Criminal Law A branch of municipal law which defines crimes, treats of their

nature and provides for their punishment.

Crime Act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or
commanding it.

Sources of Criminal Law
1. The Revised Penal Code
2. Special Penal Laws Acts enacted of the Philippine Legislature punishing
offenses or omissions.
3. Penal Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law

Limitations on the power of Congress to enact penal laws (ON)
4. Must be general in application. (and must clearly define the acts and
omissions punished as crimes) *No person shall be held to answer for a
criminal offense without due process of law
5. Must not partake of the nature of an ex post facto law (one which makes
criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent
when done, and punishes such an act).
6. Must not partake of the nature of a bill of attainder (legislative act which
inflicts punishment without trial).
7. Must not impose cruel and unusual punishment or excessive fines.

Characteristics of Criminal Law:
1. General the law is binding to all persons who live or sojourn in the
Philippine territory (including foreigners; EXCEPT: 1. Sovereigns and other
heads of states; and 2. Ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, ministers
resident, and charges daffaires >>>because of law of nations or principles of
public international law which makes them not subject to Philippine
territorial jurisdiction)
*ambassadors different from consuls, vice-consuls, etc. who cannot claim the
formers privileges and immunities

EXCEPTIONS to general application of Criminal Law:
-Art. 2 RPC: except as provided in the treaties (ex. US Military Bases
Agreement) and laws of preferential application (ex. R.A. No. 75 in re
immunity afforded to diplomatic representatives and their domestic
servants).
-similar to Art. 14 of Civil Code subject to the principles of public
international law and to treaty stipulations.

In re: Jurisdiction of military courts
-General Rule: jurisdiction of civil courts is not affected by the military
character of the accused (even in times of war, provided that civil courts are
not suspended in the place of the commission of the crime)
-Members of AFP and other persons subject to military law who commit
crimes or offenses penalized under RPC, other special penal laws, or local
govt ordinances shall be tried by the proper civil court; EXCEPTTION: when
the offense is service-connected (defined by Articles of War), shall be tried by
the court martial
-Prosecution of an accused before a court martial (bec. criminal case) is a bar
to another prosecution for the same offense (would constitute double
jeopardy)

2. Territorial the law is binding to all crimes committed within the National
Territory of the Philippines Exception to Territorial Application: Instances
enumerated under Article 2 of RPC.
3. Prospectivethe law does not have any retroactive effect; crimes are
punished under the laws in force at the time of their commission. Exception
to Prospective Application: when new statute is favorable to the accused, it
can be given a retroactive effect, UNLESS 1. Where the new law expressly
made inapplicable the retroactivity; 2. Where the offender is a habitual
criminal.

Different effects of repeal on penal law
1. If the repeal makes the penalty lighter in the new law, the new law shall be
applied. (with exceptions)
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.
Effect of repeal of penal law to liability of offender
Total or absolute, or partial or relative repeal. -- As to the effect of repeal of penal
law to the liability of offender, qualify your answer by saying whether the repeal is
absolute or total or whether the repeal is partial or relative only.
A repeal is absolute or total when the crime punished under the repealed law has
been decriminalized by the repeal. Because of the repeal, the act or omission which
used to be a crime is no longer a crime. An example is Republic Act No. 7363, which
decriminalized subversion.
A repeal is partial or relative when the crime punished under the repealed law
continues to be a crime in spite of the repeal. This means that the repeal merely
modified the conditions affecting the crime under the repealed law. The modification
may be prejudicial or beneficial to the offender. Hence, the following rule:

Consequences if repeal of penal law is total or absolute

(1) If a case is pending in court involving the violation of the repealed law, the same
shall be dismissed, even though the accused may be a habitual delinquent.

(2) If a case is already decided and the accused is already serving sentence by final
judgment, if the convict is not a habitual delinquent, then he will be entitled to a
release unless there is a reservation clause in the penal law that it will not apply to
those serving sentence at the time of the repeal. But if there is no reservation, those
who are not habitual delinquents even if they are already serving their sentence will
receive the benefit of the repealing law. They are entitled to release.

If they are not discharged from confinement, a petition for habeas corpus should be
filed to test the legality of their continued confinement in jail.

If the convict, on the other hand, is a habitual delinquent, he will continue serving the
sentence in spite of the fact that the law under which he was convicted has already
been absolutely repealed. This is so because penal laws should be given retroactive
application to favor only those who are not habitual delinquents.

Consequences if repeal of penal law is partial or relative

(1) If a case is pending in court involving the violation of the repealed law, and the
repealing law is more favorable to the accused, it shall be the one applied to him. So
whether he is a habitual delinquent or not, if the case is still pending in court, the
repealing law will be the one to apply unless there is a saving clause in the repealing
law that it shall not apply to pending causes of action.

(2) If a case is already decided and the accused is already serving sentence by final
judgment, even if the repealing law is partial or relative, the crime still remains to be a
crime. Those who are not habitual delinquents will benefit on the effect of that
repeal, so that if the repeal is more lenient to them, it will be the repealing law that
will henceforth apply to them.

Under Article 22, even if the offender is already convicted and serving sentence, a law
which is beneficial shall be applied to him unless he is a habitual delinquent in
accordance with Rule 5 of Article 62.

Consequences if repeal of penal law is express or implied

(1) If a penal law is impliedly repealed, the subsequent repeal of the repealing law
will revive the original law. So the act or omission which was punished as a crime
under the original law will be revived and the same shall again be crimes although
during the implied repeal they may not be punishable.

(2) If the repeal is express, the repeal of the repealing law will not revive the first law,
so the act or omission will no longer be penalized.

These effects of repeal do not apply to self-repealing laws or those which have
automatic termination. Where an act expires by its own limitation, the effect is the
same as though it had been repealed at the time of its expiration. An example is the
Rent Control Law which is revived by Congress every two years.

Construction of Penal Laws
1. Criminal Statutes are liberally construed in favor of the offender. This means
that no person shall be brought within their terms who is not clearly within
them, nor should any act be pronounced criminal which is not clearly made
so by statute.
2. Penal laws are strictly construed against the state (may be invoked only
when the law is ambiguous and there is doubt as to its interpretation).
3. The original text (Spanish text) in which a penal law is approved in case of a
conflict with an official translation.
4. Interpretation by analogy has no place in criminal law

BASIC MAXIMS IN CRIMINAL LAW
Doctrine of Pro Reo
Whenever a penal law is to be construed or applied and the law admits of two
interpretations one lenient to the offender and one strict to the offender that
interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the offender will be adopted.
Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege
There is no crime when there is no law punishing the same. This is true to civil law
countries, but not to common law countries.
Because of this maxim, there is no common law crime in the Philippines. No matter
how wrongful, evil or bad the act is, if there is no law defining the act, the same is not
considered a crime.
Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea
The act cannot be criminal where the mind is not criminal. This is true to a felony
characterized by dolo, but not a felony resulting from culpa. This maxim is not an
absolute one because it is not applied to culpable felonies, or those that result from
negligence.
Utilitarian Theory or Protective Theory
The primary purpose of the punishment under criminal law is the protection of society
from actual and potential wrongdoers. The courts, therefore, in exacting retribution
for the wronged society, should direct the punishment to potential or actual
wrongdoers, since criminal law is directed against acts and omissions which the
society does not approve. Consistent with this theory, the mala prohibita principle
which punishes an offense regardless of malice or criminal intent, should not be
utilized to apply the full harshness of the special law.

Theories of Criminal Law
1. Classical Theory Man is essentially a moral creature with
an absolute free will to choose between good and evil and therefore more stress is
placed upon the result of the felonious act than upon the criminal himself.
2. Positivist Theory Man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid
phenomenon which conditions him to do wrong in spite of or contrary to his
volition.
Eclectic or Mixed Philosophy
This combines both positivist and classical thinking. Crimes that are economic and
social and nature should be dealt with in a positivist manner; thus, the law is more
compassionate. Heinous crimes should be dealt with in a classical manner; thus,
capital punishment

Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815, as amended)

Art. 1. This Code shall take effect on January 1, 1932.

Art. 2. Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application,
the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine
Archipelago including its atmosphere, its interior waters and Maritime zone,
but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine
Islands or obligations and securities issued by the Government of the
Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands
of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the
exercise of their functions; or (Some of these crimes are bribery, fraud against
national treasury, malversation of public funds or property, and illegal use of public
funds; e.g., A judge who accepts a bribe while in Japan.)
5. Should commit any crimes against the national security and the law of
nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code. (These crimes include
treason, espionage, piracy, mutiny, and violation of neutrality)

1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;

Requirements of an offense committed while on a Philippine Ship or
Airship
1. Registered in the Philippine Bureau of Customs
2. Ship must be in the high seas (outside of the Philippine territory, different from
foreign territory) or the airship must be in international airspace.

BUT when the Philippine vessel of aircraft is in the territory of a foreign country, the
crime committed on said vessel or aircraft is subject to the laws of that foreign
country.

Rules as to crimes committed aboard foreign merchant vessels:
1. French Rule Such crimes are not triable in the courts of that country, unless
their commission affects the peace and security of the territory or the safety of the
state is endangered.
2. English Rule Such crimes are triable in that country, unless they merely affect
things within the vessel or they refer to the internal management thereof. (This is
applicable in the Philippines)
Two situations where the foreign country may not apply its criminal law even if
a crime was committed on board a vessel within its territorial waters and these
are: (Philippine courts have no jurisdiction)
(1) When the crime is committed in a war vessel of a foreign country, because
war vessels are part of the sovereignty of the country to whose naval force they
belong;
(2) When the foreign country in whose territorial waters the crime was
committed adopts the French Rule, which applies only to merchant vessels,
except when the crime committed affects the national security or public order
of such foreign country.
Crimes NOT involving a breach of public order (mere possession of opium)
committed on board of a foreign merchant vessel IN TRANSIT not triable by our
courts; HOWEVER, if NOT IN TRANSIT because the Philippines is its terminal port,
possession of opium becomes illegal and may be held guilty of illegal importation of
opium.
*Philippine courts have jurisdiction over crimes constituting a breach of public
order (ex. Smoking opium) aboard foreign merchant vessels anchored in the
Philippine jurisdictional waters.
Under international law rule, a vessel which is not registered in accordance with the
laws of any country is considered a pirate vessel and piracy is a crime against
humanity in general, such that wherever the pirates may go, they can be prosecuted.

US v. Bull (continuing offense on board a foreign vessel)
A crime which occurred on board of a foreign vessel, which began when the ship
was in a foreign territory and continued when it entered into Philippine waters, is
considered a continuing crime. Hence within the jurisdiction of the local courts.

2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands
or obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;
- in a FOREIGN COUNTRY

3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of
the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number;
- introduction is as dangerous (to the economical interest of the country) as the
forging or counterfeiting of the same
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the
exercise of their functions;
- when any of these felonies is committed ABROAD by any of our public officers or
employees while in the exercise of his functions, he can be prosecuted here.

As a general rule, the Revised Penal Code governs only when the crime committed
pertains to the exercise of the public officials functions, those having to do with the
discharge of their duties in a foreign country. The functions contemplated are those,
which are, under the law, to be performed by the public officer in the Foreign Service of
the Philippine government in a foreign country.

Exception: The Revised Penal Code governs if the crime was committed within the
Philippine Embassy or within the embassy grounds in a foreign country. This is
because embassy grounds are considered an extension of sovereignty.

5. Should commit any crimes against the national security and the law of
nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.
Paragraph 5 of Article 2, use the phrase as defined in Title One of Book Two of this
Code.
This is a very important part of the exception, because Title I of Book 2 (crimes against
national security) does not include rebellion.

Art 3. Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos).
Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by
means of fault (culpa).
There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent; and there
is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of
foresight, or lack of skill.
Acts an overt or external act; any bodily movement tending to produce some
effect in the external world, it being unnecessary that the same be actually
produced, as the possibility of its production is sufficient.
- the act MUST be defined by the Revised Penal Code as constituting a felony, at least
an overt act of that felony, that is, an EXTERNAL act (because internal acts are
beyond the sphere of law) which has DIRECT connection with the felony intended to
be committed. *directly by overt act
Omission inaction/failure to perform a positive duty required by law.
-There is a law requiring a certain act to be performed and the person required to
do the act fails to perform it. *omission must be punishable by law
Example of an omission: failure to render assistance to anyone who is in danger of
dying or is in an uninhabited place or is wounded - abandonment.
Felonies acts and omissions punishable by the Revised Penal Code
Crime acts and omissions punishable by any law.

What requisites must concur before a felony may be committed?
There must be (1) an act or omission; (2) punishable by the Revised Penal Code; and
(3) the act is performed or the omission incurred by means of dolo or culpa.
Classification of Felonies (according to the means by which they are
committed):
1. Intentional Felonies act or omission of the offender is MALICIOUS; act is
performed with deliberate intent (malice); the offender has the INTENTION to cause
an injury to another.
> by means of deceit (dolo) - There is deceit when the act is performed with
deliberate intent.
- proper translation of dolo is malice (which is the intent to do an injury to
another), not deceit.

Requisites of dolo or malice (must concur):
> While doing an act or omitting to do an act, he must have
a. Freedom - Thus, a person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force
is exempt from criminal liability.
b. Intelligence - necessary to determine the morality of human acts; without this
power, no crime can exist (e.g. imbecile or an insane person).
c. Intent - presumption of intent to commit the act with malice arises from the
proof of the commission of an unlawful act (intent is a mental state, the existence of
which is shown by the overt acts of a person). Intent presupposes the exercise of
freedom and the use of intelligence.
*Criminal intent and the will to commit a crime are always presumed to exist on the
part of the person who executes an act which the law punishes, unless the contrary
shall appear.
Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea
The act cannot be criminal where the mind is not criminal. This is true to a felony
characterized by dolo, but not a felony resulting from culpa. This maxim is not an
absolute one because it is not applied to culpable felonies, or those that result from
negligence.

*All three requisites of VOLUNTARINESS in intentional felony must be present,
because a voluntary act is a free, intelligent, and intentional act.

Examples: murder, treason, and robbery.

Criminal intent is not necessary in these cases:
(1) When the crime is the product of culpa or negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of
foresight or lack of skill;
(2) When the crime is a prohibited act under a special law or what is called malum
prohibitum.

In criminal law, intent is categorized into two:
(1) General criminal intent; and (2) Specificcriminalintent.
General criminal intent is presumed from the mere doing of a wrong act. This does not
require proof. The burden is upon the wrong doer to prove that he acted without such
criminal intent.
Specific criminal intent is not presumed because it is an ingredient or element of a
crime, like intent to kill in the crimes of attempted or frustrated
homicide/parricide/murder. The prosecution has the burden of proving the same.
Distinction between intent and discernment
Intent is the determination to do a certain thing, an aim or purpose of the mind. It is
the design to resolve or determination by which a person acts.
On the other hand, discernment is the mental capacity to tell right from wrong. It
relates to the moral significance that a person ascribes to his act and relates to the
intelligence as an element of dolo, distinct from intent.
Distinction between intent and motive
Intent is demonstrated by the use of a particular means to bring about a desired result
it is not a state of mind or a reason for committing a crime.
On the other hand, motive implies motion. It is the moving power which impels one to
do an act. When there is motive in the commission of a crime, it always comes before
the intent. But a crime may be committed without motive.
If the crime is intentional, it cannot be committed without intent. Intent is manifested
by the instrument used by the offender. The specific criminal intent becomes material
if the crime is to be distinguished from the attempted or frustrated stage.

2. Culpable Felonies act or omission of the offender is NOT MALICIOUS; the
wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill;
injury caused by the offender to another person is UNINTENTIONAL, it being simply
the incident of another act performed without malice.


2. by means of fault (culpa) - There is fault when the wrongful act results from
imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
. Imprudence - deficiency of action; e.g. A was driving a truck along a road. He
hit B because it was raining - reckless imprudence.
. Negligence - deficiency of perception; failure to foresee impending danger,
usually involves lack of foresight
. Requisites: 1. Freedom 2. Intelligence 3. Imprudence, negligence,
lack of skill or foresight 4. Lack of intent
The concept of criminal negligence is the inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of
the person performing or failing to perform an act. If the danger impending from that
situation is clearly manifest, you have a case of reckless imprudence. But if the danger
that would result from such imprudence is not clear, not manifest nor immediate you
have only a case of simple negligence.
Mistake of fact - is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who
caused injury to another. He is not criminally liable. a. Requisites:
1. that the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused
believed them to be;
. intention of the accused is lawful;
. mistake must be without fault of carelessness.
Example: United States v. Ah Chong. Ah Chong being afraid of bad elements, locked
himself in his room by placing a chair against the door. After having gone to bed, he
was awakened by somebody who was trying to open the door. He asked the identity
of the person, but he did not receive a response. Fearing that this intruder was a
robber, he leaped out of bed and said that he will kill the intruder should he attempt
to enter. At that moment, the chair struck him. Believing that he was attacked, he
seized a knife and fatally wounded the intruder.
12

Mistake of fact would be relevant only when the felony would have been intentional or
through dolo, but not when the felony is a result of culpa. When the felony is a product
of culpa, do not discuss mistake of fact.