CRIM AUG 22

Q: What is the manner of incurring criminal liability? Article 3 or 4?

A: Article 3 of the RPC which provides for the concept of felonies.

Q: Are felonies the same as crimes?

A: Felonies are not the same as crimes. In terms of application, crimes are broader
than felonies. A felony refers to act or omission punishable by RPC.
TN: Generally, crimes are those punishable by special laws

Q: What are the elements of felonies?

A: 1. There must be an act or omission. Omission occurs when a person fails to do something he is
required to do.

2. The act or omission must be punished by the RPC;

3. The act is performed or the omission incurred by means of dolo or culpa.

Q: Why are felonies committed by reckless imprudence still considered as a

felony?
A: Because it is punishable under Art. 365 of the RPC

Article 365. Imprudence and negligence. - Any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit
any act which, had it been intentional, would constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto
mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its medium period; if it would have constituted a
less grave felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods shall be imposed; if
it would have constituted a light felony, the penalty of arresto menor in its maximum period shall be
imposed.

TN: Art. 365 punishes quasi offenses which are crimes which committed by means of
imprudence, negligence, lack of skill, and lack of foresight

Q: How are felonies committed?

A: Either by dolo (deceit) or culpa (fault)

TN:
Negligence - lack of foresight
Imprudence - lack of skill

Q: What are the classifications of felonies?

A: 1. Intentional felonies - committed by deceit or dolo.
2. Culpable felonies - committed by culpa through either lack of skill or lack of foresight.

CRIM AUG 29

Qualifying Aggravating Circumstance - qualifies the change in the nature of the crime
Ex. If there is treachery in the killing, it becomes murder
TN: In order for it to be qualified, it must be alleged in the information

Otherwise, if not alleged, it will only be treated as a Generic Aggravating Circumstance

Alternating Circumstances - it can mitigate or aggravate depending on relationship, intoxication, or the
degree of education of the offender

Justifying Circumstance

Article 11. Justifying circumstances. — The following do not incur any criminal liability:
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances
concur:
(1) Unlawful aggression;
(2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
(3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or
legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same
degrees, and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and
second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present and the further
requisite, in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense
had no part therein.
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first and
second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this Article are present and that the
person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to another,
provided that the following requisites are present:

(1) That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;

(2) That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;

(3) That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.

Q: If you raise a Justifying Circumstance, what is our rule?

A: If the accused raises the defense of a justifying circumstance, he has the burden of proving the
same. He is not allowed to rely on the weakness of the evidence presented by the prosecution. Your
defense has to stand on its own merit.

When raising a defense of a justifying circumstance, the law allows for an Inverted trial.

Inverted Trial - Instead of the prosecution presenting its evidence to prove that the accused is
guilty, it’s the accused that now has to present its evidence first to prove the innocence of the
accused.

Although, that is the choice of the defense; it is not mandatory. But if you become lawyers don’t
ever do that because if you will have an inverted trial, the burden of proof is shifted to you; Not
unless you are really sure that you could prove it.

There are some accused who would raise self-defense as a defense but would still opt to present their
evidence after the prosecution. This is because if the defense will present its evidence first, it will be
risky on their part to prove the elements to justify the act.

1. SELF-DEFENSE

Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur:
(1) Unlawful aggression;
(2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
(3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

Q: Self-defense includes what?

A: Includes the right to life, right to property, and right to honor
Q: Over 70 years old, is it an ordinary or privileged mitigating circumstance?
A: When the accused is over 70 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime, it is only an
ordinary mitigating circumstance

Before, it was considered privileged, because if you are over 70 years old, you could not be subject to
the Death Penalty.

3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.

Q: The 3rd mitigating circumstance is only applicable to what crimes?

A: To crimes against persons, involving physical harm or injury

Q: How do you determine if there is lack of intention to create so grave a wrong?

A: Through the weapon used, the part of the body injured, the nature of the injury inflicted, and the
manner of inflicting the injury.

Q: When the victim suffered 30 fatal wounds, or if the accused used a machine gun, would that
show lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong?
A: NO

Although generally, it is applicable to crimes against persons; there is one case where it was made
applicable to the crime of malversation of public funds. The accused argued that he used the
money for the hospitalization of his mother, and he returned the total amount; it was then considered by
the Supreme Court as a mitigating circumstance for lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong.

Q: Is the 3rd mitigating circumstance applicable in felonies committed by imprudence and negligence
(quasi-offenses)
A: No.

Q: Can this mitigating circumstance be applied in crimes where intent is immaterial, like in
unintentional abortion?
A: Generally it should not be. In the case of People vs. Cristobal, it was not considered. But in the case
of People vs. Flameño, where a woman was sufferring from a disease and not knowing she was
pregnant, suffered a miscarriage, the SC considered this as a mitigating circumstance in the crime of
unintentional abortion.

JS: I advice you to answer that it should not be applicable because it is inconsistent with the requisites
of the 3rd mitigating circumstance of lack of intention; Unless, you can specifically cite this specific case.

4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act.
5.
[00:59:40 – 01:05:32] GULA

Q: What is possession?
A: It is the enjoyment of the thing while you enjoy your right

Q: What are the basis of Police Powers?

A: Two maxims:
(1) sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas - “One must use his property so as not to injure the
lawful rights of another”

TN: Your rights are limited so as not violate the rights of others

(2) salus populi est suprema lex - “The welfare of the people is the supreme law”

In the case of Calalang v. Williams (GR No. 47800), it was ruled that: “ In adherence to the salus
populi est suprema lex, social justice must be founded on the recognition of the necessity of
interdependence among divers and diverse units of a society and of the protection that should be
equally and evenly extended to all groups as a combined force in our social and economic life,
consistent with the fundamental and paramount objective of the state of promoting the health,
comfort, and quiet of all persons, and of bringing about "the greatest good to the greatest number."

TN: Police Power is a sweeping power, all regulations are an exercise of a police power; If a thing is
nuisance per se, it can be abated summarily, without running against the due process clause of the
Constitution which requires hearing.

[01:06:45 – 01:13:13] GULA

TN: If you can memorize the law but you don’t know where to place the comma and period, do not cite
the specific provision.

In statutory construction, the period means the end of the idea, the comma is to separate.

ARTICLE I. National Territory

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.

ARTICLE II. Declaration of Principles and State Policies

Q: What are the rules of constitutional construction?

A: (1) Constitutional provisions are self-executing
(2) Verba legis Rule - Interpretation according to the letter of the law
(3) Ratio legis Rule - Interpretation according to the intention of the law
TN: These are basic rules of statutory construction that we also adopt in Constitutional
Construction

There are 28 provisions, 6 principles, and 22 policies in Article II

Q: Are they all self-executing?
A: No, only Section 16 is self-executing, the rest are not.

According to the Supreme Court in the case of Tanada vs Angara (GR No. 118295), this principle and
policies serves as guidance to the legislative department in the enactment of the laws, as well as
guidance to the court in the interpretation of the laws. It cannot be a subject of a cause of action, there
must be an enabling law for the purpose of implementing and executing that constitutional provision.

XPN: Sec. 16

SECTION 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.
Principles Under Article II of the 1987 Constitution

SECTION 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the
people and all government authority emanates from them.

When you say republican system of government, it is referring to representation.

When we choose our representatives, we repose our sovereignty to our representatives

In Estrada vs Desierto (GR No. 146710-15), the court is saying that a board is a matter of right. When
the people has no more trust on the government, the people can withdraw that from the govt. Officials,
and the people can be called against the officials.
Why? Because we are sovereign.

SECTION 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the
generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to
the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.

SECTION 3. Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. The Armed Forces of the
Philippines is the protector of the people and the State. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of
the State and the integrity of the national territory.

SECTION 4. The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The
Government may call upon the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all
citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render personal military or civil
service.

SECTION 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and
the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the
blessings of democracy.

SECTION 6. The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.

[01:22:00 – 01:30:04] GULA

In the case of Galman v. Sandiganbayan (144 SCRA 392), when Cory ascended to power in 1986, the
government filed a petition for certiorari, because the proceedings and judgment was null and void; the
SC ruled that there can be no double jeopardy when the prosecution was deprived of due process and
fair opportunity to prosecute and prove their case;

Legal jeopardy attaches only when:

(1) upon a valid indictment,
(2) before a competent court;
(3) after arraignment,
(4) a valid plea having been entered; and
(5) the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused

The lower court that rendered the judgment of acquittal was not competent as it was ousted of its
jurisdiction when it violated the right of the prosecution to due process. In effect the first jeopardy was
never terminated, and the remand of the criminal case for further hearing and/or trial before the lower
courts amounts merely to a continuation of the first jeopardy, and does not expose the accused to a
second jeopardy.

In the case of State Prosecutors vs Muro (236 SCRA 505), the SC ruled that Judge Muro was guilty for
gross ignorance of the law; Respondent asserted that there is no need to wait for the publication of the
circular no. 1353 which is the basis of the President’s announcement in the newspaper, believing that
the public announcement is absolute and without qualification and is immediately effective and such
matter becomes a public knowledge which he can take a judicial notice upon in his discretion.

For the court to take judicial notice, three material requisites should be presented:

(1) The matter must be one of common and general knowledge;

(2) It must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain;
(3) It must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court.
Hence, It is a mandatory requirement that a new law should be published for 15 days in a newspaper of
general circulation before its effectivity.

When the President’s statement was published in the newspaper, the respondent admitted of not having
seen the official text of CB circular 1353 thus it was premature for him to take judicial notice on this
matter which is merely based on his personal knowledge and is not based on the public knowledge that
the law requires for the court to take judicial notice of.

[01:58:20 – 02:10:04] GULA

TN: The warrant of arrest has no lifespan; it can be operative for 100 years.

The 10 day period within which to implement the warrant is just a matter of procedure; after 10 days the
rule says that the officer is required to make a report to the issuing court stating the reason why the
accused has not been arrested within 10 days.

There is another statutory requirement in the implementation of a warrant, we have the so-called rule on
body-worn camera:

Arrest warrant: Failure to comply with requirements of body-worn cameras shall not render the
arrest unlawful or evidence obtained as inadmissible. The SC said testimonies may prove the facts
surrounding the arrest.

However, a law enforcement officer who fails, without unreasonable grounds, to use body-worn
cameras or alternate recording devices, or intentionally interferes with the body-worn cameras’
ability to accurately capture audio and video recordings of the arrest may be liable for contempt
of court, Officers’ failure to timely file affidavits may also risk contempt.

Search warrant: Failure to use recording devices in implementation of search warrants, “without
unreasonable grounds,” shall render evidence obtained as inadmissible.

Under the Rule of Body-Worn Camera, aside from the report of the warrant, they have to submit the
record of the body-worn camera in the implementation of the warrant, and the warrant who operated the
body-worn camera must execute an Affidavit to that department;

If there is no body-worn camera assigned to that particular unit, the unit has the obligation to file a
motion to use alternative devices. At least two alternative recording devices must still be used.

Under the rules, an alternative recording device is an electronic camera system which is not a body-
worn camera that is capable of creating, generating, sending, receiving, storing, displaying and
processing audio-visual recordings, and may be worn during law enforcement activities

TN: After 6 months if the accused is not arrested, the case is archived, subject to reinstatement.

TN: If the accused resurface, he can still be arrested because the warrant does not become null and
void even after the 10 day period, for such period is only procedural.

SEARCH WARRANT- an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by
a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal property described
therein and bring it before the court.

The requisites of a search warrant and warrant of arrest is identical, the difference only lies on the
examination of witnesses.

Requisites for the Issuance of a Search Warrant:

(1) probable cause is present;
(2) such probable cause must be determined personally by the judge;
(3) the judge must examine, in writing and under oath or affirmation, the complainant and the witnesses
he or she may produce;
(4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on the facts personally known to them; and
(5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized

Q: What are those that should be confiscated or be the subject of a search warrant?
A: (1) subject of the offense
(2) stolen or embezzled, and other proceeds, or fruits of the offense
(3) Instruments of the crime

The issuance of a search warrant is not jurisdictional; it does not go with the jurisdiction of the court

Landmark Cases:

In Ilano vs CA (GR No. 109560), the SC ruled that while the trial court which has territorial jurisdiction
over the place has primary authority to issue search warrants therefor, any court of competent
jurisdiction when necessitated and justified by compelling considerations of urgency, subject,
time and place, may issue a search warrant covering a place outside its territorial jurisdiction

In Malaluan vs CA (GR No. 104879), the SC ruled that when necessitated and justified by compelling
considerations of urgency, subject, time and place, a court may issue a search warrant covering a place
outside its territorial jurisdiction.

Justice Regalado distinguishes the act of issuing a search warrant from the act of acquiring or assuming
jurisdiction over a case, and explains that a warrant is merely a process issued by a court in the
exercise of its ancillary jurisdiction and not a criminal action which it may entertain pursuant to its
original jurisdiction.

JA: Before I issue a warrant, I have to conduct a preliminary examination; I have to ask the applicant
what unit do they belong, who is their regional chief, what is their designation, and if are they really
authorized; after that, I proceed with the compelling reasons why they applied such search warrant in
my court; In most cases, they will secure a certification.

Confused Citizens of Region 8 vs Hon. Carlos O. Arguelles, et.al - this is the first case where a search
warrant was issued against a penal institution. The SC ruled that contrary to the impression of the
public, judges are not prohibited from issuing search warrants to be implemented in penal institutions; in
asking for the trial court's assistance to implement the search, crooked correctional officers will now be
compelled to cooperate in implementing the search and there will be no opportunity to conceal illegal
activities inside detention facilities.

“The Court is not unmindful of the present condition of the country's detention facilities. Personalities
involved in illegal drug trade have now become more cunning and sophisticated in their operations.
They now conspire with corrupt law enforcers and capitalize on the aid of technology to continue their
illegal drug trade business even while under the custody of the State. We cannot allow penal institutions
to become cesspools of illegal drug trade and other unlawful activities that defeat the very essence for
these facilities: to protect society from crimes; and to rehabilitate offenders.”

“It is clear that a prison inmate's right against unreasonable search and seizure and right to privacy,
cannot be equated or likened to the rights and personal liberties enjoyed by individuals outside penal
institutions. To permit prisoners to enjoy the same level of expectation of privacy will defeat the inherent
objectives of penal institutions. Extending to prison inmates the same standard of liberties enjoyed by
private individuals is incompatible with penal institutions' duty to stop the proliferation of illegal activities
within the facility. The loss of privacy is a natural consequence of incarceration. Nevertheless, it must be
emphasized that this limitation should only be made applicable to searches conducted by correctional
officers or other law enforcers in charge of securing the subject detention facility.”