Poll Anthony.

CRIMINAL LAW I Santillan

Criminal Law- the branch or division of law which defines crimes, 5. Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in
1
treats of their nature, and provides for their punishment. effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for
something which when done was lawful; and
Crime- an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law 6. Deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful
2
forbidding or commanding it. protection to which he has become entitled, such as the
protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a
Sources of Philippine Criminal Law: 7
proclamation of amnesty.
1. The Revised Penal Code (Act. No. 3815) and its
Bill of Attainder. It is a legislative act which inflicts punishment
amendments.
without trial. Its essence is the substitution of a legislative act for
2. Special Penal Laws passed by the Philippine 8
a judicial determination of guilt.
Commission, Philippine Assembly, Philippine Legislature,
National Assembly, the Congress of the Philippines, and Note: Criminal laws must be of general application and must
the Batasang Pambansa. clearly define the acts and omissions punished as crimes.
3. Penal Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law.

Common law crimes. They are known in the US and England as CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
the body of principles, usages and rules of action, which do not
rest for their authority upon any express positive declaration of 1. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition
the will of the legislature. They are not recognized here unless of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or
9
there be a particular provision in the penal code or special law administrative bodies.
that defines and punishes the act, even if it be socially or morally 2. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense
3 10
wrong, no criminal liability is incurred by its commission. without due process of law.
3. All persons, except those charged with offenses
Note: The State has authority, under its police power, to define punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt
and punish crimes and to lay down the rules of criminal is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by
4
procedure. sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as
may be provided by law.
The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the
LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF THE LAWMAKING BODY TO
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended.
ENACT PENAL LEGISLATION 11
Excessive bail shall not be required.
1. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be 4. In all criminal prosections, the accused shall be
enacted.
5 presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and
2. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel,
without due process of law.
6 to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him, to have speedy, impartial, and
public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to
have compulsory process to secure the attendance of
EX POST FACTO LAW IS ONE WHICH: 12
witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.
5. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against
1. Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the 13
himself.
law and which was innocent when done, and punishes
Any person under investigation for the commission of an
such an act;
offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to
2. Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was,
remain silent and to have competent and independent
when committed;
counsel preferably of his own choice.
3. Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater
If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he
punishment than the law annexed to the crime when
must be provided with one.
committed;
These rights cannot be waived in writing and in the
4. Alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes 14
presence of counsel.
conviction upon less or different testimony than the law
No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any
require at the time of the commission of the offense;
other means which vitiate the free will shall be used

7
In Re: Kay Villegas Kami, Inc., 35 SCRA 429, 431
8
People v. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382,395
1 9
12 Cyc. 129. Art. III, Sec. 16
2 10
I Bouvier’s Law Dictrionary, Rawles Third Revision, 729. Art. III, Sec. 14(1)
3 11
See U.S. v. Taylor, 28 Phil. 599, 604 Art. III, Sec. 13
4 12
People v. Santiago, 43 Phil. 120, 124 Art. III, Sec. 14(2)
5 13
Art. III, Sec. 22 Art. III, Sec. 17
6 14
Art. III, Sec. 14(1) Art. III, Sec. 12(1)
 against him. Secret detention places, solitary, Notes:
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are 1. No foreigner enjoys in this country extra-territorial
15 right to be exempted from its laws and jurisdiction,
prohibited.
6. Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, with the exception of heads of states and diplomatic
16 representatives who, by virtue of the customary law of
degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted.
nations, are not subject to the Philippine territorial
7. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment jurisdiction.
23

for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and 2. The jurisdiction of the civil tribunals is unaffected by
an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall the military or other special character of the person
constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same brought before them for trial, unless controlled by
24
act.
17 express legislation to the contrary.
3. Civil courts have jurisdiction over murder cases
8. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and
committed by persons subject to military law.
adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any
18
4. Civil courts have jurisdiction over the offense of
person by reason of poverty. malversation (Art. 217) committed by an army finance
25
officer.
STATUTORY RIGHTS OF AN ACCUSED 5. Even in times of war, the civil courts have concurrent
jurisdiction with the military courts or general courts-
1. To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved martial over soldiers of the Phil. Army, provided that in
beyond reasonable doubt. the place of the commission of the crime no hostilities
26
2. To be informed of the nature and cause of the are in progress and civil courts are functioning.
accusation against him. 6. The Revised Penal Code or other penal law is not
applicable when a military court takes cognizance of
3. To be present and defend in person and by counsel at
the case.
every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to
7. The prosecution of an accused before a court-martial is
promulgation of the judgment. a bar to another prosecution for the same offense.
27

4. To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to 8. Offenders accused of war crimes are triable by military
28
cross-examination on matters covered by direct commission.
examination. His silence shall not in any manner
prejudice him.
5. To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness PERSONS EXEMPT FROM THE OPERATION OF OUR CRIMINAL
against himself. LAWS BY VIRTUE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL
6. To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against LAW
him at the trial.
1. Sovereigns and other chiefs of state
7. To have compulsory process issued to secure the
2. Ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, ministers
attendance of witnesses and production of other 29
resident, and charges d-affaires.
evidence in his behalf.
8. To have a speedy, impartial and public trial.
Note: Consuls, vice-consuls and other commercial
9. To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner representatives of foreign nations are not entitled to the
19
prescribed by law. privileges and immunities accorded to ambassadors or
30
ministers.
Note: A right which may be waived is the right (personal) of the
accused to confrontation and cross-examination. A right (public
interest) which may not be waived is the right of the accused to II. TERRITORIAL. Criminal laws undertake to punish
be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against crimes committed within Philippine territory.
him.
(Principle of Territoriality)

Exceptions:
CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or
I. GENERAL. Criminal law is binding on all persons
20 airship;
who live or sojourn in Philippine territory.
Exception: as provided in the treaties and law of
21
preferential application ; subject to the principles of
22
public international law and to treaty stipulations.
22
Art. 14, NCC
23
People v. Galacgac, C.A., 54, O.G. 1027.
15 24
Art. III, Sec. 12(2) U.S. v. Sweet, 1 Phil. 18
16 25
Art. III, Sec. 19(1) People v. Livara, G.R. No. L-6021, April 20, 1954
17 26
Art. III, Sec. 21 Valdez v. Lucero, 76 Phil. 356
18 27
Art. III, Sec. 11 Marcos and Concordia v. Chief of Staff, AFP, 89 Phil. 246
19 28
Sec. 1, Rule 115, RRCP Cantos v. Styer. 76 Phil. 748
20 29 nd
Art. 14, NCC II Hyde, International Law, 2 Ed., 1266
21 30
Art. 2, RPC Wheaton, International Law, Sec. 249
 2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of on the same subject, operates as a repeal of anything not
the Philippines or obligations and securities issued by included in the amendatory act. Cessante ratione legis- the
39
the Philippine Government; reason for the law ceasing, the law itself also ceases.
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the
introduction into the Philippines of the obligations and
Construction of Penal Laws
securities mentioned in the preceding number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit 1. Strictly construed against the Government and liberally
an offense in the exercise of their functions; or in favor of the accused.
40

5. Should commit any of the crimes against national It can only be strictly construed against the State when
31
security and the law of nations. the law is ambiguous and there is doubt as to its
interpretation. Where the law is clear and unambiguous,
III. PROSPECTIVE. A penal law cannot make an act there is no room for the application of the rule.
41

punishable in a manner in which it was not 2. In the construction or interpretation of the provisions of
punishable when committed. Crimes are punished the RPC, the Spanish text is controlling because it was
under the laws in force at the time of their approved by the Phil. Legislature in its Spanish text.
42
32
commission.

Exception: Whenever a new statute dealing with a crime

establishes conditions more lenient or favorable to the
accused, it can be given a retroactive effect.

Exception to the Exception:

1. Where the new law is expressly made inapplicable to

33
pending actions or existing causes of action.
2. Where the offender is a habitual criminal under Rule 5,
34
Article 62, Revised Penal Code.

EFFECTS OF REPEAL ON PENAL LAW

1. If the repeal makes the penalty lighter in the new law,

the new law shall be applied.
Exceptions:
a) Offender is a habitual delinquent
b) The new law is made not applicable to pending
action or existing cause of action
2. If the new law imposes a heavier penalty, the law in
force at the time of the commission of the offense shall
be applied.
3. If the new law totally repeals the existing law so that the
act which was penalized under the old law is no longer
punishable, the crime is obliterated.

Notes: When the repeal is absolute, the offense ceases to be

35
criminal.
When the new law and the old law penalize the same offense,
36
the offender can be tried under the old law.
When the repealing law fails to penalize the offense under the
37
old law, the accused cannot be convicted under the new law.
A person erroneously accused and convicted under a repealed
38
statue may be punished under the repealing statute.
A new law which omits anything contained in the old law dealing

31
Art. 2, RPC
32
Art. 366, RPC
33
Tavera v. Valdez, 1 Phil. 463, 470-471
34 39
Art. 22, RPC People v. Almuete, 69 SCRA 410
35 40
People v. Tamayo, 61 Phil. 225 U.S. v. Abad Santos, 36 Phil 243; People v. Yu Hai, 99 Phil.
36
U.S. v. Cuna, 12 Phil. 241 728
37 41
People v. Sindiong and Pastor, 77 Phil. 1000 People v. Gatchalian, 104 Phil. 664
38 42
People v. Baesa, C.A., 56 O.G. 5466 People v. Manaba, 58 Phil. 665, 668
BOOK ONE 2. When the offender should forge or counterfeit any coin
or currency note of the Philippines or obligations and
THE REVISED PENAL CODE securities issued by the government.
3. When the offender should be liable for acts connected
Date of Effectiveness. This Code shall take effect on January 1,
43 with the introduction into the Philippines of the
1932.
obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding
number.
TWO THEORIES IN CRIMINAL LAW
4. When the offender, while being a public officer or
1. Classical theory employee, should commit an offense in the exercise of
a) The basis of criminal liability is human free will and his functions. When any of these felonies is committed
the purpose of penalty is retribution. abroad by any of our public officers or employees while
b) Man is essentially a moral creature with absolutely in the exercise of his functions, he can be prosecuted
free will to choose between good and evil, thereby here.
placing more stress upon the effect or result of the Crimes committed vis-à-vis Public Functions:
felonious act than upon the man, the criminal a. Direct bribery (Art. 210);
himself. b. Indirect Bribery (Art. 211);
c) It has endeavored to establish a mechanical and c. Frauds against the Public Treasury (Art. 213);
direct proportion between crime and penalty. d. Possession of prohibited interest (Art. 216);
44 e. Malversation of public funds or property (Art. 217);
d) There is a scant regard to the human element.
2. Positivist Theory f. Failure of accountable officer to render accounts
a) Man is subdued occasionally by a strange and (Art. 218);
morbid phenomenon which constrains him to do g. Illegal use of public funds or property (Art. 220)
wrong, in spite or contrary to his volition. h. Failure to make delivery of public funds or Property
b) Crime is essentially a social and natural (Art. 221); and
phenomenon which cannot be treated and checked i. Falsification by a public officer or employee
by the application of abstract principles of law and committed with abuse of his official position. (Art.
jurisprudence. 171)
5. When the offender should commit any of the crimes
SCOPE OF THE APPLICATION OF THE RPC. The provisions shall be against national security and the law of nations such
enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago, but also as:
outside of its jurisdiction in certain cases such as those acts a. Treason (Art. 114);
committed in the air, at sea, and even in a foreign country when b. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason (Art.
45
such acts affect the political or economic life of the nation. 115);
c. Espionage (Art. 117);
THEY ARE ALSO APPLICABLE IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: d. Inciting to war and giving motives for reprisals (Art.
118);
1. When the offender should commit an offense while on
e. Violation of neutrality (Art. 119);
a Philippine ship or airship. Any person who committed
f. Correspondence with hostile country (Art. 120);
a crime on board a Philippine ship or airship while the
g. Flight to enemy’s country (Art. 121); and
same is outside of the Philippine territory can be tried
h. Piracy and mutiny on the high seas. (Art. 122)
before our civil courts. But when the vessel or aircraft is
in the territory of a foreign country, the crime Note: Offenses committed on board a foreign merchant vessel
committed on said vessel or aircraft is subject to the while on Philippine water is triable before our court.
47

laws of that foreign country.

Notes: RULES AS TO JURISDICTION OVER CRIMES COMMITTED ABOARD

1. A Philippine vessel or aircraft must be understood as A FOREIGN MERCHANT VESSEL
that which is registered in the Philippine Bureau of
Customs. It is the registration of either, not the 1. French Rule. Such crimes are not triable in the courts of
citizenship of the owner, which makes it a Philippine
that country.
ship or airship.
Exception: Their commission affects the peace and
2. The Philippine court has no jurisdiction over the crime
of theft committed on the high seas on board a vessel security of the territory or the safety of the state is
46
not registered or licensed in the Philippines. endangered.
2. English Rule. Such crimes are triable in that country. The
Philippines observes this rule.
43 Exception: They merely affect things within the vessel or
Art. 1, RPC
44
Basic Principles, Rationale, p.2, by the Code Commission they refer to the internal management thereof.
on Code of Crimes
45
Art. 2, RPC
46 47
U.S. v. Fowler, 1 Phil. 614 U.S. v. Bull, 15 Phil. 7, 17-18
Notes: careful, and prudent, if not from instinct, then through the fear of
55
1. Crimes involving a breach of public order committed on incurring punishment.
board a foreign merchant vessel in transit not triable
48
by our courts. Notes:
49
2. Smoking opium constitutes a breach of public order. 1. In felonies committed by means of dolo or with malice
3. Warships are always reputed to be the territory of the and in felonies committed by means of fault or cupla,
country to which they belong and cannot be subjected the acts or omissions are voluntary.
50
to the laws of another State. 2. A criminal act is presumed to be voluntary. Fact
prevails over assumption, and in the absence of
indubitable explanation, the act must be declared
51 56
Felonies- acts and omissions punishable by the RPC. voluntary and punishable.
57
3. Acts executed negligently are voluntary.
Elements:

1. An act or omission REQUISITES OF DOLO OR MALICE

2. Such must be punishable by RPC
3. Such is performed or the omission incurred by means of 1. Must have freedom while doing an act or omitting to do
52 an act;
dolo (deceit) or culpa (fault)
2. Intelligence while…
Act- any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the Exceptions: (no criminal liability)
external world, it being unnecessary that the same be actually a) Imbeciles or the insane;
53
produced, as the possibility of its production is sufficient. b) infant under nine years of age;
c) minor over 9 but less than 15 years old and acting
Note: Only external act is punished. A criminal thought or a mere without discernment
58

intention, no matter how immoral or improper it may be, will 3. Intent while…
never constitute a felony.
59
Voluntary act- a free, intelligent, and intention act.

Omission- inaction; the failure to perform a positive duty which

Notes:
one is bound to do. There must be a law requiring the doing or 1. Intent is a mental state, the existence of which is
performance of an act. 60
shown by the overt acts of a person.
2. Criminal intent is presumed from the commission of an
61
Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege- “there is no crime where unlawful act.
there is no law punishing it.” 3. Criminal intent and the will to commit a crime are
always presumed to exist on the part of the person
Classification of Felonies who executes an act which the law punishes, unless
62
the contrary shall appear.
1. Intentional Felonies. The act or omission of the offender 4. But the presumption of criminal intent does not arise
is malicious; the act is performed with deliberate intent from the proof of the commission of an act which is not
63
unlawful.
(with malice) 64
5. There is no felony by dolo if there is no intent.
2. Culpable Felonies. The act or omission is not malicious.
The injury caused by the offender to another person is
“unintentional, it being simply the incident of another Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea- a crime is not committed
54
act performed without malice.” in the mind of the person performing to act complained be
innocent.
Imprudence- a deficiency of action; there is imprudent when a
person fails to take the necessary precaution to avoid injury to Ignorantia legis non excusat- ignorance of the law excuses no one
person or damage to property; lack of skill from compliance therewith

Negligence (culpa)- a deficiency of perception; if a person fails to Mistake of Fact. Ignorantia facti excusat; a misapprehension of
pay proper attention and to use due diligence in foreseeing the fact on the part of the person who caused injury to another; he is
injury or damage impending to be caused; lack of foresight; not criminally liable because he did not act with criminal intent
reason for its punishment: A man must use common sense, and
exercise due reflection in all his acts; it is his duty to be cautious, 55
U.S. v. Maleza, 14 Phil, 468, 470
56
People v. Macalisang, 22 SCRA 699
48 57
U.S. v. Look Chaw, 18 Phil. 553, 577-578 People v. Lopez, C.A. 44 O.G. 584
49 58
People v. Wong Cheng, 46 Phil. 729, 733 Art. 12, pars. 1,2, and 3, RPC
50 59
U.S. v. Fowler, 1 Phil. 614 U.S. v. Ah Chong, 15 Phil. 488, 495
51 60
Art. 3, RPC Soriano v. People, 88 Phil. 368, 374
52 61
People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 80762, March 19, 1990, 183 People v. Sia Teb Ban, 54 Phil. 52, 53
62
SCRA 309, 324 U.S. v. Apostol, 14 Phil. 92, 93
53 63
See People v. Gonzales, supra U.S. v. Catolico, 18 Phil. 504, 508
54 64
People v. Sara, 55 Phil. 939 U.S. v. Penalosa, 1 Phil. 109
 72
Note: An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of affairs of the society. The only inquiry is, has the law been
criminal intent which arises upon the commission of a felonious violated? These are acts made criminal by special laws.
65
act.
Mala in se Mala prohibita
As to moral trait of The moral trait of It is not considered.
REQUISITES OF MISTAKE OF FACT AS A DEFENSE the offender the offender It is enough that the
considered. Liability prohibited act was
1. The act done would have been lawful had the facts been will arise only when voluntarily done.
as the accused believed them to be; there is dolo or
2. The intention of the accused in performing the act culpa.
should be lawful; and As to use of good Good faith or lack Not a defense
faith as a defense of criminal intent is
3. The mistake must be without fault or carelessness on
a valid defense;
the part of the accused.
unless the crime is
the result of culpa.
Notes: As to degree of Taken into account The act gives rise to
1. Lack of intent to kill the deceased, because his accomplishment of in punishing the a crime only when
intention was to kill another, does not relieve the the crime offender. it is consummated.
accused from criminal responsibility having acted
66 As to mitigating Take into account in Generally not taken
maliciously and willfully.
and aggravating imposing the into account
2. There is no crime of resistance where there is a
67 circumstances penalty
mistake of fact.
As to degree of When there is more Is not generally
3. When the accused is negligent, mistake of fact is not a
68 participation than one offender, taken into account.
defense.
the degree of All who participated
4. Criminal intent is replaced by negligence and
69 participation of in the act are
imprudence in felonies committed by means of culpa.
each in the crime is punished to the
taken into account. same extent.
As to what laws are Violation of the RPC Violation of Special
REQUISITES IN ORDER THAT THE ACT OR OMISSION IN FELONIES
violated (General Rule) Laws (General Rule)
COMMITTED BY MEANS OF FAULT O CULPA MAY BE
CONSIDERED VOLUNTARY
Note: When the acts are inherently immoral, they are mala in se,
1. Have freedom while doing an act or omitting to do an even if punished under special law.
73

act;
2. Have intelligence while…
3. He is imprudent, negligent or lacks foresight or skill Intent vs. Motive
while…
Motive is the moving power which impels one to action for a
Notes: definite result. Intent is the purpose to use a particular means to
1. In culpable felonies, the injury caused to another effect such result. The former is not an essential element of a
should be unintentional, it being simply the incident of crime, and, hence, need not be proved for purposes of
70
another act performed without malice. 74
conviction.
2. Dolo is not required in crimed punished by special
71
laws.
INTENT MOTIVE
Is the purpose to use a Is the moving power which
particular means to effect such impels one to act
Crimes mala in se. These crimes are so serious in their effects on
result
society as to call for almost unanimous condemnation of its
Is an element of the crime, Is not an element of the crime
members. These are felonies defined and penalized by the RPC. except in unintentional felonies
The intent governs. (culpable)
Is essential in intentional Is essential only where the
Crimes mala prohibita. These are violations of mere rules of felonies identity of the perpetrator is in
convenience designed to secure a more orderly regulation of the doubt.

Note: A person acting while in a dream and his acts, with which
he is charged, are not voluntary in the sense of entailing criminal
65 75
People v. Coching, et al., C.A., 52 O.G.. 293, citing People liability.
v. Oanis, 74 Phil. 257
66
People v. Gona, 54 Phil. 605
67 72 rd
See U.S. v. Bautista, 31 Phil. 308 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Rawle’s 3 Revision
68 73
People v. De Fernando, 49 Phil. 75 People v. Sunico, et. Al., C.A., 50 O.G. 5880
69 74
U.S. v. Catolico, 18 Phil. 507 People v. Aposaga, No. L-32477, October 30, 1981, 108
70
People v. Guillen, 85 Phil. 307 SCRA 574, 595
71 75
People v. Bayona, 61 Phil. 181 People v. Taneo, 58 Phil. 255, 257)
 therefor, because the law allows a person to use the
80
necessary force to retain what belongs to him.
CRIMINAL LIABILITY (ART. 4). It is incurred by any person in the 6. Any person who creates in another’s mind an
cases incurred: immediate sense of danger, which causes the latter to
do something resulting in the latter’s injuries, is liable
81
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the for the resulting injuries.
wrongful act done be different from that which he 7. If the consequences produced have resulted from a
distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the criminal
intended; and
act, the offender is not responsible for such
2. By any person performing an act which would be an consequences.
82

offense against persons or property, were it not for the

inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on
account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual Proximate Cause- the cause, which in natural and continuous
means. (Impossible crime) sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces
83
the injury, without which the result would not have occured
PAR. 1. CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR A FELONY DIFFERENT FROM
THAT INTENDED TO BE COMMITTED The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the resulting
injury when:
Requisites:
1. There is an active force that intervened between the
1. An intentional felony has been committed; and felony committed and the resulting injury, and the
2. The wrong done to the aggrieved party be direct, active force is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign
natural and logical consequence of the felony from the felonious act of the accused; or
76
committed. 2. The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the
victim.
el que es causa de la causa es cause del mal causado- he is who is
77
the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused Death is presumed to be the natural consequence of physical
injuries inflicted when:
CAUSES WHICH MAY PRODUCE A RESULT DIFFERENT FROM THAT
WHICH HE INTENDED (STILL CRIMINALLY LIABLE) 1. The victim at the time the physical injuries were inflicted
was in normal health;
1. error in personae- Mistake in the identity of the victim;
2. Death may be expected from the physical injuries
2. aberration ictus- mistake in the blow; when the
inflicted; or
offender intending to do an injury to one person actually 84
3. Death ensued within a reasonable time.
inflicts in on another;
3. praeter intentionem- the injurious result is greater than PAR. 2. IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES. The commission of an impossible
that intended; the act exceeds the intent crime is indicative of criminal propensity or criminal tendency of
the part of the actor. Such person is a potential criminal.
Notes:
1. One is not relived from criminal liability for the natural Requisites:
consequences of one’s illegal acts, merely because one
78
does not intent to produce such consequences.
1. The act performed would be an offense against persons
2. If the wrongful act results from the imprudence,
or property;
negligence, lack of foresight or lack or skill of the
offender, his liability should be determined under Art. 2. The act was done with evil intent.
365, which defines and penalizes criminal negligence. 3. Its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or the
3. When a person has not committed a felony, he is not means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual;
79
criminally liable for the result which is not intended. and
4. No felony is committed (1) when the act or omission is 4. The act performed should not constitute a violation of
not punishable by the RPC, or (2) when the act is
another provision of the RPC.
covered by any of the justifying circumstances
enumerate in Art. 11.
Felonies against persons are:
5. When one person tries to retain the possession of a
property which is being taken by another and because
of the struggle, one was hurt, is not criminally liable 1. Parricide (Art. 246)
2. Murder (Art. 248)

80
See: People v. Bindoy, 56 Phil. 15.
76 81
US v.Brobst, 14 Phil. 310, 319; US v. Mallari, 29 Phil. 14, People v. Page, 77 SCRA 348, 355, citing People v. Toling,
19. L-27097, January 17, 1975, 62 SCRA 17, 33.
77 82
People v. Ural, No. L-30801, March 27, 1974, 56 SCRA People v. Rellin, 77 Phil. 1038.
83
138, 144). Bataclan v. Medina, 102 Phil. 181, 186, quoting 38 Am.
78
US v. Brobst, ibid. Jur. 695.
79 84
See: US v. Villanueva, 31 Phil. 412. People v. Datu Baginda, C.A., 44 O.G. 2287.
 3. Homicide (Art. 249) 4. The judge should submit a statement to the Chief
4. Infanticide (Art. 255) Executive, through the Secretary of Justice,
5. Abortion (Arts. 256-259) recommending executive clemency.
6. Duel (Arts. 260-261)
7. Physical injuries (Arts. 262-266) Notes:
8. Rape (Art. 266-A) 1. Executive clemency is recommended for the wife who
85
killed her cruel husband and because of the severety
86
Felonies against properties are: of the penalty of rape.
2. The penalties are not excessive when intended to
enforce a public policy.
1. Robbery (Arts. 294, 297-300, 302-303)
3. Courts have the duty to apply the penalty provided by
2. Brigandage (Arts. 306-307) 87
law.
3. Theft (Arts. 308, 310-311) 4. Judge has the duty to apply the law as interpreted by
88
4. Usurpation (Arts. 312-313) the SC.
nd
5. Culpable insolvency (Art. 314) 5. The 2 paragraph of Art. 5 has no application to the
89
6. Swindling and other deceits (Arts. 315-318) offense defined and penalized by a special law.
7. Arson and other crimes involing destruction (Arts. 320-
326)
2 STAGES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CRIME
8. Malicious mischief (Arts. 327-331)
1. Internal acts. Such as mere ideas in the mind of a
Evil intent- intent to do an injury to another
person. It is not punishable because mere intention
Inherent impossibility- the act intended by the offender is by its producing no effect is no more a crime than a mere
nature one of impossible accomplishment e.g. when one tries to effect without the intention is a crime.
murder a corpse 2. External acts:
a. Preparatory acts- ordinarily not punished except
Elements: when considered by law as independent crimes
(e.g. Art. 304, Possession of picklocks and similar
1. Legal impossibility; or tools)
2. Physical impossibility. b. Acts of Execution- punishable under the RPC

Note: The purpose of law in punishing the impossible crime is to ATTEMPTED FELONY. There is an attempt when the offender
suppress criminal propensity or criminal tendencies. Objectively, begins the commission of a felony directly by overt acts. He has
the offender has not committed a felony, but subjectively, he is a
not performed all the acts of execution which should produce the
criminal.
felony.

Elements:
REQUIREMENTS FOR ACTS WHICH SHOULD BE REPRESSED BUT
NOT COVEED BY THE LAW (ART. 5, PAR. 1)
1. The offender commences the commission of the felony
directly by overt acts;
1. The act committed by the accused appears not
2. He does not perform all the acts of execution which
punishable by any law;
should produce the felony;
2. The court deems it proper to repress such act;
3. The offender’s act is not stopped by his own
3. The court must render the proper decision by dismissing
spontaneous desistance; and
the case and acquitting the accused;
4. The non-performance of all acts of execution was due
4. The judge must then make a report to the Chief
to cause or accident other than his spontaneous
Executive, through the Secretary of Justice, stating the
desistance.
reasons which induce him to believe that the said act
should be made the subject of penal legislation.
Requisites of Commencement by Overt Acts
PAR. 2 REQUIREMENTS IN CASES OF EXCESSIVE PENALTIES
1. There be external acts; and
2. Such external acts have direct connection with the crime
1. The court after trial finds the accused guilty;
intended to be committed.
2. The penalty provided by law and which the court
imposes for the crime committed appears to be clearly
excessive because:
a. The accused acted with lesser degree of malice; 85
Montemayor, J., concurring in People v. Canja, 86 Phil.
and/or 518, 522-523.
b. There is no injury or the injury caused is of lesser 86
People v. Manlapaz, No. L-41819, February 28, 1979, 88
gravity. SCRA 704, 719.
3. The court should not suspend the execution of the 87
People v. Olaes, 105 Phil. 502.
sentence; 88
People v. Santos, et al., 104 Phil. 560.
89
People v. Salazar, 102 Phil. 1184.
Overt act- some physical or deed, indicating the intention to
commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or
preparation, which if carried to its complete termination following CONSUMMATED FELONY. A felony is consummated when all the
its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are
nor by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically present.
and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense
Light felonies- those infractions of law for the commission of
Indeterminate offense- one where the purpose of the offender in which the penalty of arrestor menor or a fine not exceeding 200
94
performing an act is not certain; its nature in relation to its pesos, or both, is provided.
objective is ambiguous
General Rule: They are punishable only when they have been
Subjective Phase of the Offense. It is that portion of the acts consummated.
constituting the crime, starting from the point where the offender
Exception: Light felonies committed against persons or property
begins the commission of the crime to that point where he has
are punishable even if attempted or frustrated.
still control over his acts including their natural course.
LIGHT FELONIES PUNISHED BY THE RPC
Notes:
1. Drawing or trying to draw a pistol is not an overt act of
90 1. Slight physical injuries (Art. 266)
homicide.
2. Raising a bolo as it to strike the offended party with it 2. Theft (Art. 309, pars 7-8)
91 3. Alteration of boundary marks (Art. 313)
is not an overt act of homicide.
3. Over act may not be physical activity e.g. proposal 4. Malicious Mischief (Art. 328, par. 3; Art. 329, par. 3)
consisting in making an offer of money to a public 5. Intriguing against honor (Art. 364)
officer for the purpose of corrupting him is the overt
92
act in the crime of corruption of public officer. CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT A FELONY(ART. 8)
4. Only offenders who personally execute the commission
of a crime can be guilty of attempted felony. General Rule: Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony are not
5. The desistance should be made before all the acts of punishable.
execution are performed.
6. The spontaneous desistance of a malefactor exempts
Exception: they are punishable only in the cases in which the law
him from criminal liability for the intended crime but it
specially provides a penalty therefor such as in treason, coup
does not exempt him from the crime committed by
him before desistance.
93 d’etat, and rebellion or insurrection.
7. In attempted felony, the offender never passes the
subjective phase of the offense. Reason: Conspiracy and proposal to commit a crime are only
preparatory acts, and the law regards them as innocent or at least
permissible except in rare and exceptional cases.
FRUSTRATED FELONY
I. Conspiracy
Elements: Requisites
1. 2 or more persons came to an agreement;
1. The offender performs all the acts of execution; 2. The agreement concerned the commission of
2. All the acts performed would produce the felony as a a felony; and
consequence; 3. The execution of the felony be decided upon.
3. But the felony is not produced; and
4. By reason of causes independent of the will of the Concepts of Conspiracy
perpetrator.
1. Conspiracy as a crime by itself.
Crimes which Do Not Admit of Frustrated Stage Example: conspiracy to commit rebellion or
insurrection, treason, sedition.
1. Rape 2. Conspiracy as a means of committing a crime
2. Bribery a) There is a previous and express agreement;
3. Corruption of Public officers b) The participants acted in concert or simultaneously
4. Adultery which is indicative of a meeting of the minds towards a
5. Physical injury common criminal objective. There is an implied
agreement.
Note: The stage of execution is held to be frustrated if the
wound inflicted is mortal. “The act of one is the act of all”

90
General Rule: When conspiracy is established, all who
People v. Tabago, et. Al., C.A. 48 O.G. 3419. participated therein, irrespective of the quantity or quality of his
91
US v. Simeon, 3 Phil. 688
92
US v. Gloria, 4 Phil. 341.
93 94
People v. Lizada, G.R. Nos. 143468-72, January 24, 2003. Art. 9 (3), RPC.
participation is liable equally, whether conspiracy is pre-planned 1. Where the special law provides otherwise; and
or instantaneous. 2. When the provisions of the RPC are impossible of
application, either by express provision or by necessary
Exception: Unless one or some of the conspirators committed implication. Thus, when the special law adopts the
some other crime which is not part of the intended crime. penalties imposed in the RPC, such as reclusión perpetua
Exception to The Exception: When the act constitutes a “single or reclusión temporal, the provisions of the RPC on
indivisible offense”. imposition of penalties based on stage of execution,
degree of participation, and attendance of mitigating
Notes: and aggravating circumstances may be applied by
1. Direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy,
necessary implication.
and may be inferred from the collective acts of the
accused before, during, and after the commission of
the crime. Conspiracy can be presumed from and Special law- a penal law which punishes acts not defined and
proven by acts of the accused themselves when the penalized by the Penal Code; a statute enacted by the Legislative
said acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted branch, penal in character, which is not an amendment to the
95 98
action and community of interests. RPC
2. Period of time to afford opportunity for meditation
96
and reflection, not required in conspiracy. Notes:
1. The Penal Code is not intended to supersede special
penal laws. The latter are controlling with regard to
II. Proposal offenses therein specially punished.
Requisites 2. Art. 6 of the RPC cannot be applied to offenses
99
1. A person has decided to commit a felony; and punished by special laws.
2. He proposes its execution to some other 3. The attempted or the frustrated stage of the execution
of an offense penalized by a special law is not
person or persons.
punishable, unless the special law provides a penalty
100
therefor.
There is no criminal proposal when: 4. The special law has to fix penalties for attempted and
frustrated crime.
1. The person is not determined to commit a felony; 5. When a special law covers the mere attempt to commit
2. There is no decided, concrete and formal proposal; or the crime defined by it, the attempted stage is
101
3. It is not the execution of a felony that is proposed. punishable by the same provided by that law.
6. Art. 10 is not applicable to punish an accomplice under
102
CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES ACCORDING TO GRAVITY (ART. 9) the special law.
7. Plea of guilty is not mitigating in illegal possession of
103
Importance of Classification firearms punished by special law.
8. No accessory penalty unless the special law provides
104
1. To determine whether these felonies can be complexed therefor.
or not. 9. Aggravating circumstances cannot be appreciated in
105
offenses punished by special laws.
2. To determine the prescription of the crime and the
10. Special laws amending the RPC are subject to its
prescription of the penalty. provisions.
106

Grave Felonies –those to which the law attaches the capital

punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are
afflictive, in accordance with Art. 25 of the Code.

Less Grave Felonies –those which the law punishes with penalties
which in their maximum period are correctional, in accordance
with Art. 25 of the Code.

Light Felonies – those infractions of law for the commission of

which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200
pesos, or both, is provided. 97
Dissent of Justice Perfecto, People v. Gonzales, 82 Phil.
307.
OFFENSES NOT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE RPC (ART. 98
US v. Serapio, 23 Phil. 584.
10) 99
People v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 99838, October 23, 1997.
100
97 US v. Lopez Basa, 8 Phil. 89.
General Rule: RPC provisions are supplementary to special laws. 101
People v. Jolliffe, 105 Phil. 677.
Exceptions: 102
Dissenting Opinion, People v. Padaong, 10 C.A. Rep. 979.
103
People v. Noble, 77 Phil. 1086.
104
People v. Santos, 44 O.G. 1289.
105
People v. Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233, June 8, 2004.
95 106
People v. Buntag, G.R. No. 123070, April 14, 2004. People v. Macatanda, No. L-51368, Nov. 6, 1981, 109
96
People v. Monroy, et. Al., 104 Phil. 759. SCRA 35, 40-41.
 CHAPTER TWO Notes:
1. An attack with fist blows may imperil one’s safety from
Imputability- the quality by which an act may be ascribed to a physical injuries. Such an attack is unlawful
113
person as its author or owner; the act committed has been freely aggression.
and consciously done and may, therefore, be put down to the 2. Insulting words addressed to the accused, no matter
how objectionable they may have been, without
doer as his very own
physical assault, could not constitute unlawful
114
aggression.
Responsibility- the obligation of suffering the consequences of
3. A light push on the head with the hand does not
crime; the obligation of taking the panal and civil consequences of constitute unlawful aggression.
115

the crime 4.
116
A slap on the face is an unlawful aggression because
the face represents a person and his dignity, slapping it
Guilt- an element of responsibility, for a man cannot be made to 117
is a serious personal attack.
118
answer for the consequences of a crime unless he is guilty 5. Mere belief of an impending attack is not sufficient.
119
6. Foot-kick greeting is not unlawful aggression.
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES (ART. 11). Those where the act of a 7. A strong retaliation for an injury or threat may amount
120
person is said to be in accordance with law, so that such person is to an unlawful aggression.
121
deemed not to have transgressed the law and is free from both 8. Retaliaton is not a justifying circumstance.
9. The attack made by the deceased and the killing of the
criminal and civil liability
deceased by defendant should succeed each other
122
without appreciable interval of time.
General Rule: There is no civil liability
10. When the killing of the deceased by the accused was
after the attack made by the deceased, the accused
Exception: Art. 11(4), where the civil liability is borne by the must have no time nor occasion for deliberation and
persons benefited by the act cool thinking.
11. The unlawful aggression must come from the person
I. Self-defense 123
who was attacked by the accused.
Requisites 12. A public officer exceeding his authority may become an
124
1. Unlawful aggression unlawful aggressor.
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed 13. Improbability of the deceased being the aggressor
125
belies the claim of self-defense.
to prevent or repel it; and
14. The fact that the accused declined to give any
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of
statement when he surrendered to a policeman is
the person defending himself. inconsistent with the plea of self-defense.
126

15. Physical fact may determine whether the accused

Unlawful aggression- equivalent to actual physical assault or at 127
acted in self-defense.
107
least threatened assault of an immediate and imminent kind 16. When the aggressor flees, unlawful aggression no
128
which must be offensive and positively strong, showing the longer exists.
wrongful intent to cause an injury
108 17. No unlawful aggression when there is agreement to
fight because each of the protagonists is at once
Notes: assailant and assaulted, and neither can invoke the
129
1. The presence of unlawful aggression is a condition sine right of self-defense.
qua non, which means it is an indispensable
109
requisite. 113
People v. Montalbo, 56 Phil. 443
2. There is unlawful aggression when the peril to one’s 114
life, limb, or right is either actual or imminent.
110 US v. Carrero, 9 Phil. 544.
115
People v. Yuman, 61 Phil. 786.
116
People v. Roxas, 58 Phil. 733.
117
Peril to one’s life People v. Sabio, G.R. No. L-23734, April 27, 1967.
118
People v. Bautista, 254 SCRA 621.
119
1. Actual- the danger must be present, that is, actually in People v. Sabio, ibid.
111 120
existence US v. Carrero, ibid.
121
2. Imminent- the danger is on the point of happening; it is People v. Cujurao, G.R. No. 122767, January 20, 2004,
not required that the attack already begins, for it may 420 SCRA 207, 214-215.
122
be too late
112 US v. Ferrer, 1 Phil. 56.
123
People v. Gutierez, 53 Phil. 609, 611.
124
People v. Hernandez, 59 Phil. 343.
125
People v. Diaz, No. L-24002, January 21, 1974, 55 SCRA
178, 184; People v. Ardisa, No. L-29351, January 23, 1974,
107
People v. Alconga, 78 Phil. 366. 55 SCRA 245, 253-254.
108 126
US v. Guysayco, 13 Phil. 292, 295. People v. Manansala, No. L-23514, February 17, 1970, 31
109
People v. Sazon, G.R. No. 89864, September 18, 1990, SCRA 401, 404.
127
189 SCRA 700, 704. People v. Dorico, No. L-31568, November 29, 1973, 54
110
People v. Sumicad, 56 Phil. 643, 647. SCRA 172, 184.
111 128
US v. Jose Laurel, 22 Phil. 252. People v. Alconga, Supra.
112 129
People v. Cabungcal, 51 Phil. 803. People v. Quinto, 55 Phil. 116.
 18. Aggression which is ahead of the stipulated time and exist, there would be no necessity for any course of
130
place is unlawful. action to take as there is nothing to prevent or repel.
19. One who voluntarily joined a fight cannot claim self- a. Place and occasion of the assault considered
131
defense. b. The darkness of the night and the surprise which
143
characterized the assault considered
2. Necessity of the Means Used. The means employed by
“Stand ground when in the right” - the law does not require a
the person making a defense must be rationally
person to retreat when his assailant is rapidly advancing upon him
132 necessary to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression.
with a deadly weapon.

Unlawful Aggression in Defense of Other Rights Notes:

1. When only minor physical injuries are inflicted after
unlawful aggression has ceased to exist, there is still
1. Defense of right to chastity. Raping a woman
self-defense if mortal wounds were inflicted at the
constitutes an attack upon her honor and, therefore, an time the requisites of self-defense were present.
144
133
unlawful aggression. Placing of hand by a man on the 2. The person defending is not expected to control his
134 145
woman’s upper thigh is unlawful aggression. blow.
2. Defense of property. It can only be invoked when it is 3. In repelling or preventing an unlawful aggression, the
coupled with an attack on the person of one entrusted one defending must aim at the assailant, and not
146
with said property.
135 indiscriminately fire his deadly weapon.
3. Defense of home. Violent entry to another’s house. The
owner of the house needs not wait for a blow before
136 Test of Reasonableness. The means employed depends upon the
repelling the aggression, as the blow may prove fatal.
nature and quality of the:

Notes: 1. weapon used by the aggressor;

1. The belief of the accused may be considered in
137 2. his physical condition, character, size and other
determining the existence of unlawful aggression.
2. There is self-defense even if the aggressor used a toy circumstances;
pistol, provided the accused believed it was a real 3. those of the person defending himself; and
138
gun. 4. also the place and occasion of the assault.
3. A mere threatening or intimidating aggression, not
preceded by an outward and material aggression, Is Note: Perfect equality between the weapon used by the one
not unlawful aggression, because it is required that the defending himself and that of the aggressor is not required,
act be offensive and positively strong, showing the because the person assaulted does not have sufficient tranquility
139
wrongful intent of the aggressor to cause an injury. of mind to think, to calculate and to choose which weapon to
147
4. When intent to attack is manifest, picking up a weapon use.
140
is sufficient unlawful aggression.
5. Aggression must be real, or at least, imminent and not
141
merely imaginary. rd
The 3 Requisite of Self-Defense Considered Present
6. An aggression that is expected is still real, provided it is
142
imminent. 1. When no provocation at all was given to the aggressor
by the person defending himself; or
2. When, even if a provocation was given, it was not
Reasonableness of the Necessity Depends Upon the
sufficient; or
Circumstances
3. When even of the provocation was sufficient, it was not
1. Necessity of the Course of Action Taken. If there was no given by the person defending himself; or
unlawful aggression, or if there was, it has ceased to 4. When even if a provocation was given by the person
defending himself, it was not proximate and immediate
148
to the act of aggression.

130
Severino Justo v. CA, 53 O.G. 4083. Note: The provocation must be sufficient, which means it should
131
People v. Kruse, C.A., 64 O.G. 12632. be proportionate to the act of aggression and adequate to stir
132 149
US v. Domen, 37 Phil. 57. the aggressor to its commission.
133
People v. De la Cruz, 61 Phil. 344.
134
People v. Jaurigue, 76 Phil. 174.
135 143
People v. Apolinar, C.A., 38 O.G. 2870. People v. Lara, 48 Phil. 153.
136 th 144
People v. Mirabiles, 45 O.G., 5 Supp., 277. People v. Del Pilar, C.A. 44 O.G. 596.
137 145
Lloyd’s Report, p. 160, cited in US v. Ah Chong, 15 Phil. US v. Macasaet, 35 Phil. 229; People v. Espina, C.A., 49
502-503. O.G. 983.
138 146
People v. Boral, 11 C.A. Rep. 914. People v. Galacgac, C.A., 54 O.G. 1027.
139 147
US v. Guy-sayco, 13 Phil. 292. People v. Padua, C.A. 40 O.G. 998.
140 148
People v. Javier, 46 O.G. No. 7, July, 1950. Decisions of the SC of Spain of March 5, 1902 and of
141
People v. De la Cruz, ibid. April 20, 1906.
142 149
US v. Batungbacal, 37 Phil. 382. People v. Alconga, 78 Phil. 366.
 rd
Under Republic Act 9262, known as the Anti- Violence against Note: The 3 requisite would be lacking if such person was
Women and their Children Act of 2004. Victim-survivors who are prompted by his grudge against the assailant, because the
150
found by the courts to be suffering from Battered Woman alleged defense of the stranger would be only a pretext.
Syndrome do not incur any criminal or civil liability
notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying
IV. Avoidance of Greater Evil or Injury
circumstances of self-defense under the RPC. (Sec. 26, R.A. No.
Requisites
9262) The law provides for an additional justifying circumstance.
1. The evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
Battered Woman Syndrome- refers to a scientifically defined 2. The injury feared be greater than that done to
pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in avoid it; and
women living in battering relationships as a result of cumulative 3. There be no other practical and less harmful
abuse. means of preventing it.

Battery- refers to any act of inflicting physical harm upon the Notes:
woman or her child resulting to physical and psychological or 1. The greater evil should not be brought about by the
negligence or imprudent of the actor.
emotional distress.
2. When the accused was not avoiding any evil, he cannot
invoke the justifying circumstance of this paragraph.
II. Defense of Relatives
3. The evil which brought about the greater evil must not
Requisites result from a violation of law by the actor.
1. Unlawful aggression; 4. There is civil liability under this paragraph, but such is
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed borne by the persons benefited.
to prevent or repel it; and
3. In case the provocation was given by the
person attacked, the one making a defense V. Fulfillment of Duty of Lawful Exercise of Right or
had not part therein. Office
Requisites
Reason. It is founded not only upon a humanitarian sentiment, 1. The accused acted in the performance of a
but also upon the impulse of blood which impels men to rush, on duty in the lawful exercise of a right or office;
the occasion of great perils, to the rescue of those close to them and
by ties of blood. 2. The injury caused of the offense committed be
the necessary consequence of the due
Relatives that can be Defended performance of duty or the lawful exercise of
such right or office.
1. Spouse;
2. Ascendants; Notes:
3. Descendants; 1. Shooting an offender who refused to surrender is
151
4. Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and sisters, or justified.
relatives by affinity in the same degrees; or 2. Shooting a thief who refused to be arrested is not
152
5.
th
Relatives by consanguinity within the 4 civil degree. justified. No violence or unnecessary force shall be
used in making an arrest, and the person arrested shall
Relatives by affinity- because of marriage e.g. parents-in-law, son not be subject to any greater restraint than is
153
necessary for his detention.
or daughter-in-law, and brother or sister-in-law 154
3. It should be a legitimate performance of duty.
4. If in protecting his possession of the property he
Relatives by consanguinity- blood relatives e.g. brothers and
st rd
injured (not seriously) the one trying to get it from him,
sisters (2 degree), uncle and niece or aunt and nephew (3 he is justified under this paragraph because the owner
th
degree), and first cousins (4 degree) or lawful possessor of a thing may use such force as
may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an
Note: The fact that the relative defended gave provocation is actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or
155
immaterial. usurpation of his property.
5. The actual invasion of property may consist of a mere
disturbance of possession or of a real dispossession.
III. Defense of Stranger
Requisites
1. Unlawful Aggression;
2. Reasonable Necessity of the means employed
150
to prevent or repel it; and People v. Cabellon and Gaviola, 51 Phil. 851.
151
3. The person defending be not induced by People v. Gayrama, 60 Phil. 796.
152
revenge, resentment, or other evil motive. People v. Bentres, C.A. 49 O.G. 4919.
153
Rule 113, Sec. 2 (2), Rules of Court.
154
Strangers. These are any persons not included in the enumeration People v. Cabrera, No. L-31178, October 28, 1980, 100
of relatives mentioned in paragraph 2 of Art. 11 SCRA 424, 431.
155
Art. 429, Civil Code.
 VI. Obedience to an Order Issued for Some Lawful trial, he is criminally liable. The trial, however, will be
Purpose suspended until the mental capacity of the accused be
Requisites restored to afford him a fair trial.
1. An order has been issued by a superior; 5. The evidence of insanity must refer to the time
preceding the act under prosecution of to the very
2. Such order must be for some lawful purpose;
moment of its execution. If the evidence points to
and insanity subsequent to the commission of the crime,
3. The means used by the subordinate to carry the accused cannot be acquitted. He is presumed to be
162
out said order is lawful. sane when he committed it.
6. Dementia praecox or schizophrenia is covered by the
163
Notes: term insanity.
1. Both the person who gives the order and the person 7. Kleptomania is covered by insanity if the unlawful act
who executes it, must be acting within the limitations of the accused is due to his mental disease or a mental
156
prescribed by law. defect, producing an irresistible impulse.
2. When the order is not a lawful purpose, the 8. Epilepsy may be covered by insanity if the unlawful act
subordinate who oboyed it is criminally liable unless he was committed under the influence of an epileptic
164
is not aware of the illegality of the order and he is not fit.
157
negligent. 9. Feeblemindedness is not imbecibility because the
165
offender could distinguish right from wrong.
166
10. Pedophillia is not insanity.
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES (ART. 12). These are grounds for 11. Amnesia is not proof of mental condition of the
167
exemption from punishment because there is wanting in the accused.
agent of the crime any of the conditions which make the act
voluntary or negligent.
Other Cases of Lack of Intelligence
Reason: The exemption is based on the complete absence of 168
1. Committing a crime while in a dream
intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or on the absence of
2. Committing a crime while suffering from malignant
negligence on the part of the accused. 169
malaria
I. An Imbecile or an Insane Person, Unless the Latter
II. A Person Under 9 Years of Age. This was amended
has Acted during a Lucid Interval
by RA No. 9344, otherwise known as “Juvenile
Imbecile vs. Insane. Imbecile is exempt in all cases from criminal Justice and Welfare Act of 2006,” which raised the
liability, the insane is not so exempt if it can be shown that he age of absolute irresponsibility form 9 to 15 years
acted during a lucid interval. During lucid interval, the insane acts of age. A child 15 years of age or under at the time
with intelligence. of the commission of the offense shall be exempt
170
from criminal liability. However the child shall be
171
Imbecile- one who, while advanced in age, has a mental subject to an intervention program.
development comparable to that of children between 2 and 7 III. A Person Over 9 years of Age and Under 15 Unless
years of age; one who is deprived completely of reason or He Has Acted with Discernment, in which Case,
discernment and freedom of the will at the time of committing such Minor Shall be Proceeded Against in
158
the crime. Accordance with Art. 80. This was impliedly
repealed by RA No. 9344. A child above 15 years
Notes: but below 18 years of age shall be exempt from
1. To constitute insanity, there must be complete criminal liability and subjected to an intervention
deprivation of intelligence or that there be a total
159 program, unless he/she has acted with
deprivation of the freedom of the will.
2. Mere abnormality of mental faculties is not enough, discernment, in which case, such child shall be
especially if the offender has not lost consciousness of subject to the appropriate proceeding in
160
his acts. At most, it is only a mitigating circumstance. accordance with the Act. The exemption from
3. The presumption is always in favor of sanity and the criminal liability herein established does not
161
burden of proof of insanity is on the defense. include exemption from civil liability.
4. When a person was sane at the time of the commission
of the crime but he becomes insane at the time of the
162
US v. Guevarra, 27 Phil. 547, 550.
156 163
People v. Wilson and Dolores, 52 Phil. 919. People v. Bonoan, supra.
157 164
People v. Beronilla, 96 Phil. 566. People v. Mancao and Aguilar, 49 Phil. 887.
158 165
People v. Ambal, No. L-52688, October 17, 1980, 100 People v. Formigones, supra.
166
SCRA 325, 333, citing People v. Formigones, 87 Phil. 658, People v. Diaz, G.R. No. 130210, December 8, 1999.
167
660. People v. Tabugoca, G.R. No. 125334, January 28, 1998.
159 168
People v. Formigones, ibid. People v. Taneo, 58 Phil. 225.
160 169
Art. 13 (9), RPC. People v. Lacena, 69 Phil. 350.
161 170
People v. Aquino, G.R. No. 87084, June 27, 1990, 186 Sec. 6, RA No. 9344.
171
SCRA 851, 858, citing cases. Sec. 20, ibid.
Periods of Criminal Responsibility Accident- something that happens outside the sway of our will,
and although it comes about through some act of our will, lies
Absolute Irresponsibility 15 years and below beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences
Conditional Responsibility 15 years and 1 day to 18 years
Full Responsibility 18 years or over (adolescence) Notes:
to 70 (maturity) 1. Accident presupposes lack of intention to commit the
181
Mitigated Responsibility 15 years and 1 day to 18 years, wrong done.
the offender acting with
discernment; over 70 years of
age. V. A Person Who Acts Under the Compulsion of an
Irresistible Force
Requisites
Child in Conflict with the Law- a person who at the time of the
1. The compulsion is by means of physical force;
commission of the offense is below 18 years old but not less than
172 2. The physical force must be irresistible; and
15 years and one day old rd
3. The irresistible force must come from a 3
person.
Discernment- the capacity of the child at the time of the
commission of the offense to understand the differences between
173 Notes:
right and wrong and the consequences of the wrongful act
1. Before a force can be considered to be an irresistible
one, it must produce such an effect upon the individual
Intent vs. Discernment. Both are products of the mental that, in spite of all resistance, it reduces him to a mere
processes within a person, “intent” refers to the desired act of the instrument and, as such, incapable of committing a
person while “discernment” relates to the moral significance that crime. It must be such that, in spite of the resistance of
174
a person ascribes to the said act. the person on whom it operates, it compels his
members to act and his mind to obey. Such a force can
Notes: never consist in anything which springs primarily from
1. Discernment may be shown by the manner the crime the man himself; it must be a force which acts upon
rd 182
175
was committed , or the conduct of the offenders him from the outside and by a 3 person.
183
after its commission.
176 2. Passion or obfuscation cannot be irresistible force.
2. The child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the 3. The force must be irresistible to reduce the actor to a
presumption of minority and shall enjoy the rights of a mere instrument who acts not only without will but
child in conflict with the law until proven to be 18 against his will. The duress, force, fear or intimidation
years old or older at the time of the commission of the must be present, imminent and impending and of such
177
crime. In case of doubt as to the age of the child, it a nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of
shall be resolved in his/her favor.
178 death or serious bodily harm if the act is not done. A
3. The allegation of “with intent to kill” in the information threat of futre injury is not enough. The compulsion
is sufficient allegation of discernment.
179 must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity
to the accused for escape or self-defense in equal
184
combat.
IV. Accident Without Fault or Intention of Causing It
Requisites
VI. Uncontrollable Fear
1. A person is performing a lawful act;
Requisites
2. With due care;
1. The threat which causes the fear is of an evil
3. He causes an injury to another by mere
greater than or at least equal to, that which he
accident; and
is required to commit; and
4. Without fault or intention of causing it.
2. It promises an evil of such gravity and
Notes: imminence that the ordinary man would have
1. Striking another with a gun in self-defense, even if it succumbed to it.
fired and seriously injured the assailant, is a lawful act.
2. The person performing a lawful act must do so with Notes:
180
due care, without fault or negligence. 1. Duress as a valid defense should be based on real,
imminent, or reasonable fear for one’s life or limb and
185
should not be speculative, fanciful, or remote fear.
172
Sec. 1, A.M. No. 01-1-18-SC, Revised Rule on Children in
Conflict with the Law.
173
Sec. 4J, ibid.
174 181
Guevara v. Almodovar, supra, at 481. People v. Gatela, 17 CAR 1047, 1055.
175 182
People v. Magsino, G.R. No. 40176, May 3, 1934. US v. Elicanal, 35 Phil. 209.
176 183
People v. Alcabao, C.A., 44 O.G. 5006. December of SC of Spain, March 15, 1876.
177 184
Sec. 5, ibid. People v. Loreno, No. L-54414, July 9, 1984, 130 SCRA
178
Sec. 7, R.A. No. 9344. 311, 321-322, citing People v. Villanueva, 104 Phil. 450.
179 185
People v. Neito, 103 Phil. 1133. People v. Borja, No. L- 22947, July 12, 1979, 91 SCRA
180
People v. San Juan, C.A. 65 O.G. 11264. 340, citing People v. Quilloy, 88 Phil. 53.