7/27/2019 Su Crimrev1
1/36
CRIMINAL LAW BOOK I
GOOD MORNING
CRIMINAL LAW
ONE
7/27/2019 Su Crimrev1
2/36
DEFINITIONS
Crime: A transgression done in violation of a ruleof conduct which specifically requires itsperformance or non-performance.
Law: Sanchez Roman defines law as a rule ofconduct, just, obligatory, promulgated bycompetent authority and of common observance& benefit.
Criminal Law: Criminal law is a substantive andpublic law which defines crimes, classifies itsnature and prescribes a penalty therefore.
7/27/2019 Su Crimrev1
3/36
No Common Law Crimes in the Philippines
Common law crimes are bodies of legal rules andprinciples which are not based on statute but on
usages and traditions.
There are no common law crimes in the Philippines.
No act shall constitute as a crime unless it is made soby law (U.S. vs. Taylor, 28 Phil 599).
nullum crimen, nulla poena, sine lege
Art 5 RPC: if there is no law punishing the act or
omission, the court must dismiss the case no matterhow wicked the act may seem.
PEOPLE vs. AVECILLA(GR No. 117033, Feb. 15, 2001)
7/27/2019 Su Crimrev1
4/36
THEORIES IN CRIMINAL LAW Classical or Juristic TheoryExistence of the
offenders free will, or a persons freedom to do an act.Under this theory, the penalty for ones criminal act is
imposed by way of social retribution.
Positivist School of ThoughtCrime is a natural social
phenomenon to which the actor was exposed; cannotbe treated by the blanket application of abstract legalprinciples; man is a social being and his acts are notonly attributable to his own free will but to otherforces of society
Under this theory, the penalty has a corrective purposeand is imposed by way of prevention or deterrence
7/27/2019 Su Crimrev1
5/36
CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIM LAW
Generality
Territoriality
Prospectivity
7/27/2019 Su Crimrev1
6/36
GENERALITY: General Application of Criminal Laws: Art 14, Civil Code
On all: military and PNP: Sec 46, RA 6975 (PNP); Sec 1,RA 7055 (AFP and Cafgu, Articles of WarWaiver byPresident)
EXCEPTIONS TO GENERALITY Laws of preferential application RA 75, subject to
reciprocity and Parliamentary Immunities
Generally accepted principles of public international
lawDiplomatic Convention and Doctrine of SovereignImmunity
Treaty StipulationsLance Corporal Smith
7/27/2019 Su Crimrev1
7/36
General Rule: TERRITORIALITY (Art 2)
EXCEPTIONS:
Art 1 Constitution and the Archipelagic theory
Baselinesconnect outermost points from
low watermark
UNCLOS, Art 312 NA mile territorial sea
UNCLOS, Art 33contiguo zone
Exclusive Economic Zone200 nautical mile
7/27/2019 Su Crimrev1
8/36
Baselines of Internal
waters
12 mile limit 12 mile cont. zone
7/27/2019 Su Crimrev1
9/36
EXCEPTIONS TO TERRITORIALITY
1. Philippine ship or airshipplace of registry French and English Rulesforeign merchant ships
RA 6235
2. 2000 BAR, No. 1
3. Offenses related to forgery and counterfeiting Philippine
coins or currency and in the importation, uttering anddistribution in the Philippines
4. Offenses committed by public officers or employees whileperforming their functions
5. Offenses against national security and the law of nations People vs. Lol-lo and Sarao
2008 Bar
High seas
7/27/2019 Su Crimrev1
10/36
PRINCIPLE OF PROSPECTIVITY
Ex post facto laws
Art 22, penal laws favorable to the accused
PEOPLE vs. AVECILLA(GR No. 117033, Feb. 15,
2001)
7/27/2019 Su Crimrev1
11/36
FELONIES: Acts or omissions
punishable by the RPC (Art 3)
THREE KINDS OF CRIMES:
felonies: dolo or culpa offenses: special laws (General Rule: Penalties)
infraction or misdemeanors: violations of
municipal ordinances
7/27/2019 Su Crimrev1
12/36
Two Modes of Committing Felonies
(Art 3)
Doloor Malice: with deliberate intent.
Culpaor Fault: imprudence, negligence, lackof foresight or lack of skill.
7/27/2019 Su Crimrev1
13/36
ELEMENTS OF FELONIES
There is an act or omission
Act or omission is punishable by the RPC(PEOPLE vs. SILVESTRE & ATIENZA and PEOPLE
vs. FRANCIS ABARCA, 153 SCRA 735)
Act or omission is incurred by dolo or culpa
all done with freedom
7/27/2019 Su Crimrev1
14/36
FELONIES BY DOLO
REQUISITES OF DOLO OR MALICE: Freedom
IntelligencePeople vs. Taneo, lack of intelligenceand intent
Intent No criminal intent, no crime, justified, No civil
liabilities, except in Art 11, par. 4when a personcommits an act to avoid a greater evil or injury
(see Art 432 of the Civil Code) No freedom or intelligenceexempting, civilly
liable
7/27/2019 Su Crimrev1
15/36
MISTAKE OF FACT
Act should have been lawful and actor is not
negligent
US vs. AH CHONG
People vs. Oanis
7/27/2019 Su Crimrev1
16/36
FELONIES BY CULPA
Freely and intelligently but with negligence
People vs. Guillen
7/27/2019 Su Crimrev1
17/36
OFFENSES UNDER SPECIAL LAWS
Dolo or criminal intent or mens rea not required
Good faith is not a defense
But there must be intent to perpetuate the
prohibited act
People vs. Asa and Balbastrofirearms/civilian guards
People vs. Landichofirearm for turn-over to Mayor
People vs. Luceroconfidential agent
7/27/2019 Su Crimrev1
18/36
MALA IN SE vs. MALA PROHIBITA
Intent and good faith
Inherently immoral vs. wrongful by statutorypolicy
RPC vs. SPLEstrada vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
148560, November 19, 2001 and Illegal
Exactions under the RPC
7/27/2019 Su Crimrev1
19/36
MOTIVE
Motive is the moving power which impels one
to action while intent is the purpose to use a
particular means
Latter is not essential except:
Questions as to identity
Conflicting versions
People vs. Taneo, somnambulism
7/27/2019 Su Crimrev1
20/36
CRIMINAL LIABILITY (Art 4)
Any person committing a felony although the
wrongful act is different from what is intended
Impossible crimes
7/27/2019 Su Crimrev1
21/36
REQUIREMENT UNDER PAR. 1
Intentional felony
wrong done is direct, natural and logical
consequence of the felony committed
el que es causa de la cause el que es causa del mal
causado
PEOPLE vs. FRANCIS ABARCA, supra (resulting
crime is different from what is intended)
7/27/2019 Su Crimrev1
22/36
ERROR IN PERSONAE (PP v. Oanis)
Actual victim mistaken as intended
victim
7/27/2019 Su Crimrev1
23/36
ABERRATIO ICTUS (PP v. MABUG-AT)
Intended victim Actual victim
7/27/2019 Su Crimrev1
24/36
PRAETER INTENTIONEM
(People vs. Cagoco)
Intended victim same as actual victim
But a more serious crime is produced
7/27/2019 Su Crimrev1
25/36
IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
2000 Bar, impossible crime is not a crime but
with a penalty; person punished for his
criminal tendencies
Intod vs. CA, 215 SCRA 52
7/27/2019 Su Crimrev1
26/36
MANNER OF COMMITTING CRIMES
1. FORMAL CRIMES (offenses under special laws,
Pecho vs. SB)
2. CRIMES BY OMISSION (no attempted stage)
3. MATERIAL CRIMES (3 stages of execution)
7/27/2019 Su Crimrev1
27/36
STAGES OF EXECUTION
1. ATTEMPTED
2. FRUSTRATED STAGES
3. CONSUMMATED STAGES
7/27/2019 Su Crimrev1
28/36
SUBJECTIVE PHASE
PHASE WHEREIN THE ACTOR CONCEIVES THEIDEA OF COMMITTING A CRIME
Internal Actsnot penalized
Preparatory Acts to a particular crimenotpenalized for as long as they, in themselves,do not constitute an offense
ACTOR HAS CONTROL OVER HIS ACTIONS
SPONTANEOUS DESISTANCEno liabilityprovided no other crime is committed
7/27/2019 Su Crimrev1
29/36
OBJECTIVE STAGE
State wherein the offender performed all the
acts of execution needed for the crime
No more control
Crime is either frustrated or consummated
7/27/2019 Su Crimrev1
30/36
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
MORTALITY OF WOUND: Borinaga and Kalalo
rulings
When the wound inflicted is not fatal,
homicide or murder is only attempted
(Velasco vs. People, GR 166479, February 28,
2006, 433 SCRA 649 and People vs. Dela Cruz,
GR 154348, June 8, 2004, 431 SCRA 388)
7/27/2019 Su Crimrev1
31/36
RAPE
ORITA ruling
People vs. Efren Valez(GR 136738, March 12, 2001)child, inch penetration
People vs. Campuhan(GR 129433, March 30, 2000)epidermal contact
PEOPLE vs. MONTERON (G.R. No. 130709, March 6,2002)adult/ on top of female orgn
PEOPLE vs. MARIO (G. R. No. 132550, February 19,
2001)cannot recall (woke up/wet-sticky substance) PEOPLE vs. COLLADO(G.R. Nos. 135667-70[1],
March 1, 2001) no intent to penetrate
7/27/2019 Su Crimrev1
32/36
THEFT AND ROBBERY
1. VALENZUELA VS. PEOPLE (GR No. 160188, June 21,
2007)Theft is a formal crime. It can only be
attempted or consummated and there can be no
frustrated stage in the crime of theft. Unlawful
taking complete when offender gains possession,even if no opportunity to dispose
2. PP v. LEOPOLDO SALVILLA (184 SCRA 671)control
and dominion even if no asportation or no
opportunity to dispose
7/27/2019 Su Crimrev1
33/36
CONSPIRACY & PROPOSAL When proposal is accepted, there is conspiracy
Act of one is the act of all
PEOPLE vs. ROEL PUNZALAN, ET. AL. (GR 78853; November 9,1991)A co-conspirator is liable for such other crimes whichcould be foreseen and which are the natural and logicalconsequences of the conspiracy
PEOPLE vs. RICARDO LASCUNA, ET. AL. (GR 90626; August18, 1993)time of commission; liable for graver offenseunless he performed overt acts to prevent the graveroffense
PEOPLE vs. DE LA CERNA, ET. AL. (GR L-20911, October
30, 1967)If the conspirators select a particularindividual or group of individuals to be their victim andanother person was killed by some, only those whoactually participated in the killing are liable
7/27/2019 Su Crimrev1
34/36
TWO FACETS OF CONSPIRACY
1. CONSPIRACY AS A MODE OF INCURRING
CRIMINAL LIABILITY (needs an overt act)
2. CONSPIRACY AS A CRIME
Crimes against National Security
Anti-Terrorism Lawconspiracy to commit
murder, etc
7/27/2019 Su Crimrev1
35/36
ART 10
GEN RULE: RPC principles not applicable to
offenses under special laws:
Penalties
Stages of execution
Degrees of participation
graduation
Exception: Suppletory application when
applicable
MARTIN SIMON RULING
7/27/2019 Su Crimrev1
36/36