NOTES

Criminal Law 1

INTRODUCTION:

There are basically 4 questions that are asked in the bar:

1. Is there a crime? So, you must know if the act or omission is punishable by the law as
a crime as well as the elements of the crime. If there is no overt act or the omission is
not punished by existing law, there is no crime. There may however be a civil liability.
The offender may have damaged another people but the liability maybe civil in nature
only or none at all. There is no crime when there is no law punishing it.

2. Is the accused liable? With respect to liability, one must be knowledgeable if the
person is the PRINCIPAL of the act or omission or ACCOMPLICE or ACCESSORIES. (Art.
16) One must know the degree of participation of the accused. It is also necessary to
know if the accused is guilty of Grave and Less Grave Felonies where only the Principal,
Accomplice, Accessories are liable. But in light Felonies, only the Principal and
Accomplice are liable but not the accessory. If the accused is not classified under any of
the three categories, they cannot be punished as such.

3. What is the crime committed? So, you must be knowledgeable about Book 2 which
enumerates FELONIES punishable by the Revised Penal Code and offenses punishable
by Special Laws. In other words, you must know different crimes punishable by our
penal laws in the country. You cannot be punished of an act or omission where the law
is silent about it as a crime.

4. Is the charge correct? The examiner will give a set of facts in the question involving
a complainant who files a case against the accused.

After stating the fact, the prosecutor resolves the complaint and files the case in court.
The questions to be asked: Is the charge correct? That question requires the application
of one’s knowledge on different kinds of crimes under the RPC and Special laws. The
examinee is sometimes required to decide either as a prosecutor or judge? The
examiner here will test the depth of one’s knowledge of criminals’ laws.

CRIMINAL LAW – A branch of municipal law which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and
provides for their punishment. (CRIMES, NATURE and PUNISHMENT (penalty). Book 2 of
the Criminal law subject is focused on the definitions of crimes as well as the
punishment to be imposed. Book 1 will explain the nature of the crime and persons
liable to the said crime and the penalty to be imposed.

Criminal Procedure (CP) is the series of PROCESS by which criminal laws are ENFORCED and by
which the State PROSECUTES persons for violation of the penal laws. This subject will be discussed
in the subject CRIMINAL PROCEDURE which is the procedural law on the matter while Criminal law
and special criminal laws are substantive in nature.

Date of Effectivity: January 1, 1932 (Art. 1, RPC)

ARTICLE 1. Time when Act takes effect. — This Code shall take effect on the first day
of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-two. (Jan. 1, 1932)

TERMS USED:

FELONY – is an act or omission violative of the Revised Penal Code, either committed intentionally
or negligently.

OFFENSE – is an act or omission violative of a special law, other than the Revised Penal Code.

CRIME- is a violation of the penal law be it a Revised Penal Code, special law, or ordinance.

In the Philippines, there is no crime when there is no law punishing it. “Nullum crimen nulla
poena sine lege”. No matter how immoral or wicked is the act of the accused if there is no law
that punishes it, the actor is not answerable criminal.

Is there a common crime in the Philippines?

In the Philippines, there is no so called “COMMON CRIMES”. Common law crimes are body of
principles and rules of action which their authority does not emanate either express or
implied from the declaration of will of legislature. This is not recognized in our country.

To be punishable as an act or omission, there must be a penal code or special penal law that
defines and punishes the act. Again, even if such act is morally or socially wrong, no criminal
liability is incurred by its commission. Before,

Feb. 15, 2010, voyeurism was not a crime. So if a man took a video footage of his sexual act with
a woman, such was not a crime until REPUBLIC ACT No. 9995, AN ACT DEFINING AND
PENALIZING THE CRIME OF PHOTO AND VIDEO VOYEURISM, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES
THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES was approved on  FEB 15, 2010 which declares in Sec.
4 thereof that it is hereby prohibited and declared unlawful for any person to take photo or video
coverage of a person or group of persons performing sexual act or any similar activity or to
capture an image of the private area of a person/s such as the naked or undergarment clad
genitals, public area, buttocks or female breast without the consent of the person/s involved and
under circumstances in which the person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy;

Courts are not sources of criminal. They only explain the meaning of and apply the law
enacted by the Congress or legislative branch of the govt.

Legal Basis of Punishment

The power to punish violators of criminal law comes within the police power of the state. It
is the injury inflicted to the public which a criminal action seeks to redress, and not the
injury to the individual. Meaning, a criminal is being punished because of the injury inflicted to the
PUBLIC and not to the individual. That is why it is a crime against the people or RP. The private
offended party has a recourse, that it to claim for damages against the offender. But it is the
government that prosecutes the crime, the civil action is impliedly instituted in the criminal action.
Thus, private offended party is allowed to intervene in the prosecution of the criminal case.

OBJECTIVE OF THE PUNISHMENT:

The objective of the punishment is two-fold: absolute and relative.

The absolute theory is to inflict punishment as a form of retributive justice. Basically, the
offender is made to pay for the crime. It is to destroy wrong in its effort to annihilate right, to put
an end to the criminal activity of the offender.

On the other hand, the relative theory purports to prevent the offender from further
offending public right or to the right to repel an imminent or actual aggression, exemplary or by
way of example to others not to follow the path taken by the offender and ultimately for
reformation or to place him under detention to teach him the obligations of a law-
abiding citizen.

Power to Enact Penal Laws

Only the legislative branch of the government can enact penal laws . While the
President may define and punish an act as a crime in the exercise of the emergency powers
delegated by law, such exercise of power is not executive but legislative as he derives such power
from the law-making body. It is in essence, an exercise of legislative power by the Chief Executive.
The Executive branch cannot make a penal law unless it is delegated to it by the Congress in its
emergency powers. The Supreme Court cannot also make penal laws, it can only interpret its
meaning or declare it unconstitutional if it is violative to the Constitution because statutory laws
should abide the by the fundamental law of the land.

Limitations on the power of Congress to enact penal laws

1. Must be general in application. (This is covered by the Generality Principle in criminal

law)

2. Must not partake of the nature of an ex post facto law -Art III, Sec. 22 – a law that
punishes an act which was not punishable at the time it was committed.

-But penal law may retroact (or apply to cover the past crimes) only if:

(a) It makes the penalty of a certain crime lighter.

(b) It repeals a law-making act of act no longer criminal.
(c) When it is favorable to the accused who is not a habitual delinquent.

Criminal law being a limitation on the rights of the people should be construed strictly
against the State and liberally in favor of the accused.
3. Must not partake of the nature of a bill of attainder – a legislative act that inflicts
punishment without judicial trial. (Art. III, Se4c. 4 (1), Constitution, “No person shall be
held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.

Due process of law means a law that hears before it condemns, proceeds upon inquiry and
renders judgment only after trial. There must be preliminary investigation of the crime
(except of warrantless arrest-arrest in flagrante delicto or hot pursuit), trial in court if there
is a probable cause. This is taken cared of by the rules on criminal procedure)

4. Must observe Constitutional rights of the accused under Art. III, Bill of Rights .
(You will study them in your Constitutional law subject)

5. Must not impose cruel and unusual punishment or excessive fines. (Art 3, Sec.
19, NC) Death penalty maybe imposed on heinous crimes, but the heinous crimes law is
suspended.
CONSITITUTIONAL RIGHTS THAT MAYBE WAIVED BY THE ACCUSED?

Right to confrontation and cross examination maybe waived but not right to be informed of the
nature and cause of accusation against him. The latter involves public interest. So, before the
accused is tried, there will be arraignment, an Information or Compliant is read to the accused and
he is allowed to enter his plea: Guilty or Not Guilty. This cannot be dispensed with except when
the nature or cause of the accusation is clearly read and explained to him by his own counsel.

HOW PENAL LAWS ARE CONSTRUED? Statutory Construction

1. LIBERALLY IN FAVOR of THE ACCUSED – Unless the interpretation is clear, penal laws
should be liberally construed in favor of the accused and strictly against the State.

The court may consider the spirit and reason of the penal law where the literal meaning
would lead to absurdity or injustice. This is only applicable when there is ambiguity in the
law or doubt in its interpretation.

If we must choose between a strict and literal interpretation of the law and a liberal and
reasonable interpretation of the law, if we must choose between the letter of the law which
"killeth" and the spirit of the law which "giveth life", can anyone doubt what our decision
will be? We adopt that construction which will produce the most beneficial results.
(Bonifacio Isip vs. Mun Council fo CABIAO, G.R No. L-18947, April 29, 1922)

"It is a basic rule of statutory construction that penal statutes are to be liberally
construed in favor of the accused. Court's must not bring cases within the provision of a law
which are not clearly embraced by it. No act can be pronounced criminal which is not clearly
made so by statute; so, too, no person who is not clearly within the terms of a statute can
be brought within them. Any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused (."
People vs Deleverio: 118937-38: April 24, 1998: J. Vitug: En Banc)

2. EQUIPOISE DOCTRINE – When the evidence for the prosecution and of the defense is
equally balanced, the scale should be tilted in favor of the accused in obedience to the
Constitutional presumption of innocence. He should be acquitted.
 The State must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the
prosecution. The guilt of the accused must be proven with moral certainty. (People vs.
Dindo, 349 SCRA 492)

3. DOCTRINE OF DUBIO PRO REO – Is a doctrine to resolve all doubts in favor of the
accused. 

In dubio pro reo. When in doubt, rule for the accused. This is in consonance with the
constitutional guarantee that the accused ought to be presumed innocent until and unless
his guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt.

4. RULE OF LENITY – (Leniency) Intimately intertwined with the in dubio pro reo principle.

It is the doctrine that "a court, in construing an ambiguous criminal statute that sets out
multiple or inconsistent punishments, should resolve the ambiguity in favor of the more
lenient punishment.

The rule applies when the court is faced with two possible interpretations of a penal statute,
one that is prejudicial to the accused and another that is favorable to him. The rule calls for
the adoption of an interpretation which is more lenient to the accused.  Intestate Estate of
Manolita Gonzales V da. de Carungcong v. People,  626 Phil. 177, 200(2010)

Lenity becomes all the more appropriate when this case is viewed through the lens of the
basic purpose of the Indeterminate Sentence Law "to uplift and redeem valuable human
material, and prevent unnecessary and excessive deprivation of personal liberty and
economic usefulness."8 

Since the goal of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is to look kindly on the accused, the
Court should adopt an application or interpretation that is more favorable to the accused.
(PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES versus BETH TEMPORADA. G.R. No. 173473. EN BANC)

2. What are the three (3) CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW?

1. Generality
2. Territoriality and
3. Prospectivity.

1. Generality - RPC covers all persons, regardless of sex, age, citizenship religion or creed within
the Philippine territory. It applies to all persons who sojourn within the Philippine territory.

The Philippine criminal laws are binding on all persons who live or sojourn in the Philippines.
Whoever you are, whatever be your creed, religion, sex or nationality; as long as you reside in the
Philippine territory, penal laws of the Philippines shall apply on you.

GENERALITY -Generality principle is akin to territoriality principle in the sense that the
demarcating factor of both principles is the territory of the Philippines.
Under generality principle, criminal law is enforceable to person living or sojourning in
the territory of the Philippines.

Under the territoriality principle, criminal law is applicable only to criminal act committed
within the territory of the Philippines.

Thus, the person who committed the crime must have committed it in the Phil territory.

But the CONCEPT of Generality is different from territoriality .

The applicability of territoriality principle or generality principle will depend on the issue
raised by the accused in questioning the jurisdiction of the court.

If the accused attacks the jurisdiction of the court because of the unique characteristic
of his person (e.g., he is a foreigner, military, hermit, primitive, ambassador, legislator,
President), the applicable principle is generality.

If the accused attacks the jurisdiction of the court due to the unique characteristic of the
place where the crime was committed (e.g., the place of comm iss ion is foreign
v essel, war vess el, em bas sy or high sea ) etc, the app lica ble prin ciple is
territoriality.

Question:

Billy is an American citizen and alleges that he cannot be prosecuted nor convicted of illegal
possession of firearm because it is a constitutional right of the citizens of the USA to keep and bear
arms without need of securing government license. Is his contention correct?

No. His contention is untenable depending upon the issue he raises as an accused. If he raises the
issue of his UNIQUENESS AS A PERSON – the issue GENERALITY. (If he is an ordinary person, His
contention is untenable. But if he is an ambassador, he is exempt from criminal liability based on
his uniqueness as a person.

Now, if Billy raises the issue of the PLACE OF THE COMISSION OF THE CRIME, he is not liable
even if he is an ordinary citizen if he bears arms inside his embassy or foreign vessel. But if he is
outside his embassy, his contention is untenable.

The Philippines as a sovereign state, has a right to uphold its law and maintain order within its
domain, and with the general jurisdiction to punish persons for offenses committed within its
territory.

SUPREME COURT CASES ON GENERALITY PRINCIPLE:

1. People v. Galacgac, CA 54 O.G. 1027
2. US v. Sweet G.R. 448, September 20, 1901
3. People v. Livara, G.R. L-6201, April 1954

Legal Basis of Generality Principle is Art. 2 of the RPC and Art 14 of the New Civil Code.

EXCEPTIONS to the Generality Principle? Who are the persons not covered by the RPC?
ANSWER: Art. 2, RPC and Art 14 of the NCC.

ARTICLE 2 (RPC) Application of its provisions. — Except as provided in the treaties and
laws of preferential application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within the
Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but also
outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:

Art. 14 of NCC.   Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon
all who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public international law
and to treaty stipulations. (8a)

A. TREATY or TREATY STIPULATIONS -

— Except as provided in the treaties or subject to the principles of public international

law and to treaty stipulations. (8a ) This means that these treaties should be given
preferential application over the provisions of our penal laws.

Treaties –

- Military Bases Agreement between the US and Phils which expired on Sept. 1991. In
that agreement, if the offense is committed by members of the Armed Forces of the US
within and outside the base, it is triable by the US courts.

- VFA signed on February 10, 1998, US courts have jurisdiction to criminal and
administrative cases over US personnel in the RP.

What is the Visiting Forces Agreement and why is it an exception to the

general application of criminal laws? The VFA is a bilateral visiting forces agreement
between the PH and the US, which only applies to troops temporarily in a country. Its effect is
that it allows the US government to retain jurisdiction over US military personnel accused of
committing crimes in the Philippines, except if the crimes are of particular importance to the
Philippines.
 B. LAWS OF PREFERENTIAL APPLICATION.

-Diplomatic representatives – exempted from our criminal laws.

- RA No. 75, immunities, rights, and privileges of duly accredited foreign diplomatic
representatives in the Philippines. Thus, the following are not subject to criminal laws:

A) Sovereign and other chief of state.

B) Ambassadors, minister’s plenipotentiary, ministers’ resident, charges d’affairs.
C) Immunity is extended to domestic servants if registered in our DFA. Provided,
reciprocity is observed also in that country.
“The Vienna Convention lists the classes of heads of diplomatic missions to include (a)
ambassadors or nuncios accredited to the heads of state, 10 (b) envoys,11 ministers
or internuncios  accredited to the heads of states; and (c) charges d' affairs 12 accredited
to the ministers of foreign affairs.13 Comprising the "staff of the (diplomatic) mission"
are the diplomatic staff, the administrative staff and the technical and service staff.
Only the heads of missions, as well as members of the diplomatic staff, excluding the
members of the administrative, technical and service staff of the mission, are accorded diplomatic
rank. Even while the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations provides for immunity to the
members of diplomatic missions, it does so, nevertheless, with an understanding that the same be
restrictively applied. Only "diplomatic agents," under the terms of the Convention, are vested with
blanket diplomatic immunity from civil and criminal suits.” (Minucher vs. CA and Scalzo, G.R.
No. 142396, Feb. 11, 2002)  

C. PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW –

The generally accepted principles of public international law refer to the norms of general
customary international law which are binding on all states, such as the renunciation of war as an
instrument of national policy, the principles of sovereign immunity, among others. Therefore, since
sovereign immunity applies among all states, sovereigns and other chiefs of state are cloaked with
immunity with regard to the penal laws.

Who are the persons exempt from Philippine Criminal Law under the principles of
Public International Law?

1. Sovereigns
2. Heads of state
3. Ambassadors
4. Ministers plenipotentiary
5. Ministers’ residents
6. Charges d' affaires

Are consuls, vice consuls and consular officials also exempt from the immunity from
criminal prosecution?

No. Consuls, vice consuls and consular officials are not exempt for they merely represent their
state's commercial, mercantile, or business interest.
What if the crime is committed inside the embassy of a foreign state located in the
Philippines? Is the offender exempt from immunity from criminal prosecution?

No. Crimes committed inside the embassy of a foreign state located in the Philippines are not
subject to Philippine jurisdiction because the embassy is deemed an extension of the state that it
represents.

2. Territoriality – criminal law undertakes to punish crimes committed within the Philippine
territory. Our penal laws are enforceable not only to land, but also bodies of water around and
within the Philippines and over air space. It applies to terrestrial, aerial, and fluvial domain.

Territoriality in criminal law means that our penal laws undertake to punish crimes committed only
within the Philippine territory. Outside the parameters of the Philippine archipelago, Philippine
criminal laws cannot be enforced.

Legal basis: Art. 2 of the RPC.

-In other words, our penal laws are enforceable within the territory as defined under
Archipelagic doctrine in the Constitution.
What is the extent of our national territory? Art. I of the Phil. Constitution provides:
The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and
waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has
sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains,
including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other
submarine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the
archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal
waters of the Philippines.
TERRITORY: It consists of the land within the boundaries of the state, the air space above the
land, the inland waters like rivers, the springs, lakes bays, mineral and natural resources and
the 12 miles of the beyond the state coastlines.

The Philippines has 115,831 square miles or 300,000 square kilometers. Based on the definition,
the components of our territory are the land mass known as terrestrial domain, the inland and
external waters – the maritime and fluvial domain and the space above the land and waters –
aerial domain.

The second sentence of the definition is an affirmation of the archipelagic doctrine which governs
the territorial jurisdiction of the Phils.

We observe here the STRAIGHT BASELINE METHOD – where we connect the outermost points
of our archipelago with straight baselines and consider all waters enclosed as internal waters. The
entire archipelago is regarded as one integrated unit instead of being fragmented into so many
thousand islands.
The waters inside the baseline shall be considered internal waters and this is not subject to entry
by foreign vessels without the consent of the local state.

-12 nautical miles from the baseline is our territorial sea where we exercise jurisdiction as a
coastal state but subject to a RIGHT OF INNOCENT PASSAGE. The passage here of a foreign
vessel must be continuous and expeditious except in cases of force majeure.

Submarines and other underwater craft are required to navigate on the surface and to show their
flag.
- 12 nautical miles from the territorial waters, we call this CONTIGUOUS ZONE – the coastal
state may exercise here limited jurisdiction to prevent infringement of customs, fiscal, immigration
and sanitary laws.

- 200 nautical miles from the LOW WATER MARK or the baseline – is the EXCLUSIVE
ECONOMIC ZONE. Technically, the area beyond the territorial sea is not part of the state but the
coastal state may exercise rights over the economic resources of the sea, seabed, subsoil although
other states have a freedom of navigation and over flight, to lay submarine rabbles and pipelines
and other lawful uses.

-State with overlapping exclusive economic zones are entitled to appropriate treaty for the joint
exploration, exploitation, and utilization of the resources in the area.

- HIGH SEAS OR INTERNATIONAL WATERS – this is beyond the territorial seas of the state. This is
res communis or res nullius.

-We have a new Baseline Law – R.A. 9522 (March 10, 2009) Under the law, we include in
our baseline where the Phils could exercise jurisdiction the Regime of Islands including the
Kalayaan Group of Islands and the Scarborough Shoal WHICH IS now occupied by China, Vietnam,
and Malaysia.

-Under the Archipelagic doctrine adopted by the Constitution and Conference of the Law of the
Sea, this territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines is with distance of 12 nautical miles from baseli ne.
Beyond this maritime zone is the high or international seas which are outside the Philippine
Territory. If exceeds 12 nautical miles, is the international waters or open sea.

Crime committed at the open sea, our courts have no jurisdiction anymore.

-Crimes committed within those internal waters are subject to the penal law of that country

-Under ADoctrine, regardless of breadth, width, and dimension, as long as it is within the
Archipelago, it will be regarded as part of the national territory. This is only a unilateral adoption
by the Philippines which is not recognized by the international law.

Bar question: (2008)

Hubert and Eunice were married in the Philippines. Hubert took graduate studies in New York and
met his former girlfriend, Eula. They renewed their friendship and finally decided to get married.
The first wife, Eunice, heard about the marriage and secures a copy of the marriage contract in
New York. Eunice filed a case of Bigamy against Hubert in the Philippines. (a) Will the case
prosper? Explain. (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, because the Philippine Courts have no jurisdiction over a crime committed outside of the
Philippine territory. Under the principle of territoriality, penal laws, specifically the RPC, are
enforceable only within the bounds of our territory (Art. 2, RPC).

(b) If Eunice gave her consent to the second marriage, what will your answer be? Explain. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The answer will be the same. The consent of Eunice would not confer
jurisdiction on Philippine Courts.

3. PROSPECTIVITY – only acts or omission committed after the effectivity of a penal law
may be considered criminal under such law.

-The act or omission committed before the law took effect, although criminal under the
said law cannot be punished thereunder. It is because penal laws are prospective in
nature.

What are the RPC provisions that defines prospectivity in criminal law?

1. Art. 21- No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its
commission

2. Art. 366- Felonies and misdemeanors, committed prior to the date of effectiveness of this Code
shall be punished in accordance with the Code or Acts in force at the time of their commission.

3. Art. 22- Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a
felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code,
although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the
convict is serving the same.
Is there an instance that a penal law is given retroactive effect? The usual answer is
that when it is favorable to the accused and the accused is not habitual criminal as an exception to
the prospectivity principle. This is not an exception to the prospectivity principle. This
retroactivity applies only when the penal law is amended. Because if there is only one
law, that single law cannot be given a retroactive effect.

It is only when the original law is amended, that once the amendment is favorable to the
accused, he will enjoy the favorable amendments in that amendatory law.

Example: If the old law punishes illegal possession of firearms to 6 years, an amendatory law is
passed reducing the penalty to 3 years, the new law can be given retroactive effect to accused
who was convicted under the old law. The accused may now enjoy the reduced penalty of 3 years.
WHEN RETROACTIVITY IS NOT ALLOWED or ALLOWED?

While generally, whenever an amendatory statute dealing with crimes establishes more
lenient or favorable penalty to the accused, it is given retroactive effect, this does not apply when:

1. The law itself says that it is not applicable to pending or existing actions.
2. When the offender is a habitual criminal under Rule 5, rt. 62 of the RPC.

WHAT IS THE EFFECT IN CASE OF A REPEAL OF A PENAL LAW TO THE LIABILITY OF

THE OFFENDER?

The answer is, it depends: Whether the repeal is PARTIAL or ABSOLUTE.

(A) If is a PARTIAL REPEAL – when the crime punished under the repealed law continues to
be a crime in spite of the repeal. This means that the repealing law merely modified the
conditions affecting the crime under the repealed law.

The modification maybe PREJUDICIAL or BENEFICIAL to the offender, as follows:

1. If the partial repeal makes the penalty LIGHTER in the new law, the new law
applies except when he is a habitual delinquent, or the new law says that it is
inapplicable.

2. When the new law imposes a HEAVIER penalty, the law in force at the time of the
commission of the crime is the one applicable. The new law will apply prospectively only.

Therefore, if the case is PENDING IN COURT involving a violation of a repealed law, and
the repealing law is more favorable to the accused, it shall be applied to him whether he
is a habitual delinquent or not unless there is a reservation clause that it shall not apply
to habitual delinquents.

If the CASE is ALREADY DECIDED and the convict is already serving, the crime remains
to be a crime because it is only a partial repeal. If the repeal is LENIENT to the convict,
he shall benefit from the repealing law except when he is a habitual delinquent.
(Example: Robin Padilla in his illegal possession of firearms case)

(b) ABSOLUTE or TOTAL REPEAL - when the crime punished under the repealed law has
been decriminalized by the repeal. The act or omission which used to be a crime under the
old law is no longer a crime. Example: RA 7363 – decriminalizing Subversion Law.

If the new law TOTALLY repeals the old law, the crime committed under the old law is
totally obliterated.
Hence, if the crime repealed is PENDING in court – it shall be dismissed. The accused is
presumed innocent until contrary is proved. Even if he is a habitual delinquent.

If the case is already decided by the court and the accused is SERVING SENTENCE– the
convict is entitled to be released unless he is a habitual delinquent or there is a
reservation clause in the new law that it shall not apply to those already serving
sentence.

There is no favorable retroactive application for habitual delinquents under Art 22, RPC
in relation to Rule 5, Art. 62.

It does not mean that if they are entitled to be released, they are free to escape –
otherwise, they again commit a crime of Evasion of Service of Sentence. Prisoners are
accountabilities of the State.

If the convict is not discharged despite the repeal of his crime under which he is
convicted, he may petition for habeas corpus to test the legality of his continued
detention.

TWO KINDS OF REPEAL as to the manner of repeal:

Express repeal and IMPLIED repeal:

1. EXPRESS REPEAL: - It is a kind of repeal which the subsequent law contains a

provision that it expressly repeals the earlier enactment. Example: Provisions of Title V
of the RPC concerning crimes related to drugs is expressly repealed by R.A. 6425, The
Dangerous Drug Act of 2002.

RA 9165 Dangerous Drugs Law of 2002 expressly repeals RA 6425. Look at the
repealing clause.

2. IMPLIED REPEAL - when there is a law on a particular subject matter and a

subsequent law is passed involving the same subject matter, but it is inconsistent
with the first law and they cannot stand together, thus, one must give way. No
provision in the repealing clause of the later law that it repeals the earlier one.

In this case, it is the EARLIER law that must give way to the LATER law, because
the later law expresses the recent legislative sentiment. So, there is an implied repeal
here when there are two inconsistent laws.
 IMPLIED REPEALS are not favored. It requires a competent court to declare that there is
an implied repeal. The first thing that the court will do is to RECONCILE or HARMONIZE
the two laws, but it is not possible, it will declare that the later law impliedly repeals the
earlier law.

CONSEQUENCES IF REPEAL OF PENAL LAW IS EXPRESS OR IMPLIED:

1. If a penal law is impliedly repealed, the subsequent repeal of the repealing law will
revive the original law.

2. If the repeal is express, the repeal of the repealing law will not revive the first law, so
the act or omission will no longer be penalized.

The effects of repeal will not apply to self-repealing law which have automatic
termination. Ex: Rent Control Law.

THREE (3) PHILOSOPHIES OF CRIMINAL LAWS:

Whenever a country enacts a criminal law, there is a philosophy that is

considered to pass the said law.

1. The classical or Juristic philosophy:

Maxim: An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” In Latin “Oculo pro oculo, dente pro
dente.”

Under this philosophy, the penalty imposed for violation for the law is for retribution to
make the wrongdoer pay for the wrong done. Make him suffer what the victim suffered.

The penalty here is imposed in a mechanical manner. What do you do to others will be
done to you.

Emphasis is on the crime, not on the criminal. There is a little regard on the human
element. It does not consider why the offender did it.

Man is considered a moral creature who understands what is right and wrong and if he
does something wrong, he must be prepared to suffer the consequences of his acts.
2. The Positivist or Realistic philosophy: The purpose of the penalty here is for
REFORMATION. That is to correct him.

Before the penalty is imposed, the offender is first examined by a penal and social
scientist who determines WHY the offender commits the crime.

The emphasis is on the criminal and not on the crime. He is regarded as socially sick
who needs treatment in the asylum. The offenders are kept in the hospital to correct
him and not to punish him.
 Man is regarded as inherently good but crimes as social phenomenon which only
constrains man to do wrong although not of his own liking.

3. Eclectic or Mixed philosophy: This is neutral. It does away the extremes of both
theories. Only constructive characteristics are combined.

The penalty imposed here depends on the frequency of the crime. Light penalty is
imposed if committed by poor people.

Which of the theory is applied here in the Philippines? We are classical in character but not
absolutely. Our penal code merely adopted the Spanish Penal Code which was in turn copied the
French Penal Code which was the forerunner of classical philosophy. But we also have positivist
application on the provision of law on mitigating circumstances.

Example: Intoxication of the offender is considered to mitigate the liability as long as it is not
intentional or habitual. A woman who killed her child to conceal dishonor has in her favor a
mitigating circumstance.

BASIC MAXIMS IN CRIMINAL LAW

Doctrine of Pro Reo - Whenever a penal law is to be construed or applied and the law admits of
two interpretations – one lenient to the offender and one strict to the offender – that interpretation
which is lenient or favorable to the offender will be adopted.

This is in consonance with the fundamental rule that all doubts shall be construed in favor of the
accused and consistent with presumption of innocence of the accused. This is peculiar only to
criminal law.

Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege

There is no crime when there is no law punishing the same. Courts will not hold one person
criminally responsible for the acts of another, committed without his knowledge or consent, unless
there is a statute requiring it so plain in its terms that there is no doubt of the intention of the
Legislature. Criminal statutes are to be strictly construed. No person should be brought within their
terms who is not clearly within them, nor should any act be pronounced criminal which is not
clearly made so by the statute. (U. S. vs. Madrigal, 27 Phil. Rep., 347.)
No matter how wrongful, evil, or bad the act is, if there is no law defining the act, the same is not
considered a crime.

Common law crimes are wrongful acts which the community/society condemns as contemptible,
even though there is no law declaring the act criminal. Not any law punishing an act or omission
may be valid as a criminal law. If the law punishing an act is ambiguous, it is null and void.

Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, "the act itself does not make man guilty unless his
intention were so;" (United States vs. Ah Chong, G.R. No. L-5272, March 19, 1910)
Actus me incito factus non est meus actus , "an act done by me against my will is not my
act;" 

The act cannot be criminal where the mind is not criminal. This is true to a felony characterized by
dolo, but not a felony resulting from culpa. This maxim is not an absolute one because it is not
applied to culpable felonies, or those that result from negligence.

-A man cannot suffer more punishment than the law assigns, but he may suffer less. –
William Blackstone

-For when lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentler gamester is the soonest
winner. – William Shakespeare

Utilitarian Theory or Protective Theory

The primary purpose of the punishment under criminal law is the protection of society from actual
and potential wrongdoers. The courts, therefore, in exacting retribution for the wronged society,
should direct the punishment to potential or actual wrongdoers since criminal law is directed
against acts and omissions which the society does not approve.

Consistent with this theory, the mala prohibita principle which punishes an offense regardless of
malice or criminal intent, should not be utilized to apply the full harshness of the special law.

In Magno v CA, decided on June 26, 1992, the Supreme Court acquitted Magno of violation of
Batas Pambansa Bldg.. 22 when he acted without malice. The wrongdoer is not Magno but the
lessor who deposited the checks. He should have returned the checks to Magno when he pulled
out the equipment. To convict the accused would defeat the noble objective of the law and the law
would be tainted with materialism and opportunism.

Distinction between crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code and crimes
punished under special laws

1. As to moral trait of the offender

In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, the moral trait (character or qualities) of
the offender is considered. This is why liability would only arise when there is dolo or culpa in the
commission of the punishable act. Dolo is punished more severely that culpa.
In crimes punished under special laws, the moral trait of the offender is not considered; it is
enough that the prohibited act was voluntarily done.) Illegal possession of firearms. You
cannot put up a defense that you only possessing it for self-defense or security, or you are not
committing a crime. Or drup-possession. You are not using or selling it. – a mere conscious
possession is a crime by itself.

2. As to use of good faith as defense.

In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, good faith or lack of criminal intent is a
valid defense, unless the crime is the result of culpa
In crimes punished under special laws, good faith is not a defense. (Violations of B.P. 22)

3. As to degree of accomplishment of the crime

In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, the degree of accomplishment of the crime is
taken into account in punishing the offender; thus, there are attempted, frustrated, and
consummated stages in the commission of the crime.

In crimes punished under special laws, the act gives rise to a crime only when it is consummated;
there are no attempted or frustrated stages, unless the special law expressly penalizes the mere
attempt or frustration of the crime.

4. As to mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are
taken into account in imposing the penalty since the moral trait of the offender is considered.

In crimes punished under special laws, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are not taken
into account in imposing the penalty.

5. As to degree of participation

In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code when there is more than one offender, the
degree of participation of each in the commission of the crime is taken into account in imposing
the penalty; thus, offenders are classified as principal, accomplice
and accessory.
In crimes punished under special laws, the degree of participation of the offenders is not
considered. All who perpetrated the prohibited act are penalized to the same extent.
There is no principal or accomplice or accessory to consider.

Test to determine if violation of special law is malum prohibitum (a crime because by

public policy make it wrong or malum in se (It is by nature wrong or evil).

Analyze the violation: Is it wrong because there is a law prohibiting it or punishing it as

such? If you remove the law, will the act still be wrong?

If the wording of the law punishing the crime uses the word “willfully”, then malice must be
proven. Where malice is a factor, good faith is a defense.

In violation of special law, the act constituting the crime is a prohibited act. Therefore, culpa is not
a basis of liability, unless the special law punishes an omission.

When given a problem, take note if the crime is a violation of the Revised Penal Code
or a special law.
 ARTICLE 2 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE:

Exceptions to the TERRITORIALITY CHARACTERISTIC OF CRIMINAL LAW? Art 2 of

the RPC.

As we said earlier, the application of RPC covers all persons who sojourn in the country
regardless of his nationality, sex, status, etc. as long as he is within the territorial jurisdiction of
the country as defined by Arc. Doctrine.

What are the instances where our RPC is still applicable even beyond its territorial
jurisdiction or outside the Philippines?

Read: ARTICLE 2. Application of its provisions. — Except as provided in the treaties and
laws of preferential application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within the
Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but also
outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:

1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;

2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or
obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;

3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of
the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number;

4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the

exercise of their functions; or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of
nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.

Art. 2 embraces two applications of RPC:

(1) Intra-territorial - the RPC applies within the Phil territory.
(2) Extra-territorial – The RPC applies OUTSIDE the Phil. territory.

These are the five situations where our penal law is still applicable even outside its territorial
jurisdiction.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE CHARACTERISTIC OF TERRITORIALITY OF THE RPC.

1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;

-Ship or airship even if outside the territorial jurisdiction, offenses committed there are still within
the Philippine jurisdiction.

-But that ship, or airship must be duly registered under the Phil laws so that even if it is beyond
the maritime zone is still considered as an extension of the Philippine territory.
But when the said vessel or airship is already within the territory of another country, the laws of
that foreign country will apply.

Rule: When an act is committed in the jurisdiction of another country, the law of that
country shall govern in view of the territoriality of its laws.

With respect to ship or airship: These are the rules:

1. The ship or airship must be registered in the Philippine Bureau of Customs. The vessel is
considered a Philippine vessel if registered in the Philippines.

It is not the citizenship of the owner but the registration of the vessel that makes it
Philippine vessel. Otherwise, it is not covered by par. 1.

2. If the Philippine vessel is still within the Phil territory, Phils. has jurisdiction.

3. If the Philippine vessel is already in the open sea or international waters, that is
beyond the 12 nautical miles from the baseline – Philippine jurisdiction.

4. If the Philippine vessel is already in the territory of another country –the crime
committed in the vessel is subject to the laws of that country.

HOWEVER, there are two situations where the foreign country may not apply its criminal law even
if the crime was committed on board a vessel within its territorial waters and these are:

1. When crime is committed in a WAR vessel of a foreign country. WAR VESSELS are part
of sovereignty of the country whose naval force they belong.

2. When the foreign country in whose territorial waters the crime was committed adopts the
French Rule involving merchant vessel.

THERE ARE TWO RULES BEING OBSERVED ON MERCHANT VESSELS:

1. FRENCH RULE – The law to be applied is that of the nationality of the

vessel (Law of the Flag State). Thus, when the crime is committed in a
foreign merchant vessel, the law of that country where the flag of the vessel flies,
is applicable. Vessel is always the extension of the territory of the country whose
flag it flies UNLESS the crime affects the national security and public
order of that foreign country.
2. ENGLISH RULE: The emphasis here is the territory where the crime
is committed. (Coastal State). If a crime is committed in a foreign vessel, the
law that shall apply is the law of the territorial waters where the crime is
committed. So, there is a crime committed inside foreign vessel while docked in
Manila Harbor, it is the Philippine law, except when the crime pertains only
to the internal management of the vessel, in the latter case the law of
the country under which the vessel flies.

In our country, we apply the English Rule

 As far as warships are concerned, always follow the law of the flag state it is always an
extension of the territory of the state in whose naval forces it belongs.

ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE:

A foreign merchant vessel arrived in the country. It was discovered that the said
vessel contained opium. Immediately, the NBI applied a search warrant and armed with it
stormed the foreign merchant vessel and arrested the sailors who were in possession of the
said opium.

Question: Are the said sailors liable for illegal importation of opium?

Answer: In the case of US vs. Look Chaw. 18 SCRA 573, and US vs. Ah Shing, 36 Phil. 978,
a mere possession of opium aboard a foreign merchant vessel in transit is not triable in Phil
courts, because the fact alone does not constitute a breach of public order. The mere
possession on such ship does not bring about disastrous effects our law contemplates
avoiding. But when it is landed from the vessel to the Phil. Soil, it is already a violation of
our laws.

But when the merchant vessel is NOT IN TRANSIT because the Phils. is its terminal port,
the person in possession of opium on board a vessel is liable.

Smoking opium is already a breach of public order even if done aboard a foreign merchant
vessel.

2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or
obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands.

Counterfeiting is defined by Art 169 RPC.

If the forgery is committed abroad, the object of the crime must be a coin, currency note,
or obligations and securities issued by the Phils govt. Example: Sweepstakes and lotto tickets.
Even committed abroad, it is triable in the Phils.

3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of
the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number;

-referring to counterfeit money or obligations of the State.

4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the

exercise of their functions; or

Crimes committed by public officers:

 1) Falsification (Art 171)
2) Direct Bribery (Art 210)
3) Indirect bribery (Art 211)
4) Qualified Bribery (Art 211-A)
5) Corruption (Art 212) including Art 213 -221 of the Crimes committed by Public Officer.
6) Fraud Against Public Treasury and similar offenses. (Art. 213)
7) Possession of Prohibited Interest (Art 216)
8) Malversation of Public Funds of Property (Art 217)
9. Failure to render accounts (Art. 218)
10. Failure to render accounts before leaving the country. (Art 219)
11. Illegal Use of Public Funds or Property (Art 220)
12. Failure to Make delivery of Public Funds or Property.

Illustrative example:

A consular official assigned in the Phil Embassy who is married in the Phils married again in a local
church in US. When his legal wife discovered it, upon his arrival with his 2 nd wife in the Phils, they
were prosecuted for bigamy by the 1 st wife in the Phil court. Is the said consular official liable for
bigamy? Can he be prosecuted in the Phils?
Answer: No because the crime of bigamy is not connected with his official duties. Bigamy
committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Phils. is not punishable as an extra territorial
offense because it is not also a crime against National Security and law of nations.

Crimes committed abroad which do not fall under the exceptions are not triable here.

But if they married in the Phil Consulate, liable because the Consular office is an extension of Phil
territory.

Another:

A consul was approached by an OFW to take a deposition in a hotel in US. After the taking of
deposition, he was requested to change certain part of the deposition in consideration of USD
5thou dollars which the consul accepted. In the Phils, the consul was prosecuted for falsification?
Is he liable in the Phils. Answer: Yes, under the Rules of Court the Consul can take depositions
and that is part of his duties as public officer.

5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of
nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.

Read: Art 114-122 of the RPC, Crimes committed against National Security and Law of
Nations.

Title I- CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS

Crimes against national security

1. Treason (Art. 114);
2. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason (Art. 115);
3. Misprision of treason (Art. 116); and
4. Espionage (Art. 117).

Crimes against the law of nations

1. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals (Art. 118);
2. Violation of neutrality (Art. 119);
3. Corresponding with hostile country (Art. 120);
4. Flight to enemy's country (Art. 121);
5. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas (Art. 122).

Rebellion or insurrection committed outside the country is not punishable. Not a crime
against national security but of public order.

TITLE ONE
Felonies and Circumstances which Affect Criminal Liability

CHAPTER ONE

Felonies

ARTICLE 3. Definition. — Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos).

Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault
(culpa).

There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent; and there is fault
when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack
of skill.

What is felony? Felony is an act or omission punishable by the RPC. If it is not punishable by
the RPC, it is not a felony. It maybe a crime or offense punishable by special law.

When is there a FELONY? There is a felony when the following elements are present:

1. There must be an ACT or OMISSION.

2. That act or omission is punishable by RPC. (Not by Special laws)
3. The act performed or omission incurred is by means of DOLO (intent) or CULPA
(fault)
ONE: There must be an ACT or OMISSION.

Meaning of “ACT” in felony -

The ACT is understood as an OVERT ACT – it is physical activity or deed, indicating to commit a
particular crime, (more than a planning or preparation,) which if carried out to its complete
termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor the
spontaneous desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete
offence.

In simple words, an overt act or external act must have a direct connection or immediate and
necessary relation with the felony intended to be committed. (Art. 6, RPC) Thus, as long as the
physical activity is not directly connected with the crime intended to be committed, it not yet
punishable for the particular crime intended to be committed.

Example: A wanted to kill B through the use of poison. A bought a cyanide in a store. And at
home, he transferred the cyanide liquid in another bottle to conceal it from being detected as
cyanide. Mr. A the next day went to the restaurant where he would meet B but along the way he
was arrested by the police with the poison in his bag.

Question: Is “buying or bringing the cyanide” already an OVERT ACT of murder?

No, because the external act ALONE of bringing the poison in his bag when he was arrested has
no direct connection with the felony intended to be committed. It is not the intent that counts
because it is beyond the sphere of criminal law, but the EXTERNAL ACTS directly connected with
the crime sought to be committed. You are not punished by your intention or what’s in
your mind but by your overt acts.

The external acts here such buying the cyanide, putting it in a bottle, then in a bag, and bringing it
to the restaurant – all these acts are indeterminate for the crime of murder). Mr. A may always
say that he may use it to kill their rats at home that is why he had that bottle of poison.

In the same example, if A and B meet together in the restaurant, while B is urinating A puts a
poison in his drink, is there already an over act of murder? Answer: Yes, in this case, the
external act of putting a poison in the drink of B has already a direct connection to the crime
intended to be committed by A. It is now clear that A really intended to kill B and if B drinks it, he
would be killed.

The overt act of murder through the use of poison is the actual introduction of the poison in the
food to be eaten by the victim and not in the preparation or purchase of the poison. Buying,
preparing, and bringing the poison are all INDETERMINATE ACTS which are susceptible to so many
interpretations.

What is the “overt act” in the crime of theft? It is in the act of taking of the thing with intent
to gain and not watching the thing to be stolen is an overt act.

Only external act is punished because internal acts are beyond the sphere of penal law.
No matter how improper or immoral a criminal thought maybe, it never constitutes a felony.
What is OMISSION? – means inaction. Inaction per se is not a crime. But to be punishable as
an inaction, there must be a law requiring the accused to perform a positive duty and the accused
fails to perform it. If there is no law for doing such act, the failure is not punishable.

For committing a failure is not a crime. But when the law punishes that failure to do something it
becomes a crime.

Illustrative examples:

Failure to render assistance to any person you find in an uninhabited place wounded or in the
danger of dying, is liable for abandonment of person in danger. (Art 275, par. 1)

Art 213, par. 2 (b) Failure to issue a receipt as provided by law is illegal exaction.

Failure to disclose and make known to proper authority a conspiracy against the government by a
Filipino is liable of misprision of treason. (Art 116, RPC)

Example of no crime by omission: A man is dying for lack of blood. He asks you to donate a
blood, but you refuse so he dies. Are you liable? No, there is no felony by omission because there
is no law punishing such failure to give a blood.

Two: THAT ACT OR OMISSION IS PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

That act or omission must be punishable by the RPC. If there is no provision in the PRC punishing
it, it is not a felony. “Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege.”
Three: THE ACT PERFORMED or the OMISSION INCURRED IS BY MEANS OF DOLO
(Deceit) or CULPA (Negligence).

Two manners or ways to commit felony: INTENTIONAL or CULPABLE.

a) It is INTENTIONAL (DOLO) – when THE ACT is malicious or performed with deliberate

intent. (More discussion of this later)

b) CULPABLE FELONY – While one has no intention of causing injury to another but when
the wrongful acts result from IMPRUDENCE, NEGLIGENCE, LACK OF FORESIGNT or LACK
OF SKILL – it is culpable felony.

In culpable felony, one has no intention to commit a felony, but the offender commits a wrongful
act which results from his being imprudent, negligent, lacking foresight and skill.
What is imprudence – it is deficiency of action. Imprudence is deficiency of action in avoiding an
injury due to lack of skill.

If you for example fail to take necessary precaution to avoid injury to person or damage to
property, you are considered imprudent. Imprudence involves lack of skill. You do not know how
to drive but you still driving, and, in the process, you cause injury.

You are driving along a busy street. There are people all over the place, left and right. But you still
accelerate your speed to the max and you did not slow down. You hit a child and dies. You are
negligent. You did not use proper attention and diligence to avoid possible injury. That is
imprudence.

What is NEGLIGENCE? - is deficiency of perception or lack of foresight: the failure to foresee

impending injury, thoughtlessness, failure to use ordinary care. But if you fail to pay proper
attention and use diligence in avoiding an impending injury or damage, you are negligent.
Negligence involves lack of foresight. You fail to check your tire before you drive and, in the
process, it is disengaged in the highway, that is negligence.

What is LACK OF SKILL? Deficiency or absence if something needed. You do not know how to
drive, but you drive the car of your father to show off to your girlfriend and you bump somebody,
that is imprudence. Lack of skill. Related to imprudence.

Most of the felonies punished by BOOK II is committed by dolo. Few felonies are committed by
culpa.

There is no question that INTENTIONAL FELONY should be punished. But why is culpable
felony punishable? Man must use his common sense and exercise due reflection of all his acts.
It is his duty to be cautious, careful, and prudent, if not from instinct, then thru fear of incurring
criminal liability.

FOUR: The ACT or OMISSION TO BE PUNISHABLE MUST BE VOLUNTARY:

But to be liable for intentional and culpable felony, the act of the accused must be VOLUNTARY.
(not forced or under compulsion) Because if you are forced to do an act against your will, you
are not criminally liable.

It is PRESUMED that acts, whether it is executed deliberately or negligently, are voluntary . But
when there is compulsion or prevention by force or intimidation, there is no voluntariness in the
act.

Reason of the presumption: Man has free will, man is a rational being.

One committed with dolo is always voluntary because it is with deliberate intent.

Acts committed with culpa is also voluntary because it is merely a failure to do an act because of
imprudence, negligence and lack of foresight or skill.
Let us go back to INTENTIONAL FELONY:

Question: WHEN DO YOU CONSIDER AN ACT TO HAVE BEEN PERFORMED WITH

DELIBERATE INTENT or DOLO?

REQUISITES OF “DOLO” –

1. When there is FREEDOM while doing or omitting to do an act.

2. There is INTELLIGENCE.
3. There is INTENT.

A. There is FREEDOM – when it is free from any external factors to do or omit to do an

act. If you have no freedom, you are no longer a human being but reduced to a TOOL. If you are
a tool, your liability is just like a knife that wounds, a torch that sets a fire, or a key that opens a
door. Is the knife, torch or key liable? No, they are just tools. Thus, a person who acts under a
compulsion of an irresistible force is exempt from criminal liability. (Art. 12, par. 5)

B) There is INTELLIGENCE – when you have a power to do an act necessary to determine

what is right or wrong. If you have no discernment to know what is wrong and what is right, no
crime exists.
That is why if a person is imbecile or insane or infant or a child below 15 years old, or 16 and
under 18 but commits the acts without discernment, the offender is exempt from criminal liability.
(Art 12, pars. 1, 2 and 3.)

C) There is criminal INTENT- This means MALICE, a mental process. Malice or criminal
intent is presumed when the act committed is unlawful. (People vs. Sia Teb Ban, 54 Phil,
52, 53) Therefore, the presumption of criminal intent does not arise from the proof of the
commission of an act which is not unlawful. (US. Vs. Catolico, 18 Phil. 504, 508)

May a crime be committed without a criminal intent?

a) A crime as a product of culpa. (Negligence, imprudence, lack of skill and foresight)

b) When the crime is prohibited by special law called “Malum prohibitum”.

CATEGORIES OF CRIMINAL INTENT:

(1) General criminal intent: General criminal intent is presumed when one is
committing an unlawful act. This does not require a proof. The burden is on the
wrongdoer to prove that he acted without criminal intent.

Example: A stabbed B. The act of stabbing is a wrongful act and A is presumed to have done it
with criminal intent to commit a crime, THIS IS GENERAL CRIMINAL INTENT.

However, whether there is an intent to kill B, as an element of the crime of homicide, it is a

specific intent which must be proved by the prosecution.
(2) Specific criminal intent – this is not presumed because it is an ingredient or element of
the crime like INTENT TO KILL in homicide or murder. The prosecution must prove it.
Otherwise, the crime is only Physical Injuries.

Intent to kill is a specific intent which the prosecution must prove by direct or circumstantial
evidence, while general criminal intent is presumed from the commission of a felony by dolo.

HOW TO PROVE SPECIFIC CRIMINAL INTENT:

The Supreme Court has declared that evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons
1

may consist, inter alia:

-The means (like weapon) used by the malefactors,

-The nature, location and

-Number of wounds sustained by the victim,

-The conduct of the malefactors before, at the time, or immediately after the killing of the victim,

-The circumstances under which the crime was committed and the motives of the accused.

If the victim dies as a result of a deliberate act of the malefactors, intent to kill is presumed. 2

In the crime of theft and robbery, animus lucrandi  or intent to gain is an internal act
which can be established through the overt acts of the offender. Although proof of motive for the
crime is essential when the evidence of the robbery is circumstantial, intent to gain or animus
lucrandi may be presumed from the furtive taking of useful property pertaining to
another, unless special circumstances reveal a different intent on the part of the
perpetrator. (Abdulla vs. People, G.R. N. 150129, April 6, 2005)

The intent to gain may be presumed from the proven unlawful taking. In the case at bar, the act of
taking the victims wristwatch by one of the accused Cergontes while accused-appellant Reyes
poked a knife behind him sufficiently gave rise to the presumption. 

Intent to gain or animus lucrandi  is presumed when one is found in possession of stolen goods
precisely because the taking of another's property is an unlawful act.

On the other hand, if you are not performing a criminal act, you are not presumed to have acted
with criminal intent.

There is no felony by dolo when there is no criminal intent. Criminal intent must be clearly
established with the other elements of the crime; otherwise, no crime is committed.

1
In People v. Delim G.R. No. 142773, January 28, 2003.
2
Rivera et al vs. People, G.R. No. 166326, January 25, 2006 (Justice Callejo)
In the crime of homicide or murder, the intent to kill is likewise presumed from the fact of
death, unless the accused proves by convincing evidence that any of the justifying circumstances
in Article 11 or any of the exempting circumstances in Article 12, both of the Revised Penal Code,
is present. If the victim dies because of a deliberate act of the malefactor, intent to kill
is conclusively presumed. (Abdulla vs. People, G.R. N. 150129, April 6, 2005)

The principle of MENS REA in criminal law.

This is the gravamen of the offense. This is the SPECIFIC CRIMINAL INTENT of the offender in the
crime. The “bullseye” of the crime. The very nature of the offense. The element of the
offense that constitutes the crime.

Mens rea depends upon the elements of the crime. You can only detect the mens rea of a crime
by knowing the particular crime committed. Without reference to a particular crime, the terms are
meaningless.

Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. Jurisprudence instructs us that a crime cannot be
committed if the mind of the one performing the act is innocent and without any criminal intent;
That is, bereft of mens rea, which is defined as "a guilty mind, a guilty or wrongful purpose
or criminal intent." 

Example: In the crime of THEFT – the mens rea is the taking of the property of another
with intent to gain.

Falsification – it is the forgery with intent to pervert the truth.

In criminal law, we also consider a crime on the basis of the intent. It is only an attempted or
frustrated homicide as distinguished from physical injuries where there is no intent to kill.

Attempted rape from acts of lasciviousness when there is an intent to have sexual
intercourse.

MISTAKE OF FACT and MISTAKE OF IDENTITY

PRINCIPLE OF MISTAKE OF FACT (Ignorantia facti Excusat) AS A DEFENSE BY THE

ACCUSED:

If you commit a crime because of a mistake of fact, are you liable? Mistake of fact is an
honest misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused injury to another .
It is an honest mistake. The accused here is not criminally liable. Mistake of fact destroys the
presumption of criminal intent. Criminal intent is negated.
Malice is a mental state or condition prompting the doing of an overt act without legal
excuse or justification from which another suffers injury.
 
When the act or omission defined by law as a felony is proved to have been done or committed by
the accused, the law presumes it to have been intentional.  Indeed, it is a legal presumption of law
that every man intends the natural or probable consequence of his voluntary act in the absence of
proof to the contrary, and such presumption must prevail unless a reasonable doubt exists from a
consideration of the whole evidence.
 

For one to be criminally liable for a felony by dolo, there must be a confluence of both an evil
act and an evil intent. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea.

For example: The prosecution proved that the petitioner was married to Darla in 1975, and such
marriage was not judicially declared a nullity; hence, the marriage is presumed to subsist. The
prosecution also proved that the petitioner married the Michelle in 1996, long after the effectivity
of the Family Code. The petitioner is presumed to have acted with malice or evil intent when he
married the Michelle.

As a general rule, mistake of fact or good faith of the accused is a valid defense in a
prosecution for a felony by dolo (INTENTIONAL FELONY) such defense negates malice
or criminal intent. However, Ignorantia legis neminem excusat. - ignorance of the
3

law is not an excuse because everyone is presumed to know the law. 

MISTAKE OF FACT - is a defense in criminal prosecution. To avail of this as a defense, you must
prove:

1. That the act done by the accused would have been lawful had the facts been as the
accused believed them to be.
2. The intention of the accused in performing the act is lawful.
3. The mistake must be without carelessness on the part of the accused.

If these requisites are present, this is justifying circumstance under Art. 11 or an absolutory cause
under Art. 247 par. 2 or an involuntary act.

The classic case is U.S. vs. Achong, 15 Phil 488. Achong here is acquitted because of the defense
of mistake of fact.
3
MANUEL VS. PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 165842, NOVEMBER 29, 2005)
 US v. Ah Chong GR No. L-5272, March 19, 1910

Facts:

The defendant, Ah Chong, was employed as a cook in one of the Officers’ quarters at
Fort McKinley, Rizal Province. Together living with him in the said quarters was the deceased,
Pascual Gualberto, who was employed as a houseboy. There had been several robberies in Fort
McKinley prior to the incident thus prompting the defendant and his roommate to reinforce the
flimsy hook used to lock the door of their room by placing a chair against it. The defendant and
the deceased had an understanding that when either returned at night, he should knock on the
door and say his name. On the night of Aug. 14, 1908, Ah Chong, who was alone in his room, was
awakened by someone trying to force open the door of the room. The defendant called out twice,
asking the identity of the person but heard no answer. Fearing that the intruder was a robber or a
thief, the defendant called out that he would kill the intruder if he tried to enter. At that moment,
the door was forced open, and the defendant was struck first above the knee by the edge of the
chair.

Because of the darkness of the room, the defendant thought he was being hit by the intruder and
tried to defend himself by striking wildly at the intruder using a common kitchen knife which he
kept under his pillow. It turned out that the said intruder was actually the defendant’s roommate,
Pascual Gualberto. The roommate was brought to the military hospital where he died from the
effects of the wound the following day.

Issue:

Whether or not the defendant was criminally liable for committing a felony.

Held:

Defendant was not criminally liable and exonerated.

In order for mistake of fact to be held as a valid defense, there has to be several
requisites. One, that the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused
believed them to be. Two, that the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful,
and lastly, that the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused.

In the case at bar, had the intruder been a robber as the defendant believed him to be, then Ah
Chong acted in good faith, without malice or criminal intent, and would have been wholly exempt
from criminal liability and that he cannot be said to have been guilty of negligence or recklessness.

-In mistake of fact, the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful.

MISTAKE OF IDENTITY IS HOWEVER PUNISHABLE:

Here the person is performing an act with CRIMINAL INTENT only that a person he kills injures is
not the person intended or not the target person but another. (Error in personae or Mistake of
Identity)

Illustrative example:

Mr. A intends to kill Mr. B, but because of the darkness of the night, he kills Mr. C whom he really
does not intend to kill? Is this a mistake of fact which is justifying? NO, Mr. A is still liable.
When he stabbed Mr. B, he is presumed to have done it with criminal intent because the act of
stabbing is a wrongful act.

But Mr. A did not have criminal intention to kill Mr. C? Yes, but in law, this is not a defense of
mistake of fact but an ERROR IN PERSONAE or MISTAKE OF IDENTITY under Art 4. The
accused is liable because his intention to perform an act is not lawful. He has criminal intent.

Can a person claim mistake of fact although he is negligent? In intentional felony, there
must be lack of intent to claim mistake of fact, but in culpable felony, the accused must not have
negligence or imprudence or lack of skill or foresight.

Mistake of fact is applicable only when the felony would have been intentional (dolo).

When the felonious act is committed through culpa, do not discuss mistake of fact.
There should be no culpa in determining the real facts, otherwise, he is still criminally
liable.

Mistake of fact is a defense only in intentional felony and not in culpable felony.

CLASSES OF CRIMES under criminal law:

(1) Intentional felonies

(2) Culpable felonies
(3) Crimes defined and penalized by special laws including those punished by
municipal or city ordinances.

IN CULPABALE FELONY (CRIMES PUNISH BY SPECIAL LAW), IS CRIMINAL INTENT

NOT NECESSARY?

In intentional felony, criminal intent is necessary but not in culpable felony. As a rule,
intent to commit a crime is not necessary as long as the offender has the intent to perpetrate
the act prohibited by the special law.

Therefore, INTENT TO COMMIT THE CRIME in Intentional felony is different from

INTENT TO PERPETRATE THE ACT in Culpable felony:
In the first, the accused must have criminal intent to commit the crime while the second,
it is enough that the prohibited act is DONE FREELY AND CONCIOUSLY.

Example: Illegal possession of firearms. If you have an unlicensed firearm and you bring
that in here in school. Even if you have no intent to use that or shoot anybody here and that your
purpose is only for your protection. You have no intent to commit a crime, but you have an
intent to perpetrate an act prohibited by the special law. If you do carry that freely and
consciously, your purpose is immaterial (for your protection), the mere act of carrying it is already
punishable by law.

Likewise, violation of B.P. 22, the mere issuance of a bouncing checks will make you liable of B.P.
22 if upon notice to pay, within 5 days, you fail to make arrangement with the bank to pay it in full
or settle amicably the value of the check with the creditor.

Therefore, GOOD FAITH and ABSENCE OF CRIMINAL INTENT ARE NOT VALID DEFENSES
IN CRIMES PUNISHABLE BY SPECIAL LAWS because as long as you do it FREELY and
CONSCIOUSLY, you are liable.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN MALA IN SE and MALA PROHIBITA:

MALA IN SE – they are crimes which are wrongful from their nature such as rape, homicide, etc.

MALA PROHIBITUM – are crimes which are not wrongful in nature, but it is wrong because it
is prohibited by law or statute. Ex. Illegal possession of firearms.

In Mala in se- There must be a criminal intent. The question is, Is the act of the accused
INTENTIONAL or DELIBERATE. In Mala Prohibita – it is sufficient that the prohibited act
was intentionally done. Has the law been violated by the accused freely and consciously?
(People vs. Bayona, G.R. NO. L-42288, Feb. 16, 1935)

Mala Prohibita are crimes prohibited by reasons of public policy. The mere commission of which
makes the doer criminally liable even he if he acted without malice or evil intent.
(Manzanaris vs. People, G.R. NO.; -64750, January 30, 1984) They are generally punished by
special laws.

Mala in se – refers to crimes generally punished by RPC but even if it is punished by Special
Law if it is inherently immoral, it is also mala in se.

AN ACT MAYBE MALUM IN SE and MALUM PROHIBITUM AT THE SAME TIME.

FACTS: The accused were election inspectors and poll clerks whose duty among others was to
transfer the names of excess voters in other precincts to the list of a newly created precinct.
Several voters were omitted in the list. Because their names were not in the list, some of them
were not allowed to vote. The accused were prosecuted for violation of Secs. 101 and 103 of the
Revised Election Code. The accused claimed that they made the omission in good faith. The trial
court seemed to believe that notwithstanding the fact that the accused committed in good faith
the serious offense charged, the latter are criminally responsible therefor, because such offense is
malum prohibitum, and, consequently, the act constituting the same need not be committed with
malice or criminal intent to be punishable.

ISSUE: Is the act of the accused merely a mala prohibita?

HELD: The acts of the accused cannot be merely mala prohibita - they are mala in se. The
omission or failure to include a voter’s name in the registry list of voters is not only wrong because
it is prohibited; it is wrong per se because it disenfranchises a voter and violates one of his
fundamental rights. Hence, for such act to be punishable, it must be shown that it has been
committed with malice. There is no clear showing in the instant case that the accused
intentionally, willfully and maliciously omitted or failed to include in the registry list of voters the
names of those voters. They cannot be punished criminally People vs. Sunico, et al [C.A., 50
O.G. 5880]

Almost all crimes punished by RPC are mala in se. VIOLATION OF SPECIAL LAW IS BOTH MALUM
IN SE and MALUM PROHIBITUM.

THE ISSUE OF MOTIVE IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTION:

Is there a necessity to prove motive in proving a crime? For example, you are
prosecuting a suspect of the crime of murder. To secure conviction, do you need to prove his
MOTIVE why a committed the crime?

Let us define first MOTIVE as distinguished from INTENT:

Motive implies motion. It is the moving power which impels one to do an act.

When there is a motive in the commission of the crime, it always comes before the INTENT. But
crime can be committed without motive. When the crime is intentional, it cannot be
committed without intent.

ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE: INTENT and MOTIVE.

Example: A husband came home and found his wife with a pleasant conversation with a former
suitor. Thereupon, he got a knife and stabbed the former suitor. The moving force is JEALOUSY.
This is motive.
Where is the criminal intent in that case? Criminal Intent is manifested by the instrument used
(knife) by the offender. The INTENT is the use of the knife in killing the former suitor. Even if the
husband states that he had no reason to kill the victim, he is still liable.
Criminal intent is the MEANS resorted by him that brought about the killing.

If we equate criminal intent with the state of mind, many would escape criminal
liability.

Illustrative example: A man who run amuck in Pasay City. He threw his girlfriend from the 16 th
floor and after that he run amuck stabbing (kitchen knife) any person along his path killing 4 more
people.

Another example: A son got angry and strangled his mother and died. When prosecuted for
parricide, the son raised the defense that he had no criminal intent. It was held that the criminal
intent applies on the strangulation of the vital part of the body of the mother. Criminal intent is
based on the ACT and not WHAT THE OFFENDER SAYS or THINK.

Going back to MOTIVE. Generally speaking, there is no need to prove motive because
it is NOT an essential element of the crime.

Therefore, in prosecuting a crime, what you need to prove is CRIMINAL INTENT and
not motive.

Why MOTIVE is not necessary to secure conviction? A person may commit even without
real motive as when he is morally perverse. There are people who commit a crime for the sake of
committing it or for the fun of it.

****Lately, Motorcycle riding men in tandem shooting people in Cavite. They have no motive.
They just shoot people for fun. Motive is not important to prove their guilt. The prosecution need
not prove why they are doing it.

You maybe convicted of a crime even if no motive is proven or even if you have a good motive.
As long as there is a witness to the crime, you can be convicted if you are positively identified.

If good motive is a proper defense, it will wreak havoc to our criminal justice system because
the accused by his self-serving declaration will always say that he had good motive in committing
the crime. Good motive does not prevent an act to become a crime.

Example: In mercy killing, the painless killing of a patient who has no chance of recovery, the
motive is good, but it is still criminal.

BUT WHEN IS MOTIVE BECOME RELEVANT OR NECESSARY IN CRIMINAL CASES?

 1. When the identity of the accused who committed the crime is in dispute. As when
there is no eyewitness to the crime and the suspicion falls upon different persons. Motive
here becomes relevant for the purpose of identifying the real culprit.

If the evidence is purely circumstantial, the proof of motive is essential.

For example: Mr. A is found hanging. Before the hanging incident, the deceased was seen
being punched by Mr. B but no eyewitness that Mr. B hanged him. Can you prosecute Mr.
A? Answer: In this case motive becomes relevant because of the suspicion that B might
have committed it. The guilt of Mr. B will be proved by circumstantial evidence.

BUT MOTIVE IS NO LONGER RELEVANT WHEN:

1. The accused admits the crime.

2. When the accused is positively identified.
3. Motive is not essential when there is confession of the accused in crimes punishable by
special laws and reckless imprudence.
3. Motive alone cannot convict the accused

Lack of motive may help establish the innocence of the accused.

HOW IS MOTIVE PROVED? Testimonies of witnesses on the acts or statement of the accused
before or immediately after the commission of the crime. Such acts may indicate motive.

But PROOF OF MOTIVE, no matter how strong, cannot take the place of proof beyond
reasonable doubt. There must be other reliable evidence that maybe reasonably deduced that
the accused was the author of the crime.

BUT LACK OF MOTIVE- maybe an aid in showing the innocence of the accused.