CRIMINAL LAW

Revised Penal Code Book 1

CRIMINAL LAW
-that branch of public substantive law which
defines crimes, treats of their nature, and
provides for their punishment.

Difference
Mala in Se
Wrong from its very nature.
GF a valid defense, unless the

Mala Prohibita
Wrong because it is

prohibited by law
GF is not a defense.

crime is the result of culpa

Criminal intent is immaterial,
Criminal intent is an element.

Mitigating and aggravating

are taken into account in

imposing penalty
Generally, the RPC.

BUT still requires intelligence

& voluntariness
They are not taken into

account.
Generally, special laws.

Scope of Application and

Characteristics of the
Philippine Criminal Law
1. GENERALITY (WHO?)
2. TERRITORIALITY (WHERE?)
3. PROSPECTIVITY (WHEN?)

1. Generality
General Rule:
Art. 14, NCC. The penal law of the country is

binding on all persons who live or sojourn

in Philippine territory, subject to the
principles of public international law and to
treaty stipulations.

Limitations:
1. Treaty Stipulations
Art. 2, RPC. Except as provided in the treaties or
laws of preferential application xxx
Ex.
Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA)2 signed on Feb. 10, 1998.

2. Laws of Preferential Application

Ex.

Members of Congress are not liable for libel or slander for any speech in Congress
or in any committee thereof. (Sec. 11, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)

Any ambassador or public minister of any foreign State, authorized and received
as such by the President, or any domestic or domestic servant of any such
ambassador or minister are exempt from arrest and imprisonment and whose
properties are exempt from distraint, seizure and attachment.3 (R.A. No. 75)

3. Principles of Public International Law

Art. 14, NCC. xxx subject to the principles of public
international law and to treaty stipulations.
The following persons are exempt from the provisions
the RPC:
(1) Sovereigns and other heads of state
(2) Ambassadors, ministers, plenipotentiary, minister
resident and charges d affaires. (Article 31, Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations)

of

Note: Consuls and consular officers are NOT exempt from

local prosecution. (See Article 41, Vienna Convention on

Consular Relations)
Public vessels of a friendly foreign power are not subject to

local jurisdiction.

2. Territoriality
GENERAL RULE: Penal laws of the country
have force and effect only within its territory.
EXCEPTION
Extraterritorial crimes, which are punishable
even if committed outside the Philippine
territory (Art. 2, RPC)

2 RULES on Jurisdiction
(Merchant vessels)
1. FRENCH RULE:
It is the flag or nationality of the vessel
which determines jurisdiction UNLESS the crime
violates the peace and order of the host
country.
2. ENGLISH RULE:
the location or situs of the crime determines
jurisdiction UNLESS the crime merely relates to
internal management of the vessel.

NOTE:
The Philippines adheres to the ENGLISH
RULE.
However, these rules are NOT applicable if the
vessel is on the high seas when the crime was
committed. In these cases, the laws of the
nationality of the ship will always apply.

Sample Question
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.
Will the case prosper?

Answer:
No.
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)

3. Prospectivity
GENERAL RULE:
Acts or omissions will only be subject to a penal law if
they are committed AFTER a penal law has taken effect.
EXCEPTION:
Art. 22 RPC. Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect,
insofar as they favor the person 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.

EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION:

(1) The new law is expressly made inapplicable
to pending actions or existing cause of actions;
or
(2) The offender is a habitual criminal.

The 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.

EQUIPOISE RULE:
When the evidence of the prosecution and
the defense are equally balanced, the scale
should be tilted in favor of the accused in
obedience to the constitutional presumption of
innocence.8

Bill of attainder
a legislative act that inflicts punishment
without trial, its essence being the substitution
of legislative fiat for a judicial determination of
guilt.

Ex post facto law

Ex post facto law is one which:
(1) Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the
law and which was innocent when done, and punishes
such an act.
(2) Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was,
when committed;
(3) Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater
punishment than the law annexed to the crime when
committed;

Basic Maxims in
Criminal Law
a. Actus Non Facit Reum, Nisi Mens Sit Rea
The act cannot be criminal where the mind is not criminal.
b. Actus Me Invito Factus Non Est Meus Actus
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
c. El Que Es Causa De La Causa Es Causa Del Mal Causado
He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil
caused.
This is the rationale in par. 1 of Art. 4 which enunciates the
doctrine of proximate cause.

TO REMEMBER:
GENERAL RULE:
The offender is CRIMINALLY LIABLE for
the natural and logical consequences of
felonious act, although not intended, if
felonious act is the proximate cause of
resulting harm.

ALL
his
the
the

Thus, the person is still criminally liable

although the wrongful act done be different
from that which he intended in the following
cases:

(1) Error in personae

(2) Aberratio ictus
(3) Praeter intentionem

(1) Error in personae

mistake in the identity of the victim;
injuring one person mistaken for another.
(a) At least two subjects
(b) A has intent to kill B, but kills C
(c) Under Art. 3, if A hits C, he should have no

criminal liability. But because of Art. 4, his act is a

felony.
What is the Penalty?
(Art. 49 penalty for lesser crime in its maximum
period)

(2) Aberratio ictus

mistake in the blow;
when offender intending to do an injury to
one person actually inflicts it on another
(a) There is only one subject.
(b) The intended subject is a different subject,
but the felony is still the same.
What is the Penalty?
(Art. 48 on
complex crimes penalty for
graver offense in its maximum period)

NOTE:
There are 3 persons involved:
1. the offender
2.the intended victim
3. the actual victim

(3) Praeter
intentionem
- injurious result is greater than that intended
(Art. 13 mitigating circumstance)
(a) If As act constitutes sufficient means to
carry out the graver felony, he cannot claim
praeter intentionem.

Proximate Cause v.
Immediate Cause
A, B, C, D, and E were driving their vehicles
along Ortigas Ave. As car was ahead, followed
by those of B, C, D, and E. When As car
reached the intersection of EDSA and Ortigas
Avenue, the traffic light turned red so A
immediately stepped on his brakes, followed by
B, C, and D.
However, E was using his cellphone and
therefore was not aware that the traffic light
had turned to red, so he bumped the car of D,
then D hit the car of C, then C hit the car of B,
then, finally, B hit the car of A.

In this case, the immediate cause of the

damage to the car of A is the car of B, but that
is not the proximate cause.
The proximate cause is the negligence of E
(using his cellphone while driving) because it
sets into motion the collision of all the cars.

Classifications of
Felonies

Sample Question:
Charlie hated his classmate, Brad, because
the latter was assiduously courting Lily,
Charlies girlfriend.
Charlie went to a
veterinarian and asked for some poison on the
pretext that it would be used to kill a very sick,
old dog. Actually, Charlie intended to use the
poison on Brad. The veterinarian mistakenly
gave Charlie a non-toxic powder which, when
mixed with Brads food, did not kill Brad.
Did Charlie commit any crime? If so, what ?

Answer:
Charlie committed an impossible crime of
murder.
His act of mixing the non-toxic powder with
Brads food, done with intent to kill, would have
constituted murder which is a crime against
persons, had it not been for the employment of
a means which, unknown to him, is ineffectual
(Art. 4, par. 2, RPC).

Impossible Crime
Requisites:
(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.
(4) That the act performed should not constitute a

violation of another provision of the RPC.

Exempting
Circumstances

Sample Question:
Immediately after murdering Bob, Jake went
to his mother to seek refuge. His mother told
him to hide in the maids quarters until she
finds a better place for him to hide. After two
days, Jake transferred to his aunts house. A
week later, Jake was apprehended by the police.
Can Jakes mother be made criminally liable
as accessories to the crime of murder?

Answer:
Obviously, Jakes mother was aware of her
sons having committed a felony, such that her
act of harboring and concealing him renders
her liable as an accessory.
BUT being an ascendant to Jake, she is
EXEMPT from criminal liability by express
provision of Article 20 of the Revised Penal
Code.

Sample Question:
While his wife was on a 2-year scholarship abroad,
Romeo was having an affair with his maid Dulcinea.
Realizing that the affair was going nowhere, Dulcinea told
Romeo that she was going back to the province to marry
her childhood sweetheart. Clouded by anger and jealousy,
Romeo strangled Dulcinea to death while she was sleeping
in the maids quarters.
The following day, Romeo was found catatonic inside the
maids quarters. He was brought to the National Center for
Mental Health (NCMH) where he was diagnosed to be
mentally unstable. Charged with murder, Romeo pleaded
insanity as a defense.
Is Romeos defense proper?

Answer:
No. Romeo's defense of insanity is not
proper
Even assuming that Romeo was insane
when diagnosed after he committed the crime,
insanity as a defense to the commission of
crime must have existed and proven to be
so existing at the precise moment when
the crime was being committed.
The fact of the case indicate that Romeo
committed the crime with discernment.

Follow-up Question:
What is the effect of the diagnosis of the
NCMH on the case?

Answer:
The effect of the diagnosis made by NCMH is
possibly a suspension of the proceedings
against Romeo and his commitment to
appropriate institution for treatment until he
could already understand the proceedings.

Justifying
Circumstances

Sample Question:
Jack and Jill have been married for seven years. One night, Jack
came home drunk. Finding no food on the table, Jack started hitting
Jill only to apologize the following day. A week later, the same
episode occurred Jack came home drunk and started hitting Jill.
Fearing for her life, Jill left and stayed with her sister. To woo Jill
back, Jack sent her floral arrangements of spotted lilies and
confectioneries. Two days later, Jill returned home and decided to
give Jack another chance. After several days, however, Jack again
came home drunk. The following day, he was found dead. Jill was
charged with parricide but raised the defense of "battered
woman syndrome.
Would the defense prosper despite the absence of any of the
elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the
Revised Penal Code?

Answer:
Yes.
Section 26 of Rep. Act No. 9262 provides
that victim-survivors who are found by the
courts to be suffering from battered woman
syndrome DO NOT incur any criminal and
civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any
of the elements for justifying circumstances of
self-defense under the Revised Penal Code.

Mitigating
Circumstances

Aggravating
Circumstances

Sample Question:
Wenceslao and Loretta were staying in the
same boarding house, occupying different
rooms. One late evening, when everyone in the
house was asleep, Wenceslao entered Lorettas
room with the use of a picklock. Then, with
force and violence, Wenceslao ravished Loretta.
After he had satisfied his lust, Wenceslao
stabbed Loretta to death and, before leaving
the room, took her jewelry.
What are the aggravating circumstances
applicable in this case?

Answer:
1. DWELLING is aggravating because the
crimes were committed in the property of
Loretta's room which in law is considered as her
dwelling.
Dwelling
includes a room in a boarding house being
occupied by the offended party where she
enjoys privacy, peace of mind and sanctity of
an abode.

2. NOCTURNITY or NIGHTTIME is also

aggravating because although it was not
purposely or especially sought for by
Wenceslao, nighttime was obviously taken
advantaged of by him in committing the other
crimes.
Under the objective test, noctunity is
aggravating when taken advantage of by the
offender during the commission of the
crime thus facilitating the same.

NOTE:
The use of a picklock to enter the room of
the
victim
is
NOT
an
aggravating
circumstance under Art. 14 of the Code but
punished as a crime by itself where the
offender has no lawful cause for possessing it.
The use of picklocks is equivalent to force
upon things in robbery with force upon things.

Sample Question:
TRUE OR FALSE.
The use of an unlicensed firearm in homicide
is considered a generic aggravating
circumstance which can be offset by an
ordinary mitigating circumstance.

Answer:
FALSE.
Offsetting may NOT take place because the
use of an unlicensed firearm in homicide or
murder
is
a
specific
aggravating
circumstance provided for by Rep. Act. No.
8294.
It is NOT one of the generic aggravating
circumstances under Article 14 of the Revised
Penal Code (People v. Avecilla, 351 SCRA 63
[2001]).

PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE

FOR FELONIES

ACCOMPLICE

ACCESSORIES

Sample Question:
Modesto and Abelardo are brothers.
Sometime in August, 1998 while Abelardo was in his office,
Modesto, together with two other men in police uniform,
came with two heavy bags. Modesto asked Abelardo to keep
the two bags in his vault until he comes back to get them.
When Abelardo later examined the two bags, he saw bundles
of money that, in his rough count, could not be less than P5
Million. He kept the money inside the vault and soon he
heard the news that a gang that included Modesto had been
engaged in bank robberies.
Abelardo, unsure of what to do under the circumstances,
kept quiet about the two bags in his vault. Soon after, the
police captured, and secured a confession from, Modesto who
admitted that their loot had been deposited with Abelardo.
What is Abelardo's liability?

ANSWER:
Abelardo is NOT criminally liable.
To be criminally liable as an accessory under
Article 19 of the Code, such person must have
knowledge of the commission of the crime.
The term knowledge under the law is NOT
synonymous with suspicion. Mere suspicion that
the crime has been committed is not sufficient.
Moreover, the facts as given in the problem
would show lack or absent of intent to
conceal the effects of the crime as Abelardo
is described as being unsure of what to do
under the circumstances.

NOTE:
Even if he can be considered as an accessory
under paragraph 2 of Article 19, RPC, Abelardo
is not liable, being the brother of Modesto
under Article 20, RPC.