOTIVE IS AN AID IN COMPLETING THE PROOF OF THE COMMISSION OF THE
CRIME

- EXAMPLE: the fact that the accused had been losing in their business operations indicated the
motive and therefore the intent to commit arson for the purpose of collecting the insurance on
their stock of merchandise (US VS Go Foo Suy, 25 Phil. 187, 204; p. 67)

BUT PROOF OF MOTIVE ALONE IS NOT SUFFIECIENT TO SUPPORT A CONVICTION

- Cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt

LACK OF MOTIVE MAY BE AN AID IN SHOWING THE INNOCENCE OF THE ACCUSED (case dismissal)

ARTICLE 4 – CRIMINAL LIABLITY [shall be incurred:]

1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from
that which he intended
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 on account of the employment of
inadequate or ineffectual means

APPLICATION: any manner of incurring criminal liability under the RPC Art. 3

ONE WHO COMMITS AN INTENTIONAL FELONY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE CONSEQUENCES WHICH
MAY NATURALLY AND LOGICALLY RESULT THEREFROM, WHETHER FORESEEN OR INTENDED OR NOT

- A person who performs a criminal act is responsible for all the consequences of said act
regardless of his intention (People vs Mariano, 1978; p. 69)
 1. Death of a victim was brought about by the rape committed by the accused. Death was
not intended, but brought by laceration of the vagina. He is still responsible for the
death.

RATIONALE: el que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado or he who is the cause of the cause is
the cause of the evil caused

WHEN A PERSON HAS NOT COMMITTED A FELONY, HE IS NOT CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR THE RESULT
WHICH IS NOT INTENDED (p. 71)

“ALTHOUGH THE WRONGFUL ACT DONE BE DIFFERENT FROM WHICH HE INTENDED”

1. Mistake in the identity

2. Mistake in the blow (when the offender intending to do an injury to one person actually inflicts
it on another)
3. The act exceeds the intent, that is, the injurious result is greater than that intended

REQUISITES OF ART. 4 PAR. 1

1. Intentional felony
2. Wrong done must be direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony. It is also considered
if:
a. Threatened or chased by the accused with a knife
b. Removal of drainage from the wound
c. Other causes cooperated in producing the fatal result, as long as the wound inflicted is
dangerous
d. Victim was suffering from internal malady – blow was efficient cause of death
i. Blow was efficient cause of death – deceased was suffering [from tuberculosis],
the accused gave blows, bruising the liver and producing internal hemorrhage,
bruising the liver producing internal hemorrhage, resulting death
1. Death is instant
ii. Blow accelerated death – deceased was suffering from internal malady. The
accused gave blows producing inflammation of the spleen, and causing death
1. Blow is the cause for the acceleration of the death [not instant]
iii. Blow was proximate cause of death – deceased was suffering from heart
disease. The accused stabbed the deceased, but the knife did not penetrate but
produced shock, resulting in the death of the victim
1. —
e. Offended party refused to submit surgical operation
i. Offended party is not obliged to submit a surgical operation to relieve the
accused from the natural and ordinary results of his crime
f. The resulting injury was aggravated by infection
i. Stab wounds caused infection — multiple organ failure which caused death

THE FELONY COMMITTED MUST BE THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE RESULTING INJURY

1. Primary cause of the injury

2. Cause : felonious act ; and effect : damage
THE FELONY COMMITTED IS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE WHEN:

1. There is an active force between the felony committed and the resulting injury that is a distinct
act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused
2. The injury is due to the intentional act of the victim]
a. Unskillful and improper treatment may be an active force, but it is not a distinct act or
fact absolutely foreign from the criminal act (People vs Moldes)

THE FOLLOWING ARE NOT EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSES: (do not break the cause-effect / liability)

- (Because the proximate cause is still the root cause and that these won’t happen without the
external cause of the accused)
1. Weak condition of the victim
2. A person dies in consequence of internal hemorrhage brought on by moving about against the
doctor’s orders
3. Causes which are inherent in the victim, such as
a. Inability to swim
b. Tuba drinking
4. Neglect of the victim such as refusal to seek medical assistance
5. Erroneous or unskillful medical treatment
6. Delay in the medical treatment

WHEN DEATH IS PRESUMED TO BE THE NATURAL CONSEQUENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLICTED

1. The victim at the time the physical injuries were inflicted was in normal health
2. Death may be expected from the physical injuries inflicted
3. Death ensued within reasonable time

NOT DIRECT, NATURAL AND LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE OF THE FELONY COMMITTED

- Consequences produced have resulted from a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from
criminal act  offender is not responsible for such consequences [because it is not proximate]
1. A person stuck another with his fist and knocked him down and a horse near them
jumped upon him and killed him
2. Slight injuries inflicted by A upon B and the latter deliberately immerses his body in a
contaminated cesspool causing his injuries to become infected and serious
 The immersion is the proximate cause of the serious physical injuries
 B knows that he would get infected if he did that
3. If the true cause of death was not proved  physical injuries only

A SUPERVENING EVENT MAY BE THE SUBJECT OF AMENDMENT OF ORIGINAL INFORMATION OR OF A

NEW CHARGE WITHOUT DOUBLE JEOPARDY (p. 88)

IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES (penalized under Art. 59)

1. Act performed would be an offense against persons or property

2. The act was done with evil intent
 3. Accomplishment is inherently impossible
a. Impossibility
i. Legal impossibility
ii. Physical impossibility
iii. EXAMPLES:
1. When one tries to kill another by putting in his soup a substance which
he believes to be arsenic when in fact it is common salt  offense
against persons
2. When one tries to murder a corpse  offense against persons
3. A, with intent to gain, took a watch from the pocket of B. When A had
the watch in his possession, he found out that it was the watch which
he had lost a week before. In other words, the watch belonged to A 
offense against property
b. Employment of inadequate means
i. EXAMPLE: A, determined to poison B, uses a small quantity of arsenic by mixing
it with the food given to B, believing that the quantity employed by him is
sufficient. But since in fact it is not sufficient, B is not killed.
c. Employment of ineffectual means
i. A tried to kill B by putting in his soup a substance which he thought was arsenic
when in fact it was sugar
4. The act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the RPC

ARTICLE 5

THERE IS NO CRIME IF THERE IS NO LAW THAT PUNISHES IT

IN CASE OF EXCESSIVE PENALTIES (the 2nd paragraph of Art. 4 requires that)

1. The court after trial finds the accused guilty

2. The penalty provided by law and which the court imposes for the crime committed appears to
be clearly excessive because
a. The accused acted with lesser degree of malice
b. There is no injury or the injury caused is of lesser gravity
3. The court should not suspend the execution of the sentence
4. The judge should submit a statement to the Chief Executive, through Secretary of Justice,
recommending executive clemency

THE PENALITIES ARE NOT EXCESSIVE WHEN INTENDED TO ENFORCE A PUBLIC POLICY

1. Rampant lawlessness, directly traceable in large measure to promiscuous carrying and use of
powerful weapons, justify imprisonment
2. Imposition of a heavy fine so that dealers would not take advantage of the critical condition to
make unusual profit

COURTS HAVE THE DUTY TO APPLY THE PENALTY PROVIDED BY LAW

↓
JUDGE [OF LOWER COURT] HAS THE DUTY TO APPLY THE LAW AS INTERPRETED BY THE SUPREME
COURT