CRIMINAL LAW 1

PRELIMINARY TITLE

Prepared by:
Atty. Cheryl Ann S. Villares
Faculty, CAS & COL, HNU,
1st sem SY 2021-2022
Article 1: Time when Act Takes Effect

 The RPC was approved on December 8, 1930, it took

effect on January 1, 1932.
 Theories in Criminal Law

1. Classical theory

The basis of criminal liability is human free will and the

purpose of the penalty is retribution. It is endeavored to
establish a mechanical and direct proportion between
crime and penalty, and there is scant regard to the
human element.

Note: The RPC is generally governed by this theory.

2. Positivist theory

The basis of criminal liability is the sum of the social,

natural and economic phenomena to which the actor is
exposed. The purposes of penalty are prevention and
correction. This theory is exemplified in the provisions
regarding impossible crimes (Art. 4), the mitigating
circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty
(Art. 13, par. 7) and habitual delinquency.
3. Eclectic or Mixed theory

It is a combination of positivist and classical thinking

wherein crimes that are economic and social in nature
should be dealt in a positive manner, thus, the law is more
compassionate. Ideally, the classical theory is applied to
heinous crimes, whereas, the positivist is made to work on
economic and social crimes.
4. Utilitarian or Protective theory

The primary purpose of 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 or omissions which the society does not
approve. Consistent with this theory is the mala prohibita
principle which punishes an offense regardless of malice or
criminal intent.
 Article 2. Application of its Provisions

 Article 2 sets forth the instances where the provisions of

the RPC are applicable although the felony is committed
outside the Philippine territory.
 TITLE 1
FELONIES & CIRCUMSTANCES
WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL
LIABILITY
 ARTICLE 3: FELONIES
 Acts or omissions punishable by the RPC

 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.
 CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES

Felonies are classified as follows:

(1) According to the manner of their commission ;

(2) According to the stages of their execution;

(3) According to their gravity

Other classifications:
(1) As to count
(2) As to nature
 According To The Manner Of Their Commission:
Intentional or Culpable (Art. 3)

Intentional Culpable

•Act is malicious Not malicious

•With deliberate intent. Injury caused is unintentional,

being just an incident of another
act performed without malice.
•Has intention to cause injury.
Wrongful act results an from
imprudence, negligence, lack of
foresight, or lack of skill
 Elements Of Felonies

(1) There must be an act or omission (actus reus/physical

act)

 Act: Any kind of body movement which tends to

produce some effect in the external world; includes
possession.
 Omission: The failure to perform a positive duty which
one is bound to do under the law.
2)That the act or omission must be punishable by the RPC.

 It is important that there is a law requiring the

performance of an act; if there is no positive duty, there is
no liability.
(3)That the act is performed or the omission incurred by
means of dolo or culpa.

 The act or omission must be voluntary

DOLO
 is deliberate intent otherwise referred to as criminal
intent, and must be coupled with freedom of action and
intelligence on the part of the offender as to the act done by
him.

Intentional Felonies
The act or omission is performed or incurred with deliberate
intent (with malice) to cause an injury to another.
Requisites of Dolo (Intentional Felonies)

(1) Freedom
 Voluntariness on the part of the person who commits the
act or omission.

 If there is lack of freedom, the offender is exempt from

liability (i.e., presence of irresistible force or uncontrollable
fear)
(2) Intelligence

Capacity to know and understand the consequences of

one’s act.
 This power is necessary to determine the morality of
human acts, the lack of which leads to non-existence of a
crime.
If there is lack of intelligence, the offender is exempt from
liability. (i.e., offender is an imbecile, insane or under 15
years of age)
(3) Criminal Intent
 The purpose to use a particular means to effect a result.
 The intent to commit an act with malice, being purely a
mental state, is presumed (but only if the act committed is
unlawful). Such presumption arises from the proof of
commission of an unlawful act.
 However, in some crimes, intent cannot be presumed
being an integral element thereof; so it has to be proven.
Example: In frustrated homicide, specific intent to kill is not
presumed but must be proven; otherwise it is merely
physical injuries.

 Intent which is a mental process presupposes the

exercise of freedom and the use of intelligence.
 If an act is proven to be unlawful, then intent will be
presumed prima facie. [U.S. v. Apostol]
 An honest mistake of fact
 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)

 It destroys the presumption of criminal intent which

arises from the commission of a felonious act (People v.
Oanis and U.S vs Ah Chong)

 Honest mistake of fact is not applicable in culpable

felonies
 Requisites of Mistake of Fact
as a Defense

1. Act done would have been lawful had the facts been as
the accused believed them to be;

2. Intention of the accused in performing the act should be

lawful; and

3. Mistake must be without fault

Note:
If any of the elements is absent, there is no dolo. If there is
no dolo, there could be no intentional felony. [Visbal vs.
Buban (2003)]

LIABILITY EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF CRIMINAL

INTENT
Exception to the requirement of criminal intent:
(1) Felonies committed by CULPA.
(2) Offenses MALA PROHIBITA.
 Categories Of Criminal Intent
(General Vs. Specific Intent)

General Specific
The intention to do The intention to commit a
something wrong. definite act.

Presumed from the

Existence is not presumed
mere doing of a wrong .

The burden is upon the Since the specific intent is

wrongdoer to prove that he an element of the crime, the
acted without such criminal burden is upon the
intent prosecution to establish its
existence.
 The general criminal intent is presumed from the criminal
act; the absence of any general intent is relied upon as a
defense; such absence must be proved by the accused.

 Generally, a specific intent is not presumed. Its

existence, as a matter of fact, must be proved by the
State just as any other essential element.

 This may be shown, however, by the nature of the act,

the circumstances under which it was committed, the
means employed and the motive of the accused

 In some particular felonies, proof of specific intent is

required.
 In certain crimes against property, there must be intent to
gain (Art. 293 – robbery, Art 308 – theft).

Intent to kill is essential in attempted and frustrated

homicide (Art. 6 in relation to Art 249), as well as in murder.

 In forcible abduction (Art. 342), specific intent of lewd

designs must be proved.
 Distinction Between Intent,
Discernment & Motive
Intent
is the determination to do a certain thing, an aim or
purpose of the mind. It establishes the nature and extent of
culpability in intentional felonies.
The purpose to use a particular means to effect a definite
result. [Reyes]

Discernment
is the mental capacity to tell right from wrong. It is integral
to the element of intelligence, NOT intent.
Motive
 it is the moving power which impels one to do an act for
a definite result (ex. vengeance). Generally, it is not an
essential element of a crime; hence, it need not be proved
for purposes of conviction
 How Motive is Proved

Generally, the motive is established by the testimony of

witnesses on the acts or statements of the accused before
or immediately after the commission of the offense, deeds,
or words that may express it or from which his motive or
reason for committing it may be inferred. [Barrioquinto v.
Fernandez (1949)]
 When Motive Becomes Material In
Determining Criminal Liability
 When the act brings about variant crimes (e.g.
kidnapping v. robbery [People v. Puno (1993)])

 When there is doubt as to the identity of the assailant.

 When there is the need to ascertain the truth between

two antagonistic versions of the crime.

 When the identification of the accused proceeds from an

unreliable source and the testimony is inconclusive and
not free from doubt.
 When there are no eyewitnesses to the crime, and when
suspicion is likely to fall upon a number of persons.
 When the evidence on the commission of the crime is
purely circumstantial.
 Lack of motive can aid in achieving acquittal of the
accused, especially where there is doubt as to the
identity of the accused. [People v. Hassan (1988)]
 Proof of motive is not indispensable for a conviction,
particularly where the accused is positively identified by
an eyewitness and his participation is adequately
established. [People v. Delos Santos]
 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.
Requisites of Culpa( Culpable Felonies)

1. Freedom of action on the part of the offender, that is, he

was not acting under duress.

2. Intelligence on the part of the offender in performing the

negligent act.

3. Criminal negligence on the part of the offender, that is,

the crime was the result of negligence, reckless
imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill.
 Negligence and Imprudence:
Distinguished
Negligence means deficiency in perception or lack of
foresight, or failure to pay proper attention and to use due
diligence in foreseeing injury or damage to be caused.

Imprudence means a deficiency in action or lack of skill, or

failure to take necessary precaution to avoid injury to
another. It usually involves lack of skill.
 Mens Rea
 referred to as the gravamen of the offense. Mens rea of
the crime depends upon the elements of the crime. It can
only be determined by knowing the particular crime
committed.
Examples:
1. In theft, the mens rea is the taking of the property of
another with intent to gain.
2. In falsification, the mens rea is the effecting of the
forgery with intent to pervert the truth.
3. In robbery, the mens rea is the taking of the property of
another coupled with the employment of intimidation or
violence upon persons or things.