Criminal Law - Reviewer

1 Criminal Law 1 (2022-2023) | PLM College of Law | Atty. Kris Gargantiel

Criminal Law 1
Course Outline
Atty. Kris Gargantiel

I. Fundamental Principles

A. Definition

Criminal Law (DTP)

- Defines crimes, Treats of their nature, and Provides for their punishment.

Crime
- An act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or commanding it.

Ient vs. Tullett Prebon, G.R. No. 189158, 11 January 2017

In dubio pro reo

-someone who is accused of a crime cannot be convicted when there is doubt about his guilt.
-”Beyond reasonable doubt” is the legal burden of proof required to confirm a conviction in a
criminal case.

Rule of Lenity
-When the court is faced with two interpretations of a statute, one of which is prejudicial to the
defendant, and the other is favorable to him, the rule calls for the adaptation of the interpretation
that is favorable to the defendant.

1. Characteristics of Criminal Law

a. Generality
- Art. 14, New Civil Code, Criminal law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn
in Philippine Territory.
- Art. 2, RPC,The provisions of this Code shall be enforced within the Philippine
Archipelago, except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential
application.
- Pertains to who commits the crime

*Liang vs. People, G.R. No. 125865, 28 January 2000

*Minucher vs. Scalzo, G.R. No. 142396, 11 February 2003

General Rule: The criminal law of the country governs all the people within the country.
XPN:
 Criminal Law - Reviewer

1. Treaties
a. Visiting Forces Agreement
- a visiting forces agreement (VFA) is an agreement between a country
and a foreign nation having military forces visiting in that country.
b. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
- the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 is an
international treaty that defines a framework for diplomatic relations
between independent countries.
c. Host Agreement Between the Philippines and the WHO

WHO vs. Aquino, G.R. No. L-35131, 29 November 1972)

2. Laws of Preferential Application

a. Article VI, Section 11, 1987 Constitution
Section 11. A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall,
in all offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be
privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No Member shall
be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or
debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof.
b. Republic Act No. 75, may be considered a law preferential application in
favour of diplomatic representatives and their domestic servants.
c. Republic Act No. 7055

b. Territoriality

- The principle of territoriality means that as a rule, penal laws of the Philippines
are enforceable only within its territory.
- Pertains to where the crime is committed
- Article I, 1987 Constitution

General Rule: Criminal laws undertake to punish crimes committed within Philippine
territory.
XPN:
1. Art. 2, RPC, provides that its provisions shall be enforced outside of the
jurisdiction of the Philippines against those who:
a. Should commit an offence while on a Philippine ship or airship;
b. 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;
c. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of
the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number;
d. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offence in the
exercise of their functions;
e. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of
nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.

Article 14, Civil Code

 Criminal Law - Reviewer

Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or
sojourn in the Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public international law and to
treaty stipulations.

c. Prospectivity

General rule: No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior
to its commission. (Article 21 of RPC)
XPN: If it is favorable to the accused, provided that:
a. The offender is not a habitual delinquent;
b. The new or amendatory law does not provide against its retrospective
application (Article 22 of the RPC)
XPN2XPN:
(1) The new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of action.
(2) The offender is a habitual criminal.
(3) ex-post-facto law.

i. Retroactive application when favorable to the accused

ii. Repeals and their effects
- Absolute repeal (express or implied)
- When the repeal is absolute, the offense ceases to be criminal.
(People vs. Tamayo)
- When the repealing law fails to penalize the offense under the old
law, the accused cannot be convicted under the new law. (People
vs. Tamayo)
- Partial repeal
-
- Self-repeal
- Is one where the law expires on its own terms and provisions.
iii. Duty of courts in case of unpenalized repressible acts, or excessive penalties.

Soliven vs. Makasiar, G.R. No. 82585, 14 November 1988

Ombudsman vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146486, 4 March 2005
David vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, 3 May 2006
Lozada vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 184379-80, 24 April 2012
 Criminal Law - Reviewer

Republic Act No. 75

An Act to Penalize Acts which would Impair the Inhabitants of the Philippines of the
Immunities, Right, and Privileges of Duly Accredited Foreign Diplomatic and Consular Agents in
the Philippines.

Republic Act No. 7055

Navales vs. Abaya, G.R. No. 162318, 25 October 2004

b. Territoriality

(1) The law is applicable to all crimes committed within the limits of Philippine territory, which
includes its atmosphere, interior waters and maritime zone (Art. 2).

(2) Territoriality means that the penal laws of the country have force and effect only within its
territory. It cannot penalize crimes committed outside the same. This is subject to certain
exceptions brought about by international agreements and practice. The territory of the country
is not limited to the land where its sovereignty resides but also includes its maritime and interior
waters as well as its atmosphere.

(3) Terrestrial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over land. Fluvial jurisdiction is the
jurisdiction exercised over maritime and interior waters. Aerial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction
exercised over the atmosphere.

Article 2, RPC
Article I, 1987 Constitution

People vs. Tulin, G.R. No. 111709, 20 August 2001

i. Extraterritorial application (SCIPA)

The Philippines has jurisdiction over crimes committed outside its territory.
1. Commission of an offense while on Philippine Ship or Airship
a. Elements:
i. Crime must be committed on board a private or merchant ship.
ii. Ship or airship must be registered in the Philippines under Philippine
Laws.
iii. Crime must be committed while on international waters.
2. Forging or Counterfeiting any coin or currency note of the Philippines, or currency note
of the Philippines or obligations and securities issued by the Government
3. Introduction into the Philippines of the obligations and securities mentioned in the
preceding number.
4. Public officers or employees who commit an offense in the exercise of their functions.
 Criminal Law - Reviewer

a. Direct Bribery
b. Indirect Bribery
c. Qualified Bribery
d. Failure to render accounts
e. Illegal use of Public Funds or Property
f. Falsification
g. Fraud Against Public Treasury and Similar Offenses
h. Malversation
i. Possession of Prohibited Interest.
5. Commission of any of the crimes Against national security and the law of nations defined
in Title One of Book Two.
a. Treason
b. Conspiracy and Proposal to commit treason
c. Misprision of Treason
d. Espionage
e. Inciting to war and giving motives for reprisals
f. Violation of neutrality
g. Correspondence with hostile country
h. Piracy and mutiny
i. Qualified piracy

U.S. vs. Bull, G.R. No. 5270, 15 January 1910

People vs. Wong Cheng, G.R. No. 18924, 19 October 1922
*U.S. vs. Lol-lo, G.R. No. L-17958, 27 February 1922

c. Prospectivity
Article 4, Civil Code
Article 21, RPC
Article 22, RPC
i. Retroactive application when favorable to the accused

General rule: Penal laws are applied prospectively.

Exception: When retrospective application will be favorable to the person guilty of a felony,
provided that:

1. The offender is NOT a habitual criminal (delinquent) under Art. 62(5);

2. The new or amendatory law does NOT provide against its retrospective application. Reason
for the exception: The sovereign, in enacting a subsequent penal law more favorable to the
accused, has recognized that the greater severity of the former law is unjust.

Hernan vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 217874, 5 December 2017 (RA 10951)
In re: Elbanbuena, G.R. No. 237721, 31 July 2018
 Criminal Law - Reviewer

ii. Repeals and their effects

People vs. Simon, G.R. No. 93028, 29 July 1994

People vs. Bracamonte, G.R. No. 95939, 17 June 1996
People vs. Cogonon, G.R. No. 94548, 4 October 1996
People vs. Velasco, G.R. No. 135231-33, 28 February 2001
People vs. Tubongbanua, G.R. No. 171271, 31 August 2006
*Ortega vs. People, G.R. No. 151085, 20 August 2008

- Absolute repeal (express or implied)

People vs. Tamayo, G.R. No. 41423, 19 March 1935

*People vs. Pastor, G.R. No. L-335, 12 February 1947

- Partial repeal

- Self-repeal

iii. Duty of courts in case of unpenalized repressible acts, or excessive

penalties

Article 5, RPC

People vs. Orifon, G.R. No. 36173, 25 November 1932

People vs. Canja, G.R. No. L-2800, 30 May 1950
*People vs. Formigones, G.R. No. L-3246, 29 November 1950
*People vs. Gutierez, G.R. No. 81020, 28 May 1991
People vs. Villorente, G.R. No. 100198, 1 July 1992
People vs. Glino, G.R. No. 173793, 4 December 2007
People vs. Orilla, G.R No. 148939-40, 13 February 2004

2. Crimes mala in se and crimes mala prohibita

Mala in se
- Felonies that violate the RPC
- Exception: Plunder (punished by a Special Law, but is considered inherently immoral)

Mala prohibita
- Offences that violate Special Penal Laws
 Criminal Law - Reviewer

Padilla vs. Dizon, A.C. No. 3086, 23 February 1988

Magno vs. CA, G.R. No. 96132, 26 June 1992
Cruz vs. CA, G.R. No. 108738, 17 June 1994
Dela Torre vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 121592, 5 July 1996
Dunlao vs. CA, G.R. No. 111343, 22 August 1996
*Loney vs. People, G.R. No. 152644, 10 February 2006
Teves vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 180363, 28 April 2009
3 Criminal Law 1 (2022-2023) | PLM College of Law | Atty. Kris Gargantiel
3. Sources
a. Revised Penal Code
i. Spanish text prevails over the English text
Section 15, Revised Administrative Code
People vs. Astorga, G.R. No. 110097, 22 December 1997
b. Special Penal Laws
i. Suppletory application of the Revised Penal Code
Article 10, RPC
People vs. Simon, G.R. No. 93028, 29 July 1994
Ladonga vs. People, G.R. No. 141066, 17 February 2005
Romualdez vs. Marcelo, G.R. No. 165510-33, 28 July 2006

II. Constitutional Limitations under the Bill of Rights

A. Due process, equal protection, and the rights of the accused
Article 3, Section 1 of 1987 Constitution, No person shall be deprived of life, liberty,
or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of
the laws.
Article 3, Section 14 of 1987 Constitution, No person shall be held to answer for
criminal offence without due process of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary
is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to
meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of
witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may
proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified
and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.

Dimatulac vs. Vilon, G.R. No. 127107, 12 October 1998

*Liang vs. People, G.R. No. 125865, 28 January 2000
Guevarra vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 138792-804, 31 March 2005
*White Light Corporation vs. City of Manila, G.R. No. 122846, 20 January 2009
Garcia vs. Drilon, G.R. No. 179267, 25 June 2013

B. Freedom from detention solely by reason of political beliefs and aspirations

 Criminal Law - Reviewer

Article 3, Section 18 (1), 1987 Constitution, No person shall be detained solely by

reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.

C. Freedom from excessive fines, cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishment

Article 3, Section 19, 1987 Constitution, Excessive fines shall not be exposed, nor
cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall the death penalty be imposed,
unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it.
Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced reclusion perpetua.
(2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any
prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman
conditions shall be dealt with by law.

Harden vs. Director of Prisons, G.R. No. L-2349, 22 October 1948

aPeople vs. Dionisio, G.R. No. L-25513, 27 March 1968
People vs. Echagaray, G.R. No. 117472, 7 February 1997
Corpuz vs. People, G.R. No. 180016, 29 April 2014

D. Non-imprisonment for debt or non-payment of poll tax

Article 3, Section 20, 1987 Constitution, No person shall be imprisoned for debt or
non-payment of a poll tax.

E. Prohibition against double jeopardy

Article 3, Section 21, 1987 Constitution, No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of
punishment for the same offence. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or
acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.

Marcos vs. Chief of Staff, G.R. No. L-4663, 30 May 1951

People vs. Doriquez, G.R. No. L-24444-45, 29 July 1968
People vs. City Court of Manila, G.R. No. L-36528, 24 September 1987
Perez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-80838, 29 November 1988
Nierras vs. Dacuycuy, G.R. No. 59568-76, 11 January 1990
Villareal vs. People, G.R. No. 151258, 1 December 2014

F. Prohibition against bills of attainder

Article 3, Section 22, 1987 Constitution, No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall
be enacted.
 Criminal Law - Reviewer

People vs. Ferrer, G.R. No. L-32613-14, 27 December 1972

G. Prohibition against ex post facto laws

U.S. vs. Conde, G.R. No. L-18208, 14 February 1922

People vs. Carabllo, G.R. No. 43973, 21 December 1935
Wright vs. CA, G.R. No. 113213, 15 August 1994

III. General Principles on Punishable Acts and Omissions

A. What felonies are
Article 3, RPC
1. Crimes, Generic term for the three.
Felonies, Punishable by RPC.
Are acts and omissions punishable by RPC.
Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of
fault (culpa).
Offences, Punishable by Special Penal Laws
Infractions, Punishable by Administrative Laws
a. Corpus delicti
2. How felonies are committed
Article 3, RPC
People vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 80762, 9 March 1990
a. Dolo (Deceit or Deliberate Intent)
Requisites of Dolo:
a. He must have FREEDOM while doing an act or omitting to do an act.
b. He must have INTELLIGENCE while doing the act or omitting to do the
act.
c. He must have INTENT while doing the act or omitting to do the act.
b. Culpa (Fault, imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill)
Requisites of Culpa:
a. He must have FREEDOM while doing an act or omitting to do an act.
b. He must have INTELLIGENCE while doing the act or omitting to do the
act.
c. He is IMPRUDENT, NEGLIGENT or LACKS FORESIGHT or SKILL while
doing the act or omitting to do the act.

Cabello vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 93885, 14 May 1991

3. Kinds of felonies based on severity

Article 9, RPC
a. Grave, the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their
periods are afflictive in accordance with Article 25 of RPC.
 Criminal Law - Reviewer

b. Less grave, Law punishes with penalty which in their maximum period are
correctional in accordance with Article 25 of RPC.
c. Light, Infraction of laws for the commission of which a penalty of arrest menor or a
fine not exceeding 200 pesos or both.

4. Elements of a felony
a. An act and omission
Act, Any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the external world, it being
unnecessary that the same be actually reduced, as the possibility of its production is sufficient.
Omission 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.

People vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 80762, 19 March 1990

People vs. Sylvestre G.R. No. 35748, 14 December 1931
People vs. Talingdan, G.R. No. L-32126, 6 July 1978
People vs. Lizada, G.R. No. 143468-71, 24 January 2003

b. Punishable by the Revised Penal Code, punished by the Revised Penal Code and
not by Special Law.
Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege - That there is no crime where there is no law
punishing it.
c. Voluntariness, In felonies committed by means of dolo and culpa, the acts or
omission are voluntary.

i. Freedom of action,

ii. Intelligence, the moral capacity to determine right from wrong and to realise
the consequences of one’s actions

People vs. Cordova, G.R. No. 83373-74, 5 July 1993

iii. Intent, Intent to commit the act with malice, being purely a mental process, is
presumed and presumption arises from the proof of the commission of an
unlawful act.

Distinctions between criminal intent and motive.

Motive
- It is the moving power which impels one to action to achieve a definite result [REYES]
General Rule: Not an essential element of a crime
Exceptions:
1. When the act brings about variant crimes (e.g. kidnapping v. robbery [People v. Puno\
2. When the identity of the perpetrator is in doubt [People v. Hassan]
 Criminal Law - Reviewer

3. When there is the need to ascertain the truth between two antagonistic versions of the
crime. [People v. De Los Santos]
4. When evidence on the commission of the crime is purely circumstantial

U.S. vs. McMann, G.R. No. 2229, 1 July 1905

U.S. vs. Carlos, G.R. No. 5476, 15 January 1910
Borguilla vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-47286, 7 January 1987
People vs. Puno, G.R. No. 97471, 17 February 1993
People vs. Salamat, G.R. No. 103295, 20 August 1993
People vs. Bautista, G.R. No. 120898-99, 14 May 1998
People vs. Delim, G.R. No. 142773, 28 January 2003

-Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea

Manzanaris vs. People, G.R. No. L-64750, 30 January 1984

Lim vs. CA, G.R. No. 100311, 18 May 1993
People vs. Gemoya, G.R. No. 132633, 4 October 2000
Relucio vs. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 147182, 21 November 2002
People vs. Delim, G.R. No. 142773, 28 January 2003
People vs. Abdulla, G.R. No. 150129, 6 April 2005

B. Transferred intent and impossible crimes

Article 4, RPC

1. Factors affecting intent and the offender’s criminal liability

People vs. Dalag, G.R. No. 129895, 30 April 2003

a. Mistake of fact

Requisites [LIM]:
1. The act done would have been Lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them
to be.
2. The Intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful.
3. That the Mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused

*U.S. vs. Ah Chong, G.R. No. 5272, 19 March 1910

People vs. Apego, G.R. No. 7929, 8 November 1912
U.S. vs. Bautista, G.R. No. 10678, 17 August 1915
People vs. Bayambao, G.R. No. 29481, 31 October 1928

b. Abberratio ictus
 Criminal Law - Reviewer

People vs. Vagallon, G.R. No. 22688, 26 January 1925

People vs. Guillen, G.R. No. L-1477, 18 January 1950
People vs. Itlanas, G.R. No. L-60118, 28 February 1985
People vs. Talampas, G.R. No. 180219, 23 November 2011

c. Error in personae

People vs. Gona, G.R. No. 32066, 15 March 1930

People vs. Oanis, G.R. No. 47722, 27 July 1943
People vs. Pinto, G.R. No. 39519, 21 November 1991
People vs. Sabalones, G.R. No. 123485, 31 August 1998

d. Praeter intentionem

U.S. vs. Brobst, G.R. No. 4935, 25 October 1909

People vs. Albuquerque, G.R. No. 38773, 19 December 1933
People vs. Arpa, G.R. No. L-26789, 25 April 1969
People vs. Tomotorgo, G.R. No. L-47941, 30 April 1985
Article 13 (paragraph 3) RPC

e. Proximate cause

When is a disease a proximate intervening cause:

1. if the intervening disease is associated with the wound inflicted by the accused, then the
accused shall be liable for the resulting death
2. If the wounds inflicted by the accused is not mortal and the victim died of an unrelated
cause, liability of the accused will only be for the wounds inflicted
3. If the wound is mortal, and the victim died to a totally unrelated disease not related,
accused is still liable for the death because the wound inflicted is mortal

U.S. vs. Rodriguez, G.R. No. L-7123, 17 August 1912

U.S. vs, Marasigan, G.R. No. 9426, 15 August 1914
*People vs. Ancasan G.R. No. 28620, 24 February 1928
People vs. Cagoco, G.R. No. 38511, 6 October 1933
People vs. Quianzon, G.R. No. 42607, 28 September 1935
People vs. Martin, G.R. No. L-3002, 23 May 1951
People vs. Piamonte, G.R. No. L-5775, 28 January 1954
Bataclan vs. Medina, G.R. No. L-10126, 22 October 1957
People vs. Reloj, G.R. No. L-31335, 29 February 1972
People vs. Opero, G.R. No. L-48796, 11 June 1981
Urbano vs. IAC, G.R. No. 72964, 7 January 1988
 Criminal Law - Reviewer

People vs. Iligan, G.R. No. 75369, 26 November 1990

People vs. Stitchon, G.R. No. 134362, 27 February 2002
People vs. Dalag, G.R. No. 129895, 30 April 2003
People vs. Napudo, G.R. No. 168448, 8 October 2008

2. Impossible crimes

a. Inherent impossibility

i. Legal impossibility
ii. Factual or physical impossibility

Intod vs. CA, G.R. No. 103119, 21 October 1992

Jacinto vs. People, G.R. No. 162540, 13 July 2009
b. Inadequate or ineffectual means
People vs. Balmores, G.R. No. L-1896, 16 February 1950

IV. Stages of Execution

Article 6, RPC

A. Consummated stage

1. Formal crimes
2. Felonies committed through culpa
3. The only stage where light felonies are punishable

Article 7, RPC

B. Frustrated stage

C. Attempted

People vs. Pelagio, G.R. No. L-16177, 24 May 1967

People vs. Pareja, G.R. No. 88043, 9 December 1996

D. Examples in relation to specific felonies

1. Arson
U.S. vs. Valdes, G.R. No. 14128, 10 December 1918
People vs. Hernandez, G.R. No. 31770, 5 December 1929
People vs Agguihao, G.R. No. 104725, 10 March 1994

2. Estafa
 Criminal Law - Reviewer

U.S. vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. 307, 12 September 1902

U.S. vs. Dominguez, G.R. No. 17021, 23 February 1921
Salcedo vs. CA, G.R. No. L-45830, 3 October 1985
Pecho vs. Sandiganbyan, G.R. No. 111399, 14 November 1994

3. Theft
Venezuela vs. People, G.R. No. 160188, 21 June 2007

4. Robbery
People vs. Villegas, G.R. No. 34039, 16 January 1931
People vs. Dio, G.R. No. L-36461, 29 June 1984
People vs. Salvilla, G.R. No. 86163, 26 April 1990
People vs. Lagmay, G.R. No. 67973, 29 October 1992

5. Homicide, murder, parricide, infanticide

People vs. Eduave, G.R. No. 12155, 2 February 1917
People vs. Mercado, G.R. No. 27415, 29 November 1927
People vs. Kalalo, G.R. Nos. L-39303-05, 17 March 1934

People vs. David, G.R. Nos. 39708-09, 16 April 1934

People vs. Honrado, G.R. No. 43495, 14 September 1935
Mondragon vs. People, G.R. No. L-17666, 30 June 1966
People vs. Albacin, G.R. No. 133918, 13 September 2000
People vs. Costales, G.R. No. 141154-56, 15 January 2002
Paddayuman vs. People, G.R. No. 120344, 23 January 2002
People vs. Caballero, G.R. Nos. 149028-30, 2 April 2003
Rivera vs. People, G.R. No. 166326, 25 January 2006
Nacario vs. People, G.R. No. 173106, 20 September 2008
Serrano vs. People, G.R. No. 175023, 5 July 2010

6. Rape
People vs. Erina, G.R. No. 26298, 20 January 1927
People vs. Salazar, G.R. No. L-37791, 30 October 1979
People vs. Aballe, G.R. No. L-45087, 23 October 1984
People vs. Orita, G.R. No. 88724, 3 April 1990
People vs. Campuhan, G.R. No. 129433, 30 March 2000
People vs. Abanilla, G.R. Nos. 148673-75, 17 October 2003
Baleros vs. People, G.R. No. 138033, 22 February 2006
People vs. Barberos, G.R. No. 187494, 23 December 2009
People vs. Butiong, G.R. No. 168932, 19 October 2011
E. Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony

Generally, co-conspirators are only held liable for the crime they agreed to.
 Criminal Law - Reviewer

EXCEPTION
If there is a second unplanned crime:
1. They saw the crime and they did not prevent the commission of the second crime
2. The other crime is the natural consequence of the crime.
3. The resulting crime is a special complex crime

Article 8, RPC
Articles 115, 136, 141, 186, RPC
Section 26, R.A. No. 9165, as amended
Section 4, R.A. No. 9372
Section 7, P.D. No. 1613
People vs. Geronimo, G.R. No. L-35700, 15 October 1973
People vs. Guevarra, G.R. No. L-65017, 13 November 1989
Arias vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 81563, 19 December 1989
People vs. Cantuba, G.R. No. 79811, 19 March 1990
People vs. Maranion, G.R. No. 90672-73, 18 July 1991
People vs. Lacao, G.R. No. 95320, 4 September 1991
Subayco vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 117267-310, 22 August 1996
People vs. Bragaes, G.R. No. L-62359, 14 November 1991
People vs. Lao, G.R. No. 90627, 29 November 1991
Siton vs. CA, G.R. No. 94065, 2 December 1991
Narciso vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 98262-63, 10 January 1994
People vs. Pecho, G.R. No. 111399, 27 September 1996
People vs. Corbes, G.R. No. 113470, 26 March 1997
People vs. Sinoc, G.R. No. 115211-12, 11 July 1997
People vs. Desoy, G.R. No. 127754, 16 August 1999
People vs. Tabuso, G.R. No. 113708, 26 October 1999
People vs. Figueroa, G.R. No. 134056, 6 July 2000
People vs. Givera, G.R. No. 132159, 18 January 2001
People vs. Dulot, G.R. No. 137770, 31 January 2001
Albert vs. Gangan, G.R. No. 126557, 6 March 2001
People vs. Samudio, G.R. No. 126168, 7 March 2001
People vs. Tiguman, G.R. No. 130144, 24 May 2001
People vs. Compo, G.R. No. 112990, 28 May 2001
9 Criminal Law 1 (2022-2023) | PLM College of Law | Atty. Kris Gargantiel
Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148965, 26 February 2002
People vs. Mandao, G.R. No. 135048, 3 December 2002
People vs. Caraang, G.R. Nos. 148424-27, 11 December 2003
People vs. Ladonga, G.R. No. 141066, 17 February 2005
People vs. Batin, G.R. No. 177223, 28 November 2007
V. Circumstances that Affect Criminal Liability
A. Justifying circumstances
Article 11, RPC
1. Self-defense
 Criminal Law - Reviewer

U.S. vs. Domen, G.R. No. L-12963, 25 October 1917

U.S. vs. Merced, G.R. No. 14170, 23 November 1918
People vs. Luague, G.R. No. 43588, 7 November 1935
People vs. Alconga, G.R. No. L-162, 30 April 1947
People vs. Narvaez, G.R. No. L-33466-67, 20 April 1983
People vs. Nabayra, G.R. Nos. 96368-60, 7 October 1991
People vs. Agripa, G.R. No. 7224, 8 May 1992
People vs. Binondo, G.R. No. 97227, 20 October 1992
People vs. Nemeria, G.R. No. 96288, 20 March 1995
People vs. Nell, G.R. No. 109660, 1 July 1997
Pepito vs. CA, G.R. No. 119942, 8 July 1999
People vs. Arizala, G.R. No. 130708, 22 October 1999
People vs. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, 29 September 2000; Section 26 of R.A. 9262
People vs. CA, G.R. No. 103613, 13 February 2001
Zapatos vs. People, G.R. No. 147814-15, 16 September 2003
Cano vs. People, G.R. No. 155258, 7 October 2003
People vs. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, 15 January 2004
Section 26, R.A. No. 9262
Gotis vs. People, G.R. No. 157201, 14 September 2007
People vs. Mondigo, G.R. No. 167954, 31 January 2008
Guillermo vs. People, G.R. No. 153287, 30 June 2008
Espinosa vs. People, G.R. No. 181071, 15 March 2010
People vs. Mayingque, G.R. No. 179709, 6 July 2010
People vs. Talampas, G.R. No. 180219, 23 November 2011
People vs. Malicdem, G.R. No. 184601, 12 November 2012
People vs. Santos, G.R. No. 207818, 23 July 2014
Rustia vs. People, G.R. No. 208351, 5 October 2016
2. Defense of relatives
People vs. Agapinay, G.R. No. 77776, 27 June 1990
People vs. Eduarte, G.R. No. 72976, 9 July 1990
Olbinar vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 76235, 21 January 1991
3. Defense of strangers
U.S. vs. Subingsubing, G.R. No. 10736, 31 August 1915
People vs. Valdez, G.R No. 37754, 4 March 1933
10 Criminal Law 1 (2022-2023) | PLM College of Law | Atty. Kris Gargantiel
People vs. Punzalan, G.R. No. L-54562, 6 August 1987
4. State of necessity or avoidance of greater evil
People vs. Ayaya, G.R. No. 29396, 9 November 1928
5. Fulfillment of duty or exercise of right or office
People vs. Delima, G.R. No. 18660, 22 December 1922
People vs. Oanis, G.R. No. L-47722, 27 July 1943
People vs. Lagata, G.R. Nos. L-1940-42, 24 March 1949
Valcorza vs. People, G.R. No. L-28129, 31 October 1969
Frias vs. People, G.R. No. L-65762, 23 June 1984
 Criminal Law - Reviewer

Masipequena vs. CA, G.R. No. 51206, 25 August 1989

People vs. Pinto, G.R. No. 39519, 21 November, 1991
People vs. Peralta, G.R. No. 128116, 24 January 2001
People vs. Dagani, G.R. No 153875, 16 August 2006
6. Obedience to a superior’s lawful order
People vs. Wilson, G.R. Nos. 30012-15, 9 March 1929
People vs. Barroga, G.R. No. 31563, 16 January 1930
Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 103501-03, 17 February 1997
B. Exempting circumstances
Article 12, RPC
1. Imbecility or insanity
People vs. Gimena, G.R. No. 33877, 6 February 1931
People vs. Bonoan, G.R. No. 45130, 17 February 1937
People vs. Ambal, G.R. No. L-52688, 17 October 1980
People vs. Dungo, G.R. No. 89420, 31 July 1991
People vs. Rafanan, G.R. No. L-54135, 21 November 1991
People vs. Danao, G.R. No. 96832, 19 November 1992
People vs. Austria, G.R. Nos. 111517-19, 31 July 1996
People vs. Nunez, G.R. Nos. 1124290-30, 23 July 1997
People vs. Tabugoca, G.R. No. 125334, 28 January 1998
People vs. Almaden, G.R. No. 112088, 25 March 1999
People vs. Villa, G.R. No. 129899, 27 April 2000
People vs. Estrada, G.R. No. 130487, 19 June 2000
People vs. Aquino, G.R. No. 128887, 20 July 2000
People vs. Ocfemia, G.R. No. 126135, 25 October 2000
People vs. Dalandas, G.R. No. 140209, 27 December 2002
People vs. Limio, G.R. Nos. 148804-06, 27 May 2004
Article 79, RPC
2. Minority

Sec. 6 RA 9344
A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be
exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an intervention program
pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.

A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt
from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted with
discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in
accordance with this Act.

The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil
liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws.
 Criminal Law - Reviewer

R.A. No. 9344

Article 192, P.D. No. 603
Llave vs. People, G.R. No. 166040, 26 April 2006
11 Criminal Law 1 (2022-2023) | PLM College of Law | Atty. Kris Gargantiel
Declarador vs. Gubaton, G.R. No. 159208, 18 August 2006
Padua vs. People, G.R. No. 168546, 23 July 2008
Ortega vs. People, G.R. No. 151085, 20 August 2008
Sierra vs. Peple, G.R. No. 182941, 3 July 2009
Madali vs. People, G.R. No. 180380, 4 August 2009
People vs. Mantalaba, G.R. No. 186227, 20 July 2011
People vs. Monticlavo, G.R. No. 193507, 20 January 2013
3. Accident
People vs. Lao-as, G.R. No. 126396, 29 June 2001
People vs. Agliday, G.R. No. 140794, 16 October 2001
People vs. Abrazaldo, G.R. No. 124392, 7 February 2003
People vs. Fallorina, G.R. No. 137347, 4 March 2004
People vs. Genita, G.R. No. 126171, 11 March 2004
Pomoy vs. People, G.R. No. 150647, 29 September 2004
People vs. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 187683, 11 February 2011
4. Compulsion of irresistible force
People vs. Salvatierra, G.R. No. 111124, 20 June 1996
People vs. Dansal, G.R. No. 105002, 17 July 1997
People vs. Cando, G.R. No. 128114, 25 October 2000
People vs. Montenegro, G.R. No. 157933, 10 August 2004
People vs. Dequina, G.R. No. 177570, 19 January 2011
5. Impulse of uncontrollable fear
People vs. Bayambao, G.R. No. 29481, 31 October 1928
Ty vs. People, G.R. No. 149275, 27 September 2004
People vs. Anticamara, G.R. No. 178771, 8 June 2011
People vs. Anod, G.R. No. 186420, 25 August 2009
6. Insuperable or lawful cause
Medina vs. Orozco, G.R. No. 96080, 19 April 1991
Soria vs. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 153524-25, 31 January 2005

Sources of Criminal Law

1. Revised Penal Code
 Criminal Law - Reviewer

2. Special Penal Laws

3. Penal Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law
4. Local Ordinances

Art. 3, Sec. 22, Constitution

- No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.

Ex post facto law

1. Makes criminal an act which was innocent when done
2. Aggravates a crime/makes it greater than when it was committed
3. Inflicts a greeted punishment than prescribed when committed
4. Alters legal rules of evidence and authorizes conviction upon less/different testimony

Bill of Attainder
- Inflicts punishment without trial, substituting a legislative act for a judicial determination
of guilt
- The law itself states who is guilty

Effect of Repeal to Penal Law

1. Absolute or Total Repeal
- When the crime is punished under the repealed law

MOTIVE v. INTENT

Stages of Execution
1. Attempted When the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts
but does not produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance
2. Frustrated - When the offender performs all
the acts of execution which would produce
 Criminal Law - Reviewer

the felony but does not produce it by reason

of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator
3. Consummated - When all the elements
necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present; the felony is
produced

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
-no felony
-no criminal liability, no crime is committed, the act is justified
-basis: lack of dolo (deceit, deliberate intent)
-burden of proof rests on the accused

Defense of person, right, property, or honor (URL)

1. Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim;
2. Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel it; and
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself

RA 9262 (VAWC)
SEC. 26. Battered Woman Syndrome as a Defense. –
Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do
not incur any criminal and civil liability

notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense
under the Revised Penal Code. In the determination of the state of mind of the woman who was
suffering from battered woman syndrome at the time of the commission of the crime, the courts
shall be assisted by expert psychiatrists/psychologists.

Defense of Relatives (URN)

Requisites:
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel it; and
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on part of relative, or, in case of provocation, the one
making the defense had No part therein.

-The relative could or could not have started the provocation

-What is important is that the person defending did not give provocation.
-The person making the defense had no part in the provocation.

Relatives Covered by Par. 2 [SADARC]

1. Spouse
 Criminal Law - Reviewer

2. Ascendants
3. Descendants
4. Legitimate, natural, or adopted Siblings, or relatives by Affinity in the same degrees (in-
laws)
5. Relatives by Consanguinity within 4th civil degree

Defense of Strangers (URI)

Requisites:
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and
3. The person defending was not Induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive

Avoidance of greater evil (ENIM)

Requisites:
1. Evil sought to be avoided actually Exists.
2. Evil or injury must Not have been produced by the one invoking the justifying
circumstances.
3. Injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; and
4. There are no other practical and less harmful Means of preventing it

Fulfilment of duty or lawful exercise of right (PN)

Requisites:
1. Offender acted in Performance of duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office;
2. The injury caused or the offense committed be the Necessary consequence of the due
performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office.

Obedience to Superior order (OPM)

Requisites:
1. Order must have been issued by a superior;
2. The order is for some lawful Purpose; and
3. Means used to carry it out must be lawful

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES

INSANITY
Requisite:
1. The imbecile or insane person did not act during lucid interval

Two tests: (People v. Rafanan)

1. Cognition - whether the accused acted in complete deprivation of intelligence
2. Volition - whether the accused acted in complete deprivation of free will
 Criminal Law - Reviewer

Imbecile
- One who, while advanced in age, has mental development comparable to that of a child
between 2 and 7 years old. (Reyes)

Mental Illnesses Covered

Cases covered under this article are: [MEPSleD]
1. Malignant malaria, which affects the nervous system [People v. Lacena]
2. Epilepsy [People v. Mancao and Aguilar]
3. Psychosis or schizophrenia, except when in remission of symptoms [People v. Antonio,
Jr.]
4. Somnambulism: Sleep-walking [People v. Taneo]
5. Dementia praecox [People v. Bonoan]

MINORITY
Requisites:
1. Accused is 15 years old and Below; and
2. Accused is Between 15 and 18 years old, and he acted Without Discernment

RA 9344, Sec. 6 – A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the
offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an
intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.

ACCIDENT
Requisites [LDAW]
1. A person is performing a Lawful act;
2. Act was done with Due care;
3. He causes injury by mere Accident;
4. Without fault or intention of causing it

IRRESISTIBLE FORCE
Requisites: [PIT]
1. There was a compulsion by means of Physical force
2. Physical force must be Irresistible
3. Physical force comes from a Third person

IMPULSE OF UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR

Requisites: [ERIGE]
a. Existence of an uncontrollable fear
b. Fear must be Real and Imminent.
c. Fear of an injury is Greater than or Equal to that committed [People v. Petenia]

INSUPERABLE OR LAWFUL CAUSE

Requisites: [RFL]
 Criminal Law - Reviewer

1. An act is Required by law to be done

2. The person Fails to perform such act
3. His failure to perform such act was due to some Lawful or insuperable cause