Definition of Criminal Law

(1) Criminal law is that branch of municipal law which defines crimes, treats of their nature and
provides for their punishment.
(2) It is that branch of public substantive law which defines offenses and prescribes their
penalties. It is substantive because it defines the state’s right to inflict punishment and the liability
of the offenders. It is public law because it deals with the relation of the individual with the state.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA

Violations of the Revised Penal Code are referred to as malum in se, which literally means, that the act is
inherently evil or bad or per se wrongful. On the other hand, violations of special laws are generally
referred to as malum prohibitum.

Note, however, that not all violations of special laws are mala prohibita. While intentional felonies are
always mala in se, it does not follow that prohibited acts done in violation of special laws are always mala
prohibita. Even if the crime is punished under a special law, if the act punished is one which is inherently
wrong, the same is malum in se, and, therefore, good faith and the lack of criminal intent is a valid
defense; unless it is the product of criminal negligence or culpa.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PHILIPPINE CRIMINAL LAW

1. Generality

Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in the
Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations (Art. 14,
NCC).

(1) The law is binding upon all persons who reside or sojourn in the Philippines, irrespective of age, sex,
color, creed, or personal circumstances.

(2) Generality of criminal law means that the criminal law of the country governs all persons within the
country regardless of their race, belief, sex, or creed. However, it is subject to certain exceptions brought
about by international agreement. Ambassadors, chiefs of states and other diplomatic officials are
immune from the application of penal laws when they are in the country where they are not within the
territorial waters of a foreign country, Philippine laws shall govern.

2. Territoriality

(1) The law is applicable to all crimes committed within the limits of Philippine territory, which includes its
atmosphere, interior waters and maritime zone (Art. 2).

(2) Territoriality means that the penal laws of the country have force and effect only within its territory. It
cannot penalize crimes committed outside the same. This is subject to certain exceptions brought about
by international agreements and practice. The territory of the country is not limited to the land where its
sovereignty resides but includes also its maritime and interior waters as well as its atmosphere.

(3) Terrestrial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over land. Fluvial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction
exercised over maritime and interior waters. Aerial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over the
atmosphere.

Exceptions to the application of the Code:

(1) The Philippine ship or airship must be duly registered under the Philippine laws. Such vessel when
beyond the maritime zone is considered as extension of Philippine national territory.

(2) The offense committed by a public officer abroad, like the disbursing official of a Philippine Embassy,
must refer to the discharge of his functions, like bribery or malversation.

(3) The reason for the exception regarding crimes against national security and the law of the nations is to
safeguard the existence of the state. Piracy is triable anywhere. Piracy and mutiny are crimes against the
law of nations, while treason and espionage are crimes against the national security of the state.

3. Prospectivity / irretrospectivity

(1) No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.

(2) Penal Laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony, who is
not a habitual criminal.
(3) No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission.

Constitutional limitations on the power of Congress to enact penal laws in the Bill of Rights

Equal protection

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be
denied the equal protection of the laws (Sec. 1, Art. III).

(1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.

(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the
witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses
and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his
failure to appear is unjustifiable (Sec. 14, Art. III).

(3) No person or class of persons shall be deprived to the same protection of the laws which is
enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same place and in like circumstances.

Due process

The law must observe both substantive and procedural due process.No person shall be held to answer
for a criminal offense without due process of law.

To satisfy due process, official actions must be responsive to the supremacy of reasons and the dictates
of justice. It is satisfied if the following conditions are present:

1. There must be a court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter
before it;
2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired by it over the person of the defendant or over the property
which is the subject of proceedings;
3. The defendant must be given an opportunity to he heard;
4. Judgment must be rendered lawful hearing.
 In criminal proceedings, due process requires that the accused be informed why he is being
proceeded against and what charge he has to meet, with his conviction being made to rest on
evidence that is not tainted with falsity after full opportunity for him to rebut it and the sentence
being imposed in accordance with a valid law. It is assumed, therefore, that the court that renders
the decision is one of competent jurisdiction (Ang Tibay vs. CA, 69 Phil. 635).

Bill of attainder

(1) No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted (Sec. 22, Art. III, Constitution).
(2) A bill of attainder applies only to statutes and a statute becomes a bill of attainder when it applies
either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group inflicting punishment on them
amounting to a deprivation of any right, civil or political, without judicial trial. Stated otherwise, the singling
out of a definite class, the imposition of a burden on it, and a legislative intent, suffice to stigmatize a
statute as a bill of attainder (Montegro vs. Castañeda, 91 Phil. 882).

(3) A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial; the essence of which is the
substantial legislative fiat for a judicial determination of guilt.

Ex post facto law

(1) Penalties that may be imposed. — No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law
prior to its commission (Art. 21, RPC).

(2) Characteristics of ex post facto law: (a) Refers to criminal matters; (b) Prejudicial to the accused; (c)
Retroactive in application.

(3) A law to be called ex post facto must refer to penal matters, retroactive in application and prejudicial
to the accused.

(4) Ex post facto law is one which:

(a) Provides for the infliction of punishment upon a person for an act done which, when it was
committed, was innocent;

(b) Aggravates a crime or makes it greater than when it was committed;

(c) Changes the punishment or inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime
when it was committed;

(d) Changes the rules of evidence and receives less or different testimony then was required at
the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict the offender; Assuming to regulate
civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes a penalty or the disposition of a right which when
done was lawful; Deprives the person s accused of crime of some lawful protection to which they
have become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or of the
proclamation of amnesty

FELONIES

Art. 3. Definitions. — Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos).
Felonies are committed not only be 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.
CLASSIFICATIONS OF FELONIES

(1) According to the manner of their commission

Under Article 3, they are classified as, intentional felonies or those committed with deliberate intent; and
culpable felonies or those resulting from negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill.

(2) According to the stages of their execution

Under Article 6., felonies are classified as attempted felony when the offender commences the
commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should
produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance;
frustrated felony when the offender commences the commission of a felony as a consequence but which
would produce the felony as a consequence but which nevertheless do not produce the felony by reason
of causes independent of the perpetrator; and, consummated felony when all the elements necessary for
its execution are present.

(3) According to their gravity

Under Article 9, felonies are classified as grave felonies or those to which attaches the capital punishment
or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive; less grave felonies or those to which the law
punishes with penalties which in their maximum period was correccional; and light felonies or those
infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty is arresto menor.

ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Art. 4. Criminal liability. — Criminal liability

shall be incurred:
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which
he intended.
2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for
the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means.

The rationale of the rule is found in the doctrine, 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).

Elements:

(a) A felony is committed;

(b) The wrong done must be the direct, natural and logical consequence of felony committed even though
different from that intended.

Article 4, paragraph 1 presupposes that the act done is the proximate cause of the resulting felony. It
must be the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the felonious act.

Proximate cause is that cause which sets into motion other causes and which unbroken by any efficient
supervening cause produces a felony without which such felony could not have resulted. He who is the
cause of the cause is the evil of the cause. As a general rule, the offender is criminally liable for all the
consequences of his felonious act, although not intended, if the felonious act is the proximate cause of
the felony or resulting felony. A proximate cause is not necessarily the immediate cause. This may be a
cause which is far and remote from the consequence which sets into motion other causes which resulted
in the felony.
Wrongful act done be different from what was intended

Aberration ictus – Mistake in the blow

1. In aberratio ictus, a person directed the blow at an intended victim, but because of poor aim, that
blow landed on somebody else. In aberratio ictus, the intended victim as well as the actual victim
are both at the scene of the crime.
2. Distinguish this from error in personae, where the victim actually received the blow, but he was
mistaken for another who was not at the scene of the crime. The distinction is important because
the legal effects are not the same.
3. In aberratio ictus, the offender delivers the blow upon the intended victim, but because of poor
aim the blow landed on somebody else.

To be more specific, let us take for example A and B. A and B are enemies. As soon as A saw B
at a distance, A shot at B. However, because of poor aim, it was not B who was hit but C. You
can readily see that there is only one single act – the act of firing at B. In so far as B is concerned,
the crime at least is attempted homicide or attempted murder, as the case may be, if there is any
qualifying circumstance. As far as the third party C is concerned, if C were killed, crime is
homicide. If C was only wounded, the crime is only physical injuries. You cannot have attempted
or frustrated homicide or murder as far as C is concerned, because as far as C is concern, there
is no intent to kill. As far as that other victim is concerned, only physical injuries – serious or less
serious or slight.

Error in personae – Mistake in identity

1. In error in personae, the intended victim was not at the scene of the crime. It was the actual victim
upon whom the blow was directed, but he was not really the intended victim. There was really a
mistake in identity.
2. This is very important because Article 49 applies only in a case of error in personae and not in a
case of abberatio ictus.
3. In Article 49, when the crime intended is more serious than the crime actually committed or vice-
versa, whichever crime carries the lesser penalty, that penalty will be the one imposed. But it will
be imposed in the maximum period. For instance, the offender intended to commit homicide, but
what was actually committed with parricide because the person he killed by mistake was
somebody related to him within the degree of relationship in parricide. In such a case, the
offender will be charged with parricide, but the penalty that would be imposed will be that of
homicide. This is because under Article 49, the penalty for the lesser crime will be the one
imposed, whatever crime the offender is prosecuted under. In any event, the offender is
prosecuted for the crime committed not for the crime intended.

Praeter intentionem

1. In People v. Gacogo, 53 Phil 524, two persons quarreled. They had fist blows. The other started
to run away and Gacogo went after him, struck him with a fist blow at the back of the head.
Because the victim was running, he lost balance, he fell on the pavement and his head struck the
cement pavement. He suffered cerebral hemorrhage. Although Gacogo claimed that he had no
intention of killing the victim, his claim is useless. Intent to kill is only relevant when the victim did
not die. This is so because the purpose of intent to kill is to differentiate the crime of physical
injuries from the crime of attempted homicide or attempted murder or frustrated homicide or
frustrated murder. But once the victim is dead, you do not talk of intent to kill anymore. The best
evidence of intent to kill is the fact that victim was killed. Although Gacogo was convicted for
homicide for the death of the person, he was given the benefit of paragraph 3 of Article13, that is,
" that the offender did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that committed”.
 2. This is the consequence of praeter intentionem. In short, praeter intentionem is mitigating,
particularly covered by paragraph 3 of Article 13. In order however, that the situation may qualify
as praeter intentionem, there must be a notable disparity between the means employed and the
resulting felony. If there is no disparity between the means employed by the offender and the
resulting felony, this circumstance cannot be availed of. It cannot be a case of praeter
intentionem because the intention of a person is determined from the means resorted to by him in
committing the crime.

IMPOSSIBLE CRIME Exams

1. An impossible crime is an act which would be an offense against person or property were it not
for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of
inadequate or ineffectual means.

Example: Accused was a houseboy in a house where only a spinster resides. It is customary for
the spinster to sleep nude because her room was warm. It was also the habit of the houseboy
that whenever she enters her room, the houseboy would follow and peek into the keyhole. Finally,
when the houseboy could no longer resist the urge, he climbed into the ceiling, went inside the
room of his master, placed himself on top of her and abused her, not knowing that she was
already dead five minutes earlier. Is an impossible crime committed?

Yes. Before, the act performed by the offender could not have been a crime against person or
property. The act performed would have been constituted a crime against chastity. An impossible
crime is true only if the act done by the offender constitutes a crime against person or property.
However, with the new rape law amending the Revised Penal Code and classifying rape as a
crime against persons, it is now possible that an impossible crime was committed. Note, however,
that the crime might also fall under the Revised Administrative Code – desecrating the dead.

Under Article 4, paragraph 2, impossible crime is true only when the crime committed would have
been against person or against property. It is, therefore, important to know what are the crimes
under Title VIII, against persons and those against property under Title X. An impossible crime is
true only to any of those crimes.

STAGES OF EXECUTION

Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. — Consummated felonies as well as those
which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.

A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are
present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of
causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.

There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly or over acts,
and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some
cause or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance.

Art. 7 When light felonies are punishable. — Light felonies are punishable only when they have been
consummated, with the exception of those committed against person or property.

The classification of stages of a felony in Article 6 are true only to crimes under the Revised Penal Code.
This does not apply to crimes punished under special laws. But even certain crimes which are punished
under the Revised Penal Code do not admit of these stages.
The purpose of classifying penalties is to bring about a proportionate penalty and equitable punishment.
The penalties are graduated according to their degree of severity. The stages may not apply to all kinds of
felonies. There are felonies which do not admit of division.

Formal crimes

Formal crimes are crimes which are consummated in one instance. For example, in oral defamation,
there is no attempted oral defamation or frustrated oral defamation; it is always in the consummated
stage.

So also, in illegal exaction under Article 213 is a crime committed when a public officer who is authorized
to collect taxes, licenses or impose for the government, shall demand an amount bigger than or different
from what the law authorizes him to collect. Under sub-paragraph a of Article 213 on Illegal exaction, the
law uses the word “demanding”. Mere demanding of an amount different from what the law authorizes
him to collect will already consummate a crime, whether the taxpayer pays the amount being demanded
or not. Payment of the amount being demanded is not essential to the consummation of the crime.

The difference between the attempted stage and the frustrated stage lies on whether the offender has
performed all the acts of execution for the accomplishment of a felony. Literally, under the article, if the
offender has performed all the acts of execution which should produce the felony as a consequence but
the felony was not realized, then the crime is already in the frustrated stage. If the offender has not yet
performed all the acts of execution – there is yet something to be performed – but he was not able to
perform all the acts of execution due to some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance, then you have an attempted felony.

You will notice that the felony begins when the offender performs an overt act. Not any act will mark the
beginning of a felony, and therefore, if the act so far being done does not begin a felony, criminal liability
correspondingly does not begin. In criminal law, there is such a thing as preparatory act. These acts do
not give rise to criminal liability.

An overt act is that act which if allowed to continue in its natural course would definitely result into a
felony.

In the attempted stage, the definition uses the word “directly”. This is significant. In the attempted stage,
the acts so far performed may already be a crime or it may be just an ingredient of another crime. The
word "directly’" emphasizes the requirement that the attempted felony is that which is directly linked to the
overt act performed by the offender, not the felony he has in his mind.

In criminal law, you are not allowed to speculate, not to imagine what crime is intended, but apply the
provisions of the law of the facts given.

When a person starts entering the dwelling of another, that act is already trespassing. But the act of
entering is an ingredient of robbery with force upon things. You could only hold him liable for attempted
robbery when he has already completed all acts performed by him directly leading to robbery. The act of
entering alone is not yet indicative of robbery although that may be what he may have planned to commit.
In law, the attempted stage is only that overt act which is directly linked to the felony intended to be
committed.

In US v. Namaja, the accused was arrested while he was detaching some of the wood panels of a store.
He was already able to detach two wood panels. To a layman, the only conclusion that will come to your
mind is that this fellow started to enter the store to steal something. He would not be there just to sleep
there. But in criminal law, since the act of removing the panel indicates only at most the intention to enter.
He can only be prosecuted for trespass. The removal of the panelling is just an attempt to trespass, not
an attempt to rob. Although, Namaja was prosecuted for attempted robbery, the Supreme Court held it is
only attempted trespass because that is the crime that can be directly linked to his act of removing the
wood panel.

Desistance

Desistance on the part of the offender negates criminal liability in the attempted stage. Desistance is true
only in the attempted stage of the felony. If under the definition of the felony, the act done is already in the
frustrated stage, no amount of desistance will negate criminal liability.

The spontaneous desistance of the offender negates only the attempted stage but not necessarily all
criminal liability. Even though there was desistance on the part of the offender, if the desistance was
made when acts done by him already resulted to a felony, that offender will still be criminally liable for the
felony brought about his act. What is negated is only the attempted stage, but there may be other felony
constituting his act.

Illustrations:

A fired at B and B was hit on the shoulder. But B's wound was not mortal. What A then did was to
approach B, and told B, “Now you are dead, I will kill you.” But A took pity and kept the revolver and left.
The crime committed is attempted homicide and not physical injuries, because there was an intention to
kill. The desistance was with the second shot and would not affect the first shot because the first shot had
already hit B. The second attempt has nothing to do with the first.

In another instance, A has a very seductive neighbor in the person of B. A had always been looking at B
and had wanted to possess her but their status were not the same. One evening, after A saw B at her
house and thought that B was already asleep, he entered the house of B through the window to abuse
her. He, however, found out that B was nude, so he lost interest and left. Can a be accused of attempted
rape? No, because there was desistance, which prevented the crime from being consummated. The
attempted stage was erased because the offender desisted after having commenced the commission of
the felony.

The attempted felony is erased by desistance because the offender spontaneously desisted from
pursuing the acts of execution. It does not mean, however, that there is no more felony committed. He
may be liable for a consummated felony constituted by his act of trespassing. When A entered the house
through the window, which is not intended for entrance, it is always presumed to be against the will of the
owner. If the offender proceeded to abuse the woman, but the latter screamed, and A went out of the
window again, he could not be prosecuted for qualified trespass. Dwelling is taken as an aggravating
circumstance so he will be prosecuted for attempted rape aggravated by dwelling.

CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL

Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. — Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are
punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor.

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission
of a felony and decide to commit it.

Two ways for conspiracy to exist:

(1) There is an agreement.

(2) The participants acted in concert or simultaneously which is indicative of a meeting of the minds
towards a common criminal goal or criminal objective. When several offenders act in a synchronized,
coordinated manner, the fact that their acts complimented each other is indicative of the meeting of the
minds. There is an implied agreement.

Two kinds of conspiracy:

(1) Conspiracy as a crime; and

(2) Conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal

When conspiracy itself is a crime, no overt act is necessary to bring about the criminal liability. The mere
conspiracy is the crime itself. This is only true when the law expressly punishes the mere conspiracy;
otherwise, the conspiracy does not bring about the commission of the crime because conspiracy is not an
overt act but a mere preparatory act. Treason, rebellion, sedition, and coup d’etat are the only crimes
where the conspiracy and proposal to commit to them are punishable.

Question & Answer

Union A proposed acts of sedition to Union B. Is there a crime committed? Assuming Union B accepts the
proposal, will your answer be different?

There is no crime committed. Proposal to commit sedition is not a crime. But if Union B accepts the
proposal, there will be conspiracy to commit sedition which is a crime under the Revised Penal Code.

When the conspiracy is only a basis of incurring criminal liability, there must be an overt act done before
the co-conspirators become criminally liable.

When the conspiracy itself is a crime, this cannot be inferred or deduced because there is no overt act. All
that there is the agreement. On the other hand, if the co-conspirator or any of them would execute an
overt act, the crime would no longer be the conspiracy but the overt act itself.

Illustration:

A, B, C and D came to an agreement to commit rebellion. Their agreement was to bring about the
rebellion on a certain date. Even if none of them has performed the act of rebellion, there is already
criminal liability arising from the conspiracy to commit the rebellion. But if anyone of them has committed
the overt act of rebellion, the crime of all is no longer conspiracy to commit rebellion but rebellion itself.
This subsists even though the other co-conspirator does not know that one of them had already done the
act of rebellion.

This legal consequence is not true if the conspiracy is not a crime. If the conspiracy is only a basis of
criminal liability, none of the co- conspirators would be liable, unless there is an overt act. So, for as long
as anyone shall desist before an overt act in furtherance of the crime was committed, such a desistance
would negate criminal liability.
 Habituality Habitual Deliquency Recidivism Quasi-Recidivism
(Reiteracion)
Served out sentence Convicted of the first Final judgment Convicted of the first
for the first offense offense rendered in the first offense
crime
Previous and
subsequent offenses
must not be embraced
in the same title of the Any of the habitual
Code, but the previous delinquency crimes: First crime need not be
Requisites that the
offense must be one to serious or less serious a felony, but the
crime be included in the
which the law attaches physical injuries, theft, second crime must be
same title of the Code
an equal or greater robbery, estafa, or a felony
penalty or for two falsification
crimes which it
attaches a lighter
penalty
Always to be taken into
consideration in fixing
the penalty to be
imposed upon the Maximum period of the
Additional penalty as
Not always aggravating accused. If not offset by penalty prescribed by
provided by law
a mitigating law for the new felony
circumstance, serves to
increase the penalty
only to the maximum
Offender is found guilty
Second offense is No period of time Before service of
within 10 years from his
committed after serving between the conviction sentence or while serving
last release or last
sentence for the first and the last conviction sentence offense,
conviction for the third
offense former offender commits a felony
time or oftener
A special aggravating
A generic aggravating A generic aggravating
Cannot be offset by an circumstance which
circumstance and may be circumstance and may
ordinary aggravating cannot be offset by an
offset by an ordinary be offset by an ordinary
circumstance ordinary mitigating
mitigating circumstance mitigating circumstance
circumstance

Penalties Full Range of the Penalty

Imprisonment for at least 30 years after which the convict becomes eligible for
Reclusion Perpetua pardon. It also carries with it accessory penalties, namely: perpetual special
disqualification, etc.

Reclusion temporal From 12 years and 1 day to 20 years.

Prision mayor, absolute disqualification and

From 6 years and 1 day to 12 years.
special temporary disqualification

Prision correccional, suspension and

From 6 months and 1 day to 6 years.
destierro

Arresto mayor From 1 month and 1 day to months.

Arresto menor From 1 to 30 days.

Perpetual or Temporary Absolute Disqualification for public office shall produce the following effects:

 The deprivation of the public offices and employments which the offender may have held even if
conferred by popular election.
 The deprivation of the right to vote in any election for any popular office or to be elected to such
office.
 The disqualification for the offices or public employments and for the exercise of any of the rights
mentioned.
 The loss of all rights to retirement pay or other pension for any office formerly held.

Perpetual or Temporary Special Disqualification

 From the right of suffrage, which the offender shall suffer although pardoned as to the principal
penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon.

Suspension

 suspension from public office;

 suspension from the right to follow a profession or calling; and
 perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage.

Destierro - banishment or only a prohibition from residing within the radius of 25 kilometers from the
actual residence of the accused for a specified length of time.

Public Censure - A formal, public reprimand for an infraction or violation. The penalty next lower in
degree of Arresto Menor.

Bond to keep the peace – it shall be required to cover such period of time as the court may determine

Classifications of Penalties

*According to divisibility (principal)

A) divisible – those that have fixed duration and are divisible into 3 periods
B) indivisible – no fixed duration (death, RP, perpetual or absolute disqualification)

* According to subject matter

A) Corporal – death
B) Deprivation of freedom- reclusion, prision, arresto
C) Restriction of freedom – destierro
D) Deprivation of rights- disqualification and suspension
E) Pecuniary – fine

*According to gravity
A) Capital
B) Afflictive
C) Correccional
D) Light

Module 8: Plurality of Crimes

Forms:
a) Compound Crime – a simple act constitutes 2 or more grave or less grave felonies (can be 2
grave felonies or 2 less grave felonies or 1 grave + 1 less grave)
Example: The single act of rolling the hand grenade on the floor of the gymnasium,
which resulted in the death of the victims, constituted a compound crime of multiple
murders. (People v. Mores, GR. No. 189846, June 26, 2013)

b) Complex Crime Proper – it is composed of two or more crimes one or some of which are
necessary means to commit the other.
Example: Falsification of Public, Official or Commercial Document as a means to commit
Malversation. A public officer who used falsified document to misappropriate government fund
is liable for malversation through falsification of document depending upon the nature of his
position. If the public officer is an accountable officer, misappropriation of public funds is
malversation. If the public officer is an accountable officer, misappropriation of public funds is
malversation.

c) Special Complex Crime or Composite Crime – It is composed of two or more crimes for which
the law fixes one specific penalty. It is also called special indivisible crime.
- The original design (plan/intent) of the offender is to commit the principal
component (the first crime mentioned or crime on the left) thereof and there must
be a direct connection or intimate relationship between the components thereof.
Example: In Rape with Homicide, the original design of the offender is to commit rap
and there must be a direct connection and intimate relationship between the rape and
homicide.

Continued Crime or Delito Continuado exists if there is:

a) Plurality of acts performed separately during a period of time
b) Unity of criminal intent and purpose
c) Unity of penal provision infringed upon or violated

Single Larceny Rule – a kind of continued crime which is the taking of several things, whether belonging
to the same or different owners, at the same time and place constitutes but one larceny or theft. This is
applicable to theft only.
Example: The theft of 13 cows owned by 6 owners involved 13 acts of taking. However, the acts
of taking took place at the same time and at the same place; consequently, accused performed one act.
The intention was likewise one, that is, to take for the purpose of selling the 13 cows which he found
grazing in the same place. Neither the intention nor the criminal act is susceptible of division.

Continued crime or Continuous Crime Continuing Crime

Single crime produced by several acts performed One which is consummated in one place but by
separately during a period of time under a single reason of the nature of the offense, the violation
criminal intent in violation of a single penal of the law is deemed continuing
provision
The purpose of the principle is to treat several The purpose of the principle is to determine the
criminal acts committed under a single criminal proper venue, validity of the arrest and the
impulse in violation of a single penal provision as commencement of the running of prescription
one crime
Module 9: Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability
Justifying Circumstances Exempting Circumstances
No criminal liability No criminal liability
No civil liability Has civil liability
Pertains to the act complained of – the act is justified Pertains to the actor – the act is NOT justified but the
actor is exempt from criminal liability

Justifying Circumstances

Requisites for Self Defense

1) Unlawful aggression
2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself

Requisites for Defense of Relatives

1) Unlawful aggression against relative
2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
3) Lack of participation in relative’s provocation (in case the relative of accused provoked the victim)

Requisites for Defense of Strangers

1) Unlawful aggression against stranger
2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
3) The person defending (accused) be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive

Elements of Unlawful Aggression

a) There must be physical or material attack or assault
b) The attack of assault must be actual or at least imminent
c) The attack or assault must be unlawful
Actual or material unlawful aggression means an attack with physical force or with a weapon, an offensive act that
positively determines the intent of the aggressor to cause the injury. For unlawful aggression to be attendant there
must be real danger to life or personal safety. Unlawful aggression requires an actual, sudden and unexpected
attack, or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude.

Avoidance of Greater Evil or Injury Elements:

a) That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists
b) That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it
c) That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it
Example: To save himself from crashing into an unlighted truck abandoned on the road, accused swerved his car to
the right towards the graveled shoulder, killing 2 bystanders. The accused in saving his life is in effect avoiding evil.
Self-preservation dictates that the life of the actor is of greater importance than that of another. There is no other
practical and less harmful means to save his life. NOTE: The accused may be held liable for reckless imprudence
resulting in double homicides

Performance of Duty
No violence or unnecessary force shall be used in making an arrest and the person arrested shall not be
subject to any greater restraint than what is necessary for his detention.

Exempting Circumstances

Minority
 What is important is the actual age of the accused at the time of the commission of the crime. A child 15
years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability – child
shall be subject to an intervention program. A child above 15 years but below 18 years of age shall likewise be
exempt from criminal liability and be subject to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted with
discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings.

Imbecility/Insanity
In imbecility, what is important is the mental age of the accused. If mental age of the accused is 2 years
old, he is an idiot; if his mental age is 7 years old, he is an imbecile. An idiot or imbecile is exempt from criminal
liability.
Anyone who pleads insanity bears the burden of proving it with clear and convincing evidence. It is in the
nature of confession and avoidance. He admits to have committed the crime but claims that he or she is not guilty
because of insanity. In insanity there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the criminal act.

Accident Elements:
a) Person is doing a lawful act
b) With due care
c) He causes an injury to another by mere accident
d) Without any fault or intention of causing it
Example: The accused hunted and shot the chicken. But the bullet that hit the chicken recoiled and hit the
deceased. It was held that accused is not criminally liable because of the exempting circumstance of accident.
(US v. Tanedo, GR No. L-5418, February 12, 1910)

Irresistible Force Uncontrollable Fear

Offender uses violence or physical force to compel Offender employs intimidation or threat in compelling
another to commit a crime another to commit a crime
The irresistible force must have been made to operate Uncontrollable fear may be generated by threatened
directly upon the person of the accused act directed against third person such as the wife of
the accused who was kidnapped
The injury feared of may be of lesser degree that that The evil feared of must be greater or at least equal to
damage caused by the accused the damage caused to avoid it

Irresistible Force – the force contemplated must be so formidable as to reduce the actor to a mere instrument who
acts not only without will but against his will.

Uncontrollable Fear – duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending, and of such
nature as to induce a well-grounded and apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act will not be done.

Lawful and Insuperable Cause – One who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful
or insuperable cause.
Example: A priest is exempt from criminal liability for the crime of misprision of treason for failure to
disclose to gov’t authorities information on conspiracy against the gov’t which he obtained by reason of confession
made to him by one of the conspirators. This is because by virtue of his office, he is prohibited from making such
disclosure because of the sacred rule on confidentiality of confession.

Module 10: Mitigating Circumstances

Mitigating circumstances – those which, if present in the commission of the. Crime, do not entirely free
the actor from criminal liability, but serve only to reduce the penalty.
 Ordinary Mitigating Circumstance Privileged mitigating circumstance
The adjustment of the divisible penalty by period. The adjustment of the divisible or indivisible
(if penalty consists of 2 indivisible penalties – penalty by degree
application of the lesser penalty)
Can be offset by ordinary aggravating Cannot be offset by ordinary aggravating
circumstance circumstance

Incomplete justification or exemption

If all requisites of circumstance is present then Justifying or Exempting circumstance. If majority of the
requisites are present, then it is privileged mitigating circumstance. If only minority of the requisites is present,
then it is ordinary mitigating circumstance.

Praeter Intentionem
The offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong when there is a notable disparity between the
mans employed by the accused to commit a wrong and the resulting crime committed. The intention of the
accused at the time of the commission of the crime is manifested from the weapon used, the mode of attack
employed and the injury sustained by the victim.
Example: Accused kicked the stomach and chest of the victim, who was lying on the pavement dead
drunk. Victim died at the hospital. Accused’s intention was merely to inflict injuries on the victim so mitigating
circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong was appreciated in his favor.

Elements of Threat
a) There must be a threat on the part of the offended party
b) The threat must be sufficient
c) The threat must immediately precede the criminal act committed by the offender
When threat is made with a weapon, which is offensively and positively showing wrongful intent to inflict injury
( like opening a knife and making a motion as if to make an attack) it is unlawful aggression – offender threatened
can use complete or incomplete self-defense. However, threat, which is not offensively and positively strong, is not
unlawful aggression so mitigating circumstance of threat may be appreciated.

Elements of Provocation
a) There must be provocation on the part of the offended party
b) The provocation must be sufficient
c) The provocation must immediately precede the criminal act committed by the offender
It requires that the provocation meant by the law be sufficient or proportionate to the act committed and that it
be adequate to arouse one to it commission. It is not enough that the provocative act be unreasonable or
annoying.

Elements of Vindication
a) Victim committed grave offense (refers to grave offense against honor)
b) The grave offense was committed against the offender or his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate,
illegitimate or adopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives by affinity within the same degree
c) The offender committed the crime in proximate indication of such grave offense

Essential requirements of Passion

a) There was an act that was both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition (passion or
obfuscation0 of the mind
b) Such act was not far removed from the commission of the crime by considerable length of time, during
which the perpetrator might have recovered his normal equanimity
c) Passion must arise from lawful sentiment of the offender and not from spirit of lawlessness or revenge

Physical Defect
 -when the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect which thus
restricts his means of action, defense, or communication with his fellow beings, is an ordinary mitigating
circumstance. If accused is totally blind or deaf and dumb, he does not have to prove that his means of action,
defense or communication are thereby restricted.
- In order for physical defect to be credited as a mitigating circumstance, it must be shown that such
physical defect limited his means to act, defend himself or communicate with his fellow beings to such an extent
that he did not have complete freedom of action, consequently resulting in diminution of element of
voluntariness.

Module 12: Aggravating and Alternate Circumstances

Ordinary or generic aggravating circumstance unless offset by a ordinary or generic mitigating
circumstance shall require the application of the divisible penalty in it maximum period or the
application of greater penalty of reclusions perpetua to death.

Mitigating and aggravating circumstances shall not be considered in the imposition of the penalty in the
following cases:
1) If the crime is imprudence or negligence
2) If the penalty is single and indivisible
3) If special law has not adopted the technical nomenclature of the penalties of the RPC

Contempt of or insult to Public Authorities

-the crime must be committed in contempt of or with insult to public authorities. The crime
must be committed against another person in the presence of a person in authority, who is engaged in
the exercise of public function.

Place of Commission – There are places which every individual is bound to respect. Committing crime in
disregard of any of these place is an ordinary aggravating circumstance. These places are the:
1) Malacanang Palace or any place whenever the president was present
2) Place where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of duty
3) Place dedicated to religious worship
4) Dwelling of the offended party

Disregard of Rank – it must be shown that the accused deliberately intended to insult the rank of the
victim. The crime must be committed against a person of a higher rank such as a person in authority. The
accused disregarded the respect due to rank of the public authority by committing a crime against him.

Disregard of sex – it must be shown that the accused deliberately intended to offend or insult the sex of
the victim, or showed manifest disrespect to her womanhood. It shall also be appreciated if the accused
took advantage of the helplessness of the woman.

Disregard of Age – the accused must deliberately intend to offend or insult the age of the offended
party.

Disregard of Dwelling requisites:

a) Offender committed crime in the dwelling of the offended party
b) Offender committed the crime in disregard of the respect which the dwelling is entitled
 c) The offended party has not given provocation

Nighttime – considered aggravating whenever such circumstance may facilitate the commission of the offense. It
must be shown that the accused intentionally chose the darkness of the night to facilitate the commission of the
crime.

Craft or Fraud – these are means employed to deceive (pag-ilad) the victim.

Disguise – if the accused employed disguise to insure or afford impunity by hiding his identity.

Motor Vehicle – it shall be appreciated if the vehicle was purposely sought to facilitate the commission of the
offense and to facilitate their escape after thy accomplish their mission

Special Aggravating Circumstances have the same effect as ordinary aggravating circumstance in which the
prescribed penalty will be applied in its maximum period. However, special aggravating circumstance is not subject
to the offset rule. You cannot offset special aggravating circumstance with an ordinary mitigating circumstance.

Taking advantage of position – when in the commission of the crime, advantage was taken by the offender of his
public position.

Organized/syndicated crime group - -it means a group of two or mor persons collaborating, confederating or
mutually helping one another for purposes of gain in the commission of any crime. It presupposed conspiracy
among members of the syndicate to commit a crime for gain.

Uninhabited Place – it means there are no inhabited houses nearby. The uninhabited character of the place is
determined not by the distance of the nearest house to the scene of the crime but whether or not there was
reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help in the place where the crime was committed. Uninhabited
place shall be appreciated when accused especially sought it or took advantage thereof to facilitate the
commission of the crime.

Elements of Band
a) There must be at least four malefactors
b) At leads four of them are armed
c) At least four of them took part or acted together in the commission of the crime as principals by direct
participation

Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances changes the nature of the crime is an element thereof.

Generic Aggravating Circumstances Qualifying aggravating circumstances

Increases the penalty for the crime but it cannot Change the name and nature of the crime and cause
increase the same to the next higher degree the imposition of a penalty graver than the crime
being qualified.
Can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance Not subject to the offset rule
For example, killing a person is homicide. The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. If ordinary aggravating
circumstance of craft is present, reclusion temporal shall be applied in it maximum period. If the qualifying
circumstance of treachery is present, it will qualify the killing to murder instead of homicide and change the
penalty to reclusion perpetua to death instead of reclusion temporal.

Aid of Armed Men requires:

1) That the armed men are accomplices who take part in minor capacity, directly or indirectly
2) That the accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when the crime was committed.
The men act as accomplices only. They must not be acting in the commission of the crime under the same purpose
as the principal accused, otherwise, they are to be regarded as co-principals or co-conspirators.

Calamity or Misfortune – when a crime is committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake,
epidemic, or other calamity or misfortune. To appreciate this circumstance, the offender must take advantage of
the condition brought about by a calamity or misfortune to facilitate the commission of the crime or to insure
impunity.

Treachery – this is when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means methods, or
forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself
arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

Abuse of Superior Strength – this is present whenever there is inequality of forces between the victim and the
aggressor, considering that a situation of superiority of strength is notoriously advantageous for the aggressor and
is selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime. When 2 or more persons participated in
the offense, they must commit the crime in the character of principals.

Evident Premeditation Requisites

a) The time when the offender determined to commit the crime
b) An act manifestly indicating that the offender has clung to his determination
c) A sufficient interval of time between the determination and the execution of the crime to allow him to
reflect upon the consequences of his act
The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought
and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a
calm judgment.

Ignominy – when accused deliberately perpetuated the ignominious act to shame or humiliate the victim. (act is
made para mapaka ulawan ang victim)

Cruelty – For cruelty to be considered, it must be proven that the accused intended to exacerbate or prolong the
pain and suffering of the victim.

Alternative Circumstances
- Those which must be taken into consideration is aggravating or mitigating according to the nature
and effects of the crime and other conditions attending its commission.
- This means that these circumstances may either be aggravating or mitigating. It will depend on the
crime committed and the circumstances around the commission of such crime.

Module 12: Persons Liable for Felonies and the Accessories exempted
from Liability
Kinds of Principal
1) Principal by Direct Participation – those who take a direct part in the execution of the
act. Principal by direct participation includes the chief actor (one who committed the act
constituting a crime such as the person who stabbed and killed the victim) and
conspirator (one who performed an act in. furtherance of the conspiracy such as the
person who acted as a lookout).
 2) Principal by Inducement- those who directly force or induce other to commit it. One
who compels another either by using irresistible force or by causing uncontrollable fear
to commit the crime. Also, pit is important that the inducement is made directly with
the intention of procuring the commission of the crime.

3) Principal by Indispensable Cooperation – those who cooperate in the commission of the

offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished. One must
participate in the criminal resolution, a conspiracy or unity in criminal purpose and
cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing another act without which
is would not have been accomplished.

Accomplices – those persons who, not being principals, cooperate in the execution of the
offense by previous or simultaneous acts. See Module 13 for the 3 elements for a person to be
liable as an accomplice.

Accessory – those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having
participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission
in any of the following manners:
1) By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime;
2) By concealing or destroying the body of the crime or the effects or instruments thereof,
in order to prevent its discovery;
3) By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal of the crime,
provided the accessory acts with abuse of this public functions or whenever the author
of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or attempt to take life of the Chief
Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.

The liability of the principal by direct participation may be based on an actual commission of
crime or conspiracy. The liability of a principal by inducement is based on inducement and
conspiracy. The liability of a principal by indispensable cooperation is based on conspiracy or
community of design. The liability of accomplice is based on community of design. The liability
of an accessory is based on knowledge.

***Community of design means that the accomplice (or principal by indispensable cooperation)
knows of, and concurs with the criminal design of the principal by direct participation.
Knowledge and concurrence in the criminal mind of the chief actor are the elements of
community of design.