CRIMINAL LAW YVEZZA KAMELE M. GUMAPAC ‘Subject Chairperson KIRSTIE MARIE B. SALDO ‘Assistant Subject Chairperson ISABELLE GLORIA I. VILLENA Subject Electronic Data Processing zx SUBJECT HEADS “Sz JUDEA ARA T. BAGTANG and CLARICE J. ANDAYA Criminal Law GERALDINE MARIE FRANCES B. VELASCO and ANGELA MICHAELLA S. YUMUL Criminal Law I KATE BERNADETTE T. MADAYAG. ‘Special Penel Laws x SUBJECT MEMBERS a JERK ENRIC 6. ALCAIDE MA. ANGELIKA C. ALVARADO JERENEL MAE 0, RENDON ROMAVAIL ANGELIE F ORCULLO CHANTAL MARIE 8. SANGGALANG DANA JEUZELS. MARCOS {ANDREA MAE. BANADERO ROCHELLE. ENRILE JEROME L. LEAN JOSE LORENZO 6. VILAVERT | SUBJECT ADVISERS ‘a Justice BERNELITO . FERNANDEZ Judge GINA M. BIBAT-PALAMOS Atty. LYAN DAVID M. JUANICO Atty. RYAN 8. MERCADERaes ‘The MEMORY AID (MemAid) is a compendium — a synthesis of different law materials available to the public, emphasizing pertinent details that its readers need to be familiar with. Being thorough and extensive, the MemAid aims to help barristers in their preparations for the bar, maximizing their time by doing away with the need of reading a lot of different review materials. Thus, the MemAid is the barristers’ much needed companion. This year, the San Beda University-RGCT Bar Operations Center (BarOps) continues to uphold its legacy of service and excellence in helping the barristers hurdle the bar. Itis then the fervent hope of the (BarOps) that the Mem/Aid will contribute to the success of all barristers as they hurdle the last leg of their journey towards becoming the lawyers they aspire to be. UT IN OMNIBUS GLORIFICETUR DEUS! That in all things, God may be glorified! SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW &WiNRGCT - BAR OPERATIONS) 5 ae "2020-202 THIS IS THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF THE SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW - RGCT BAR OPERATIONS CENTER. THE UNAUTHORIZED COPYING, REPRODUCTION, MODIFICATION OR DISTRIBUTION OF ANY OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS BOOK IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.MEMORY AlDexmm TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 | FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES Ne PRELIMINARY TITLE (ARTS. 1.2) 0.0 : 9 IIL TITLE ONE: FELONIES & CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY nenun 12 ‘A. CHAPTER ONE: FELONIES (ARTS. 3-10) 12 CHAPTER TWO: JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH 35 EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY (ARTS. 11-12) . i. AntiViolence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004 — R.A, No, 9262 40 ji, Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (R.A. No, 9344), as amended by R.A. No, 45 40630 ©. CHAPTER THREE: CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MITIGATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY fart 51 1B) D. CHAPTER FOUR: CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AGGRAVATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY 59 (ART. 14)... E. CHAPTER 5: ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES (ART. 16) 80 IV. TITLE TWO: PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES (ARTS, 16-20).. 83 V. TITLE THREE: PENALTIES. - = 1 ‘A. CHAPTER ONE: PENALTIES IN GENERAL (ARTS. 21-24) .. 92 B. CHAPTER TWO: CLASSIFICATION OF PENALTIES (ARTS. 25.26) 95 C._ CHAPTER THREE: DURATION AND EFFECT OF PENALTIES (ARTS. 27-45) 96 Section One — Duration of penalties (Arts. 27-29) 96 li, Section Two — Etfects of the penalties according to their respective nature (Arts. 30-39) 99 li, Section Three ~ Penalties in which other accessory penalties are inherent (Aris. 40-46) 103, 0. CHAPTER FOUR: APPLICATION OF PENALTIES (ARTS. 46-77) 104 Section One ~ Rules for application of penalties to the persons criminally liable and for 104 the graduation of the same (Arts. 46-61) |i. Section Two — Rules for the application of penalties with regard to the mitigating and 143 aggravating circumstances, and habitual delinquency (Arts, 62-72) ii Section Three — Provisions common in the last two preceding sections (Arts. 73-77) ... 118 E. INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (ISLAW) Act 4103 as amended by Act No. 4225 4120 F, PROBATION LAW OF 1976 (P.D. No. 968, a5 amended) 123 G._ CHAPTER FIVE: EXECUTION AND SERVICE OF PENALTIES (ARTS. 78-88) 127 H. THE CHILD AND YOUTH WELFARE CODE (P.D. No. 603, as amended) 128 VL TITLE FOUR: EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY, 129 A. CHAPTER ONE: TOTAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY (ARTS. 89-93) 129 B. CHAPTER TWO: PARTIAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY (ARTS. 94-99) 136 Vil. TITLE FIVE: CIVIL LIABILITY. 138 ‘A. CHAPTER ONE: PERSONS CIVILLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES (ARTS. 100-103) 138 B. CHAPTER TWO: WHAT CIVIL LIABILITY INCLUDES (ARTS. 104-111) 141 C._ CHAPTER THREE: EXTINCTION AND SURVIVAL OF CIVIL LIABILITY 142 (ARTS, 112-113) Ce NSN a |. TITLE ONE: CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS. 144 A. CHAPTER ONE: CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY (ARTS. 114-123) 144 Section One ~ Treason and espionage (Arts. 114-117) 144 li. Section Two — Provoking war and disloyalty in case of war (Aris. 118-121) 181 fi, Section Three ~ Piracy and mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine waters (Aris. 122-152 123), :TABLE OF CONTENTS i. TITLE TWO: CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF THE STATE 155, A CHAPTER ONE: ARBITRARY DETENTION OR, EXPULSION, VIOLATION OF 155 DWELLING, PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION, AND’ DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS AND CRIMES AGAINST RELIGIOUS WORSHIP (ARTS. 124-133) i. Section One ~ Arbitrary detention and expulsion (Arts. 124-127) 155 ji. Section Two — Violation of domicile (Arts. 128-130) 161 i Section Three ~ Prohibition, interruption, and dissolution of peaceful meetings (Art. 131) 164 iv, Section Four ~ Crimes against religious worship (Arts. 132-133) 165 Il, TITLE THREE: CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER... 166 ‘A. CHAPTER ONE: REBELLION, COUP DETAT, SEDITION, AND DISLOYALTY (ARTS. 166 134-142) B. CHAPTER TWO: CRIMES AGAINST POPULAR REPRESENTATION (ARTS, 143-145). 179, IC Section One ~ Crimes against legislative bodies and similar bodies (Arts. 149-144) ..... 173 i. Section Two - Violation of parliamentary immunity (Art. 145) 173 ©. CHAPTER THREE: ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES AND ASSOCIATIONS (ARTS. 146-147) 174 D. CHAPTER FOUR: ASSAULT UPON, AND RESISTANCE & DISOBEDIENCE TO, 176 PERSONS IN AUTHORITY AND THEIR AGENTS (ARTS. 148-152) 1a. E, _ CHAPTER FIVE: PUBLIC DISORDERS (ARTS. 153-156) 181 F CHAPTER SIX: EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE (ARTS. 157-159) 184 G. CHAPTER SEVEN: COMMISSION OF ANOTHER CRIME DURING SERVICE OF 187 PENALTY IMPOSED FOR ANOTHER PREVIOUS OFFENSE (ART, 160). IV: TITLE FOUR: CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST sone 1085 ‘A. CHAPTER ONE: FORGERIES (ARTS. 161-176) 188 i. Section One — Forging the seal of the Government ofthe Philippine Islands, the signature 188 or stamp of the Chief Executive (Ats. 161-162). i, Section Two ~ Counterfeiting coins (Ars. 163-168) «.. 188 Wi, Section Three - Forging treasury or bank notes, obligations and secures: importing and 189 Ullering false or forged notes, obigations and securities (As. 166-169) W, Seaton Faur—Faliicatn of slave, publ, commercial and private documents and 192 wireless, telegraph and telephone messages (Arts, 170-173) \. Section Five ~ Falsiication of medica cetiicates,corticates of merit or service and the 197 tka (Arts. 174-175), vi, Section Six ~ Manufacturing, importing and possession of instruments or implements 198 intended for the commission of falsification (Ar. 176). 8. CHAPTER TWO: OTHER FALSITIES (ARTS. 177- 184) 198, 1 Section One ~ Usurpation of authority, rank, tle and improper use of names, uniforms 198 and insignia (Ants. 177-179). li, Section Two — False Testimony (Arts. 180-184) 201 ©. CHAPTER THREE: FRAUDS (ARTS. 185-189)... 204 iC Section One ~ Machinations, monopolies, and combinations (Arts, 185-186), 204 ii. Section Two ~ Frauds in commerce and industry (Art. 187-189) 206 \V. TITLE FIVE: CRIMES RELATED TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS 210 ‘A. REPUBLIC AGT NO. 9165 COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, as 434 ‘amended by Republic Act No, 10640 (Repealing R.A. No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) . VI. TITLE SIX: CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS seenonennmnee 2100 A. CHAPTER ONE: GAMBLING AND BETTING (ARTS. 195-199) 210 B. CHAPTER TWO: OFFENSES AGAINST DECENCY AND GOOD CUSTOMS (ARTS. 200-213, 202) Vil. TITLE SEVEN: CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS. - 216 A. CHAPTER ONE: PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS (ART. 203) 216 B. CHAPTER TWO: MALFEASANCE AND MISFEANSANCE IN OFFICE (ARTS. 204-212)... 216 i Section One ~ Deraliction of duty (Arts. 204-209) 216 ji, Section Two Bribery (Arts. 210-212) uu. 219vi. x, TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER THREE: FRAUDS AND ILLEGAL EXACTIONS AND TRANSACTIONS (ARTS, 225 213-216), CHAPTER FOUR: MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY (ARTS. 217-227 222) CHAPTER FIVE: INFIDELITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS (ARTS. 223-230), 231 i Section One — infidelity in the custody of prisoners (Arts. 223-225) «0. 23 li. Section Two — Infidelity in the custody of documents (Aris. 226-228) 232 ii, Section Three ~ Revelation of secrets (Arts. 229-230) 233 CHAPTER SIX. OTHER OFFENSES OR IRREGULARITIES AY PUIBIIG OFFICERS 235 (ARTS. 231-245) Section One — Disobedience, refusal of assistance and maltreatment of prisoners (Arts. 235. 231-235) ii. Section Two ~ Anticipation, prolongation and abandonment of the duties and powers of | 236 public office (Arts. 236-238) it. Section Three ~ Usurpation of powers and uniawiul appointments (Arts. 238-244) 237 iv. Section Four ~ Abuses against chastity (Art 245) sr. 238 TITLE EIGHT: CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. 239 CHAPTER ONE: DESTRUCTION OF LIFE (ARTS. 246.261) 239 i. Section Ona ~ Particide, murder, homicide (Ars. 246-254) 239 li, Section Two ~ Infanticide and abortion (Arts. 255-259) ' ' 245 il, Section Three — Duel (Arts. 260-261) 248 B. CHAPTER TWO: PHYSICAL INJURIES (ARTS, 262-266) 249 ©. CHAPTER THREE: RAPE (ARTS. 268-A ~ 266-D) ——- 256 TITLE NINE: CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY .. (CHAPTER ONE: CRIMES AGAINST LIBERTY (ARTS, 267-274) IC Section One — Ilegal detention (Avs, 287-269) i, “Section Two — Kidnapping of minors (Arts. 270-271) il. Section Three Slavery and servitude (Arts. 272-274) B. CHAPTER TWO: CRIMES AGAINST SECURITY (ARTS, 275-289) |. Section One — Abandonment of helpless persons and exploitation of minors (Arts. 275-266 279) i. Section Two = Trespass to dwelling (Arts. 280-281) 269 il, Section Throe ~ Threats and coercion (Arts. 282-269) ... 270 ©. CHAPTER THREE: DISCOVERY AND REVELATION OF SECRETS (ARTS. 290-292). 275 TITLE TEN: CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY ee TT A.” CHAPTER ONE: ROBBERY IN GENERAL (ART. 293-305) 277 i. Section One~ Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons (Avis. 294-298) 279 4, Stn Two Robbe by he us of ree yp ings (As. 286-308) 284 B. CHAPTER TWO: BRIGANDAGE (ARTS. 306-307) 287 ©. CHAPTER THREE: THEFT (ARTS. 308-811) sor 288 D. CHAPTER FOUR: USURPATION (ARTS. 312-313) 293, E. CHAPTER FIVE: CULPABLE INSOLVENCY (ART. 314) . 294 F. CHAPTER SIX: SWINDLING AND OTHER DECEITS (ARTS, 315.318) 294 G: CHAPTER SEVEN: CHATTEL MORTGAGE (ART. 319) .... 303 H. CHAPTER EIGHT: ARSON AND OTHER CRIMES INVOLVING DESTRUCTIONS 304 | CHAPTER NINE: MALICIOUS MISCHIEF 306 J. CHAPTER TEN: EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY IN GRIMES AGAINST 308 PROPERTY TITLE ELEVEN: CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, ss A. CHAPTER ONE: ADULTERY AND CONCUBINAGE (ARTS. 333-334) 309) B. CHAPTER TWO: ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS (ART, 336) 3tt © CHAPTER THREE: SEDUCTION, CORRUPTION OF MINORS, AND WHITE SLAVE 312 TRADE (ARTS. 337-341). D. CHAPTER FOUR’ ABDUCTION (ARTS. 342-343) 316 E. CHAPTER FIVE: PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE PRECEDING CHAPTERS OF TITLE 317, ELEVEN (ARTS. 344.348),MEMORY AlDemm= % TABLE OF CONTENTS d Xil__ TITLE TWELVE: CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL STATUS OF PERSONS 319 A. CHAPTER ONE: SIMULATION OF BIRTHS AND USURPATION OF CIVIL STATUS 319 (ARTS, 347-348)... : 8. CHAPTER TWO: ILLEGAL MARRIAGES (ARTS. 349-352) 320 XI TITLE THIRTEEN: CRIMES AGAINST HONOR... c 922 A” CHAPTER ONE: LIBEL (ARTS. 353-362) 322 iL Section One ~ Definitions, forms, and punishment ofthis crime (Arts. 353-359) 323 i, Section Two - General provisions (Arts. 360-362) 327 B. CHAPTER TWO: INCRIMINATORY MACHINATIONS (ART. 363-364) 328 XIV, TITLE FOURTEEN: QUASI-OFFENSES (ART. 365) 329 IMMARY OF ELEMENTS REVISED PENAL CODE . 333, ‘SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 385, ‘CIAL PENAL LAWS (SPLs) 1. USERS" GUIDE, 408 Il, SPLs COVERED BY THE 2020 BAR SYLLABUS. — = 408 ‘A New Anti Carnapping Act of 2076 ~ R.A. No. 10883: 409 8. _AntElectricity and Electric Transmission Lines Materia Piferage Act of 1994 au RA. No. 7832 ©. The Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 ~ RA. No. 8550, as amended by RA No. 10854... 414 D. _Anti-Fencing Law of 1979 ~ P.D. No. 1612 420 E. Bouncing Checks Law ~ B.P. Big. 22, 422 F. Syndicated Estafa — P.D. No. 1689. 424 G. Migrant Workars and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 R.A.No. 8042, as amended by 425 RA. No. 10022 H. —Antislegal Number Games Law ~ P-D. No. 1602, as amended by RA. No. 9287 428 |. Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act ~ R.A. No. 10591 429 J. AntiHazing Act of 2018 - R.A. No. 8049, as amended by R.A. No. 11053. 431 K. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 - R.A. No. 9165, as amended by RA. No. 434 10640. L. Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees -RA.No. 6713 438, M. — Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act ~ R.A. No. 3019, as amended. 439 IN. AntiPlunder Act — R.A. No. 7080, as amended by R.A. No. 7659. 444 ©. Anti:Money Laundering Act of 2001 ~ R.A. No. 9160 as amended by RA No. 9194 and 445, RA No. 10365, P. Obstruction of Justice Law ~ PD. No. 1829 449 Q. Anti-Torture Act of 2009 — R.A. No. 9745. 450, R. Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020~ R.A. No. 11479. 451 S. Human Security Act of 2007 ~ R.A. No. 9972 458 1. The Terrorism, Financing Prevention and Suppression Act of 2012 ~ RA. No. 10168 462 U. _AntiWiretapping Law ~ R.A. No, 4200. 464 V. Cybererime Prevention Act of 2012 ~ R.A. No. 10175 466, W. Anti:Child Pornography Act of 2009 — R. A. No. 9775 468, X. _AntiPhoto and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 ~ R.A. No. 9995. zi 470 Y. AntiSexual Harassment Act of 1995 ~ R.A. No. 7877 ant 2. Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 - R.A. No. 9208, as amended by RA-No. 10364. 474 ‘AA, AntiViolence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004 - R.A. No. 9262 am BB. Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act RA. 480 No. 7610 CC. Safe Spaces Act ~ R.A. No. 11313 494A 8. c. D. E BIBLIOGRAPHY rren erae DD. Data Privacy Act of 2012 RA. No. 10173 OTHER SPLs RELATED TO THE REVISED PENAL CODE ....... ‘Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines ~ RA No. 9346 ‘Act Establishing Prescriptive Periods for Violations of Special Laws and Municipal Ordinances, ‘as amended by Act No. 3326. [Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974 ~P.D. No. 832. ‘Anti-Hijacking Law ~ RA. No. 6235. Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genacide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity ~ R.A. No, 9851 Anti-Alias Law ~ R.A. No. 6085. ‘Anli-Gambling Act~ P.D, No, 1602, as amended by RA. No. 9267... ‘An Act Decriminalizing Vagrancy — RA. No. 10158. ‘An Act Declaring Forfeiture in Favor of the State Any Property Found to Have Been Unlawtully, ‘Acquired by Any Public Officer or Employee and Providing for the Proceedings Therefore, RANo, 1979... ‘Anti-Arson Law ~ P.D, No. 1613, as amended by P.O. No. 1744 . ‘Trust Receipts Law ~ P.O. No. 115 ‘An Act Repealing the Crime of Premature Marriage Under Ar 361 ofthe RPG RA. No, 10685 Guidlines in the Observance ofa Rule of Preference I the Inposton of Penatis in Libel ‘Cases - Administrative Circular 08-2008 MEMORY AID TABLE OF CONTENTS 487 489 489 489 490 491 492 495 497 498 498 499 502 506nee Coie mee ts PRINCIPLES Poo ica oie agcatr Tt is enacted by] Its promulgated by the CRIMINAL LAW Congress, judiciary. CRIMINALLAW __—(xiRAG,Commantarios on Crimmal Law RPC Tis thet Branch or division of Taw which defines Book Ono, (2013), p.1 neroinafer AMURAO, Book crimes, reals of their nature, and provides for their One). punishment (REYES, The Revised Penal Code, Book One, (2021), p. 1 fhereinatter REYES, Book 7 ean TERMS: 1. Crime + act" or omission punishable by law (CAMPANILLA, Criminal Law Reviewer, Volume 1, (2020), p. 48, (hereinafter | CAMPANILLA, Reviewer). Penal laws are those acts of the Legislature, which prohibit certain acts and establish penalties for their Violations; or those that define certain acts and establish penalties for their violations; or those that, define crimes, treat bf their nature, and provide for their punishment (Lacson v. Executive Secretary, GR. No, 128096, January 20, 1999). CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINAL cf PROCEDURE, DISTINGUISHED _ NOTE: Crime is a gonoric torm that embraces any violation of the Revised Penal Code, special penal laws, and municipal or city ordinances (ESTRADA, Criminal Law: Book One of the Revised Penal Code: Made Easy for Students, Examingos & Procttioners, (2008), p. 2 It is) substantive in character. Idofines crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for their punishment, able under special laws, i. tha of ‘any law other than the Revised Penal Code (1d). ae ae cee pcos found quily. By" jons “ViBlations of owinances (BOADO, Notes and Cases on the Revised Penal Code, Books 1 ‘and 2 and Special Ponal Laws, (2078), p. 41 Thereinatter BOADO)) Pen Retroactive; in favor of the ends of substantial justice, Prospective, unless favorable" to the: accused, provided that the accused Is not a habitual delinquent. 5. Malum in se (‘evil in itself) = crime or an act that i inherently immoral, such as murder, arson, or rape (Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Ed.) % PTE DOHN ALFRED E- AQUILIZAN, OverAll Charron | NICHOLE VANE By SANTOS, Chipen for Acoleris| RONALYN A, GACUILA, A lc retro Bar Mates | MARIELLE CIELO 8. BELGURA, Ve Chtpenea fr Hnace | JUAN INIGO S, MIGUEL. Vee Changers fr Opratons | ALSSA. MARIE OC. DELOS SANTOS, Vee Chabpson for Auta] CORINA-R, TAMPUS, Vie Chperon for Seto | ARVY KEEPIN. CHUNG, Yer Chavon for Lapis | ANTONIO JUNJUN ©. MANALIGOD 1, Vee ‘Chairs fr Nomburip JORDAN N, CHAVEZ, Vie Chageron or Fetune Data Povo TYVEZZA KAMIFLE M. CUMAPAC, Subject Chair KIRSTIF MARIE B. SALDO, Aastont Subject Chat | ISADELLE GLORIA 1 VILLENA, Sbjct econ Date Pcesng|SUILECT HEADS: JUDFA ARAT. BAGTANG and CLARICE ANDAYA, Criminal Law 1 GERALDINE MARIE FRANCES B. VELASCO and ANGELA MICHIAELLA 8. YUMUL, Cminl Law | KATE BERNADETTE T RESTEIES x STRRTRNICC ATCAIDE JERPNTL MALO. SENDON, CHIANTAL MARIES SaNCCALANC ADRES MET one JEROME L. IANO, MA. ANGELIKA C. ALVARADO, ROMAVAIL ANGELIE F. ORCULLO, DANA JEZEL §. MARCOS ROCHELLE S ENRILE and JOSE LORENZO 1. VILLAVERT Justice BENNELITO R- FERNANDEZ, Judge GINA M.IBAT-PALAMOS, At LYAN DAVID M.JUANICO, nd Wty: RYAN S. MERCADER festa eVe 6. Malum prohibitum ("prohibited evil") =" act that is a crime merely because itis prohibited by statute, although the act itsefis not necessarily immoral (1). Felonies and Offenses, Distinguished CCrimos under the RPC are called felonies although itis not wrong to call felonies as offenses also. On the other hand, crimes penalized by special laws are termed as offenses, but they cannot be called interchangeably as ‘felonies (BOADO, Compact Reviewer in Criminal Law, (2019), at 23 fhereinatter, BOADO, Compact Reviewer), THEORIES IN CRIMINAL LAW: 1. Classical or Juristic Theory = It states that the basis of criminal aif is human free will and the purpose of the penalty is retibulion (REYES, Book One, p.31). lis hare pasta is that humang.efé rational ‘and calculating beings who act agearding to their liking, They do not commitcriminal’ cts if teatened with punishment” “The concept of mens rea—dofinéd af a gully ‘mind, a guity or wrongfUl purpése of criminal intents the main consideration (Villareal v. People, G.R. No. 151258, Fobfuary 1, 2072), NOTE: The Revised Pana! Code belongs tothe Classical school of though (Vjloreal x Peco, GR No. 151268, Fobraay/, 2912) 2. Positivist or Realistic Theory The basis for criminal by is the.gum total, of the social and economic phenomena to wich: the offense is expressed (Do, Joya.,v. Jal Wardon of Batangas City, G.R. No’. 189418-1, December 10, 2003). Man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon which constrains him to do wrong, in spite of or contrary to his volition ‘The crime is essentialy a sociat and natural ‘phenomenon and as such, it cannot be tated ‘and checked by applying law and jurisprudence ‘nor by imposition of a punishment, fixed and determined a prior (REYES, Book One, supra at 32). The purpose of penalty isto secure justice. The Penalties should not only be retributive but also {eformative (De Joya v. Jail Warden of Batangas Cay, GR Nos. 159418-19, Docomber 10, 2003) CRIMINAL LAW I Criminal Law 3. Eclectic or Mixed Theory = Acombination of the good features of both the classical and the positivist theories. The classical theory should be applied to grievous or heinous crimes, whereas, the Positvist Is made to apply on economic and social crimes (BOADO, supra at 8-9). 4. Usititarian or Protective Theory = Criminal law affirms that the primary function of punishments to protect society from potential {and actual wrongdoers (Vergara v. People, G.R. No, 160328; February 4, 2005). SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW: 1. Tho Revises Ponal Cade (Act No, S878) and Ws amendments; Special Penai Laws passed by: = Philppine Commission 2, Philppine Assembly <8! Philppine Lecisiature; “da, Natiqna Assembly 9° Conprets ofthe Phiippines; and : eto oa ons A. Pengl Presidential Decrees issued during Marla Laiy (REYES, Book Ono, supra at 1). 2 Police Power ab’ Bais The Stale has the authority, under its police power, to define and punish ai well as to lay down the rules ‘oF criminal procédure (ld at 2). LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF (CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL LAWS. “ho Congress, in enacting panal laws are estcted bythe folowing Constitutional imitations: 1.” No| eX post facto law or bill of attainder s~ Shall be enacted (CONST. Ar. I, Sec, 22) Ex post facto law 1s a ponal law which is given retroactive application to the prejudice of the accused (BOADO, page 4). ‘law which: (MACAAD) ‘Makes ciiminal an act done before the passing of the [aw and which was innocent ‘when commited, and punishes such an action; 2. Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than itwas, when committed; 3, Changes the punishment and iaficts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when it was committed: 4. Alors the legal ules. of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or diferentMEMORY AID Stetrwaty ig ftw BOAT Csr Cte testimony than the law required at the time (of the commission of an offense, 5. Assumes to regulate civil rights and romedies only, In effect imposes penelty of ‘deprivation of a tight for something which ‘when done was lawful and 6. Deprives a person accused ofa crime some lawful protection to which he has become entited, such as the protection of a former ‘conviction or acquittal, or proclamation of amnesty (Lacson v. Executive Secretary, GR No. 128096, January 20, 1998). NOTE: The prohibition applies only to exminal legislation, which affects the substantial rights of the accused (Wright v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113213, August 15, 1994) Bill of Attainder It is @ legislative act that infcts punishment without judicial trial, Its essence is the substitution of legislative act for a judicial determination of guilt (People v. Ferrer, G.A ‘Nos. -32613-14, December 27, 1972). No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law (CONST,, Art, I, Seo. 14, Pan (1), It should not impose cruel anid unusual punishment nor should it. impose: ‘excessive fines (CONST, Ar, 1, Sec. 19, Par. (9) Death Penalty RIA. No. 9346, approved on June 24,°2006 prohiats tho imposition of “death penay thorefore repeating RA. No. 7689, apd a other law, exocutve ors and decrees, insofar as thoy impose the death pansy (R.A No 9346, Sea) Iniieg of the death penalty, the following shall ba imposed: 4. The penally of ractusion perpetua, when the fay violated makes uso ofthe nomenclature (of tho penalties of the RPC; or 2. The penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the omenclatue of the penalties of the Rovised Penal Code (R.A. No. 9946, Sec 2. 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 (CONST, Atl, See. 1) = The Law must be general in application and must comply with the requirements of both procedural and substantial due process (BOADO, supra at 1). 6. Freedom of Expression (CONST. Article I Sec. 4) +The guaranties of a free speech and a tree press include the ight to cricize juicial Conduct. The admiration of the law is a ‘matter of vital public concern. Whether the law is wisely or badly enforced is, therefore, a ‘subject for proper comment. the people cannot ciicize a justice of the peace ar a judge the Same as any other public officer, public opinion will be effectively muzzled (U.S. v. Bustos, G.R. No. L-12502, March 8, 1918) & Freedom of Religion (CONST. Arte 1 Seo.9} in simplest terms, he Free Exercise Clause prohbis. goverment from inhibting reious Boiefe wi penalies for relgous bolts and prostze, whie. the Csablanment Clase feibtigrcman, on rite a pS rowan for roigous tae and EE in coer weiss wa aes Clauses Ae intanded to deny government the power fofuse oltar tho cant ortho sek fo © frente gigas reigous bole and practoes (Estado v. Eston, AM. No. P-02 OCA IPL Ho. 00-1024) 22, 2006) 7. Free access to the courts and quasi. siggjudicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty (CONST. Anite I, See.11) 8, Right to remain silent and have competent and independent counsel (CONST. Article M, See. 12[1). 9. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself (CONST. Artie I, See. 17) 10. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax (CONST. ‘Autti, Sec. 20) 41. Against Double Jeopardy (CONST. Article Mm) Sec. 21) rey ae NaCHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW: (GTP) 1” Generar 2. Tortora; and 3. Prospective (REYES, Book One, supra at 8) 1. GENERAL Generality Principle Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live and sojourn in the Phillpine territory, subject to the principles of pubic international law and to veaty Stipulations (CIVIL CODE, Art 14) ‘The Court held in the case of Dal Soceoro v. Van Wisem (G.R. No. 193707, Decomber 10, 2014), thatthe Territoriaty Principle in criminal law, in relation to Artcio 14 of the New Civil Code, applies on the question of law Concerning the lability of a fereign nalionat who alegecly "commits acts and, bmigsions punishable under special primal laws, Specifically in relation to famitights arid dies (refusing to support his. child with pellioner ‘Commited horo inthe Philippines), As such, our ‘courts have tertitrial juritietn over the offense charged against, the respondent. Exceptions: = 7. 1. Treaty Stipulation’ (RPC; Ar. 2): Example: ah ‘The Agreement betwosn’'he USA dnd the Republic of the Philippines Regarding the Treatment of United Slates Armed Forces Visiting the Philippines. (RP-US. Visiing Forces Agrooment, (VFA) Rules on Criminal Jurisdiction (Art. V of vray: 1. Criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction 8. Philippine authorities shall have jurisdiction over US personne! with respect to offenses commited within” the Philippines and punishable under the law of the Philippines, b. US Miltary authorities shall have the right to exercise within the Philippines all criminal and Aisciplinary jurisdiction conferred on them by the military law of the US over US personnel in the Philippines. 2. Relating to security 2. Philippine authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction over US personnel with respect to offenses, inciuding offenses relating 10 the 2 CRIMINAL LAW | Criminal Law security of the Philippines, punishable under the laws of the Philippines, but not under the laws of tho US, b. US authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction over US personnel with respect to offenses, including offenses relating to the securly of ‘me US, punishable under the laws of the US, but not under the laws of ‘he Philippines. ‘An offense relating to security means: 4. Treason: 2. Sabotage; 3. Espionage; or 4. Violation of any law relating to national defense. 3. In cases whore the right to éxercise jurisciction is concurrent 2, Phiippine authorities shall have the ~ primary right to exercise jurisdiction .Over al offenses commited by US Personnel, except in cases provided for intparagranhs ib), 200) and 3(0) of igo. b. US imitary autnorties shalt have the. ptimary ight to exercise junsdeton over US personnel ‘ibjecito the mitary law ofthe US in relation to: it"Offenses. solely against’ the propery or secunty ofthe US ot ftlenses solely against the property or person of US personnel, and iE Offenses arising out of any act or omission dono. in performance of official duty. © The authorities of either government may raquast the ‘uthortes of the other government to waive their primary right to ‘exercise jurisdiction in a particular case (Art V (39) Principles of Public International Law (CIVIL CODE, Art. 74); and The following porsons are not subject tothe ‘operation of our criminal laws: (SCAMR) ‘Sovoreigns and other heads of state Ghargos earaires Ambassadors: Ministers plenipotentiary: and ther Representatives accredited to the host neads of the State Ministers resident (REYES, Book One, supra at 153) | liMEMORY AID us hott to FOC Osta Blanket Diplomatic Immunity GENERAL RULE: Diplomatic representatives, such as ambassadors or public ministers and ther offical retinue. possess immunity from the criminal Jurisdiction of the country of their sojourn {and cannot be sued, arrested, oF punished by the law of tat country (I) Hyde, Internationa Law as ct in REYES, Book upra at 19; 1961 Vienna Convention (0n Diplomatic Relations, Aric 29 and 31). Diplomatic agents are the heads of missions ‘or members of the diplomatic staff (Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Retations, Article F (o), and are vested with blanket diplomatic immunity from civil and criminal sults (Minucher v, Court of Appoals, GR. ‘No. 142396, Fobruary 11, 2003). ‘The main yardstick in ascertaining whether, « person isa diplomat ented to immunity is the determination of whether oF not performs duties of diplomatic nature (Minucher v. Court of Appeals, GR. .No- 442306, Fabroary 11, 2003) State Immunity th Slalo may nol be sue be ts consent (Consitution, Seg Ariel XV). A sovereign is exempt ror sul, natbecause of any formal conception or obsoletnoony, bt on the logical and practical ground tha there can be no legal right as:agalnst tho aubrotly Una makes the law on whih tho fight depends (Republic. Vlasor, GR. No. 1°30671, November 28, 1973) Suing a representative ofa state ie believes to be, in effect, suing the state tse. The proscription is not accorded for the benefit of. ‘an individual but for the State, in whose service he is, under the maxim — par in porem, non abet imperium that all slates. ‘are sovereign equals and cannot assert Jurisdiction ever one another (Minucher v Court of Appeats. GR. No 142396, February 11, 2003). EXCEPTION: The doctrine of munity from suit is not applicable ifthe public oficial is ‘charged in his official capacity for acts that ‘are unauthorized or unlawful and injurious to the rights of others, Neither does it apply whore the public officals clearly being sued ‘ot in his oficial capacity but in his personal Capacity, allhough the acts complained of may have been committed while he ‘occupied a public position (Department of REE ot Preforant Ms, Health . Phil Pharmawealth, ine, G.R. No. 169304, March 13, 2007). Consuls in the Exercise of their Function Consuls donot ordinarily enjoy. the traditional diplomatic immunities and privileges accorded diplomats, mainly Decause they are not charged with the duty ‘of representina their states in political matters (BOADO, supra at 34), Under the prasant rua, consular officers ara ‘immune from criminal prosecution of acts performed in the exercise of their functions (1967 Convention on Consular Relation, Cited in| CAMPANILLA, Reviewer, supra at 22) Warship Rule ‘A warship of another country even though docked inthe Philippines is considered 9s an extension of the teritory of th respective county (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Art. 27 ‘hereipater UNCLOS). pplication (PC, Ait. 2) “Tyese ale exempted by F Spe.9.11 Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution ag immunity from prosecution to “eoigressmen —and_—_senators (REGALADO, Criminal Law. Conspectus, (2017), p. § hereinafter REGALADO)). 2. P.D. No. 1083, = Under Art. 180 of P.D. No. 1083, onal laws relative to the ctimo of bigamy (punishable under Art. 349 of the RPC) shall not apply to a person ‘maried under Muslim Law where the eyuirements set therein are mot (I CAMPANILLA, Reviewer, supra at 2). NOTE: fthe martinga is not solomnizes in accordance wih Musiim Law, the accused cannot ctaim criminal ‘exemption trom lability for bigamy on the basis of his religious belief as a Muslim because of the generality principle (ld. at 23), 3. RA.No.75 it xempls from arrestor Imprisonment ambassadars oe pubiie ministers of any foreign Stato, futhorized and recawved as such by the: Cee ae NDH President, or any domestic or domestic servant of any such ambassador oF ‘minister, provided thatthe foreign Stato provides similar protection to Philippine ‘iplomatic representatives (REYES, Book One supra at 14) What the Law Prohibits Any wl of process issued out or rosecuied by any person in any court Of the Republic of the Philippines, oF by ‘any judge or justice, whereby the person, fof any ambassador or public minster of ‘any foreign Stato, authorized and received as such by the President, oF any domestic of domestic servantof any ‘such ambassador or ministers arestea Or imprisoned, or his goods or chattels, are distrained, seized, or attached, shall be deemed void (RA. No. 75, Sec. 4). EXCEPTIONS: 1. Gitzen or inhabitant tthe Republic of the Phippines roves ta Helshe is, in Senyice of a ambassador, b. Process ‘is fotrided ‘upon a bt; and Tho dobt.is contracted boforo he entered upon such service (RA. No,.25, Sec. 5) 2. Domestic ; ‘servants. of an ambassador (of 9 public minister Unless fa, Name of the servant has been rogistoredin the OFA: and b. Such registcation was_made before the issuance. ofthe process against the servant (RA. No. 75, See. 5). NOTE: Not applicable whon the foreign country adversely affected does not provide similar protection to our diplomatic representatives (RA. No. 75 See. 7). TERRITORIAL Criminal laws undertake to punish crimes committed within the Philippine territory (REYES, Book One, supra at 19). The basis of tis is Ait.2 of the RPC (BOADO, supra at 10) GENERAL RULE: Penal laws of the Philipines 2are enforceable only within is territory (REYES, Book One, supra at 19) National Territory ‘The Philippine national terrtory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with al the islands and CRIMINAL LAW | Criminal Law ‘waters embraced therein, and all other territories ‘over which the Philippines. has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial ‘and aerial domaine, Including its terterial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and ‘other submarine areas. The waters around, botween, and connecting the- islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and ‘dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines (CONST,, Ar. 1). NOTE: Under Ant. 3 of the UNCLOS, the territorial sea extends up to twelve (12) nautical miles from the baseline, within which all penal laws apply. Further, the contiguous zone ‘extends from the limits of the teritoral sea up to twenty-four (24) nautical miles from the baseling within which the State has the power to prevent fend punish infringement of customs, Inmigration, fiscal and sanitary laws. (UNCLOS, Ait 3), rigeition ‘over Crimes Committed Within “the, Groundsiof an Embassy The ard obey on easy snot factithe territory of the foreign State to which the premises’, ‘belong through possession or ‘unership Th layulness or Unlawfulness of get thre omiited i cetrmined by te lerajorial sdvereigr Wan afachs commits an oftehge wilh jrecincs of an embassy, his Jimunly fegm progecution Is not because he hs not vila the focal law, but rather forthe feason tsbt h8,/individual "is exempt tom proseculn, ia person not so exempt or vhiose Irimuniy ie wajved, sary commis a crme therelh, the Yeoial sovereign, f X secures cistody-of the offender, may subject him Io pivseouton, even though is criminal code btmally doos not contemplate the punishment ‘of one who commits an offense outside of the national domain (Reagan. Commissioner of intemal Revenue, GR. L-26979, December 27, 1969) However, jurisdiction ofthe Philippines over the ‘embassy is limited of restricted by the principles of inviolabilty of diplomatic premises,” which is a generaly accepted principle of international law (I CAMPANILLA, Roviowor, supra at 24-25). (Proceed to the discussion on Art, 2 for the details of the extra-terntonaity principle, page 9 ‘of this Memory Aid) PROSPECTIVE GENERAL RULE: Criminal low merely Punishes crimes committed on of aller its tfectviy (| CAMPANILLA, Reviewer, supra at 32) 1 |MEMORY AID SentesTimwaty Cogn at RT ft Opt Ct Without prejudice tothe provisions contained in Alicle 22 of this Code, felonies and misdemeanors, committed prior to the dale of effectiveness of this Code, shall be punished in ‘accordance with the Code or Acts in force at the time oftheir commission (RPC, Art. 360) Self-repeating law Seltepeal is one where the law expires on tts ‘wn terms and provisions. The expiration of a selfrepeaing law has the same legal effect as ‘an absolute repeal (REYES, Book Ono, supra al 2) When an.act expires by its own limitations, the effect is same as though it has been repealed at the time of ts expiration. Its a recognized rule that the repeal of a law caries with it the ‘deprivation of the courts of their jurisdiction to ‘ty, convet, and sentence persons charged with Violations of the law prior to the repeal (REVES, ‘Book One, supra at 23). ‘ Effect of Amendment ‘Amendment of penal law shall bo given’ a prospecive effect. But ifthe amendatory law is favorable to accused, who ie nota habitual delinquent, the same shal be given a reffoactive effect CAMPANILLA, Reviewer, supra at 38) EFFECTS OF REPEAL OR AMENDMENT ‘ON PENAL LAW ee Eau Hf tho repeal makes [Thon tho now 1 shal bo| tne penalty lighter in| appliod. tne now ta : Excopt winen the fcr fsa habitual delinquent or finen the new law is mace! rot epplicse to. pending acion or ensting causes of | ction Ifthe new — law [Then the law in force at the| imposes a heavier|time of tho commission of penalty the offense shall be| applied. ithe new law totally|Then the act which was| repeals the existing| penalized under the old law i Ee the repeating law} Then the accused cannot fails to penalize the|be convicted under the new offense under the old} law, law it a new law omits[Thon i operates as & Janvthing contained in|repeal of anything not so the old law dealing on included in the amendatory the same subject {act (REYES, Book Ono, supra at 25.26) EFFECTS OF PARTIAL REPEAL ee Bi The court retains the authority to try and sentence the accused under the old Jaw or the law existing at the time of commission (U.S. v. Guna, GR. No. 4504, December 15, 1908) penalizes same act punished by the repealed law nati act ts | The accuse shat cuter tho purishod ph bot | ponayprowded by he ew the repeaigh and [law bcos. pol low the “epaaies fan [may be givon_fevoocine an th pei a van toto Provided bythe the accused provaod hat rewaiiedhtae. |e ts not a habit Ne cae ‘delinquent and that the new few does nol prohist rooney “uty Salma “Wo 115 January, 1947 He tho new tow makes the ponalty more burdensome The heavier penatty under the new law cannot be Imposed (AMURAO, Book (One, supra at 10). EFFECTS OF OBLITERATION OF THE CRIME Cis the criminal case is | The case shall be still pending in cour’ | dismissed since the court loses jurisdiction to try and docide it in view of the fan sno longer punishable and the ctnse coees fo be ctlteraton of te oflense rina tom the taut books tthe new law and he| Then the offender can be| Old law penelize the tried under the old law. same offense When the case is | Accused shall be released already decided by | from dotontion for the the courtond the | same reason CRIMINAL LAW Iecient accused Ie serving his sentence Inthe criminal case is | t can no longer be filed not yet filed in court | since. the act no longer constitutes 2 crime (REVES, Book One, supra at 23-26) Rotroactive Effect The following are the exceptions to the prospectivity principle wherein penal laws can be applied retroactively: 1. When the law is favorable to the accused and 2. When the law decriminalizes an act Laws that decriminalize an act or a grant of amnesty may have retosctive effec.»-They Constitute © bar against the further pfésebution of their beneficeres regardless of the appearance of thaie quit» (Mapa, ie” v. Sandiganbayen, G.R. No./400295, April 26 1994), ee Examples: 1. RA. No. 10158 deétminglizes vagrancy under Arice 202 ofthe RPC since vagrants as victims of povetty should be protected rather than punishetl" 2. RA. No. 10655 decripinalizes premature ‘mariage under Artiele 951 \of the RPC for boeing discriminatory. and "antiquated? CAMPANILLA, Revieiver, supra at 34). EXCEPTIONS (no retroactive offect) 4. Where the now law is expressly. ade. inapplicable to pending actions or éxiating causes of action (Tavera v. Valdes G.R. No 922, November &, 1902); anc “ 2. Where the offender is @ habitual eriminal (RPC, At. 22), NOTE: Even if accused isa habitual deinquent, RA. No. 10951 can stil be given retroactive effect because said law provides thal for cases pending before the courts upon the effectivity of this Act where tial has already started, the courts hearing such cases. shall not ‘lose Jurisdiction over the same by virtue of this Act (An Act Adjusting the Amount or the Value of Property and Damage on Which a Penalty is Based, and the Fines Imposed under the RPC, RA, 10951, Sec. 101, August 29, 2017). CRIMINAL LAW | Criminal Law OTHER PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW ‘ProReoDectrine In dubio pro reo moans “when in doubt, for tho accused.” (People v. Ong, GR. No. 175940, February 6, 2008). Its intended te favor the accused by imposing a single penalty irespective of the cehmes, committed. The rationale: being, that the ‘accused who commits two crimes with single Crim nalimpulse demonstrates lesser perversity than When the crimes are commited by different acts and several criminal resolutions (People v. Comadro, GAR. No. 153559, June 8, 2004) BASIS: The fundamental principle in applying and Interpreting criminal laws to resolve all doubts in favor ofthe accused. This isin consonance with the constitutional guarantee that the accused shall be presumed innocent unless arid until his. gui 1s establish beyond reasonable doubt (Intestate Estate ‘ofGonzales v. People, G.R No, 181409, February 4, 2010): RATIONALE: “Iq all criminal prosecutions, the accused, siall be presumed innocent until the contrary proved (CONST., Ar. ll, Sec. 14, Par. @). NOTE: The Pro Reo principle is not the same with Rule of Lenty. The fat rule applies when the court is faced with two possible interpretations of a penal slatute, one thal is piojudicial to the accused and anothgr'that ig fayorable to him. It calls for the ‘adoption of an interpretation which is mare lenient to het accused lent v./Tullett Prebon (Philppines), GR No. 189158, January 11, 2017). Equipoise Rule I the “incilpatory facts and citcumstances are capable of two or mare explanations, one of whichis ‘consistent with the innocence of he accused an the ‘ines consistent with his guily, then the evidence ‘does not fulil the test of moral certainty, and does ‘not suffice to produce a conviction, the same must be denied (BOADO, supra at 16). Legal Maxims 1. -Nullumy erimen nulla poena sine lege = There és no erime when there is no law that punishes tt 2. Actus non facit roum, nisi mens sitre2 = The act cannot be criminal unless the mind is imi 9, Actus me invito factus non est meus actus ‘An act done by me against my wil is not my ‘act. 4. Elque es causa de Ja causa es causa del mal causado He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused,MEMGRY AID ‘ndearimsty rt ten R02 Opa ee Rules on Construction of Penal Laws 41. Criminal statutes are to be stctly construed against the Goverment and liberally in favor of the accused (Poople v Atop, G.R. No. 14303-0,; Fobruury 10, 1998). [nig interpretation can only by invoked wwhure the law Is ambiguous and there is doubt as to its interprotation (REYES, Book One, supra at 27) In construing the Old Penal Code and the RPC. the Supreme Coutt had aocorded respect and persuasive, if not conclusive effect to the ocisions of the Supreme Court of Spain interpreting and construing the 1850 Penal Code of Spain (People v. Escote, Jc, GR. No. 140756, Apil 4, 2003) ‘Courts mst not bring cases within the provision of a aw that are nol clearly embraced by it No act ean 'be pronounced criminal unless it Is cleady made so by statute prior to is commission. No person who is rot clearly within the terms of a statute can be brought within them (Causing v. Commission on, Elections, GR, No, 199139, September 9, 2014) PRELIMINARY TITLE REVISED PENAL CODE (RPC) (Act No. 3815, as amended) ‘Ra Aci Revising the Penal Code. and othr Penal Lows ‘The RPC consists of two books: 1, Book One ‘consists of two parts: 8. Basic principles affecting criminal liability (ans. 1-20) b. Provisions ‘on penalties including criminal and civil ability (Arts. 21-113); and 2. Book Two defines felonies with the corresponding penalties, classified and grouped under 14 different itles (Arts. 114-367), ARTICLE 1 TIME WHEN ACT TAKES EFFECT "Fhe RPC was approved on December 6, 1930, 1 took effect on January 1, 1932, ARTICLE 2 APPLICATION OF ITS ONS Tt 2 a0is fr he naan in which the prowsins of the RPC are appicabia.atthough the fen 1s Commited outside tho Phiipsina Torito NOTE: Crimes commited outside the Philippines but punishable under Art. 2 of the RPC shall be ‘cognizable by the court where the criminal action is first fled (RULES OF COURT, Rule 110, Soe. 15, Par. (i) APPLICABILITY OF THE RPC 1. Extra-territoriality = RPC is applicable even though outside the Philippine temtory. (See discussion under Torrtorial as a characteristic of criminal law.) 2. Exterritoriality = a erm of international law which signifies the immunity of cortain persons who, akhough in tho state, are not amenable to its laws (0.9. ‘ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary etc) 3. Intraterritoriality = RPC is made applicable within the Philippine Archipelago, including iis atmosphere, its interior waters and. maritime zone, except as provided in the treaties and laws 9f preferential application (BOADO, supra at EXTRA-TERRITORIALITY PRINCIPLE Te'means that the Philippines has junsciction over ‘times cogimitet outside its territory as provided in At. 2, pafaorgphs 05 of he RPC, to wit (SCIPA) 1. CBiiTRaIgBIGNST an offense while on Philippine Ship or airship; Requisites: HiETho crime myst be committed on board a “Piivate oF merchant ship; 2. “The ship oF airship must be registered inthe Philippines under Philpina laws; and 3. The crime must be committed while the registered Philippine ship ison international waters (AMURAO, Book One, supra at 39) Philippine vessel or aiterafl One which is registored with the Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA) or with the Civi ‘Aeronautics. Board (CAB) in accordance with Philippine laws. ‘The RPC applies when such Philippine vessel is {ound within 1. Philippine waters; oF 2. The high seas. Foreign Merchant Vossel ‘Just as our morctiant ship is an extension of our lestitory, foreign ship is considered an extension ‘ofthe tertory oF the country to which it belongs ‘An offense commited on the high seas on board CRIMINAL LAW I2 foroign morchant vessel is not triable by our courts (US. v. Fowler, GR. No. L- 496. December 31, 1902), Buta continuing crime committed on board such ‘vessel sailing to the Philippines is lable in our courts (REYES, Book One, supra at 36). NOTE: Tho country of registry, not _the ‘ownership, determines’ its nationality (U.S. v. Fowler, G.R. No. L- 496, December 31, 1902) Rules on Jurisdiction of Foreign Merchant Vessels There are theo fundamental rules in Intematonal Law regarding ces commited aboard 9 orlgn merchant vessel (not military vessel), tne some. wihin the 12-mie terior water ofthe Phippnes (not internal or archipelagie water or high seas) to wl, 4. "French Rule Under the French ugg Stato Principe), crimes commited aboard. forign merchant vessel vty te eon waters of the Phiippines are oubect the Into of tn tenis tr Commission ales re peace and secury ant of our county | CAMPANILLA, Reviwer Supra at 23). 2. English Rule ‘Under the English sue (Coastal Stas Principle), crimes ‘corhentted “abpard a foreign merchant vessel within the terri water ofthe Phiippines (coastal Stato) are Subject tothe jursdiction of the Phiippives Unless their commission does not mfect the peeve and security of our county pr has. Perniious effet therein (ld 325-26). 3. Convention of the Law of the Sét = The fog of the state af foreign merchnnt vessel passing through the trill sea of Philippines. (coastal state) has jurisdiction over crimes committed therein. However, the Phiippines can exercise jurisdiction to arrest any person or to. conduct any investigation in connection with any exime committed on board the ship during is passage in following cases: (1) if the Consequences of the crime extend 10 the Phiippiaes: (2) the crime is of a ind to istur the peace of the Philppines or the goad cider ofthe tertonal sea thereo(3)if the assistance of the local authortios has been requestod by the master of the ship ot by a dplomatc agent o” consular offcor of tne fag State, or (4) such moasures aro necessary forthe suppression of ic trafic In narcote “drugs. of paychotrope CRIMINAL LAW I Criminal Law substances (Section 2, Article 27 of the Convention ofthe Law of the Sea) (id at 26). NOTE: Under the old rule, the controling principle was the English rule (People v. Cheng, GAR. No, L-18924, October 19, 1922). But since the Philippines is a signatory to the Convention of the Law of the Sea, it must be considered’ in dterinining jurisdiction over crime committed ‘aboard a foreign ship within the teitorial water Of the Philippines (1 CAMPANILLA, Reviewer, ‘supra at 25:26). Rules on Crimes Committed on Ships or Airships 4. In crimes committed on Philippine ships oF aitships, the provisions of the RPC of tho Philippines apply whether the said ship or airship is found in Philippine waters or in the high seas as long as the ship or airship is registered Under the Philippine laws: NOTE when a merchant ship of Phippine ‘ational isin the Phiippines and a ore S commited theren, there iso question as iu Deaton over the caine, beg {pth the Pippin teitory. Wit is In the bigh s8zé jee no county tas jrsction, the Philppines ti has jurisdiction. BUT ii is withinthe tertery of another county, he Juedictoa Ts; Beneraly wih that foreign tate Yecause penal laws are primarily fetttonal rapplcation. SUT i thal country ‘will nof take cognizance, pursuant to Art, 2 Of the RPC, the Philippines can assume justiion (BOADO, supra at 38). 2: In crimes committed on private or merchant ‘vessels found in Philippine teritoral waters, the English culo shall e applied: and NOTE: Mere possession of apiuin aboard i foreign vessol in transit is not triable in Philippine courts, because it being the primary object of Our Opium Law to protect the inhabitants ofthe Philppines against tne disastrous offects entailed by the use of this ‘rug, its mero possession in such a ship, without being used in eur territory, dos not ‘ring about in the said tertory those effocts that our statute contemplates avoiding Hence such a mere possession is not Considered a disturbance ofthe public order But fo smoke opium within our tersiorial limits, eventhough aboard a foreign merchant ship, is certainly a breach of the public ordor here established, because il ‘causes such drug to produce its pernicious cffects within our tenitory (People v. WongEMQRY. AID Eanfoseaty Meat on hac Gti Ce Chong, GR. No. L-18924, October 19, 1922), ‘Mere possession of apium aboard a foreign vessel NOT in taneit (thats, the Philippines ' its terminal pon) is punishable because it can already be considered as ilegal Importation (U.S. v. Ah Sing, GR. No. L- 73008, October 10, 1917) 3. In crimes committed on foreign warships, the nationslty of the warship or aship determines the applicable penal laws to the climes committed therein as such ships oF alships are considered to be an extension ofthe territory of the country to which they belong (REYES, Book Ono, supra at 29), NOTE: Philippine warship and the oficial vessel of the President of the Philippines, Wherever they are, are extensions of the Philippines and its sovereignty (B0ADQ,. supra at 39) 2, Forging or Counterfeiting any coin or currency note of the Philippines.‘or obligations and securities issued:by the Government (RPC, Arts. 163 &/166); BASIS: Protective principle which Conteriplatos that the State has jurisdiion over” acte committed abroad by nationale or toteigners, wiich are prejudicial to its national secbriy of vital interest (] CAMPANILLA, Roviowor: supra at 29), Forgery is committed by giving to a treasury oF bank note of any instrument payable to bearer oF to order the appearance of a true genuine document or by erasing, substituting. counterfeiting or altoring, by any moans, the figures, letters, words or signs contained therein (RPC, Act. 169). I forgery was perpetrated abroad, the object of the chime must Be a coin, currency note or obligations and secunties issued’ by the Government of the Philippines (BOADO, Compact Reviewer, supra at 22) 3. Introduction into the Philippines of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number; = Those who introduced or brought the ‘counterfeit items in the PH are criminaly liable ‘even if they were not the ones who counterfeited the same because introduction and ‘counterfeiting are separately enumerated under At 2. RATIONALE: The introduction of forged or ‘counterfeted obligations and securities into the Phippines is as dangerous as the forging of ccounterfeltng of the samo, to the economic inlerest of the county (REYES, Book One, supra at 34) Bublic officers or employees who Commit an offense in the exercise of their funetions; and Examples of cimes commited by public ofcors: 1. Diroct Bribery (at 210); tndleect Bribery (Aa. 211); Qaliied Brbery (At, 217-4), Failure to Render Accounts (At. 218) Feilre to Rendor Account Before Leaving the County (Art. 219) egal Use of Public Funds or Property (At. 220) 7. Failure to “Make Delivery of Public fundsrProperty (act. 22%); Fealscation (Ar. 171) Fraud, Against Publc Treasury and Sintar uotlpes (vt. 213), 16: Malvetsation of Pubic Funds or Property (anyAiz); and 11, Pog of Poi rst at. 216) (REYES, Book Ono, supra o 35). Copknithiathept any of the .crimee Adalistnatiofial security and the law of nationé defined in Title One of Book Two (RPC, Arts. 114-123). “Examples of crimes against national {SSbarty and the law of nations 1 Treason (ant 114), 2. Conspiracy. and Proposal to Commit Treason (art. 119); 3. Mispison of Treason (At 116); 4. Espionage (Art 117), 5. Inciing 10 war and giving. motives for reprisals (Art 118), 6. Vielation of neural (rt 119), 7. Comespondance with hostle county (Ast ‘20, 8. Flightto enemys county (Ast. 12%): 9. Piracy and mutiny on the high seas (Art 122): and 10. Qualified Piacy (at, 123) NOTE: Rebelion is excluded because itis a rime against public order (BOADO, supra at 40) Terrorism as defined by RA, No, 9372, cthenwise known as the Human Security Act of 2007, is now a crime against national securty CRIMINAL LAW I‘and the law of nations (REYES, Book One, supra at 39), SOME SPECIAL PENAL LAWS WITH EXTRA-TERRITORIAL APPLICATION 1 Human Security Act of 2007 The Act shall apply to individual persons who, ‘alliough physically outsige the Philippines shal: ‘8. Conspie or plot to comrnit any ofthe crimes ‘punished in the Act bh. Commit. any of ‘said. crimes onboard Philippine Ship or airship: & Commit any of seid ciimes within the embassy, consulate oF diplomatic premises belonging to or occupied by the Philippine government in an official capacity: 4 Commit said crimes against Philippine citizens or persons of Philippine descent \where their citzenship or ethnicity was. a. factor in the commission ofthe crimes;'and = 9. Commit said crimes directly ogainet, tho Bhilpine government (RA, No; 9972, Sec. 50), AntiTratficking in Persons’ Act of 2003 The State shall exercigo. jurieditign over tracking in parson even if Somittog outeido ihe Pppnes, th ime eid 9, coining offense subject tothe following eondiions: a. The trafficking id “persons has. ‘been commenced in the Philippines and other cements have been cbt ih enother country b, The suspect or accused is i. A Fiipino citizen ji. Apermanent resident of th Praipins| ‘and ii, Has committed the aét against # citzen of the Phiippines ._ A toreign government has not prosecuted or is prosecuting a person for trafficking. in person except when there isan approval oF the Secretary of Justice (RA. No. 9206, Soc. 26-4, as amended by RA. No, 10364). ‘TITLE ONE: FELONIES & CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY CRIMINAL LAW | Criminal Law CHAPTER ONE: FELONIES (ARTS. 3-10) ARTICLE 3 DEFINITIONS DEFINITIONS Felonies = _acls and omissions punishable by the Revised Penal Code (RPC, Art. 3). Act = any bodily movement tending to produce some effgct in the externai world (People v. Gonzales, GRNo, 60762, March 19, 1890), inabliog the: iso priorma positive duty which ‘one is boupd fo da (REYES, Book One, supra st 42) ELEMENTS OF. FELONIES (GENERAL): (AO-R-DC) | ‘ls There must beh AG oF Onision, Te. tare must be extemal ads: 2 Thgiact or cision must be punishoble by the RPC ad 3. ThE det periéhed or the omission is incured byj:thoang’ of Dolo (malice) or (Péoplev. Gonzales, GR. No. 80762 1990) CEASSIFICATIONS OF CRIMES {As to the means by which they are committed (RPC, Art. 3): ‘2. Dofo or intentional felonies + those committed with deliberate intent , Culpa or culpable fetonies = those committed by means of fault © Crimes penalized by special laws, municipal and city ordinances (REYES. ‘Book One, supra at 60). 2. As to stage of execution (RPC, Art. 6): a. Attempted ‘when the offender commences the ‘commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of ‘xacution which should: produce the felony by reason of some cause oF accident other {han his own spontaneous desistance b. Frustrated + he Ue offender performs all the acts ‘ot execution which would produce the felony- MEMORY AID San tnseasty Mag R00 Opt Ct 8 a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent ofthe wil of the perpetrator; © Consummated hon all the oloments necessary for is ‘execution and accomplishment are present. NOTE: Relatod to this is the elawalicutin of felonies as to 1, Formal Felonies those which are always consummated because the offender cannot perform all the acts necessary for their execution without consummating the offense, 2. Material Feo + those which have various stege of execution, 3. ‘Crimes with no frustrated stage = examples are Rape, Arson, Theft, and Robbery, Indirect Bribery, and Corruption of Public Oficars, As to gravity (RPC, Art 9, 98 amended) a. Grave those to which the taw attached’ the ‘capital punishment or peri which in any <, of heir periods sre afictve, in pecbrdance: with Art 25 ofthis Code; b. Less grave & hove to wich HWiBle pli vit penalties which in their maximums period is correctional, in accordanga wit the abovementioned aniclo: Light felonies those infractions of few foF which the penalty of arvesto menor or afine. not ‘exceeding forly thousand (P40,000) pesos for bolh is prescribed (RPC, Ar. 9, as ‘amended by R.A, 10951, Sec. 1) As to count: a Composite = _ Itls composed of two or more crimes but is tated by law as a single indivisible and Unique offense for being the product of one criminal impulse (People v. Saya, G.R. No, 2339334, July 23, 2018) b. Compound ~ a single_gct_consttutes.two_of {grave or ess grave felonies (Gamboa v. Court of Appeals, GR. No. L-1054, November 28, 1975} Complex = when the offense commited is a Necessary means for committing anotnes offense (ld). ¢. Continued = same penal provisions are united in one ‘and the samo Intent or resolution leading to the porpotration of the same cximinal purpose or aim (Santiago v. Garchitorena, GR No, 109266, Docomber 2, 1993) Continuing = a single crime committed through a ‘series of acts arising from one crlminal intent (or resolution (Maximo v. Vilapando, J, G.R. Nos. 214925 & 214965, Apri 26, 2017). 5. Asto nature: a. Mala in se =» those crimes which are so serious in their offects on society as to call fr almost ‘unanimous condemnation of iis members itself (REYES, Book One, supra at 3); and ligne, ‘he rohibita 142 wrong becouse iis prohibited by (People v. Comia, GR. No. 115156, December 14, 1995}. lo another (REYES, Book One, supra at 48) SVE RBQuisites of Dolo or Malice: (FIC) 1.” Froedom ‘Ap act done with deliberation and with Power to choose between two. things (Vilaroo! v. People, G.R. No. 151258, February 1, 2042). When a person acts without freedom, he is no longer a human being but a tool (REYES, Book One, supra at 49} NOTE: Whon thore is lack of freedom, the offender is exempt from libilty (ie, presence of inresistible force (RPC, Ar. 12, Par.-(5)) of uncontollabie fear (RPC, At 12, Par. (6); REYES, Book One, supra at 49) Reasons why the act or omission in felonies must be voluntary: 4. The RPC is based on the Classi Theory, according to which the basis of criminal ability is human treo wit a a has the intention to cause an injury Pers aaa2 2. Acts or omissiéns punished by law aro ‘always deemed voluntary, since man is a rationat being; 3, Infelonies by dol, the acts performed with celiberate intent which must necessarily be voluntary, and in felonies by culpa, the imprudenco consists in voluntaily, but without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which material Injury results (lo. at 40); and 4. Actus me invito factus non est meus actus ~ An act done by me against my willis not my ast (U.S. v. Ah Chong, GR No, 5272, March 19, 1910). Intelligence = The abilly to determine the morality of human acts, as woll as the capacity to distinguish belwoen a licit and an ict act (Vises! v. People, GR. No, 151268; Fobruary 7, 2072). Without this’ power necessary to determine the “morally. of hhuman acts, 10 crime caq’exist (REYES, Book One, supra at 49). NOTE: When there is lack’of'inteligence, the offender Is exempt ftom liabiity (Le offender is an imbedil, insane, oF 15 years ‘of age or under (RPC, Ait, 12, Pars. (1) (2). and (3). ' riminal intent (REYES; Book Cys, supra a9) Sie. aan intents the stté pf mindaccomparying fan act I refers to tha purpose of the min andthe resolve ‘wih. which person proceeds (Vilarea!'v. People, “GR. No 154289, February 1, 2012) It dows not refer to mere wil, Yor the later pertains to the act, especially a forbidden ack. It refers to the purpose of the mind and resolve with which a person proceeds. itis {8 "moving power” that impels one to act for 2 definite result. Existence of malicious intent must be proven beyond reasonabie doubt (Vilareal v. People, G.R. No. 151258, February 1, 2012) NOTE: When there is lack of intent, the act, fs justified. Offender incurs NO eriminat labittly (ie. existence ef a low or insuperable cause, commission by mere acciden!) (REYES, Book Ono, supra at §0- 52), Reason why criminal intent is necessary Actus non facit reum nisi mei sit roa ~ Crime is not committed i the’ mind of the person performing to act complained be Ro cian CRIMINAL LAW | Criminal Law Innacent (Villareal v. People, GR. No. 151258, February 1, 2012). NOTE: When the cfime is punished: by special law, 35 a rule, intent to commit the ctime Is not nocessary. iis suffciont that the offender has the intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by special law. In the first (intent to commit the crime), thera must ba Criminal intent, in the second (intent to perpetrate), its enough thatthe prohibited act is done freoly and consciously (REYES, Book One, supra at 60) REASON: When the doing of on act is pronibited by a special law, itis considered ‘nat the act is injurious to the public welfare and the doing of the prohibited act is the crime itself (REYES, Book One, supra at 63), GENERAL INTENT AND SPECIFIC INTENT, DISTINGUISHED Seaman cea Ciena ‘An. intntion \t6 ‘86 12 | An intention to commit a wiong. ‘or 1 | dofinite act, Presumed to exist ror | Existonce of the inlent is the miere: dolag of | not presumed because it Wwrongiutact, |i an ingredient or ‘element of @ crime, The burder' of proving |The burden of proving the absence of niéntis | the oxistence of the wuponthe accused. infantis upon the prosecution, as such, intent ig an clement of the erime, (BOADO, Supra aa) Motive tis the moving power which impels one to action for a definite result (Vilareal y, People, GR, No. 191258, February 1, 2012). Motive is not an ‘ezsental clement of a crime and naed not be prowd for purooses of conviction (REYES, Rank Ono, supra at 64), Illustration: A, who is jealous of 8 shot the latter as a resutt of which B dad. The intent ist kill while the ‘motive is jealousy. |CULPABLE FELONIES MEMORY AID INTENT AND MOTIVE, DISTINGUISHED The purpose to use a] The reason or moving particular_-means to | power which impels one effect such result, to commit an act for a Sefinite resut ‘An element of the [Not an element of the crime, except in| crime, unintentional felonies, Essential in intentional | Essential only when the felonies, dentty ofthe perpetrators in doubt (REYES, BOOK On, Sopra a 64 65). Motive, When Relevant 1. Ifthe evidence Is merely circumstantial (Trinklad v. People, G.R. No. 192241, June 13, 2012) 2. Where tho identification’ of the’ accused proceeds from an unreliable source and the! testimony is inconclusive and not free trom. doubt 3. In ascertaining the nth between two antagonistic theories or versions of tha king (Ubaies v. People, G.R. No. 175692; October 29, 2008); 4, Where there are no eyewitnesses ta thé. crime, and where suspicion is tke t0 Yall Upon & umber of persons: 5. When there is doubt as t6 the. identily. of the assailant (REYES, Book One, supra at 88) 6. When the act is allaged 10 be commited in dofense of a stranger Fut t must not be induced by revenge, resentment or other ‘ev motive (RPG, Ait 11, Par (I): 7. Evidence of gull ofthe accused is inconclusive, and 8. The act could give rise to variant érimes (BOADO, supra at 47) NOTE: Mere proof of motive, no matter how strong, is not sufficiont to support @ conviction if thore #10 reliable evidence from which it may be reasonably deduced that the accused was the malcfactor (Atienza v. People, G.R. No. 188694, February 12, 2014). The apparent lack of a motive for commiting ‘criminal act does not necessarily mean that there are none, but that simply they are not known to us, for we cannot probe info the depths of one's Conscionce where they may be found hidden away ‘and inaccessible to our observation (People. Paguntalan, G.R. No. 116272, March 27, 1995) ‘The act or omission 1s not melcous, The Tiury caused by the offender to another person is “unintentional,” it being simply the incident of another ~ ‘act performed without malice (Calimutan v. People, GR. No, 152133, Fobruary 9, 2006) Requisites of Cutpa: (FIN) 1. Freedom, 2. Inteligence; and 3. Negigence, imprudence, lack of foresight, oF lack of skill (50ADO, supra at 43). Negligence Indicates a deficiency of perception; failure to pay proper attention and to use dligenca in foreseding the injury or damage impending to be caused: Usually involves fack of foresight (REYES, Book (One, supra at 46) Its the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of ancther person that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the ecumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury (Dola Cruz v. Octaviano, G.R. No. 219649, July 26, 2017), || NOTE: Negligence and corspacy canna c-eist ecing of mids of coconoprator preciody for purpose orintenton of commiting & {time @OADD ‘supra ot #0). Impraderce ite ae of ater: an resin stnecessaryprocauion once the danger ee ‘becomes foreseen (Caminos v. Poopie. GA. No. 147437, tay 2009) stl lao tick ofS GORDO sop a 49 iff tom an act commited wih ck of forest, carelessness, or neghgence, he act must be quaied ac recess or tiple hogigero Ot improderce.restting. in hometle (Ware. Poop, GR No, 151266, February 1, 2012) NOTE: There are crimes that by their structure cannot bo committed through Imprudence: murder, treason, robbery, malicious mischief, ete, in truth, criminal negligence in our Revised Penal Code is lweated a5 a mere quasi offense, and dealt with separately from wilful offenses. It is nol a mere question of classification or terminalogy. In intentional crimes, the act Hiself = punished; in negligence or imprudence, what Is. principally Penalized is the mental attitude or condition behind the act, the dangerous recklessness, lack of care of foresight, the imprucencia punible (Ivler v. San Pedro GR No. 172716, 17 November 2010) Rationale for punishing negligence: A man must tse his common sensa, and exercise duc reflection in all his acts; ts his duty to be cautious, careful CRIMINAL LAW Iland prudent, it not from instinet, then thru fear of incurring punishment (U.S. v. Maleza, G.R. No. L- 15036, November 17, 1908). NOTE: Acts executed negligently are voluntary. INTENTIONAL AND CULPABLE FELONIES, DISTINGUISHED Infentional Felonies”: Cuipabie Felonies ‘As (6 Nature of the Act ‘Act is malicious Weongful act results from imprudence,, negligence, lack of oresight, of lack of ski, Rn There is doliterate| Injury caused vis intention to cause an unintentional _.-"~being injury Incident of Another act performed” without malice? (ESTRADA, Book One, supra BLT). Mistake of Law i Want of knowledge or acquaiitanes withthe laws of the land insofar as they apply to the act reat, lt, or mation under consideration (Bleg’s La Dictionary 435 (* e6, 2008), a0). 1 iste oflaw were ever ekdubabie, na far boukd be unenforceable, That is why it, is expressly provided that "ignorance of thé law dobs not excuse anyone from compliance therewith’ (CIVIL CODE, Art 2; Reyes w, Court of Appeals G.R. NB 48960, ‘June 29, 1943). Mistake of fact . Ing a misapprehension of fact, which, if true, wetla justly the act or omission committed (Yapyuco v. ‘Sandiganbayan, GR. Nos. 120744-46, Juno 25, 2012). Such person is not criminally Hable as he ‘acted without criminal intent (Ighorantia. facti fexcusal) (REYES, Book One, supra at 52) ‘An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption Of criminal intent which arises upon the commission of a felonious act (People v. Oanis, G.R. No. L- 47722, duly 27, 1943), Mislake of fact oF good faith of the accused is a dofense in a crime commited by doo, such defense ‘negates malice or eriinal intent (Manuel v. People, GR No, 165842, November 29, 2005). \mhen the accused is negligent, mistake of facts not a defense (REYES, Book One, supra at 97) CRIMINAL LAW | Criminal Law Roquisites of mistako of fact as a defense: (umn) 4. Mistake be honest and reasonable; 2. ibe a Mater of fact: ane 3. HtNegates the culpability required to commit the crime oF the existence of the mental state which the statute prescnves with respect to an element ‘ofthe offense (Yapyuco v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 12074-86, Juno 25, 2012). If such ignorance or mistake of fact is sufficient to ‘negative a particular intent which under tho law is @ necessary ingredient of the offense charged “cancals the presumption of inten,” and works an ‘acquittal; except in those cases where the circurnstances demand a conviction under the penal provisions touching criminal negligence; and. in ‘cases where, under the provisions of article 1 of the ‘penal.code one voluntarily commiting a crime or ‘misdeffieanor incurs criminal labilty for any wrongful act commited by him, even though i be ‘feront from that which ho intended to commit (US. vsAh Chong, G.R. No, 5272, March 19, 1910). Defense of Mistake of Fact Not Applicable 4 Whan thera ig: mistake in identily (error in personae) that tha accused made 3 mistake in Kaliig ono man insigad of another cannot roliove him from criminal responsibilty, he naving acted rmaliously and wiliuly (People v. Gona, G.R. No. L-32086, March 15, 1903); 2. W the ;ofencer is negligent in ascertaining the 1ru® state of facts he may be free from dole but rat fom culpa (BOADO, Compact Roviower; ‘supra at 31); and 3. When the accused committed a culpable tatony {the essence of honest mistake of fact is lack of intent on the part of the accused) (ld). MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA ‘Mala In Se Crimes mala in se are thase crimes which are so serious intheir effects on society as to call for almost Unanimous condemnation of its mombers. itself (REYES, Book One, supra al 63) Mata Prohibita ‘These are violations of mere rules of convenience esigned to secure @ more orderly regulation of the fairs of the society (REYES, Rook One, supra at 63). ‘These are acts made evil because there is @ law punishing it. The basis of criminal Habilty Is the olfender’s voluntariness. Hence, good faith o ack of criminal intent is not accepted 2s a defense, uniess this is an element of a crime. The act prohibited is not inherently evil but made evil only by. the prohibition ofthe statute (BOADO, supra at 20-23).MEMORY AID There are crimes which although punished under Special laws are deemed mala in se, such as those ‘which ere mere modifications to the Code like cate rustling which modifies Arts. 308, 309, and 310 on ‘qualified tel (G0ADO, supra at 20)’ and plunder under R.A. No, /08U ass bused. on Fstinda v, Sandiganbayan (1 CAMPANILIA, Reviewer, supra at). It was from hombook lore that we’ absorbed the distinctions given by text writes, claiming that: (1) ‘mala in se require criminal intent on the pat of the offender, in mala prohibita, the mere commission of the prohibited act, regardless of intent, i sufficient; {and (2) mala in se refer to felonies in the, Revised Penal ‘Code, while mala prohibita are offenses punished under special laws. The frst distinction is sil substantially correct, but the second is not ‘accurate. in fact, even in the Revised Penal Code there are felonies which are actually and essentially ‘mala prohibita. To ilustrate, in time of war, and Fegardless of his intent, @ person who shall nave correspondence with a hostile country or terry ‘occupied by enemy troops shall be punished therefor. An accountable public officer wha voluntarily falls to issue tho required receipt for any um of money officially collected by him, regardless fof his intent, is lable for illegal cxaction, Unauthorized possession of pickiocks of similar tools, regardless of the possgstor's ian, Ie punishable os such illegal possession."These are flonies undor the Revised Paria! Code but eximinal intent is not required therein (People v:"Quijade y Circulado, 6.R. No,115008-09, July 24, 1996). NOTE: When the acts aro inherently immoral, thoy ‘are mala nse, oven i tis punished by'special lav, eg,, Sec. 27(b) of RA. No. 6646 oF the Electoral Reforms Law of 1967 (Garcia v. C.A. and People, G.R.Nos187971, March 14, 2006) GENERAL RULE: As a rulo, mere commission of crimes classified as mata prohibita, even without criminal intent, is punishable EXCEPTIONS: 1. Accused was entitled to assume that his employer had the requisite license to possess Said frearm and ammunition and to tan them ‘ver to him wie he was on duly as one of the fegular security guards of 9 duly licensed securly agony (Cuenca v. People, G.R. No. L- 27586, June 26, 1970), 2, Where thero is no animus passidendi or intent to possess by the accused, as when one's possession of control of a firearm is morely temporary, incidental, or casual, no violation of P.D. No. 1868. as amended, may be successfully imputed to such an Individual Animus possidendi, is a state of mind, the presence and determination of which is largely dependent on the circumstances obtaining in each case. What the courts must take into ‘consideration are the prior and caetaneous acts of the accused andthe suroxinding Gircumstances unont ‘hls possession of the prohibited articles (People vy, Lian, GR. 'No.115988, March 29, 1996). 3. Mere transient possession of unlicensed firearm. While in stoaling a firearm, the accused ‘must necessarily come into possession thereof, the crime of legal possession of firaarms is not ‘committed by mere transiom possession of the Weapon. Thus, stealing a firearm with no intent touse but to render the owner defenseless, may suffice for purposes of establishing a case of theft It would not justify a charge for illegal possession of firearin, since intent to hold and eventually use the weapon would be lacking (People v, Dela Rose, G.R. No. 84857, January 7 16, 1998) The determination of whethor an offense is mala 5) Inge or malg prone sa question of ack ‘STitbotgr airoach to detngush betwee mala in se and tridia @rohibita crimes Is the determination of the inerent finery or leneus of ne penaeed ft to pete tor miion fier inet hoy pte mate 20, Ok fo conta, Wit nl infos in fet, batter fe aang * prohitiigg ii commission’ by reasons of pubic |) policytR HIS ial proniite. Whether or nol a rime evONES" Moral turpitude. fs ulimately. { queston of fat and fequenly depends on ane ‘ffepmetances surounding We. wolaton ‘othe ‘Satie (oungo v. Poople, GF No. 20046, July ‘BOTS. NOTE: The rule as to the distinction between acts ‘mala in’ se and acts mala prohibta is that in the former, intent governs, whila in the latter the ony inquiry is, "has the Iaw been violated?” (Dunlao, Sr \. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111343, August 22, 1996), MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA, DISTINGUISHED ae Coe) Poe Q The moral state of the | The voluntariness of the offender. offender acre Wrong from its very | Wrong because it is prohibited by law. pe aeCOO Cogesates ie ee Good faith is a valid |Good faith is not a defense. defense, Intentis an element. | Criminal” — intent immaterial ee The degree of | The act gives rise to a accomplishment of the | ime only when it is crime ‘is. taken into | consummated, ‘account in punishing the offender. eer tue ee Cast ee eiciuess Pugin ie caeneuiae When there is _more | Degrea ‘ot partichation than one offender, the | is: generally Wot faken degree of paticipaton | into account, “All who of each in the participated: in_the act commission of the | are “punished. to,“ the crime is. taken into | same éxtent. account ol inns Penalty is computed on | The penalty imposed on the basis ofwhetherthe | the offenders are. the fffender is a principal, | saene whether they are accomplice, ‘or| merely accomplices. or accessory. accessories, ea Viojation of the RPC | Violation of Special (General ro) Laws (General ne). ieee Thore are three stages: [No such stages. of attempted, frustratéd, | execution. ‘consummate. Rules on mitigating and | Rules of mitigating find aggravating pogravating aon Gireumstances apply. | erevinsiandes 66 not] nply: unless provided by oe soar i CRIMINAL LAW I Criminal Law Couey Ur ageia Lucas There aro. three |Genorally, only the persons criminally | principal is Hable. liable! principal, Penalties may be | Thereisnosuch division ‘divided into degrees | of penalties. and periods. PO Modifying Not considered because circumstances are |the law intends to takeiinjo account in | discourage the Inipoting “whe penalty | commission of the act bagause tie offender’ | especially prohibited. moratait ithe, basis arthe.crine. Hence!" goeater panversty deserves a higher # penalty. ei lesser! depravity deseryes mitigation: Poon Chines mgla_ in ise| Generally, not involved ‘enealy woWe bral | meres mote pro. torts (BOADO, Spa ZED) PLURALITY OF CRIMES Consists in the successive execution by the same individual of dferont erimiaal acts upon any of which 10 conviction has yet been declared! (REYES, Book One, supra at 697). There s plurality of cimes oF “eoncurso de delitos” when the actor commits varous deictual acs of the same or diffrent kind (Gamboa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 1-4105%, November 28, 1975). Plurality of crimes may refer to: 1. Ideal plurality or concurso fea cuca when single act gives rise to various infractions of la This is ilustrated by Art. 48 of the RPC which describes two forms of ideal plurality which i refers to collectively as “complex crimes (Gamboa v. Cour of Appeals, G.R. No. L-41054, November 28, 1975).MEMORY AID ante ht Mae t= ROG Opin Cai “Three groups under the ideal typo: ‘a. When the offender commits any of the ‘complex crimes in Art 48; b. When the law specifically fixes a single penalty for two oF more offenses committed (Special Complex Crimes); and . When: the ‘effender commits continued climes (REYES, Book Ono, supra at 696) Real plurality or concurso real, on the other hand, arises whon the accused performs an act of diferent acts with distinct purposes and resuling in diferent crimes which aro jridically independent. Its not governed by Article 48. (Gamboa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-41054, November 28, 1975). COMPLEX CRIMES UNDER ART. 48 - COMPOUND CRIMES = Compound Crime or “dolito compuosto” ‘xisis when a sinale act constitutes two oF more, ‘grave or less grave felonies (Gamboa v. Coy of Appeals, GR. No. L-41054, November 28, ; 1975} ee Requisites of Compound Crime: 1 Ony a single act is performed tno offender: and ; 2. The single act produces: : 2. Two (2) or more grave fetches: B. One (1) oF more grav and one {for more los grave tebnies oF © Two (2) oF more less gray {Gamboa v. Court of Appeals eat054, Novembor 20 1878) |. COMPLEX CRIME PROPER ‘Complex Crime Proper oF “deli: compajo* exists when the offense committed is a ‘necessary_means for commiting another offense (Gamboa v. Court of Appeals, G-R. No. 141054; November 28, 1975) Requisites of Complex Crime Proper: 1. Atleast two (2) offenses are committed: 2. One or some of the offenses committed ave necessary fo commit the otherls; and NOTE: The phrase “necessary means" has been interpreted not to mean indispensable means, because if it id, then the offense as “necessary means” to commit another would be an indispensable clement of the latter ‘and would be an ingrodiont thereo! (intestate Estate of Vda. do. Carungcong, GR. No. 181409, February 17, 2010) 3. Both or al of the offenses must be punishable under the same statute (REYES, Book One, supra at 681). (Proceed to Art 48 in page 105 for oscussion ) I. COMPOSITE OR SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES Ttis Composed of two or more crimes bul is Woaled by law as a single indivisible and unique offense for being the product of one criminal impulee, It is a specific crime with a speciic penalty provided by law ‘and is 10 be distinguished fcom compound “or ‘complex crime under Art. 48 of the RPC (People v. Salga, G.R. No. 233334, July 23, 2018) Characteristics of special complex crimos: 1. I offends against only one provision of law, whother of the RPC or of spacial penal laws; 2, Itpenalizes two speciic crimes and imposes one specific penalty; ana 3, It absorbs all other crimes commited in the course of the commission of the crimes (BOADO, Compact Reviewer, supra at 161) Examples of special complex cimes: ‘Mt 284 on robber wh nome boty wih Tug, poy ale ity me ysical injuries; At 320 a it nomi Ant 288\on"itnapping wl) nomic, Kidnap Wr rope, andere wah cass phytate: on Art Fie ‘on fape with homicide (Id). SAREE one AND SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME, DISTINGUISHED Sere ere Cie eae et It fs made up of two or more crimes being punished In ltinct provisions of the Revised onal Code but alleged in fone information either because they were brought about by a single felonious act or because tone offense is a necessary means for commiting the other offense or offenses, Ris made up of two lormore crimes which ate considered only ‘a8 components. of & single indivisible offense being punished in one provision of the Revised Penal Code, oso Penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed and in its ‘maximum period Penalty specificaly provided “Mor the Special complex lime that shall be pera ae NDES aassulit Ceuta cee z Coca ‘applied according to the rules on imposition of the penalty (ESTRADA, Book One, spa at 253) NOTE: Crimes committed through negligence ‘cannot be considored complex crimes even though the negligent act also caused other crimes. In truth, ciminal negligence in our RPC is treated as a more quasi offense and dealt with separately from willl offenses. In intentional crimes, tho act itsel is punished; in negligence or imprudence what is principally ponalzed is the mental attitude or Condition ehind the act, the dangeraus recklessness, oF lack of care or foresight (Iver y. San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716, November 17/2010). Culpable felonies defined and pufshod unde Art 369 are substantllycstinet and cannot form part 2 complex cima as dofinod unter A. Art 486 4 procndoral dovieo allowing single prosacution of ‘mip felonies foling unde-cther wo categorie (1) when a single act constifuter'two or more grave ‘or ess grave felonies and 2) hon an ofersa is necessary moans for commiting the other. The legisiture crated this procedural tol to Benefit the accused who, in lieu of serving ultple penaties, will only serve the maximum penalty forthe most Sovious erm, Ar. 365 however isa substantive we penatring not an act dofined ae felony but a ‘single montat atide regardless of thos ceauhing consequences, Thus, Article 365 Was crafted a. one {quasverime resulting in one or more consequent {Merv San Pedro, G2 No. 172716, Nowonbor 17 Soro) I, CONTINUED OR — CONTINUOUS. CRIMES. ‘Continuous or dato continued are those where wo (or more violations of tha sama penal provisions are tunited in one and the same intent or resolution leading to the perpetration of the same criminal purpose or aim (Santiago v. Garchiforena, G.R. No. 109266, December 2, 1993). Requisites of Continued or Continuous Crimes: (pus) Pluraity of acts performed during a period of time, 2. Unity of penal provision violated, and 3.. Unity of Griminalintont or purpose (Santiago v. Garchitorena, G.R. No. 109266, December 2, 1993) CRIMINAL LAW I Criminal Law NOTE: When the series of acts constitute crimes that are entirely different and distinct from each other, the perpetrator of such acts shall be punished for the separate crimes (REYES, Book One, supra at 706). Examples of Continued Crimes: 1. The thell of thiteen (13) cows belonging to two different owners committed by the accused at the same time and in the same place (People v. Tunas, G.R. No, L-46428, Apri 13, 1999); 2. The taking of six roosters trom coop is a single offense of theft. The assumption is that the accused were animated by single criminal impulse (People v. Jaranila, G.R. No, -28547, February 22, 1974): 3. Tho thied penetrations occurred during one continuing ac of rape in which the appellant was ‘obviously motivated by a single ecninal intent. “There is no indication thatthe appellant decided {6cammit those separate and distinct acts of sexu! agsault other than his lustful desire to change’ postions inside the’ room where the me was committed (People v. Aaron, G.R. ‘Nas. 116300-02, September 24, 2002); and 4. Accused, afd his, companions inlended only to rob one plaée. In he process, algo look away by force the monay ard valuabies of the employees working in sail gasoline station Clearly Interred from these gicuistances are the series of ats ‘whi were born from one criminal resolution (People v. Be Leon, G.R. No, 179843, June 26, 2008). IV. CONTINUING CRIMES ‘A Continuing chime envisages a Single ome ‘committed. through a series of acts arising from one criminal intent of resolution (Maximo v. Vilapando, sey G-R: Nos. 214925 & 214965, Apri 26, 2017) ‘Also, since theres only one crime committed, only ‘one ‘penalty shall be imposed on the perpetrator (REYES, Book Ono, supra at 698). NOTE: The term “continuing” must be understood in the sense similar to that of "tansitory’ and is only Intended as a facto in determining the proper venue OF Juriscicton, for that matter, ofthe criminal action pursuant to Séction 15, Rule 110 af the Rules of (Cour. This is 50, because a person charged with transitory offensé may be tied in any jurisdiction ‘where the offense is partly cornmited. In transitory ‘or continuing offense, some acts material and essential 10 the crime and roquiste to its ‘consummation: occur in one provinge and some in another, the cout of ether province has jursdletion {o try the case, itbeing understood that he frst court taking cognizance of the case will exclude the other (Gamboa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No, L-41054, November 28, 1975).MEM RY AID Seduce Mgt = 007 Ober Catt RULES ON VENUE GOVERNING ‘THE PROSECUTION OF CONTINUING CRIMES Mica Aiea Committed Multiple locates | Subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall’ be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or tersitory where the offense was committed or where any of is ‘essential ingredients occurrec. Inside a train,| The criminal action shall be irra, or other | instituted and tried inthe court ublic oF private | of any municipality or territory vehicle in the| where such train, aircraft, or course of ts trip | other vehicle passed during its trp, including the place of its doparture’and arrivat. ‘On _bood a The criminal action shall Ga vessel in. the| instituted and tied in the court course of ts fof tho voyage ‘any municipality or tesiory where” the vessel passed during such voyage, Subject fo the generally” ackapted Principles of inmtionat aw (RULES OF COURT, Rule 190, Bos. 15) Absorption Rules = 4. GENERAL RULE: Folonias do not bedrb mala rohibita cinco makes tho formbr a foldny ie Criminal intent (dole) oF negligence (cylp@): what makes the latter crimes are the special laWs enacting them (Loney v. People, G.RI" No. 152644, February 10, 2006) EXCEPTION: When the special law allows absorption, such as sexual abuse of @ minor Under R.A. No, 7610 and statutory rape, sets of lasciviousness, ete. (BOADO, supra at 25). 2. The absorption rule can result to the greater crime absorbing the lesser crime such as terrorism which absorbs the preckcate act, or the lesser may absorb the greater, suchas in rebellion which absorbs destructive arson (1). 3, Afelony cannot be complexed with an offense (People v. Optana, GR. No. 133922, February 12, 2004). 4, When an act offends against the provision of the RPC, and a special law, the offender can be prosecuted for 2. Two crimes t port of entry or of |: — because they do not absorb each other, ‘such a estafa and violation of BP. 22, Only one crime when the special law bars the prosecution for other offenses, 0g. {orrorism absorbing the prodicate crimes; €. One crime absorbing the others as an element, or as an aggravating circumstance = such as illegal possession of firearms. absorbed by rebelin (BOADO, supra at 25). NOTE: Laws that merely amend the provisions of the RPC, such as P.D. No. 633 (Ant-Catle Rustling Law of 1974) which amended Arts. 308, 309 and 310, do not convert their violations into mala prohibita (Taor v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No, 85204, ‘June 18, 1990), ARTICLE 4 CRIMINAL LIABILITY «PAR. 1: CRIMINAL LIABILITY SHALL BE PEINCURRED” BY ANY PERSON *CEnREING A FELONY (DELITO) ALTH THE WRONGFUL ACT DONE. BE \DIFFERENT FROM. THAT WHICH HE INTENDED. RATIONALE! E1 qo os causa dela causa es causa dl ino sto cause of he cause 4 (athe case tts evn causea (People ¥. Adriono, G.R..No. 205228, July 15, 2015). Bouts for aptying Art. 4, Par. 4: (FIP) Tiig aGused must be committing a Felony, Felony is an act or omission punishable by the RP.C. (RPC, Art 3). No felony is committed (1) When the act or ‘mission Bs not punishable by RPC; or (2) When the act is covered by any of the justifying circumstances in Art, 11 of RPC. NOTE: The act or omission should not be punished by a special aw because the offendor Violating a special law may not have the intent to do any injury to another. In such case, the ‘wrongful act’ done could not be differnt, a5 the offender did not intend to do any other injury (REYES, Book One, supra at 70). Since there is no provision in the R.P.C that punishes "suicide", it isnot considered a “felony.” (AMURAO, Book Ono, supra at 85). fel eeeAA prognant woman who attempted to commit suicide is not liable for abortion by reason of the consequent death of her fetus {1 CAMPANILLA, Reviewer, supra at 65). The felony must be “Intentional and The felony committed by the offonder should bo fone committed by means of dolo (malice), because paragraph 1 of Atlicle 4 speaks of \wrongful act dono “diforent from that which “intended” (REYES, Book One, supra at 70). Illustration: A, in attempting a suicide, jumped out of the window to kill himself. When he ‘dropped to the ground, he fell on an ald wornan who died as 2 consoquence. Is A lable? (REYES, Book One, supra at 74), A is not criminaly able for intentional homicide, But A is lable because of-clfminal negligence arising from his failure fa'absenva the Stara of core roqired by ha Grcumstangaof place, time, and persons (AMURAO, Be0k One, ‘supra at 85) fon, - Leese" j The felony commited bythe aéued should be the Broximate cause of Ye resulingiluy (U.S. v Brobst, G.R. No, L-4935, Ocfobor 25, 1909), Proximate Cause. “ ‘ it'fs that cause, whigh iv the paital.and continuous sequonce, ubbraken by any efcent intervening cause, produces. the in, sand without which tho rest wale ntnave accu (Sps. Abrogar v._ Cosmos, Bouin. Company, Inc, G.F. No, 164749, March 15, 208). Natural refers to an occurenceIn the eranry course of human ite or events (REYES, Book One, supra a 80). Logical means tat there is a. rational ‘connection between the act of the accused and the resulting injury or damage (i). NOTE: A felony isnot the proximate cause of the resulting injury i (1) the resulting injury is due to the intentional act ofthe vietim or (2) if there is fan active force that intervened between. the felony committed and the resulting. injury (REYES, Book One, supra ot 81). Efficient intervening Cause To be considered efficient, must be “one not Produced by a wrongful act oF omission, but independent of it, and adequate to biing the injurious results. Any cause intervening between the fist wrongful cause and the final injury which ‘might reasonably have been foreseen or CRIMINAL LAW I Criminal Law anticipated by the original wrongdoor isnot such an efficent intervening cause as wil relieve the ‘original wrong of is charactor as the proximate ‘cause ofthe finalinury (Sps. Abrogarv. Cosmos Botting Company, Ine, G.R. No. 184749, March 15, 2017). The following are not efficient intervening 11 The weak or diseased physical condition of the viet: 2. The nervousness or temperament of the vim: 3. Causes which aro inherent inthe victim: 4. Neglect of the vietm or thd person (e.g zeusal of medical atendence) 5. Erroneous oF unskiled medical or surgical treatment (unless the wound Is sight oF not mortal: ana 6,_ Delay in the medical treatment ofthe victim (REYES, Book Ono, supra at 83-84) NOTE: A. supervening event can stil be the subject of amendment or of a new charge withéut® necessary placing the accused In double jeopardy (People v. Pail, GR. No. L- 5070, Deeeimber 29, 1952) Death is presumed to be the natural Consequence of physical injuries inflicted when: (NER) 1. The victim, atthe time the physical injures were infcted was in Normat health 2: The death may be Expected trom the physical injuries ilicted: and 3. The death ensued within a Reasonable time (REYES, look One, supra at 85) NOTE: The offended pany is not obliged to Submit toa surgical operation of medical treatment to relieve the accused from Habily (WS, v. Marasigan, GR. No. L- 9426, August 15, 1914). Cause and Effect Relationship There must be a relation of “cause and effect’, the cause being the felonious act ofthe offender, and the effect being the death of the victim (REYES, Book Ono, supra at 80) The cause and effect relationship is not altered or changed by the following pre-existing conditions 1. Pathological condition ofthe victim, 2. Predispositin ofthe offended party 3. Concomitant or concurrent — conditions (negligence or fault ofthe doctors) o- 4. Otter conditions supervening the felonies such as tetanus. pulmonary infection of Gangcene (id. 20-81)MEMORY AID CAUSES WHICH PRODUCE A RESULT DIFFERENT FROM THAT INTENDED BY THE OFFENDER “The person is stl criminally lable although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended 1. Error in Personae mistake in the identity ofthe victim. ‘A. person is. criminally responsible for commiting an intentional felony although the actual vietim is diferent ftom the intended vietim due to mistake of Identhy (1 CAMPANILLA, Reviower, supra at 66). Ar, 49 of the RPG provides that if the penalty for the intended crime is lesser than the penalty forthe erime actualy committed, the ponally for the former shall be imposed In its maximum period, On the other hand, If the penalty or the crime intended is greator than the penaly for the crime actualy committed, the latter penalty shall 60 sed in Hs maximum period tmustration: 4 intend to i One nah A shouted atthe porson whore dg 0 ‘bo B An altorcaton onsued. Inthe process, ‘fire his gum atthe person waded 23 8 Consequence. it timed ut that the person som ho shot and sid was Pot bot Dis ‘wn fathor In his case, Ass lable for pamctte, a. crime which wes. actly Commited. When te fred his gun, he acted wth intent, Ho 1s Table for af the cect hogical and natural consequonees. of his felonious acl whether foreseon, intended, tr unitondod. Tho fact that tho vlim 1s dhfrant om the one A intended to kl dos fot excupate hin rom criminal abit 2. Aberratio letus [mistake of blow. ‘A person i eximinally responsibie for the ‘acts committed in violation of taw and for all Ue nlural and logical uunsoquences therefrom although the actual victim is, differen from the intended victim (People v. ‘Adriano, GR. No. 208228, July 18, 2018). Pursuant to Ait 48 of the RPC, the penalty {or the graver offense shall be imposed in ts maximum period IMustration: A, wit intent to il, hacked 8. was not fit but C, who was also behind B, was fit C died. A is lable for his attempt to Kil B.A is also Hable for the death of C. The oath of Cis the natural consequence of the felonious act ofA (Id, at 38). I the act which caused inurias or death of a third person by reason of mistake of biow is hot an intentional felony, Ar. 4 on 23berration ictus shall “not apply (I CAMPANILLA, Reviewer, supra at 67) NOTE: Commiting an actin solfdefense, or In the exercise of right to dofend possession ‘of proponerty or causing death or injuries ‘under exceptional circumstances is not an intentional felony (I CAMPANILLA, Reviewor, supra at 67) 3. Praeter Intentionem = committed when an injury resulting from ‘an act is greater than the injury intondod to § bbe caused by the offender (REYES, Book One, supra at 72). Wis considered as a J iigating ckeumstance under Art. 13(3) of A 10 BPC Tame, Br "Sittin: A, witout fatnton to ki Fegan tinct te etn fo dolwn; with his Read hitting the asphalt phvementyesulting in B's death (Id.). “GFE NGai}8%¥mployed in the commission of Tenaga on Seno about the actual felony committed, praeter intentionem wil not be appreciate, lg it'doos not apply to. culpa, “intentionem” denotes intent (BOADO, Compact Reviewer, supra at 94), ABERRATIO ICTUS AND ERROR IN PERSONAE, DISTINGUISHED ra ea ogee ‘there are tree|There are only two persons lnvolved: tho|persons involved: the! otiender, the intended }actual but unintended victim, and the actual victim and the offender. iti, (BOADO,|(BOADO, Compact [Compact Reviewer| Reviewer supra at 33) supra at 32) Etien ‘The offender dativars|The offender delivers the| CRIMINAL LAW Ibara tia 5 En Ben alsan poor aim, landed on: another. Effects of Mistake of Fact, Aberratio Ictus, Error in Personae, Praeter Intentionem, and Proximate Cause on Intent and Criminal Liability Scene tice cher ee ith Ue eaaia Negative Negative criminal eee criminal ntomt | tatty cn aoe Irion is against | The act may unintended |reaut in a Wien or the| complex. rime sect ‘s“In| (am 48°C) oe ato onary | nto felons, on. intended | atough here a ictn, alone intent They result 16 27a) grealor china Intendad_resuit| Depends upon falls on another | jniended crime due to error.in'| and. actial crime the identity “oF Eomimites: the victim, loa eae \* Fattr these te of diferent gravity Aricle, 49° shall Apply. in effect it Is. an extenuating cifeumstance. I the s esuiling cme is greater than intended. eg, — parricigs when what is Intonded is, homicide (Ar. 49) bo if the actual ‘and intended crimes are the mitigation — of, penalty atc Pcval crime is | Mtigating under Coe GR arcater than | Amici 13, Intended Proximate: ed oe in although not | eximinal labity to intended 1 actor whether CRIMINAL LAW I Criminal Law Effect on rae 2 Ulapilty ier) (oe ‘acting with intent or through negligence (GOADO, supra af 61-62) PAR. 2: CRIMINAL LIABILITY SHALL BE INCURRED 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 IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES ‘An imposible. timo te One whore the acls performed would have been a erme against persons of property but yhich Is not accomplished because of ts ferent impossibility or because of the employment of inadoduate ‘or ineffectual means ‘There's intent (subjective) to commit a crime but actually (objctivo) no crime is commited (BOADO, supra at62). Objéctvey, ne offender has not committed a felony, But subjectively, he isa criminal (REYES, Book Ono, supra at 94). Under Art. 58 of the RPC, the penalty {or impossible crimes is arrasto mayor or a fine ranging from 200-500 pesos. REASON: According to the positivist thinking, the continunity must be protected trom anti-social activities, whether actual or potential, of the morbid type of man call “socially. dangerous person (REYES, Book One, supra at 88) PURPOSE: The purpose is 10 suppress lawlessness ‘ criminal tendency (BOADO, supra at 63) In commiting an impossible crime, the offendor intends to commit a felony against’ persons or a felony against properly, and the act perlormed would have been an offense against persons or property But a felony against persons o* property should not be actually committed, for, otherwise, he would be liable for that felony (REYES, Book One, supre at 89). eee