PRELIMINARY TITLE

ARTICLE 1

TIME WHEN ACT TAKES EFFECT

The Revised Penal Code (RPC) was approved on December 8, 1930. It took
effect on January 1, 1932. Amended by RA 10591.

Three theories in criminal law:

1. Classical or Juristic Theory
a. The basis of criminal liability is human free will and the purpose of
the penalty is retribution.
b. Man is essentially a moral creature with an absolutely free will to
choose between good and evil thereby placing more stress upon the
effect or result of the felonious act than upon the man, the criminal
himself.
c. It has been endeavored to establish a mechanical and direct
proportion between crime and penalty.

2. Positivist or Realistic Theory

a. Man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon
which constrains him to do wrong, in spite of or contrary to his
volition.
b. The crime is essentially a social and natural phenomenon and as
such it cannot be treated and checked by applying law and
jurisprudence nor by imposition of a punishment, fixed and
determined a priori.
c. The purpose of penalty is reformation.

Note: Some authorities add a third school of thought.

3. Eclectic or Mixed Theory: a combination of both classical and positive

theories.
► Our Code is considered Eclectic.
Example:
a. the age of the offender is taken into consideration
b. intoxication of the offender in order is considered a mitigating
circumstance unless it is habitual or intentional

ARTICLE 2
APPLICATION OF ITS PROVISIONS

Article 2 sets forth the instances where the provisions of the Revised Penal
Code are applicable although the felony is committed outside the Philippine
Territory.
 1. Extraterritoriality: RPC is applicable even though outside the Philippine
territory (See discussion under Territorial as a characteristic of criminal
law).
2. Exterritoriality: a term of international law which signifies the
immunity of certain persons who, although in the state, are not
amenable to its laws (i.e. ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary etc.).
3. Intraterritoriality: RPC is made applicable within the Philippine
territory.

Felonies under this Article shall be cognizable by the proper court where the
criminal action was first filed (Section 15(d), Rule 110 of the Rules of Court).

TITLE ONE:
FELONIES & CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY

CHAPTER ONE: FELONIES (ARTS. 3-10)

Felonies
It is the acts or omissions punishable by the Revised Penal Code.

Elements of Felonies
(General):
1. There must be an act or omission i.e., there must be external acts.
a. Act: any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the
external world. It must be external as internal acts are beyond the
sphere of penal law.
b. Omission: is inaction or the failure to perform a positive duty
required by law.
2. The act or omission must be punishable by the RPC. Based upon the
maxim, “nullum crimen, nullapoena sine lege.”
3. The act is performed or the omission is incurred, by means of dolo
(malice) or culpa (fault).
4. The act or omission must be voluntary.

The Manner of Committing the Crime

1. Formal Crimes: consummated in one instant, no attempt.

Example:
a. Slander and false testimony
b. There can be no attempt, because between the thought and the
deed, there is no chain of acts that can be severed.
2. Material Crimes: have three stages of execution Thus, in determining
the stage of some crimes, the manner of execution becomes pivotal in
determining the end of the subjective phase,
Example:
 Once the offender performs the act in the manner provided for in law, HE
IS ALREADY DEEMED TO HAVE PERFORMED EVERY ACT FOR ITS
EXECUTION.
3. Crimes consummated by mere attempt or proposal by overt act.
Example:
a. Flight to enemy’s country (Art. 121) and
b. Corruption of minors (Art. 340)
4. Felony by omission
► There can be no attempted stage when the felony is by omission,
because the offender does not execute acts, he omits to perform an act
which the law requires him to do.
5. Crimes requiring the intervention of two persons to commit them
are consummated by mere agreement.
a. In bribery, the manner of committing the crime requires the meeting
of the minds between the giver and the receiver.
b. When the giver delivers the money to the supposed receiver, but there
is no meeting of the minds, the only act done by the giver is an
attempt.

Classification of Felonies According to the Means by Which They Are

Committed:

A. INTENTIONAL FELONIES: the act is performed or the omission is incurred

with deliberate intent or malice to do an injury.

Requisites of DOLO or MALICE: (FII)

1. Freedom
a. Voluntariness on the part of the person to commit the act or omission.
b. When a person acts without freedom, he is no longer a human being but
a tool.
Lack of freedom: offender is exempt from liability.
Example: presence of irresistible force or uncontrollable fear

2. Intelligence
It is the capacity to know and understand the consequences of one’s act.
Without this power, necessary to determine the morality of human acts, no
crime can exist
Lack of intelligence: offender is exempt from liability.
Example: offender is an imbecile, insane, or 15 years of age or
under

3. Intent (Criminal)
a. The purpose to use a particular means to effect such result.
 b. Intent to commit an act with malice, being purely a mental process, is
presumed. Such presumption arises from the proof of commission of an
unlawful act.
c. A mental state, hence, its existence is shown by overt acts.
Lack of intent: act is justified. Offender incurs NO criminal liability
Example: existence of a lawful or insuperable cause, commission
by mere accident

Criminal intent is necessary because:

a. Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea: the act itself does not make a
man guilty unless his intentions were so.
b. Actus me invito factus non est meus actus: an act done by me against
my will is not my act (U.S. v. Ah Chong, 15 Phil. 499)

General Criminal Intent Specific Criminal Intent

An intention to do a wrong. An intention to commit a definite act.
Presumed to exist from the mere doing Existence of the intent is not
of a wrongful act. presumed because it is an ingredient
or element of a crime.
The burden of proving the absence of The burden of proving the existence of
intent is upon the accused. the intent is upon the prosecution, as
such intent is an element of the crime.
When the crime is consummated, When the crime is in its attempted or
general intent is presumed. frustrated stage, special intent must
Ex: When a person killed another, the be proved.
intent to kill is presumed) Ex: When a person seriously injures
another, the intent to kill must be
proved in order that the charge will be
one of attempted or frustrated
homicide, murder, parricide or
infanticide, as the case may be and
not mere physical injuries

B. CULPABLE FELONIES: performed without malice.

Requisites of CULPA: (FIN)

1. Freedom;
2. Intelligence;
3. Negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.

► The act or omission is voluntary but the intent or malice in intentional

felonies is replaced by imprudence, etc.

Negligence
It indicates a deficiency of perception; failure to pay proper attention and to
use diligence in foreseeing the injury or damage impending to be caused;
usually involves lack of foresight.

Imprudence
It indicates a deficiency of action; failure to take the necessary precaution to
avoid injury to person or damage to property; usually involves lack of skill.

Reason for punishing acts of negligence:

A man must use his common sense, and exercise due reflection in all his acts;
it is his duty to be cautious, careful and prudent, if not from instinct, then thru
fear of incurring punishment (US vs. Maleza, 14 Phil. 468, 470).

Note:
In Art. 3, culpa is a MODE of committing a crime; hence, killing is
denominated “homicide through reckless imprudence.
In Art. 365 (quasi-offenses), culpa is the crime punished; hence, the crime is
denominated “reckless imprudence resulting in homicide” (Boado, 2008,
p.42).

Intentional Culpable
Act is malicious. Not malicious.
With deliberate intent. Injury caused is unintentional being
incident of another act performed
without malice.
Has intention to cause an injury. Wrongful act results from imprudence,
negligence, lack of foresight or lack of
skill.

Honest Mistake of fact

► It is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person causing injury to
another. Such person is NOT criminally liable as he acted without criminal
intent (Ignorantia facti excusat).
► An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent which
arises upon the commission of a felonious act.
► Honest Mistake of fact is NOT applicable in CULPABLE felonies.

Requisites of Mistake of Fact as a defense:

1. That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the
accused believed them to be
2. That the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful;
and
3. That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the
accused.
 CASES:
a. US vs. Ah Chong (15 Phil 488, 1910): the accused had no
alternative but to take the facts as they appeared to him, and such
facts justified his act of killing his roommate.
b. People vs. Oanis (74 Phil 257, 1943): there was no mistake of fact
when the accused police officers shot Tecson, whom they thought to
be Balagtas (a notorious criminal) who was sleeping in his bed,
without ascertaining his identity and the non-existence of threat from
the part of Tecson.

Mala Prohibita
► Crimes punishable by special penal laws whereby criminal intent is not, as a
rule, necessary, it being sufficient that the offender has the intent to perpetrate
the act prohibited by the special law.

► It is punishable because the prohibited act is so injurious to the public

welfare that it is the crime itself.

General Rule: As a rule, mere commission of crimes classified as mala

prohibita, even without criminal intent, is punishable.

Exceptions:
1. Cuenca vs. People (G.R. No. L-27586, June 26, 1970)
Cuenca was entitled to assume that his employer had the requisite
license to possess said firearm and ammunition and to turn them over to
him while he was on duty as one of the regular security guards of a duly
licensed security agency.
2. People vs. Landicho ([CA] 55 OG 842)
The doctrine of the immateriality of animus possidendi should be relaxed
in certain way. Otherwise, the avowed purpose of the government’s policy
cannot be realized.
3. People vs. Mallari ([CA] 55 O.G. 1394)
Where the accused had a pending application for permanent permit to
possess a firearm, and whose possession was not unknown to an agent
of the law who advised the former to keep it in the meantime, any doubt
as to his claim should be resolved in his favor.
4. Mere transient possession of unlicensed firearm
While in stealing a firearm the accused must necessarily come into
possession thereof, the crime of illegal possession of firearms is not
committed by mere transient possession of the weapon. Thus, stealing a
firearm with intent not to use but to render the owner defenseless, may
suffice for purposes of establishing a case of theft, but would not justify a
charge for illegal possession of firearm, since intent to hold and
eventually use the weapon would be lacking (People vs. Dela Rosa, G.R.
 No. 84857, January 16, 1998, citing People vs. Remereta, 98 Phil.
413, 1956).

Mala in Se Mala Prohibita

As to Nature
Wrong from its very nature. Wrong because it is prohibited by law.
Use of Good Faith as a Defense
Good faith is a valid defense; unless Good faith is not a defense.
the crime is the result of culpa.
Use of Intent as an element
Intent is an element. Criminal intent is immaterial.
Degree of Accomplishment of the crime
The degree of accomplishment of the The act gives rise to a crime only when
crime is taken into account in it is consummated.
punishing the offender.
As to Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances
Mitigating and aggravating Circumstances are generally not taken
circumstances are taken Mitigating into account.
and aggravating into account in
imposing the penalty.
Degree of Participation
When there is more than one offender, Degree of participation is generally not
the degree of participation of each in taken into account. All who
the commission of the crime is taken participated in the act are punished to
into account. the same extent.
As to Persons Criminally Liable
Penalty is computed on the basis of The penalty on the offenders are the
whether he is a principal offender, or same whether they are merely
merely an accomplice or accessory. accomplices or accessories.
Laws Violated
Violation of the RPC. (General rule) Violation of Special Laws. (General
rule)
As to stages in execution
There are three stages: attempted, No such stages of execution.
frustrated, consummated.
As to persons criminally liable
There are three persons criminally Generally, only the principal is liable.
liable: principal, accomplice, and
accessory.
As to division of penalties
Penalties may be divided into degrees There is no such division of penalties.
and periods.

Intent vs. Motive

Intent Motive
Is the purpose to use a particular Is the reason or moving power which
means to effect such result. impels one to commit an act for a
definite result.
Is an element of the crime, except in Is NOT an element of the crime.
unintentional felonies. (culpable)
Is essential in intentional felonies. Is essential only when the identity of
the perpetrator is in doubt.

Example: A who is jealous of B shot the latter as a result of which B died. The
intent is to kill while the motive is jealousy.

Motive
It is the moving power which impels one to action for a definite result (Reyes,
2008, p. 59).

Motive: When Relevant (CUT-NID)

1. If the evidence is merely circumstantial.
2. Where the identification of the accused proceeds from an unreliable
source and the testimony is inconclusive and not free from doubt;
3. In ascertaining the truth between two antagonistic theories or versions of
the killing;
4. Where there are no eyewitnesses to the crime, and where suspicion is
likely to fall upon a number of persons;
5. When there is doubt as to the identity of the assailant;
6. When the act is alleged to be committed in defense of a stranger because
it must not be induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive;

ARTICLE 4
CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Par. 1: Criminal Liability for a felony different from that which is intended
to be committed.
Rationale:
El que es causa dela causa es causa del mal causa: He who is the cause of
the cause is the cause of the evil caused.

Requisites:
1. That an intentional felony has been committed.
There is no Intentional Felony:
a. When the act or omission is not punishable by RPC; or
b. When the act is covered by any of the justifying circumstances
in Art. 11 of RPC.

Act or omission should not be punished by a special law because the

offender violating a special law may not have the intent to do any injury
 to another. In such case, the wrongful act done could not be different, as
the offender did not intend to do any other injury.

2. That the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural and
logical consequence of the felony committed.

Proximate Cause
It is that cause, which, in the natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by
any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the
result would not have occurred.

If the result can be traced back to the original act, then the doer of the original
act can be held criminally liable.

The relation of cause and effect must be shown:

a. Unlawful act is the efficient cause
b. Accelerating cause
c. Proximate cause

Note: Any person who creates in another person’s mind an immediate sense of
danger, which causes the latter to do something resulting in the latter’s
injuries, is liable for the resulting injuries (People vs. Page, 77 SCRA 348,
citing People vs. Toling, L-27097, Jan. 17, 1975, 62 SCRA 17, 33).

Thus, the person is still criminally liable although the wrongful act done be
different from that which he intended:
a. Error In Personae: mistake in the identity of the victim (Article 49:
penalty for lesser crime in its maximum period)
b. Aberratio ictus: mistake in the blow (Article 48 on complex crimes:
penalty for graver offense in its maximum period)
c. Praeter intentionem: injurious result is greater than that intended
(Article 13: Mitigating Circumstance)

Aberratio Ictus v. Error in personae

Aberratio Ictus
The victim as well as the actual victim
are both in the scene of the crime;
The offender delivers the blow to his
intended victim but because of poor
aim landed on someone else;
Generally gives rise to complex crime
unless the resulting consequence is
not a grave or less grave felony;
Error in personae
The supposed victim may or may not
be in the scene of the crime
The offender delivers the blow not to
his intended victim
There is no complex crime

Example of Aberratio Ictus:

 a. A shot B but because of lack of precision, it was C, a bystander, who was
hit as a result of which C died. There is a complex crime of attempted or
frustrated Murder, Homicide, Parricide or Infanticide and Murder,
Homicide Parricide or Infanticide(MHPI)
b. If C did not die but sustained injuries, there is still a complex crime of
attempted or frustrated MHPI and serious or less serious physical
injuries (note that there is no intent to kill insofar as the case of C is
concerned); however, there can be no complex crime if C sustained slight
physical injuries as the same is only a light felony

When death is presumed to be the natural consequence of physical

injuries inflicted: (NER)
a. That the victim at the time the physical injuries were inflicted was in
normal health.
b. That the death may be expected from the physical injuries inflicted.
c. That death ensued within a reasonable time.

Note: The offended party is not obliged to submit to a surgical operation or

medical treatment to relieve the accused from liability.

Felony committed is NOT the proximate cause of the resulting injury

when:
a. There is an active force between the felony committed and the resulting
injury, such active force is distinct from the felony committed.
b. The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim
Example: fault or carelessness of the victim to increase the criminal
liability of the assailant.

Instances when there is a proximate cause and when there is none:

Instance Criminally Liable?
When there is an intervening disease
If disease is closely related to the YES.
wound
If disease is unrelated to the wound NO.
If disease is combined force with YES.
wound Mortal wound is a contributing factor
to victim’s death.
NOTE: A mortal wound is a
contributing factor when:
i. The wound is sufficient to
cause the victim’s death
along with the disease
ii. The mortal wound was
caused by actions committed
by the accused
When the death was caused by an infection of the wound due to the
unskilled medical treatment from the doctors
If the wound is mortal YES. Unskilled treatment and
infection are NOT efficient intervening
causes
If the wound is slight NO. Unskilled treatment and infection
are efficient intervening causes

Efficient Intervening Cause

It is the cause which interrupted the natural flow of events leading to one’s
death. This may relieve the offender from liability.

NOT efficient intervening causes:

a. The weak or diseased physical condition victim;
b. The nervousness or temperament of the victim;
c. Causes which are inherent in the victim;
d. Neglect of the victim or third person
Ex. refusal of medical attendance
e. Erroneous or unskilled medical or surgical treatment (unless the wound
is slight or not mortal).

Par. 2: Impossible Crime

Requisites: (PEIN)
1. That the act performed would be an offense against persons or property;
2. That the act was done with evil intent;
3. That its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that the means
employed is either inadequate or ineffectual; and

Inadequate
► It means is insufficient
Example: small quantity of poison

Ineffectual
► It means employed did not produce the result expected
Example: pressed the trigger of the gun not knowing that it is
empty
Inherent impossibility of its accomplishment:
a. Legal impossibility: Where the intended acts, even if completed
would not amount to a crime.
Example: Stealing a property that turned out to be owned by
the stealer (See Gemma T. Jacinto vs. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 162540, July 13, 2009).
 b. Physical impossibility: When extraneous circumstances
unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the
consummation of the intended crime.
Example: When one tries to murder a corpse (See Sulpicio
Intod vs Honorable Court of Appeals and People of the
Philippines G.R. No. 103119 October 21, 1992)

4. That the act performed should NOT constitute a violation of another

provision of the RPC.

Case: The crime committed is an impossible crime and not attempted

murder.
Intod, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig fired at the room of Palangpangan. It
turned out, however, that Palangpangan was in another City and her home was
then occupied by her son-in-law and his family. No one was in the room when
the accused fired the shots. No one was hit by the gun fire.
► There is factual impossibility in this case. It occurs when extraneous
circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the
consummation of the intended crime. In this case, Intod shoots the place
where he thought his victim would be, although in reality, the victim was not
present in said place and thus, the petitioner failed to accomplish his end
(Intod v. CA 285 SCRA 52).
► One example is the man who puts his hand in the coat pocket of another
with the intention to steal the latter's wallet and finds the pocket empty.

Felonies against persons are: (MHPI-DRAP)

1. Murder (Art. 248)
2. Homicide (Art 249)
3. Parricide (Art. 246)
4. Infanticide (Art 255)
5. Duel (Arts 260 and 261)
6. Rape (Art. 266-A)
7. Abortion (Arts. 256, 257, 258 and 259)
8. Physical Injuries (Arts 262, 263, 264, 265 and 266)

Felonies against property are: (BRUCT-SCAM)

1. Robbery (Arts. 294, 297, 298, 299, 300, 302 and 303)
2. Brigandage (Arts. 306 and 307)
3. Theft (Arts. 308, 310, and 311)
4. Usurpation (Arts. 312 and 313)
5. Culpable Insolvency (Art. 314)
6. Swindling and other deceits (Arts. 315, 316, 317 and 318)
7. Chattel Mortgage (Art. 319)
 8. Arson and other crimes involving destruction (Arts. 320, 321, 322, 323,
324, 325, and 326)
9. Malicious Mischief (Arts. 327, 328, 329, 330 and 321)

Purpose of punishing impossible crimes: To suppress criminal propensity or

criminal tendencies.

Notes:
a. Felony against persons or property should not be actually committed, for
otherwise, he would be liable for that felony; there would be no
impossible crime to speak of.
b. There is no attempted or frustrated impossible crime. It is always
consummated and applies only to grave or less grave felonies.
c. Under Article 59, the penalty for impossible crimes is arresto mayor or a
fine ranging from 200-500 pesos.