You are on page 1of 460

BY

Luis B. Reyes
(Iudfic, Court of Fint I t t a n c e of Mdniia) Profossar of Criminal Law and Criminal Law Review

Bar Reviewer in Criminal Law at the 6 ' Colle~eof Law. Ateneo de Manila University School of Law, Lyceum of the Philimines Institute of Law. Far Eastern University

Revised Second Edition

19F8

Distvibrited Exclusi.ueZy by

. %
, .

PHILAW PUBLISHING
.
2103 C. M. Recto Ave., Manila, Philippinss

" '~ :
'<

Philippines Copysight 1868,


i

: i

"

by LUIS B. REPES

Any copy of this book not bearingr tlie signalure of the author on this page shall be deemed as having proeieded from an illegal source.

All Rights Reserved

Piinted 1%
''

R. P. GARCIA PUBLISHING CO. ,311 Quezon Blvd. E*., Quezon City


'r

..., *.'

1. When did the Revised Penal Code take effect? The Revised Penal Code took effect on the of Ja. a r y , 1932 (Art. 1, R.P.C.). 2 B iefly, trace the history of the ILtvised . On Sept,ember 4, 1864, by royal decree, Spain ordere that thcPenal Code in force in the Peninsula, as amende in accordance with the recommendation of the code corn mittee, be published and applied in the Philippine Islands. The royal order, d?,ted December 17, 1886, directed ,execation of the royal decree of September 4, 1884. The Penal Code of Spain was published in Gazette of Manila on March 13 and 14, 1887, and be effective four months thereafter. The Penal Code of S took effect in the Philippines on July 14, 1887, and in force up t o December 31,. 1931. By Administrative Order No. 94 of the De Justice, dated October 18, 1927, p committee was cre composed of Aiiacleto Diaz, as chairman, and Qu Paredes, Guillermo Gnevara, ,Alex Ileyes and Maria de Joya, as members, to revise the old Penal Code, into consideration the existing conditions, the special laws, and the rulings laid down by the Supreme The Committee did not undertake the codification Philippines. What the Committee

./

e extent of the application of the provision the Revised Penal Code? Except as provided in the treaties and Iaws,.,o~fi.. ferential application, the provisions of the RevisedP

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

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 o r 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 intro:. '..'duction into these Islands of the obligations and securities .. 1 , '~ mentioned in the preceding number; . ..., 4 . While being public officers or employees, should ," ..,-' it an offense in the exercise of their functions; or Should comrpit any of tine crimes against national urity and the law of nations, defined in Title One of k Two of the Revised Penal Code. (Art. 2, R.P.C.)
''ti:--.

, .

committed, as well as the m describe the means. Acts and omissions' punishable by 1 (delitos). Felonies are committed not only, by means' of (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa)., There is deceit when the aet is performed erate intent; and there i s ,fault wben t h e W results from imprudence, negligence, lac

hat eases may the provisions of the Revised Penal 'be enforced outside of the jurisdiction of the Philip. :pines? s provided in the treaties and laws of prelication, the provisions of the Revised Penal enforced outside of the jurisdiction of the ainst those who: '1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship

f3act done be klifferent 'from th

Bn impossible crime is one an act-which would be an offens

2. Should forge o r counterfeit any coin or currency te of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities
sued by the Government of the Philippine Islands; 3 . Should be liable for acts connected with the introction into these Islands of the obligations and securities n the preceding number; being public officers or employees, should t. an offense in the exercise of their functions; or

What is the duty of the whieh should be repressed but which are
Whenever a court has knowledife o f , a n may deem proper to repress and which .is

CRIMINAL LAW kEVlEWEE . .


, it

/'

CRIMINAL LAW REVIETVER

shall render the proper decision, and shall rethe Ckief Executive, through the Department of the reasons which induce the court to believe act should be made the subject of penal legisrt. 6, par. 1, R.P.C.). le duty of the court when a strict enforcement visions of the Revised Penal Code would result osition of a clearly excessive penalty? Irt shall submit to the Chief Executive, through

felonies are punishable oiiIy' w h e n with the exception of those:c (Art. '7, R.P.C.).
12.

nd define the stages of execution of a felony. State ges of execution arr punishable.

$2 i
,'i

commit felony and pro mit felony. When are conspiracy and p felony pUni5hdble? A conspiracy exists when two or more p to .an agreement concerning the commi and decide to commit it (Art. E, par. 2, There i s proposal when the person. who h to commit a fdony proposes its execution to person or'.persons (Art. 8, par. 3, R.P.C.)." Conspiracy and proposa,l to comrpit felony de only in the cases in which the law speoifi i Jides a penalty therefor (Art. 8, par. 1, R.P. felonies according to their

the elements neces-

e will of the per. ,

"{

.;&

. , , ,;$,,There is an attempt when the offender eohmenees the '~~'compission a felony directly by overt acts, and does of ., . : not perform all the acts of execution which should produce "" the 'felony by reason of .some cause o r accident other than . . I.,:' .,his.own spontaneous desistance. .ib_ I. . :
i*
~ ~

. . ,.

They are grave felonies, less grave felonies. Grave felonies are those to which'the capital punishment or penalties which periods are afflictive, in accordance with Revised Penal Code. Less grave felonies are those which the law. witk genalkies which in their maximum period rectional, in accordance with the above Light felonies are those infractions of commission. of which the penalty of urresto fine! not exceeding 200 pesos or both, is pr

.i

.< , :

(Art. 6, R.P.C.)

offenses are not subject to the provisions. Offenses which are or in the f

...,XI., . When , are light feldnies punishable? , 'ception? .A<,+>,'.? , ., . : . .,.

What is the ex-

CRIMINAL LAW REYIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

t way may the Revised Penal Code apply to crimes


d by special laws? he Revised Penal Code shall be supplementary to a1 laws, unless the latter should specially provide the ary (Art. 10, second clause, R.P.C.). exists; Second. That the injury feare done to avoid it. Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

are the juqtifying circumstances?, self-defense, ( defense of relatives, cy are efense of stranger, (4) state of necessity, (6) ful.fillment of duty or lawful exercise of a right or ofice, , ,. and ( 6 ) obedience to a lawful order. ++..,., The provisions of the Revised Penal Code on justifyq . ._. . ing circumstances are, as follows : . . The following do not incur any criminal liability: 1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur: . , . .First. Unlawful aggression; Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent o repel it; T h i r c d a c k of sufficient provocation on the part of the pe on defending himself. A n y o n e who acts in defense of the person or rights his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natu, or adopted brothers o r sisters or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those by consanguinitY urth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumnce are present, aud the further requisite, in case the as given by the person attacked, that the fense had no part therein. Anyone who acts in defense of t,he person or rights rovided that the first and second requisites first circumstance of this article are the person defending be not induced ment or other evil motive. who, in order t o avoid an evil or inan act which causes damage to another, proowing requisites are present:

(6

a-1/

. Any

person who acts in obedience to an o

7. What are the requisites of self-defense?

The requisites of self-defense are: First. Unlawful aggression;

The exempting circum insanity, ( W 6 n o r i t y under (@--uncontrollable fear, and (7) failure to p act required by law because of lawful or insuper The provisions of the Revised Penal Code on ing circumstances are, as follows:' The following are exempt from criminal liabili 1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless t has acted during a lucid intertal. an act which the law defines as a felony, court shall order his confinement in one of or asylums established for persons thus ',a?

F_(,..

,, ;

. .'
j_

,,,.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER


.,

CK-IMINAL LAW REVIEWER

e.

,'T

1 not be permitted to leave without first obtaining e permission of the same court. 2 . A person under nine years of age, 3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has acted with discernment, in which case, such hall be proceeded against in accordance with the ns of article 80 of the Revised Penal Code.
court, in conformity with the provisions of this

..

mitted to the care of some institution or person mentioned in said article 80. 4. .Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without .fault or intention of causing it. 5 . Any person who acts under the compulsion of an .irresistible force. 6. Any person who acts under the impulse of a n uncontrollable fear o an equal o r greater injury. 7. .Any person who fails to perform an act required plflaw, when prevented by some lawful o r insuperable (Art. 12, B P C ) ...

I'

3 . That the offender had no intention to commit grave a wrong as that committed. 4 . That sufficient provocation or threat o n of the offended party immediately preceded the 5. That the act wa cation of a grave offense to the one committing the,fel ( d e l i t o ) , his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitim natural, or adopted brothers or siaters, or .,relatives affinity within the same degrees. 6. That of having acted upon as naturally to have produced passio 7. That the offend self to a person in authority or his agents, :or had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the.eou to the presentation of the evidence 8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind; wise suffering some physical defect which thus his means of action, defense, or communication felIow beings. 9. Such illness of the offender 3s would d exercise of the will-power of the offender wi ever depri i6g him of consciousnes d, finally, any other ci natu and analogous to those ab0

Whijhaf nro the mllig?ifing circitnistances? The following are mitigating circumstances : 1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter; when all, the requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not
That the offender is under eighteen years of age ' seventy years. I n the case of the minor, he shall ceeded against in accordance with the provisions
, ,
r :

.YY7'
2
.. .

. What are the aggravating circunistanees?


The following are aggravating 1. That advantaae be taken by the offende public position. 2 . That the crime be committed in contemp with insult to the public authorities. 3 . That the act b regard of the respect due the offaided of his rank, age, or sex, or that i t be dwelling of the offended party, if provocation.

., ' . .~
.
e, .

.
, ,

. 8

e.
i . ./= ,

.,., .,." c.
.

. 1

::, ,.,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIZWER

.. .,,,.

.,,

. ,

..
~

..,,

,.,,.

'

.I

That the act be committed with abuse of confidence ungratefulness. 6, That the crime be committed in t'le palace of the ief Executive, or in his presence, or where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties or a place dedicated to religious worship. 6. That the crime be committed in the nighttime or in an uninhabited place, o r by a band, whenever such circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense. Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have a.cted together in the commission of an offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band. 7. That the crime he committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic, or other calami1.y o r misfortune. 8. That the crime be committed with the @id of armed men or persons who inswe or afford impunity. 9. That the accused is a recidivist. A recidivist is one who, a t the time of his trial for '., . one crime, shall have been previously convictec! by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title . of the Revised Penal Code. 10. That the offender has been previously punished f a r an offense to which the law attaches an equal or more crimes to which it committed in eonsideratio11 of mitted by means of inundaranding of a vessel or inilment of a locomotive, or ice involving great waste

15. That advantage be taken of superior stren means be employed to weaken the defense. 16. That the act be committed with tre

. I

'1
11

There is treachery when the offender commits any O f the crimes a,gainst the person, employing means, methods, o r forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and sneciallv t o insure its execution, without risk, t o .himself arising from the defense which the offended p a r t y , . ,; ;r : . might make. 17. That mcans be employed or circumstances brought , ,.a about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the , ,::. . .. act. . ,. . ~ 18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful ,..I ,.; entry. There is an unlawful entry when an entrance is effected '. by a way not intended for the purpose. 19. That as a means to the commission of a crime .a : wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken. 20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age, or by means of motor vehicles, airships, or other similar means. 21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime c deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not ecessazy for its commission.

.!",. ' I

.,..

'
~

., ,

I :

That the act be committed with evident premeditaThat craft, fraud, or disguise be employed.

21. What circumstances are either Or, what are alternative circumstances A!ternetive circumstances are those which taken into consideration a s according t o the nature and e otlier conditions attending its relat!onsbip, intoxication, and the degree of i education of the offender (Art. 1

When shall the alternative e be taken into consideration?

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

I,
~. '

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER


-

.l The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be


into consideration when. the offended party is the , ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adoptbrother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same s of the offender (Art. 16, par. 2, R.P.C.). shall the intoxication of the offender be taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstance? When shall it be considered as an aggravating circumstance? . , The intoxication of the offender shall b e taken into mitigating circumstance when the ofted a felony in a state of intoxication, or subsequent to the plan en the intoxication is habitt shall be considered as an aggravating 15, par. 3, R.P.C.). liable for grave or less grave felonies? y liable for grave and less
,::, 1 ;,,"

., :: 1 : ~ +q&&&,, ,.?".$
1

,, . I

,. ,

A *

;,,A'

,< .,~,. ,.~.~"., are a e / ,,~b.* Accomplices are those persons who, not being' included {:?$I in article 17 of the Revised Penal Code. coouerate'in ,the' * executiowof the offense E/y arevious or'sim&aneous actB i: f:~ . . i
'

$;/.

.$

?<.$",,

-*,,z*,

::-:<4

R.P.C.).

'

&cmihes are those who, having commission of the crime, and without h

g or destroying the body of the'crime

grave felonies:

ing, concealing, or a of the principal of the crime, provided with abuse of his public functions crime is guilty of treason,

rt. 16, par. 1, R.P.C.).


are criminally liable for light felonies? he following are criminally liable for light felonies: re the accessories exempt from crimi@, liability The penalties prescribed for access0

rt. 16, par. 2, R..P.C.).


110

are considered principals? The :following are considered principals: 1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of

2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it. , . 3 . Those who cooperate in the commission of the of..~. .> ", ,+ .fense by another act without which it would not have . ,*s..',~'% been accomplished. , &.i ,..: hi*-! > ,:,e<, ;I & ;& 8'. + (Art. 17, R.P.C.)
: .. :. ,+,;
';?-

i ,

(<"'* : :< $ , :-p..

/'
^_j

As a general rule, no *felony shall be p,u any penalty not preserihed by law (Art. 21, R.P.C.).

12

13

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

But Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect in so

The penaltks which may be imposed, accordi Revised Penal Code, and their different classes,' included in the following:

pardon by the offended party does not extinguish erest of the injured party is extinguished by his ex-

to keep the peace.

ts and proceeds of the offense, and . g (

. The'commitment of

a minor to any of th

3 . Suspension irom the employment

07

public office

and a light penalty? ipposed as a single or as an , b e considered an afflictive P pesos; a correctional .penalty, pesos but is not less than 200 f it be less than 200 pesos (A

(Art. 24, R.P.C.)

I .

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

unless such person by reason of his conduct or other serious cause shall be considered by the Chief as unworthy of pardon. Reclusion temporal.-The penalty of reclusion temporal twelve years and one day t o twenty years. Prision mnyor nnd temporaw disquaZif$cation.-The duration of the penalties of prision mayor and temporary disqualification shall be from six years and one day to twelve years, except when the penalty of disqualification is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case, its duration shall be that o the principal penalty. Prision eorreceional, suspension, and destierro,-The duration of the penalties of prision correceional, suspension, and rlestierro shall be from six months and one day to six years, except when suspension is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case, its duration shall. be that of the principal penalty. Arresto mayor.-The duration of the penalty of arresto mayor shall be from one month and one da months. Arresto menor.-The duration of the penal .;rent0 menor shall be from one day to thirty Bond to keep the peace.-The bond to keep the peace shall be required to cover such period of time as the court ma,y determine. (Art. 27, R.P.C.) State the rules for the computation of the term of the duration of temporary penalties and the term of the duration of penalties consisting in deprivation of liber If the offender shall he in prison, the term duiation of the temporary penalties shall be com from the day on which the judgment of conviction have become final. If the offender be not in prison, the term of the dura. , , tion of the penalty consisting of deprivation of liberty -Shall be computed from the day that the offender is laeed a t the disposal of the judicial authorities for the

enforcement of the penalty. The duration of ..the 0th penalties shall be computed only from the day on w$ic the defendant commences to serve his sentence. (Art. 28, R P C ) ...:

3.
I

37. In what cases shall the offenders who have undergone preventive iniprisonment not be credited in the service of their sentences with one-half of the time of their preventive imprisonment? Offenders who have undergone preventive imprison-. ment shall be credited in the service of their sentences consisting of deprivation of liberty, with one-half of the time during which they have undergone preventive imprisonment, except in the following cases: 1. When they are recidivists, or have been convicted previously twice or more times of any crime; 2 . When upon being summoned for the execution their sentence, they have failed to surrender voluntar 3. When they have been convicted of robh estafa, malversation of public funds, falsification, or prostitution.

What are the effects of the penalties of perpetual or tern porary absolute disqualification for The penalties of perpetual or temporary abs qualification for public office shall produce the
e f f e z p r i v a t i o n of the public offices ments which the offender may have held, f e r i - popular election. The deprivation of the right to vote in for any popular elective office or to be elec office. A d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n for the offices ployments and for the exercise of any of t tioned.

16

17,

CItIIMINAC LAW REVIEWSR

n as is comprised in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this article 11 last during the term of the sentence. 4 . The loss of all rights to retirement pay or other pensfon for any office formerly held.

& case of temporary disqualification, such disqualifica-

such profession or calling o r right of suffrage during term of the sentence. The person suspended from holding public office s h not gold another having similar functions during the perio o p i s suspension. /

he effects of the penalties of perpetual or ternial disqualification for pubJic office, profession, The Penalties of perpetual or temporary special disualification for public office, profession, or calling shall roduce the following effects: 1 . The deprivation of the office, employment, profeson or calling affected. 2. The disqualification for holding similar offices or kWnentS either perpetually or during the term of the e m , according to the extent of such disqualification. (Art. 31, R.P.C.)
40. '.What are the effects of the penalties of perpetual or tern* ;.
,
'

/
Civil interdiction shall deprive the ofender during'the time of his sentence of the rights of parental authority, o r guardianship, either as to the verson or property' .of ny ward, of marital authority, of the right t o manage his property, and of the right t o dispose of such property by any act or any conveyance intar vivos (Art. 34, R.P;C:).

42.1 What are the effects of civil interdiction?

porary special disqualification for the exercise of the right of suffrage? The perpetual o r temporary special disqualification for the exercise of the right of suffrage shall deprive the offender perpetually or during the term o i the sentence, according to the nature of said penalty, of the right to n any popular election for any public office or to be d to such office. Moreover, the offender shall not he tted to hold any public office durilig the period of isqualification (Art. 32, R.P.C.7.

What are the effects of the penalties of suspension from public office, profession, or calling, or the right of suf, . ., /
' ,

'.

The suspension from public office, profession, or calling, and the exercise of the right of suffrage shall disqualify the offender from holding such office or exercisiw

43. What are the effects of bond to keep the p It shall be the duty of any person sentenced to^ bond t o keep the peace, to present two suffic who shall undertake that such person the offense sought t o be prevented, and that offense be committed they will pay the amoun by the court in its judgment, or otherwise to deposit amount in the office of the clerk of the court to y a r said undertaking. The court shall determine, according t o its discreti the period of duration of the bond. Should the person sentenced fail to giie required he shall be detained for a period whi no case 'exceed six months, if he shall have been for a grave or' less grave felony, and shall not exce days, if for a light felony.
44. What are the effects of a pardon by t h

upon the convict's right to hold public office suffrage? May a pardon exempt the cdlpri payment of civil indemnity?

19

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER


CRIMINAL L A W REVIEWIPR

pardon shall not work the restoration of the i+ght d public office, or the right of suffrage, unless such be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon. Pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit from the ent Of the Civil indemnity imposed upon him by the

(Art. 36, R.P.C.)


included in costs? shall include fees and indemnities in the course judicial proceedings, whether they be fixed 01unle amounts previously determined by law or regularce, O r amounts not subject to schedule (Art.

t are the pecuniary liabilities of the nffender and


order of their paynlent?

In case the property of the offender should not he


sufficient for the payment of all his pecuniary liahilities, the same shall be met in the following order: 1. The 'reparation of the damage caused. 2. Indemnification of the consequent.ial damages. 3 . The fine. 4. The costs of the proceedings. (Art. 38, R.P.C.)

/'

..,,

What are the rules relating to subsidiary penalty? If the convict has no property with which to meet the liabilities mentioned in paragraphs Ist, Znd, the next preceding article, he shall be subject personal liability at the rate of one day and 50 centavos, subject to the followina rules:

imprisonment shall not exceed one-thi the sentence, and in no case shall it than one year, and no fraction or par counted against the prisoner. 2 . When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine,: the subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed six months;. if the cuiprit shall have been prosecuted for a grave'or less grave felony, and shall not exceed fifteen days;;if for a light felons. 3 . Wheii the principal penalty i prision eorreccional, no subsidiary imposed upon the culprit. 4. If the pxincipal penalty imposed is not to be ex- ' ; ecuted by confinement in a penal institution, but such penalty is of fixed duration, the convict, during the period of time established in the preceding rules, shall continue to snffer tb.e same deprivations as those of which the' principal penalty consists. 5 . The subsidiary personal liability which the convict may have suffered by reason of his insolvency shall n o t relieve him from xparation of the damage caused, nor fro1 indemnification for the consequential damages in c e his financial circumstances should improve; but he all be relieved f?om pecnniary liability as to the fine. (Art. 39, R.P.C.)

8. What are the accessory penalties of death? The death penalty, when it is not executed by of commutation or pardon, shall carry with it

and reelusion temsporal? The penalties of reclusion perpetua and porul shall carry with them that of civil i 20

21

P
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW

REVIEWER

life or during the period of the sentence as the case may a t of perpetual absolute disqualification uThich r shall suffer even though pardoned as to the enalty, miless the same shall have been exitted in the pardon (Art. 41, R.P.C.). e accessory penalties of prision mayor? The penalty of prision mugor shall carry with it that of temporary absolute disqualification and that of perdisqualification from the right of suffrage ender shall suffer although pardoned as t o penalty, unless the same shall have been tted in the pardon (Art. 42, R.P.C.). accessory penalties of prision correccional? The penalty of prision correccional shall carry with it suspension from public office, from the right to follow a profession or calling, and that of perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage, if the duration of said imprisonment shall exceed eighteen months. The offender shall suffer the disqualification provided in this article although pardoned as to the principal penalty, unsame shall have been expressly remitted in the rdon (Art. 43, R.P.C.). hat are the accessory penalties of arresto? The penalty of arresto shall carry with it that of susension of the right to hold office and the right of suf'age during the term of the sentence (Art. 44, R.P.C.). hat is the provision of the Revised Penal Code on conand forfeiture of the proceeds qr instruments of the crime? ,*A Every penalty imposed for the commissiort of a felony ry with i t the forfeiture of the proceeds of the rime and the instruments or tools with whlch it was

Such proceeds and instruments o r tools shall be con: fixated and forfeited in favor of the Government, unless they be th,e property of a third person not liable for the ofenseybut those articles which are not subject of lawEo1 commerce shall be destroyed. (Art. 45, R.P.C.)
.

54. When the law prescribes a penalty for a felony in generd terms, upon whom is it to be imposed and t o what stage
.of execution is it applicable? The penalty prescribed by law for the commission of a felony shall be imposed upon the principals in the cornmission of such felony. &henever the law prescrib idgeneral terms, it shall be un consummated felony.

.".'

''

, ,

48

a t is the penalty t o be imposed upon principals of ustrated crime? The penalty next lower in by lam for the consummated el the principals in a frustrated
56. What is the penalty to be imposedl upon principal

attempted crimes? A penalty lower by two degrees than that pre by ;aw or the consummated felony shall be impos principals in an attempt to commit a felony ( the penalty to be imposed upon accomplice consunxnated crime? The penalty next lower in degr by law for the consnnnnated felo the accomplices in the commission of a co ony (Art. 52, R.P.C.).

22

33
. .

_1

., : .
?%..,*,

._

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWIER

<'?,Y

:?,& 3> ..

. .
" ,

e.,&, .

'

..
1.

t is the penalty to be imposed upon accessories to the commission of a consummated felony? 'I!he penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon to the commission of a consummated felony
( '

a frustrated or attempted felony, or to be i aceoroplices 31 accessories (Art. EO, R.P.C.)

'.

hat is the penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in a


., .

'

The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed for the frustrated felony shall be imposed upon the accomplices in the commission of a frustrated felony to he imposed upon accessories of a
e r by two degrees than that prescribed strated felony shall be imposed upon accessories to the commission of a frustrated felony

64. What is the additional penalty to be imp0 accessories who should act viith abuse of the tions in harboring, concealing, or assisting of the principal of the crime? Those a.ccessor?es shall suffer the additional penalty of absolute perpetual disqualification if the principal dffender shall be guilty of a grave felony, and that of absolute temporary disqualification if he shall be guilty of a less grave felony (Art. 58, R.P.C.).
65. In what cases is the death penalty not to be imposed? The death penalty shall be imposed, in all cases in which it must be imposed under existing laws, except in the following cases: 1, When the guilty person be more than seventy years of age. 2 . When upon appeal or revision of the case b y ' t h e Supreme Court, eight justices are not unanimous in the?; voting as t o the propriety of the imposition of the death penalty. For the imposition of said penalty or for the confirmation of a judgment of the inferior court impos: iug the death sentence, the its decisi 1 per cu iunt
$.fiWA'

'

61. ,What is the penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in an attempted crime? The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for an attempt t o commit a felony shall be imposed upon the accomplices in an attempt to commit the felony (Art. 56, R.P.C.).
62. What is the penalty to be imposed upon accessories of an attempted felony? y lower by two degrees than that prescribed e attempt shall be imposed upon the aecesttempt to commit a felony (Art. 57, R.P.C.). xceptions to the rules established in articles ns contained in articles 50 to 57, inclusive, d Penal Code shall not be applicable t o cases law expressly prescribes the penalty for

+J

j*

. ,*, . , . ..

66. Define comples crimes and st When a single act constitutes two o r more grave less grave felonies, o r when an offense is a necessa means for committing the 0th serious crime shall be impos in its maximum period (Art. 48, R.P.C., as am Act No. 4000).
F'i. What are the rules relative t upon the principals when the from that intended?

.-24

26

, . ,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CEIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

In cases in which the felony committed is different from that which the offender intended to commit, the following rules shall be observed: 1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be higher than that corresponding t o the offense which the accused intended to commit, the penalty corresponding to the latter shall be imposed in its maximum period. 2. If the penalty prescribed or the felony committed be lower than that corresponding to the one which the accused intended to commit, the penalty for the former shall be imposed in its maximum period. 3. The rule established by the next preceding paragraph shall not be applicable if the acts committed by the guilty person shall also constitute an attempt or frustration of another crime, if tlic lam prescribes a higher penalty for either of the latter offenses, in which case the penalty provided for the attempt or the frustrated crime:! shall be imposed in the maximum period. (Art. 49, R.P.C.)
.:68.

'

.,~. , ,.i,: .., ,,;..*, . , * .. , ' 69.T':tWhat :ire {.he rules for graduating penalties?
/ i

. , . ..,. .'

What is the penalty to be imposed for the commission of an impossible crime? When the person intending to commit an offense has already performed the acts for the execution of the same but nevertheless the crime was not produced by reason of the fact that the act intended was by its nature one of impossible accomplishment or because the means employed by such person zre essentially inadequate to pro.. duce the result desired by him, the court, having in mind the social danger and the degree of criminality shown by the offender, shall impose upon hini the penalty of nrresto mayor or a fine ranging from 200 to 500 pesos (Art. 59, R.P.C.).
'%
I

:.,.
,',
~

,. ,: :

'

.;, ;..

'.%:For the purpose of graduating the penalties which, according to the provisions of articles fifty to fifty-seven, inclusive, of the Revised Penal Code, are to be imposed
,

upon persons guilty as principals of any frustrated or ; attempted felony, or as accomplices or accessories, the following rules shall be observed: 1, When the penalty prescribed for the felony is single and indivisible, the penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately f o l l o - h g that indivisible penalty in t h e , respective graduated scale prescribed in article 71 of the Revised Penal Code. 2. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of two indivisible penalties, o r of one or more divisible penalties to be imposed to their full extent, the penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately Eollowing the lesser of tho penalties prescribed in the respective graduated scale. 3. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of one or two indivisible penalties and the max period of another divisib in degree shall be compo periods of the proper divisible penalty and the maximum period of that immediately following in said respective graduated scale. d.. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is com- ' posed of several pcriods, corresponding t o different divisib18 penalties, the penalty next lower in degree shall be; composed of the period immediately following the minimum prescribed and of the two next following which shall .be taken from the penalty prescribed if possible; otherwise from the penalty immediately following in the above mentioned respective graduated scale. 6 . When the law p in some manner not specially provided for in t h e , preceding rules, the courts, pro impose the corresponding penalties upon tho principals of the frustrated felony, or of atte mit the same, and upon acc
I

,.

i . I .,',

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIHINAL LAW REVIEWER

.. ;:~:.,..'. ..
,', ,', , ,, .
.,
!..i

, .
I

70.' What are the effects of the attendance of mitigating or


,'I

aggrwating circumstances and of habitual delinquency? Mitigating 01- aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be taken into account for the purpose of. diminishing or increasing the penalty in conformity with the following rules: 1. Aggpvating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime specially punishable by law o r which are tuclcded %j the law in ddinmg a mime and prescribing the penalty therefor shall tlot be taken into account for t h e purpose of increasing the penalty. 2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating circumstances inherent in the crime to such a degree that it must of necessity accompany the commission thereof. 3 . Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from the moral attributes of the offender, or from his private relations with the offended party, or from any other .personal cause, shall only serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of the principals, accomplices, and accessories as to whom such circumstances are attendant. 4 . The circumstances which consist in the ma.krial execution of the act, o r in the means emp:oyed to accomplish it, shall serve to aggravgte 01" mitigate the liability of those persons only who had Icnawledge of them at the time of the execution of the act or their cooperation
5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following ef-

(e) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culp shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the la crime of aliich he be found guilty and to the additio penalty of vision mayor in its maximum period to elusion tempoml in its minimum period. Notwithstanding 'the provisions of this article, the to of the two penalties to be imposed upon the offender '' conformity herewith, shall in no case /exceed 30 year (Art. 62, R.P

71. Who is a habitual delinquent? A person shall be deeaed to be habitual delinquent,


if within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious o r less serious physical injuries, mho, hurto, estafa, or faasificd tion, he i s fwiind gnilty of any of said crimes~ third a time or oftener (Art. 62, last par., R.P.C., as amended by Republic Act No. 18).

,.

'.

.''

(a) Upon a third conviction, the culprit shall b'e sentenced to the penalty provided by law for. the last crime of which he be fonnd guilty and to the additional penalty .. of pr<a.lrm coweecimal in its medium and maximum pe, ,~ ".. riods; ?;,;"; . . . (b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which .~, he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its:minimum and medium periods; and
j-

72. What are the rules for the application of indivisible pen-,. alties? In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, il shall 5e applied by the courts regard:, less of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that rnay have attended the commission of the deed. In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall he observed in the application thereof: 1. When in the commission of the deed there is pref. sent only one aggravating circumstance, the greater pen- ~: aliy shall be applied. 2 . When there are ne&er mitigating nor aggravating ' ' circumstances in the commission of the deed, the,.lesser . .. ..i penalty shall be applied. . ,., . 3. When the commission of the act is attended some mitigating circumstance and there is no:aggravating , -,:.,;: . , .I circumstance, the lesser penalty shall he applied. ., ,~ '_

.:by~~:~?,;i
~

, ..

28
,5

29

. ..
CRIAIINAL LAW REVIEWER

4 . When both mitigating and aggravating circumstlfnces attended the commission of the act, the courts s all reasonably allow them to offset one another in onsideration of their number and importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty in accordance with the preceding rules, according to the result of such compensa-

greater penalty than that prescribed by law, in its paximum period.

/n.

(Art. 63, R.P.C.)

(Art. 64, R.P.C.)

'

73. "bat are the rules far the application of penalties whkh contain three,,periods? In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law con' , fain three periods, whether it be a single divisible pe.nalty ' ..: o r composed of three different penalties, each one of which forms a period in accordance with the provisioiis of articles 76 and 77, the court shall observe for the application of the penalty the following rules, according to whether there are or are no mitigating or aggravating ci rcumstanees : I . When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed ! , by law in its medium period. 2. When only a mitigating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its minimum period. 3 . When only an aggravating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its maximum period. 4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall reasonably offset those of one class against the other according t o their relative weight. 5. When there are two or more mitigating circum, stances and no aggravating circumstances are present, the .'.6 ,.court shall impose the penalty next lower to that pre."l+i.c . ' ~ :.,scribed by law, in the period that it may deem applicable, ' ' ., , . ' ac$ording to the number and nature of such circumstances. .~, ,. . "'6.. Whatever may be the number and nature of the agirrayating ,circumstances, the courts shall not impose a
I .
~

4. What is the rule in cases in which the penalty is not'

In imposing fines the courts may fix any a in the limits established by law; in fixing

, .

R.P.C.).

,.. .

,.

30

CkIfMINAL LAW REVIEWER


,'..

CkIMINAL LAW REY'IEWEB

.76. What are the rules to be observed as to the penalty to be


i m w e d upon a person under eighteen years of age? m e n the offender is a minor under eighteen years and his case is one coming under the provisions of the parwraph next to the last of article 80 of the Revised Penal Code, the following rules shall be observed: 1. Upon a person under fifteen but over nine years of age, who i not exempted from liability by reason of s the court having declared that he acted with discernment, a discretionary penalty shall be imposed, but always lower by two degrees a t least than that prescribed by l a ~ v for the crime which he committed. 2 . Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years of age the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall b immed, but always in the proper period. e (Art. 68, R.P.C.)

.__, , .. '.> ,
.y :
? .

,~,

:*

executed successively or a pardon have beezi granted as to the Penalty Or penalties first imposed, or should they have been sewed out.

. ,
~..

'

redo

mayor

. . -. "',-77. ,.. ,What is the penalty to be imposed when the wime corn,<;~, ., mitted is not wholly excusable? ... > , .. A penalty lower by one o r two degrees than that prescribed hy law shall be imposed if t h e rleed is not wholly : ', excusable by reason of the lack of some of the conditions required. to justify the same o r to exempt from criminal . liability in the several cases mentioned in articles 1 and 1 ' . . 12, provided that the majority of such conditions be pre:I : sent.. !Che courts shall impose the penalty in the period ,' which may be deemed proper, in view of the number and nature of the conditions of exemption present or laeking (Art. 69, R.P.C.).
;;
I,'
,?C ,

78. What are the rules regarding successive service of sen1*

When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties e shall Serve them simultaneously if the nature of the rmit ; otherwise, the 2ollowing rules
of the penalties, the order of their

disqualification disqualificatioll office, the right to v and be voted for, the right to fOh%' Profess1 or calling 12. Public censure Notwithstanding the provisions of the ing, the maxinrurn duration of the eonl.iet's sentence not be more than threefold the length Of time corres ingto the most severe of the aenalties imposed. N~ other penalty to which he may be liable shall be,', flitted after the sum of those imposed equals tbe"s maximum period. such maximum period shall in no case exceed years. applying the provisions of this of perpetual penalties ( p e m p e m t u a ) shall a t thirty years.

on

11 be followed so th?,t they m y be


. . . ,
, ,

1
i

i
.

. ,,

,, , . ,,, .

.'. .

. .. . . .,
CKIMINAI. LAW REVIZWIER

Ckl&INAL LAW REVIEWER


'
;

79. What are the.graduated scales from which the lower or


higher penalty is to be taken? In the cases in which the law prescribes a penalty .. lower 01 higher by one or more degrees than another enalty, the rules prescribed in article 61 shall be ed in graduating such penalty. he lower or higher penalty shall be taken from the ted scale in which is comprised the given penalty. The courts, in applying such lower or higher penalty, shall observe the following graduated scales: Scale No. 1

.
. '

. , . ... " .

81. What is the presumption in regard to th accessory penalties? Whenever the courts shall impose a penal provision of la-#, carries with it other pen ing $6 tbe provisions of articles 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, Revised Penal Code, it m ~ s t understo be penalties are also imposed upon the-eo

. Beelusion

temporal

2. What is the penalty higher than reclusion perpetua law does not prescribe the penalty of death? .. In cases in which the law prescribes a penalty hi than another given penalty, without. speeifi the name of the fonner, if such higher pen that of death, t h e same penalty and the accessory of article 40, shall be considered as the (Art. 74, R.P.C.!.

''

8. Arrest0 menor 9. Public censure

.:-,t~,;...,~.,80. art! the civil liabilities of a person puilty of two or , ,. . How more offemes satisfied?

,.,

..

Scale No. 2 1. Perpetual absolute disqualification 2. Temporary absolute disqualification 3 . Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, and the riaht to follow x profession or calling 4. F'ublic censure 6. Fine (Art. 71, R.P.C.)

83. What are the rules as regards increasing or reducing penalty of fine by one or more d e ~ r e e s ? Whenever it may be necessary t o incr the penalty of fine by one or more d increased 01" reduced, respectively, for e one-fourth of the maximum amount pre without, however, changing the minimum. The same rules shall be observed with regard t o fine / that do not consist of a fixed amount, but are made pro-" portional.

The civil liabilities of a person found guilty of two ore offenses shall be satisfied by following the nological order of the dates of the final judgments endered against him, beginning with the first in order f:,time (Art..,72, R.P.C.).
i
,

84. What is a complex penalty? A complex penalty is one composed of three di penalties, each one forming a period; the lightest Of shall be the minimum, the next the medium, and t severe the maximum period. Whenever the penalty prescribed does n of the forms specially provided for in the R

.j
'

. :

..

34

... .
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
I

CRIMlNAL LAW REVIEWER

Code, the periods shall be distributed, applying by 'analogy


the prescribed rules.

(Art. 77, R.P.C.)


85. What is the provision of the Revised Penal Code as regards the execution and service of sentence in case the convict becomes insane o r imbecile? When a convict shall hecomeinsane or an'imbeeile after
final :sentence has been pronounced, the execution of said sentence shall be suspended only with regard to the personal penalty. If a t any time the convict shall recqver his reason, his sentence shall be executed, unless the penalty shall have :prescribed in accordance with the provisions of the Revised Penal Code. These provisions shall also be observed if the insanity or imbecility occurs while the convict is serving his sen-

tence.
(Art. 79, R.P.C.)

' I

86. What are the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on the suspension of sentence of minor delinquents? Whenever a minor of either sex, under sixteen years of age at the date of the commission of a grave or less .grave felony, is accused thereof, the court, after hearing the evidence in the proper proceedings, instead o f pronouncing judgment of conviction, shall suspend all further proceedings and shall commit such minor to the custody or care of a public or private, benevolent or charitable - ' institution, established under the law for the care, cor.. rection, or education of orphaned, homeless, defective, and delinquent children, or to the custody or care of any other responsible person in any other place subject to visitation and supervision by the Director of Public Welfare or any , . , of his agents or representatives, if there be any, or otherwise hy the superintendent of public schools or his repre, ' sentatives, subject to such conditions as are prescribed . , until such minor shall have reached his majority or for ."".": such :less period as the court may deem proper,
36

the minor has been committed t o the custody o r care of any of the institutions mentioned in the first paragraph of this article, with the approval of the Director of Public Welfare and xnbject to such conititions as this ? official in accordance with law may deem proper t o im;pose, such minor may be allowed to stay elsewhere under +he care of a responsible person. n has behaved properly and has complied If the r with the conditions imposed upon him during his confinement, in accordance with the provisions of this article, he shall be returned to the court in order that the same ,:a* may order his final release. In case the minor fails to behav with the regulations of the institution to which h% has been committed or with the conditions imposed upon him '. wheri he was committe son, or in case he should be fo eontinu& stay ir, such he shall be returned to may render the judg committed by him. (Art. 80, R.P.C., as amended ljy Com. Act No. 99 and Rep. Act No. 47)
1.

d f

,::

...

7 . In what cases is the execution of the death senten suspended? The death sentence shall not be inflicted upon a wo within the three years next following the date of the" tence or while she is pregnant, n o r upon any person seventy years of age. In this last ca,s shall be commuted to the penalty 0 with the accessory penalties provide 83, R.P.C.).

88. How is the penalty of destierro executed? Any person sentenced to destie mitted to enter the place o r places designated

ce, nor within the radius therein specined, which shall be n o t more than 250 and not less than 25 kilometers from the place designated (Art. 87, R.P.C.).
a t penalty may be served in the house of the defendant

i:

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

The penalty of arresto menor shall be served in the municipal jail, or in the house of the defendant himself under the surveillance of an officer of the law, when the court so provides in its decision, taking into consideration the health of the offender and other reasons which may seem satisfactory t o it (Art. 88, R.P.C.).

(Art. 91, R P C ) ...


d woman, as pro-

(Art. 89, R.P.C.)

:,,

punishable by a correctional penalty shall prescribe in ten years: with the exception of those punishable by arresto mayor, which shall prescribe in five years.
'

38

. ,
CRIMINAL LAW REVIE

.
,.

The period of ,prescription of penalties shall commence to run from the date when the culprit should evade the service of his sptence, and it shall be interrupted if the deieadant shou\d give himself up, be captured, should go to some foreig country with which this Government has no extradition treatv. or should commit another crime

'f

What are the causes of partial extineticn of criminal liaCiimirh liability is extinguished partially : 1. By conditional pardon:

W at is special time allowance for loyalty?


(Art. 94, R.P.C.)
A deduction of one-fifth of the period of his sentelice shall be granted t o any prisoner who, having evaded the. service of his sentence under the circumstances mentioned ' in article 158 of the Revised Penal Code, gives himself up to the authorities within 48 hours following the ism-', ance of a proclamation announcing the passing away of the calamity o r catastrophe referred to in said article (Art. 98, R.P.C.).
100. Who grants time allowance? Whenever lawfully justified, the Director of Prisons

(Art. 97, R

96, R"P.C.).

.. .
. , . , ,
:'

.
I

period of his sentence:


. .

r
,.

40
L.

. . , ~ ,

CRIMINAL LAW REYIEWER

CRIMLNAL LAW REVIEWER

.-r
,~,

The exemption from criminal liability established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of article 12 and in subdivision 4 of article 11 of the Revised Penal Code does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced subject to the following rules: First: In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of article 12, the civil liability for acts committed by an imbecile or insane person, and by a person under nine years of age, or over nine but under fifteen years of age, who has acted without discernment, shall devolve upon those having such a person under their legal authority or control, unless i t appears that there was no fault or negli.gence on their part. Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile, or minor under his authority, legal guardianship, or control, oir if such person be insolvent, said insane, imbecile, or minor shall respond with their own property, excepting property exempt from execution, in accordance witii the civil law. Second: In cases falling within subdivision 4 of article 11, the persons for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have received. Third: In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of article 12, the persons using violence or causing .the fear shall be primarily liable and secondarily, or, if there the act shall be~liable, that part of their property .,.:,. il . , .@g;J
..I ; /

nances or some general or special pulice regulation shall . ,, have been committed by them or their employees. Innkeepers are also subsidiarily Iiahle for the restitution of goods taken by robbery or theft within their houses .. i.'. from guests lodging therein, or for the payment of the , : ; value thereof, provided that such guests shall have notified : in advance the innkeeper himself, or .the person represent- . l j ing him, of the deposit of such goods within t h e inn;;Fd .. ,'t" shall furthermore have followed the directions which such ',<' . innkeeper or his representative may have given them with,, ,;;;,& respect t o the care of and vigilance over such goods. NO liability shall attach in case of robbery with violence ,:$!h agiiliist or intimidation of persons unless committed by , > ' # .,g;'$ the innkeeper's employees, (Art. 102, R.P.C.) .:$&
I

.,:A

-.x

144. What is the subsidiary civil liability of employers engag


in any kind of iiidustry? The subsidiary liability established in the next preced- , ing article shall also apply to employers, teachers, per- '. sons, and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, ? apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties. j* & , ' (Art. 103, R.P.C.). .", &

~:

105.

ibZlZi.d in civil iiaomty un The civil liability established in and 103 of the Revised Penal Cod 1. Restitution; 2. Reparation of the damage caused; 3 . Indemnification for consequential damages.

(Art. 101, R.P.C.)

, , : E$.

...',70:.

...,',,.,

103. What is the subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavernkeepern, and proprietors of establishments? In default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers, ", .., . ...in' $' tavern-keepers, and any other persons or corporations shall : ,~&,,;;,:., be civilly liable for crimes committed in their estabIish, ', , , . . ', ~~. ' , > ~ ments, in all cases where a violation of municipal ordi? . , "

_-

106. How is restitution made?

,,,?

The restitution of the thing itsel ever possible, with allowance for an diminution of value as determined. by the cour

42

43
?

i
"i:

i . .,.
,,q-.;

. . .., , , . . . . ..
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIIWINAL LAW REVIEWER,

..

'

The/thing itself shall be restored, even though it be n the possession of a third person who has aeit by lawful means, saving to the latter his action the proper person who may be liable to him. plicable in cases in which the 'ng has been acquired by the third person in the manner d under the requirements which, by law, bar an action

11

No. If there are two or more persons .civilly liable ',,' for a felony, the courts shall determine the amount for',, whic each must respond (.Art. 109, R..P.C.). ' . .
State the several and subsidiary liabili1.y of principals, ac-complices. and accessories of felony and the preference i n payment. The principals, accomplices, and accessories, each with; in their respective class, shall be liable severally (in soliduh) among themselves for their quotas, a sidiarily for those of the other persons liable. The subsidiary liability shall be enforced, firs the proper1.y of the principals; next, against that accomplices; and, lastly, against that of the acce Whenever the liability &z solidum or the s liability has been enforced, the person by whom payment, has been made shall have a right of action against the others for the amount of their respective shares.. (Art. 110, R.P.C.). ' hat is the obligation of a pervon who participated gratuitously in the proceeds of a felony? Any person who has participated gratuitously in the proceeds of a felony shall bo bound to make restitution in an amount equivalent to the extent of such participa(Art. 111, R.P.C.). How is the civil liability under the Revised Penal Cade extinguished? Civil liability established iu articles 100, 101, 102, and 103 of the Revised Penal Code shall be extinguished in the same manner as other obligations, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Law (Art. 112, R.P.C.).

(Art. 105, R.P.C.)


court shall determine the amount of damage, taking ce of the thing, whenever posental value to the injured p+arty, made accordingly (Art. 106,

'khat are included in indemnification for consequential


Indemnification for consequential damages shall include not only those caused the injured ?arty, but also those suffered by his family or by a third person by reason of the crime (Art. 107, R.P.C.). 109. Upon whom devolve the obligation to make restoration, m, or indemnification for consequential damages action to demand the same? The obligation to make restoration or reparation for mages and indemnifioation f o r consequential damages volves upon the heirs of the person liable. action to demand restoration, reparation and indemnification likewise descends to the heirs of the person

..
,',.
,

(Art. 108, R.P.C.)


the civil liability in solidum of two of a felony, without determining each must respond?

Does service of sentence or amnesty, pardon, or commuta-., tion of sentence extinguish civil liability under the Revised Penal Code?

45

. .

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

No. Except in case of extinction of his civil liability


provided in the next preceding article, the offender all continue to be obliged to satisfy the civil liability from the crime committed by him, notwithstandfact that he has served his sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty or other rights, o r has not been reqiiired to serve the same by reason of amnesty, pardon, commutation of sentence, or any other yeason (Art. 113,

an accessory to the crime of tresson. (Art. 116, R.P.C.)


18. How is the crime of espionage cornmitt vised Penal Code? Espionage is committed by any person who: I . Without authority therefor, enters a warship, fort, or naval or military establishment or reservation to obtain any information, plans, photographs, or o confidential nature relative to the defense of the Philippine ; or eing .in possession, by ?emon of the public office ds, of the articles, data, or information referred to the preceding paragraph, dificloses i.heir contents to a representative of a foreign nation. . , , (Art. 117, R.P.C.)
, .

115. How is the crime of treason Committed? Treason is committed by any person who, owing alleo the Government of the Philippines, not being a foreigner, levies war against it or adheres to the ,enemies, giving them aid or comfort witbin the Philippines or else-

'

',

'

(Art. 114, as amended by Executive Order No. 41, R.P.C.)


,e the crimes of conspiracy and proposal to commit

(19. How is the crime of inciting t o war or givin$ motives for reprisals committed?

mmit treason is committed when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commis:rion of treason and decide to commit it.

It is committed by any public officer or employee or private individ,oal who, by unlawful or unauthorized acts,
Philippines or exposes Filipino citizens t o persons or property (Art. 118, R.P.C.).
of violation of neutrality Violation of neutrality is committed by anyone wh

,~

(Ark 115, R.P.C.)

any regulation issued by

., .

.. . . -5
~,.,"

46

47

't.

.;

..,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER


.~ ,

It is committed by any person who, in time of war,


'

'

.,.
.

.,

shall have correspondence with an enemy country or territory occupied by enemy troops, aad khe correspondence has been prohibited by the Government; or it is carried an in ciphers or conventional signs; or notice or informa'tion is given thereby which might be useful to the enemy (Art. 1.20, R.P.C.).

2.

125. How is the crime of arbitrary detention committed? It is committed by any public officer or employee who, without legal grounds, detains a person (Art. 124, R.P.C.).
126. How is the crime of delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities committed? It is committed by a public officer o r employee who, having detained any person for some legal gr fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial within the period of; six hours, if detained or offenses punishable by light penalties, or their equi-:. valent; nine hours, for crimes or offenses punishable correctional penalties, or their equivalent; and eighte hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by afflictive^ capital penalties, or their equivalent (Art. 125, R.P.C

. ,

,~

'.

122 How is the crime of flight to enemy's country committed?

,.

It is comnitted by any person who, owing allegiance


to the Government, attempts t o flee or go to an enemy country when prohibited by competent authority (Art.
. 121, R.P.C.).

1 .

,,,

.z:,

..

123. IIoy iri the crime of piracy committed? 'Piracy is committed by any person who, on the high .. . seas, shall attack or seize a vessel or, not being a member .of its complement nor a passenger, shall seize the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, its equipment, or personal belongings of its complement or passengers (Art. "" 122, R.P.C.).
Not@: The mutiny which the Revised Pe~,zlW e punisha i s that which is committed on the high seas.
.

'427.

Row is the cyime of &laying relase committed?, . It is committed by any public officer or ,employee delays the performance of any judicial or executive of
for the release of a prisoner o r detention prisoner,. unduly delays the service of the notice of such order said prisoner, or the proceedings upon any petition the liberation of such person (Art. 126, R.P.C.).

124. When is the crime of piracy or mutiny on the high Seas qualified? The crime of piracy 01' mutiny on the high seas is '.",,T, qualified when it is committed under an> of the following circumstances : 1. When the offenders have seized a vessel by board, ing or firing upon the same: .r 2. Whenever the pirates have abandoned, their victims withont means of saving themselves: or *. 3 . Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries, or rape. (Art. 123, R.P.C.)

Note: The three farms of arbitrary detention are defined:' Arts. 124, 125, and 126.

28. How is the crime of expulsion Committed? It is committed by any public officer OT emvloyee not being thereunto authorized by law, shall expel person from the Philippines or shall compel such person? to change his residence (Art. 127, I1.P.C.).
.,

.,

12s. How is the crime of violation of domicile committed? It is committed by any public officers or em who, not being authorized by judicial order, shall any dwelling again.st ihe will of the owner thereof, papers or other effects found therein without the consent of such owner, or, having surreptitious1 49

48

. ,. .
'. .

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRTXMINAL LAW REVIEWER

~.
,, . . ,
, .

said dwelling, and being required to leave the premises, shall refuse to do so (Art. 128, R.P.C.).
and abuse in the service of those IegaUy obtained, committed? It is committed by any public officer or employee who shall procure a search warrant without just cause., or. , having legally procured the same, shall exceed his authority or use unnecessary severity in executing the same .(Art. 129, R.P.C.).

130. How is the crime of search warrants maUeiously obtained,

/'

It is committed by any public officer or employee who shall prevent or disturb the ceremonies o r mjllifestations' of any religion (Art. 132, par. 1, R.P.C.).

..,
%

;~
~

.,: .. ;.
..

~,

.'

134. When is the crime qualified? If the crime of interruption of religious ,committed with violmce o r threats (Art. , R.P.C.).
~

---

(2'' :'.,
,

Jdk. Ho:v is the crime of offending the religious feelings cornmitted?


I

.. 131. How is the crime of searching domicile without witnesses '. committed? .*v . It is committed by any public officer or employee who, , in cases where a search is proper, shall search the douecile, papers, or other belongings of any person, in the absence of thc latter, any mcmber of his family, or in their de;. fault, without the presence of two witnesses i'efiiding in . ., && . , $. the same locality (Art. 130, R.P,C.). ,, ..
I

$.

It is committed by anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony, shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful (Art. 133, R.P.C.).
Note: The crimes against religious worship are defined in. Arts. 152 and 133.

,,(i_

.,'
~

'$

: ,

38. How is the crime of rebellion or insurrection committed? The crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by

.
a

. I
.,.

The three P o m s of violation of domicile are defined in Act& 128, 129 and 130.
Note:

132. What are the acts punished in connection y i t h peaceful . meetings$, association, and petition? 1. By prohibiting o r by interrupting, without legal groaad, ike holding of a peaceful meeting, or by dissolv. ' ing the same, 9. .: 2. By hindering any person from joining any lawful ' ' association or from attending any of its meetings. ,. , . :. , ,,.. 3. BY prohibiting or hindering any person from addressing, either alone or together with others, any peti. ~ ,'. tion to the authorities for the correction of abuses or redress of grievances. . . 7, (Art. 131, R.P.C.) ., ( . ..<-;., '.::. 133. How is tbe crime of interruption of religious worships' . .. : ., , committed?
. .%';

'

rising publicly and taking arms against the Government. for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government or its laws the territory of the Philippines o any part thereof or any body of land, naval, or other rmed forccs, o r of depriving the Chief Executive or the Congress, wholly or partially, of any of their powers o r : prerogatives (Art. "4, R.P.C.). re liable for rebellion? e, following are liable for rebellion: Any person who (a) promotes, (b) m a i n & + eads a rebellion o r insurrection; or Any person who, while holding any or employment, takes part therein, (a) eng against the forces of the government, (b) de erty o r cominiMng serious vio'rence, and (c) tributions or diverting public funds from th pose for which they have been appropriat

/ (W3; $

37. Who

:'.
"

. ,

60

61

,~
1. ''

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER


l . l

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEFYER

.
. .

A.ny person merely participating or executing the comman,ds of others in a rebellion. (Art. 135, R.P.C.) There is conspiracy to commit rebellion when two or more persons come to a n agreement concerning the commission of rebellion and decide to commit i t (Arts. 8 and 136, R.P.C.).

h 8 . ' When is there conspiracy t o commit rebellion?

,'":

.
" j , ,,.

; 3 . When is there proposal to commit rebellion? 19,

,. ~ _ . . There is proposal to commit rebellion when a person .. .,'.~,.. .. : .: ,. T?:;. who has decided to commit rebellion proposes its execu.
I :

How is the crime of disloyalty of public officers or employees committed? ' , It is committed by public officcrs or employees who .Xave failed to resist a rebellion by all the means in their power,, or shall continue to discharge the duties of their -:,offices under the control of the rebels or shall accept appointment to office under them (Art. 137, R.P.C.). crime of inciting to sebellion or insurrection
~ ' .

1. To prevent the promulgation or execution of any .'$: law or the holding of any popular election: 2. To prevent the National Government, or any pro-. vincial or municipal government, or any public officer thereof from freely exercising its os his functions, or prevent the execution of any administrative order; 3 . T o inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the '.. " : , person or property of any public offices or employee; 4 . To commit, f o r a:ty political 01' xocial end, any act . of hate or revenge against private persons o class; and 5 . To despoil, Sor any political or social end, m y person, municipality or province, os the National Government of all its property o r any part thereof. (art. 139, as amended by Corn; Act No. 202, R.P.C.)
143. Who are liable for sedition?

The persons liable for sedition are : 1. The leader of the sedition; and 2 . Other persons participating in the sedition. 144. How is conspiracy t o commit sedition committ It is committed when two or more persons come a n agreement and a decision to rise public1 tuously to attain any of the objects of seditio B.F.C.). 145. How is the crime of inciting to sedition eo The crime of inciting t o sedition is committect in ferent ways, which are as follows: 1. Inciting others to the accomplishment of an the acts which constitute sedition by means of spee proclamations, writings, emblems, etc. 2. Uttering seditions words or speeche to disturb the public peace.

It is committed by any person who, without taking ing in open hostility against the Government, others to the execution of any of the acts Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code, by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or other representations tendina to the same end

The crime of sedition is committed by persons who rise publicly and tumultuously in order to attain by force, intimidation, or by other means outside of legal methods, any of t.he following objects:

52

53

3 . Writing, publishing, or circulatin scurrilous libels against the Government or any o f the duly constituted which tpnd to p t u r b the public peace. w61 au, (Art. 142, R.P.C.)

146. Name t i e crimes against legislative bodies and similar bodies, and state how they are committed.
They are: 1. .Acts tending to prevent the meeting of Congress and similar bodies. 2 . Distukance OY proceedings. 3 . Violation of parliamentary immunity. The crime of acts tending to prevent the 'meeting of Congress and similar bodies is committee; by any person who, b,y force or fraud, prevents the meeting of the Congress of the Philippines or of any of its committees or subcommittees, constitutional commission., or conunittees or divisions thereof, or of any provincial board o r city or municipal comcil or board. {Art. 143, as amended by Corn. Act No. 264, R.P.C.) The crime of disturbance of proceedings is committed by any person who disturbs the meetings 3f the Congress of the Philippines or of any of its committees or subcommittees, constitutional commissions or committees or &visioris thereof, 01' of any provincial board or city or municiixd council or hoard, o r in the presence of any such bodies should behave in such manner as to interrupt its proceedings or to impair the respect due it (Art. 144, as amndcd by om. A& No. 264, R.P.C.).

L.

;(>nd by any public officer or employees w e the Congress is in regular or special session, arrest or search any member thereof, except in cas ber has committed a crime punishable under Penal Code by a penalty higher than prision 145, as amended by Corn. Act No. 264, R.P

v(

CRIMlNAL LAW REVIEWER

/What are illegal assemblies? T ey are: Any meeting attended by armed persons for. purpose of committing any of the crimes punishable u the &sed Penal Code. Any meeting in which the audience, whether a or not, is incited t o the commission of the crime of rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or assault upon a person in authority or hjs agents. (Art. 146, K P C ) ...

, ?

149. What is the presumption of law against any person present a an iUe& assembly who w r i e s an unlicensed firearm? t If any person present at the meeting carries an unlicensed firearm, it shall he presumed that the purpose of said meeting, insofar as he is concerned, is to commit acts punishable under the Revised Penal C shall be considered a leader or organizer of (Art. 146, par. 2, R.P.C.).

147. How is violation of parliamentary immunity committed? It i,s committed by any person who shall use force,
' '

intimidation, threats or fraud to prevent any member of the Congress of the Philippines from attending the meetings of Congress or of any of its committees or subcommittees, constitutiona1 commissions or committees or divisions thereof, from expressing his opinions or casting his

150. Who are the persons liable for illegal assembly? They are: 1. The organizers or leaders. I 2 . Persons merely present a t each meeting. .
151. What are illegal associations?

They are: 1. Associations totally or partially organized for t$e purpose of committing any of ths crimes punishable unde the Revised Penal Code.
5s

54

CRIMINAL LAW REYIEWER

2 . Associations totally or partially organized for some purpose contrary to public morals. (Art. 147, R.P.C.)

1 2 Who are the persons liable for illeg.al associations? 5: They are: i 1. Founders, directors and presidents. ,. . ; 2 . Mere members.
i ;5

153. How are direct assaults committed? Direct assaults are committed by any person or persons who, without a public uprising, shall employ force or intimidation for the attainment of any of the purposes ~, v,. . . enumerated in defining the c r i m s af rebellion and seaition, .,:, ,. .. , , ' >;l> or shall attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or ,<$: .. resist any person in authority or any of his agents, while , A ) , engaged in the performance of official duties, or on occa.* > I sion of such performance (Art. 148, R.P.C.).

. .'. ... .. '


?, ;>

,.,,

2. By refusing to be sworn o r placed under affirmation while being before such legislative or constitutional body o r oficial. 8 . By refusing to answer any legal inquiry or to produce any books, papers, documents, or records in his possession, when required by them t o do so in the exercise of their functions. 4 . By redraining another from attending as a witness in such legislative or constitutional body or official. 5 . By inducing disobedience t o a summons or refusal to be sworn by any sucb. body or official. (Art. 160, R.P.C:)
'156.

, I
~

I",

154. How are indirect a s a u l t s committed?


.
,

'
_I..

- ; $~e , ,. %

Indirect assaults are committed by any person who shall make use of force or intimidation upon any person coming to the aid of the authorities 01' their agents on occasions of the commission of any of the crimes defined in Art. 148 (Art. 149, R.P.C.).
.

..! ,,
::, '.

4.

How IS the crime of resistance and disobedience to a person in antiioriity o r the agents of such person committed? IC is committed by any person who, not being included in Arts. 148, 149, and 15.0, shall resist o r seriously disobey any pers,on in anthority, or the agents of such person, while engaged in the performance of official duties (Art. 151, par. 1, R.P.C.). The penalty is lower when the disobedience to a n agent of a person in authority is not of a serious nature (Art. 151, par. 2, R.P.C.).
Who shall be deemed persons in auth persons in authority?

". , >.,. , : . ..

155. How is the crime of disobedience to suntnton~ of the Congress of the Philippines, its committees, or of the Constitutional Commission committed? The crime is committed in several ways, which are as follo~vs : 1. By refusing, without legal excuse, to obey summons of Cengngress, its special ur standing eommitkes and suhcommittees, the Constitutional Commission and its committees, subcommittees or divisions, or by any commission or committee chairman o r member authorized to summon witnesses.
56

barrio councilman and barrio policemen,

*
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
1
'

CLLIMIIYAL LAW REVIEWER

-7

'

.,,.

. .

who comes to the aid of persons in authority, shall be deemed an agent of a persoi~in autliorjky. In applying the provisions of 148 and 151 of the Revised Penal Code, teachers, professors, and persons charged 1 with the supervision of publk 0. duly recognized private schools, colleges and universities, shall be deemed persons in authoritv. (Art. 152, as amended by Rep, Act No. 1978, R.P.C.)

3. By maliciously publishing or causing t o be published resoluiio~~ document without proper auor thority, or before they have been published officially; 4 . By printing, publishing or distributing (or causing the same) boolKs, pamphlets, periodicals, or leaflets which do not bear the real printer's name, or which are classified as nnonymolts. (Art. 154, R.P.C.)
my official

*, i.

'

'

,:

158. What are tumults and other disturbances of public order? They are: I, Causing any serious disturbance in a public place, office or establishment; 2. Interrupting or disturbing public performances, functions or gatherings, or peaceful meetings, if the act ' i s not included in Arts. 131 and 132; 3 . Making any outcry tending to incite rebellion or sedition in any meeting, association or public place: 4. Displaying placards or emblems which provoke a disturba.nce of public order in such place; I . 5 . Burying with pomp the body of a person who has been legally executed. (Art. 153, R.P.C.)
,,I

160. What are t h e acts punished as alarms and scandals? They are:

1, Discharging any firearm, rocket, firecracker, or other explosive within any town or public place, (calculated to cause) which produces alarm or danger. 2. Instigating os taking an active part in any charivari ','. or other disorderly meeting offensive to another or prejudicial to public tranquility. 3 . Disturbing the public peace while wandering about at night or while engaged in any other nocturnal amuse .. ments. .. 4. Causing any disturbance or scandal in public places iuhi.!e intoxicated or othervise, provided Art. 153 js not applicable. 161... How is the crime of delivering prisoners from jails C mitted? It is committed by any person who shall any jail or penal establishment any person co in or shall help the escape of such perso of violence, intimidation o r bribery, or other escape may take place outside of the penal establis by taking the guards by surprise (Art. 156, R.P.C.
162. Mention the different forms of evasion of the service the sentence and state how each is committed. They are:

'."

'

159. What are the acts punished as unlawftil use of means of


,., :,.

,, ,

.,'

',.

publication and unlawful utterances? They are: 1. By publishing or causing to be published, by means .. of print.ing, lithography o s any other mezns of publication, as news any false news which may endanger the public order, o r cause damage to the interest or credit of the State; 2. By encouraging disobedience to the law or to the constituted authorities or by praising, justifying or extolling any act punished by law, by the same means or by words, utterances o r speeches.

68

69

. ,*:. ..,.
I.

.c.

.
'

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWE11

1. Evasion of service of sentence by escaping during the tern1 of sentence. . . 2 . Evasion on the occasion of disorder. 3 . Other cases of evasion by violating the condition . . of a conditional pardon. Evasion of service of sentence by escaping is committed by any convict who shall evade service of his sen,. ... . tence by escaping during the term of his sentence by reason of final judgment (Art. 157, R.P.C.). Evasion on the occasion of disorders is c6mmitted by a convict who, having left the penal institution where he shall have been confined, on the occasion of disorder, resulting from a conflagration, earthquake, explosion, or similar catastrophe, or during a mutiny in which he has .. . not parlicipated, shall suffer an increase of one-fifth of the time still remaining to be served under the original ' sentence, which in no case shall exceed six months, if he shall fail to give himself up t o the authorities within forty-eight hours following the issuance of a proclamation , . by the Chief Executive announcing the prssing away of ', .. such calamity (Art. 158, R.P.C.). ., Other cases of evasion is committed by a convict who, .,.: having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Ex,: ecutive, shall violate any of the conditions of such par,.<don (Art. 159, R.P.C.).
,, .
I .

It is committed by any person who' shall forge .the Great Seal of the Government of the Philippines-or the signature or stamp of the Chief Executive (Art. 161, R.P.C.).
165. How is the crime of using forged signature or counterfeit seal or stamtp committed? It is committed by any person who shall knowingly make use of the counterfeit seal or forged signature. or stanq of the Chief Executive (Art. 162, R.P.C.); 166. What are the crimes relative to counterieiting coins?

,,

'

.,. and uttering false coins. and utterance of mutilated coins. I of false 2. Selling . or mutilated coin, without eon- '",? nivance. ( A r k . 163-165, R.P.C.)
~ " t ~ he C O l n mitated : . .~ .

'.,!.'
, ,:'$
, '

_I

of the minor coinage of the Philippines, or coin of .e foreid that are kcal tender, or those withdrawn from

may be any ."in: silver coin, any

circulation. But the coins mutilated must be legal tender coins of the , Philippines, not foreign coins and not withdraam from cir* 'ir. ,..ai :.: \ . .Id!. dation.
,

<r

~ ..' S

169. What is quasi-recidivism? There is quasi-recidivism wheu a person committed a felony after having been convicted by final judgment, be; : fore beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving &. * the same. He shall be punished by the maximum period ':$ of the uenaltv urescribed bv law for the new felonv

167. How is the crime of sellinp of false or mutilated committed? It is committed by any person who knowingly, though without connivance, shall possess false or mutilated coin with intent to utter the same, or shall actually u t k such coin (Art. 165, R.P.C.). 168. What are the acts punished in connection with treasur or bank notes or other documents payable to bearer They are: 1. Forging or falsifying treasury or ,bank notes other documents payable t o bearer.

y
,

,'Lf.h34.
,__ , ' . , ,

. Government. of

How is the crime of counterfeiting the Great Seal of the the Philippines, or that of forging the signature or stamp of the Chief Executive, committed?

60

61
..,. ,

I
: , .

~*e%

,. ,: :,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER


,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

. , , .. .~' '

._

..

Importation of such false or forged obligations or ,. . note$+pi: . 3 . Uttering such fZlse or forged obli@ons or notes' in connivance ivith' the forgers or importers, (Art. 166, R.P.C.)
'.~

172. %ow i the crime of falsification of legislative documents s

,. , . ..

. ,<,. c .
,

Note: If the instrument forpad, imported or uttered is payable to order, the crime is pmished under Art. 167. The acts punishcd are the same a8 in Art. 166. .

committed? It is committed by any p a s o n who, without proper. authority thercfor, alters any bill, resolution, or ordinance . enacted 01' apprqved or pending approval by either House& of Congress or any provincial board or municipal council;i (Art. 170, R.P.C.).

._

,,

.'

,. L .

.,. . \
4 '

,,

, . .
I '

What are the treasury or bank notes or other documents payable to hearer the fiirging or falsification of which is punishable? They are: 1. Obligation or security of the Philippines. 2 . Circulating note issued' by any banking association duly authorized by law to issue the same. 3 . *Document issued by a foreign government. 4 . Circulating note or. bill issued by a foreign bank duly authorized to issue the same.

173. What are the acts of falsifieat,ion that may be committed on any document?

or imita,ting any handwriting, signaCausing it t o appear that persons have participakd they did not in fact so Attributing to persons who have partkip other than tho in a narration o f " tering true daten;
.

How is the crime of illega1:possession and use of false treasury or bank notes and other instruments of cxedit committed? It is committed by any person who shall knowingly use or have in his possession, with intent to use, any false or falsified instrument payable to bearer or payable ,? to order (Art. 168, R.P.C.). How is forgery committed? -~ - Forgery is committed by any of the followin~g,.,meam: 1. By giving to a treasury or bank note or any instrument pa,yable to bearer or to order mentioned therein, the appearance of a true and genuine document ; &p >,' , ,.d: .. : 2 . By erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or altering . by any means the figores, letters, words, or signs con, ,,, ' ., ! :, tained therein. & . ,,.,~ , ... ,.. * (Art. 169, R.P.C.) ,?. ' .
0.
9**,"
~i

Issuing in an authent,icated form

LI

document

'. Intercalating any instrument o r note relat the issuance thereof in a protocol, I book.'
174. Distinguish falsification by public of notary from falsification by private

1 '

,.

'.i

.'i

62

63

, ..

'-

. ..'

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

C~IMINALLAW REVIEWEE
cable, or telegraph, or telephone messlages fictitious wireless, telegraph, or telephone mes lsystem or falsifies the same (Art. 173, par.

;,,e.:,.

The act of falsification committed in both crimes is any one of those enumerated in Art. 171 of the Revised :. ' Penal Code. , ., . . In falsification by public officer, employee or notary, . , .. ,, .,, , the offender must take advantage of his official position; .. +&: ." . in falsification by private individuals, in case the offender , . . is a public officer, employee or notary, he does not take advantage of his official position. . .. While in falsification by public officer, employee, or . '. , . ' 6 notary the offender falsified a document, without specifyi . . ing the kind or nature thereof; in falsification by private individuals, the law states that a private individual should commit any falsification in any public or official docnment or letter of exchange or any other kind of commercial :', :.. document. (Arts. 171 and 172, R.P.C.)
I

. .,,.

4.

j_

!+ ?l %:

8. How is the crime of use of falsified wireless, cable, telegraph or lelephone messages committed? 4 s committed by any person who shall u cable! telegraph or telephone dispatch to the prej- .., a third party or with the intent to cause p c h ' . (Art. 173, par. 2, R.P.C.).
crime of Ialsification of medical Certificates, f merit or service, and the like, committed?. who, in connection with the issued a false certificate. issued a false certi or similar circu a certificate ing in the classes mentioned in Nos. 1 and 2. /" (Art. 174, R.P.C.)

. How is the crime of falsification of private document eom'

Falsification of private document is committed by any 0, to the damage of a third party, or with the ause such damage, shall in any private document commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Art. 171 (Art. 172, par. 2, R.P.C.).
'

/' 180.

I.

How is the crime of use of falsified documents committed4 I t is committed by any person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in any judicial proceeding or to the damage of another or who, with the intent to cause such damage, shall use any of the false documents embraced in Art. 171 or in subdivisions 1 and 2 of Art. 172 (Art. 172, last par., R.P.C.).
~

How is the crime of using false certificates committed? It is committed by any one who shall knowingly US any false medical certificates o r certificates of merit 0 service (Art. 175, R.P.C.).

1 7 How is the crime of falsification of wireless, cable, tele7. graph, and telephone messages committed? It is committed by any officer or employee of the * Government or of any private corporation or concern engaged i n the service of sending or receiving wireless, . ,
64

A . B o w are the crimes of manufacturing and pos I instruments or implements for falsification committed? The crime of manufacturing instruments o r for falsification is committed hy any person who make or introduce into the Philippines any stamps, marks, or other instruments or implements i be used in the commission of the offenses feiting or falsification (Art. 176, par. 1, R.P.C.). The crime of possession of instruments or implements / for falsification is committed by any person who, with:

65

CBIMINAL LAW REVIEWEi?


.'

CRIMINAL LAW RZVIEWER

the intention of using them, shall have them in his possession (Art. 176, par. 2 R.P.C.). ,

182. How is the crime of usurpation of anthority or official functions; committed? It is committed by any person who shall knowingly and falsely represent himself to be an officer, agent, o r representative of any department or agency of the Philippine Government or of any foreign government, or who, '. under pretense of official position, shall perform any act pertaining t o any person in authority or public officer of the Philippine Government or of any foreign government, o r any agency thereof, without being lawfully en'titled to do so (Art. 177, as amended by Rep. Act 379, R.P.C.).

testimony in civil cases (Art. 162). &"False testimony in other cases (Art. 183). (People vs. Bautista, 39 O.G. 1272) 6 . h s t i n g u i s h false testimony against a defendant from false testimow favorable to the defendant. In both crimes, the witness who gave false testimony is liable even if his testimony was not considered by the court. The Code punishes false testimony 'gainst a defendant even if the latter is acquitted. e false testimony favorable to the defendant need not directly influence the decision of aequieal. It need not benefit the defendant. It is sufficient that the false testimony was given with intent to favor the defendant. As to the basis of the penalty, they differ in the sense that in false testimony against a defendant the penalty depends upon the sentence of the defendant against whom the false testimony was given, that is, whether he is convicted or acquit,ted; and in case of conviction, the penalty to which the defendant is sentenced. In false testimony favorable to the defendant, the penalty depends on whether the prosecution is for a felony punishable by an aflictive peiialty o r it is for other classes of felony.
A87. Distinguish false testimony in civil cases from false te mony in criminal cases. In & fw tcstimony in civil casetr, the testimony i' ; relate to the issues presented in. the case; wherea false testimony in criminal cases, it is not required the testimony be material.
188. How- is the crime of false testimony in other cases perjury in solemn affirmation committed? 'It is committed by any person who, knowingly m untruthful statements and not being included i visions relative to false testimony in crimin cases, shall testify under oath, or make a n affidayi

d False

'1

.'

183. How are the crimes of using fictitious name and conceal, ing true name committed? The crime of using fictitious name is committed by any person who shall publicly use n fictitious name for the purpose of concealing a crime, evading the execution t, or causing damage (Art. 178, par. I ,

.i
,,j

"

The crime of concealing truc name is committed by conceals his trnc namc and other personal (Art. 178, par. 2, R.P.C.).
184. How is the crime of ille~al use of uniform or insignia

committed? It is committed by any person who shall publicly and improperly make use of insignia, uniform, or dress pertaining t o a n office not held by such person or to a class of persons of which he is not a member (Art. 179,
85. What a r e the three forms o f false testimony?

66

67

. *
,.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

. any material matter before a competent person authorized ,i: to administer a n oath in cases in which the law so re*'% quires (Art. 183, R.P.C.).
,
'

,189. How is the crime of offering false testimony in evidence . committed? It is committed by any person who shall knowingly offer in evidence a false witness or testimony in any judicial or official proceeding (Art. 184, R.P.C.).

.'

-190. Mention the crimes which are classified as frauds and , state the manner each is committed.

-.
,
'

as o ? :: in t in public auctions. 2 Moaopolies and combinations in restraint of trade. Importation and disposition o falsely marked articles o r merchandise made of gold, silver or other pre-

. ,

..

Unfair competition, fraudulent registration of trade-mark or trade-name, or service mark; fraudulent designation of origin and false description. The crime of machinations in public auLtions is committed by any person who shall solicit any gift or prom_' ise as a consideration for refraining from taking part in any public auction, and any person who, shall attempt to cause bidders to stay away from an auction by threats, :"-gifts, promises, or any other artifice, w t h intent to 'cause the reduction of the price of the thing auctioned (Art. 185, R.P.C.). The crime of monopolies and combinatiors in restraint of trade is committed by: 1. Any person who shall enter into any contract or agreement or shall take part in any conspiracy or com. bination in the form of a trust or otherwise, in restraint , ,,. . , , i,i;. : of trade or commerce or to prevent by artificial means .' , free competition in the market.

. . ,

. . 4 Substituting and altering trade-marks and trade~. n a m y or service marks. ,

eionsjpletals.

or object of trade or commerce, 'or shall combine .m$h any other person or persons to monopolize said merchan-; dise or object in order t o alter the price thereof by. spreading b i s e rumors o r making use of any other art;; : fice to -estrain free competition in the market. "Any person who, being a manufacturer, producer, o r processor of any merchandise or object of commerce or an importer of any merchandise or object of commerce from any ioreign conntry, either as principal or agent,. wholesaler or retailer, shall combine, conspire or agree in any manner with any person likewise engaged. in t h manufacture, production, processing:, assembling or i m portation of such merchandise or ohject of comm with any other persons not so similarly engaged f purpose of making. transactions prejudicial to commerce, or of increasing the market price in any pa of the Philippines, of any such merchandise ' or , obj of commerce manufactured, produced, processed, assem bled in or imported into the Philippines, or of a n s a in the manufacture of which such manufactured, duced. orocessed. or imoorted merchandise or objec , _ commerce is used.

/ .

CRIMINAL LAW REYIEVER


'5

t Any persor, who sb!l monopulize any merchandise

d e crime of importation an6 disposition of fals


marked articles or merchandise made of gold, silver, other precious metak is committed by any perso shall Bnowingly import or sell or dispose of a n y or merchandise made of gold, silver or other p metal, or their alloys, with stamps, brands o r marks w fail to indicate the actual fineness or quality. of metals o r alloys (Art. 187, R.P.C.). The crime of substituting and altering trade-m trade-names, or service-marks is committed by: 1. Any person W ~ D shall substitute the trade-n trade-mark of some other manufacturer or dealer; colorable imitation thereof, for the trade-name or t mark of the real manufacturer or dealer upon any-articl of commerce and shall sell the same; :

68

69
I

,:_

,;I. . .~

: :(

,2:

,.G' . ,

. .

GRIMINAL LA% REVIRWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

2. Any person who shall sell such articles of commerce or offer the same for sale, knowing that th.? trade-name nr trademark has he?. f r a d t l . J used such gads as described in the preceding subdivision,
3 . Any person who, in the sale o r advertising of his services, shall use or substitute the service mark of some other persons, or colorable imitation of s w h mark; or 4 . Any person who, knowing the purpuses for which the trade-name, trade-mark, or service mark of a person is to be used, prints, lithographs, or in any way 2.eproduces such trade-name, trade-mark, o r service mark or a colorable imitation thereof, for another person, to enable that other person to fraudulently use such trade-name, trademark, or service mark on his own goods o r in connectiun with the sale or advertising of his service. (Art. 188, R.P.C.) The crimes of unfair competition, fraudulent registration m tmde-nnme, trade-mark o r service mark, fraudulent designation of origin, and false description are committed ,by: 1. Any person who, in unfair competition and for the purpose of deceiving o r defrauding another of his legitimate trade or the public in general, shall sell his goods giving them the general appearance of the goo& of another manufacturer or dealer, either as to the goods themselves, or in the wrapping of the packages in which they are contained, o r the device or words therein, or in any other Ieature of their appearance which would be likely t o induce tine public t o believe that the goods offered are those of a manufacturer o r dealer other than the actual manufacfmer or dealer, o r shall give other persons a chance or opportunity to do the same with a like purpose. 2. Any person who shall affix, apply, annex, or use in connection with any goods or services, or any container or containers for goods, a false designation of origin, or any false description or representation, and shall sell such goods or services.

3. Any person who, by means of false or fraudulent representations or declarations, orally o r in writing, or hy other fraudulent means shall procure from the patent office or from any other office which may hereafter be established by law for the purposes, the registration of a trade-name, trade-mark, or service mark, or of himself as the owner of such trade-name, trade-mark, or service mark, or an entry respecting a trade-name, trade-mark, r service mark. (Art. 189, :is amended by Rep. Act No. 172, R.P.G.)
191. What are the crimes relative to opium and other pro-

.-.

and sale of prohibited drugs (Art. 192).;


4. I l l ~ g a i possession of opium pipe o r other parapher-

~ . x.

nalia $dthe use of any prohibited drugs (Art. 193). Prescribing opium unnecessarily f o r patient (Ar 194).

192. Define nrohibited drug. opium, inrlian hemp, ~. . , I narcotic drug. / & g includes opium, cocaine, alfa and
~~

beta eucai.ne, Indian hemp, their derivatives, and all p rations made from them or any of them and such drugs, whether natural or synthetic, having physiol action as a narcotic drug. Opium embraces every kind, class, and character opium, whether crude or prepared; the ashes or refu of the same; narcotic preparations thereof or therefro morphine o r alkaloid of opium; preparations in: 1 ogium, morphine, 0 alkaloid of opium mtcc 33,

70

71

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

gpedient, and also opium leaves or wrappings of opium Ieaves, whether prepared or not, for their use. Indian hemp, otherwise known as marihuana, cannabis Americana, hashish, bhang, guaza, cburruz, and ganjah, embraces every kind, class and character of Indian hemp, whether dried or fresh flowering or fruiting tops of the pistillate plant cannabis satival, from which the resin has not been extracted, including all other geographic varieties whether used as reefers, resin, extract, tincture or in any other form wkatscver.. By narcotic drug is meant a drug that produces a condition of insensibility and melancholy dullness of mind with delusions and may be habit forming.

194. What are the. crimes against public morals?


They are: 1. Gambling. 2. Importation, sale and possession of lottery tick@ or advertisements. 3 . Betting in sports contest. 4. Illegal betting 011 horse races. 5. Illegal cockfighting. 6. Grave scandal. 7 , Immornl doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions. 8. Vagrancy and prostitution.

..

193. Enumerate the different acts relative to opium and other


nrohibited drugs which are punished under the Revised -

preparing, administering or otherresort where any pro-

of a dive or resort where any prohibited drug is used in any manner


By knowingly visiting any such dive or resort. By importing or bringing into the Philippines any selling or delivering to another any
n;rlia. f o ~ : smoking, injecting,

any opium pipe or other parapheradministering, or using opium m anv ixohibited drur, the uossessor not being authorized ribing opium for any person whose phyoes not require the use of the same, the nder being a physician or dentist.

195. Wha.t acts are punishable in gambling? They are: 1. Taking part directly or indirectly ina . any game of monte, jueteng, or any other form of lottery, policy, banking, or percentage game, dog races, or any other game o r scheme the result of which depends wholly or chiefly upon chance hazard; or wherein wagers Consisti gf money, articles of value, or representat of value are made; or b . the exploitation or use of any other. invention or contrivance to determine the loser or winner of m or representative of value. 2. Knowingly permitting any f o place owned or controlled b 3 , Being maintainer, conductor of :iueteng. or similar game. 4 . Knowingly and without lawful piirpose lotte&ist which pertains t u or is used in of jueteny.

-2

73

.,, . ~
i

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

1%. What are the acts punished in Connection with lottery

J 4 . By organizing such cockfights at a phee other than //licensed cockpit. (Art. 199, R.P.C.)
00. What' are the crimes against decency and good customs?

,%+$I >,*,s 3
.>A*
__j

;,$,Z

s !

, .

By selling or distributing the same without connivance with the importer. (Art. 196, R.P.C.)

197. How is the crime of betling in sports contests committed? It is committed by any person who shsll bet money or any object or article of value or representative of value ."- : .-, ,. upon f i e remlt of any boxing or other sports contest ., .. (Art. 197, R.P.C.).
,..

Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions. g d a g r a n c y and prostitution. / 28i. How is the crime of grave scandal committed? It is committed by any person who shall offend against decency or good customs by any highly scandalous conduct ., not expressly falling within any other article of the Revised Penal Code (Art. 200, R.P.C.).

;:.
i

. 8. What are the acts punishable in illegal betting on horse


.

races?

, .

?&aziting on horse races during the periods not allowe by law. 2 B y maintaining or employing a totalizer or other device or scheme for betting on races or realizing profit therefrom, during the period not allowed by law. (Art. 198, R.P.C.)

What are the acts punishable in illegal cockfighting?


,~. . :..s

'How is the crime of immoral doctrines, obscene publications, exhibitions committed? d d m i t t e d by: p d o s e who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines cpenly contrary to public morals; authors of obscene literature, published with t h lr knowledge in any form, and the editors publishin such p f a t u r e ; A. Those who in theaters, fairs, cinematographs, 0 open to public view, shall exhibit inplays, scenes, acts, o r shows; and sell, give awa,y, or exhibit prink, engravings, sculptores, or literature which are offensive to morals. (Art. 201, R.P.C.) /

'

. *

money or other valuable things in cockother than .that permitted by law. cockfights at which bets are made, .,.~. , J, other than that permitted by law. By betting money or other valuable things in cockf + fights hdd at a place other than a licensed cockpit.

, '

200. who a m ,&rants?

following are vagrants: Any person having no apparent means of subs' ence, who has the physical ability to work and who negle to apply himself or herself to some lawful calling;, '~.,

74

75
.,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

,
"

.. .
.

.?.

2. Any person found loitering about public or semipublic buildings or places, o r tramping or wandering about the country or the streets without visible means of support; 3 . Any idle or dissolute person who lodges in houses of ill-fame; ruffians or pimps and those who habitually associate with prostitntes; . 4 . Any person who, not being included in the provisions of other articles of the Revised Penal Code, shall be found loitering in any inhabited or uninhabited place belonging to another without any lawful or justifiable purpose. G. Prostitutes. (Art. 202, I1.P.C.)

4. Malicious delay in the administration of justice. 5 . Derelictiou of duty in prosecution of offenses. 6 . Betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor-revela-

.
-

'

04. Who are prostitutes?

j $

' i.n

6 , ;
4.
.,

&..;
..
, ,

Women who, for money or profit, habitually indulge sexual intercourse o r lascivious conduct, are deemed t o be prostitutes (Art. 202, R.P.C.).

205.. Who are public officers for the purpose of applying eert~ provisions of the Revised Penal Code? ain

. ,,.

' <,

.,/
.

Any person who, by direct provision of the law, popular election o r appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions in the .,. Government of the Philippines, or shall perform in said Government or in any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent; or subordinate official of any rank or class, 'shall be deemed to be a public officer (Art. 203, R.P.C.).
_%':

I_

..

.','

r:B,

'+
. ,

206. -Mention the crimes under dereliction of duty and state the manner each is committed. They are: , . 1. Ilnowingly rendering unjust judgment. 2. Rendering judgment through negligence. 3 1 Rendering unjust interlocutory order.

tion. of secrets. The crime of knowingly rendering unjust judgment is committed by any judge who shall knowingly render an unjust judgment in any case submitted t o him for decision (Art. 204, R.P.C.). The crime of judgment rendered through negligence is committed by any judge who, by reason of inexcusable negligence or ignorance, shall render a manifestly uiljuat judgment in any case submitted to him for decision (Art. 205, R.P.C.). The crime of unjust interlocutory order is committed by any judge who shall knowingly render a n unjust interlocutory order 01- decree; or by a judge who shall have acted by reason of inexcusable negligence or ignorance and the interlocutory order or decree be manifestly nnjust (Art. 206, R.P.C.). The crime 01malicious delay in the administration of justice is committed by any judge who shall malicious19 delay the administration of justice (Art. 207, R.P.C.). The crime of negligence in the prosecution, or to1 of the commission, of oifenses officer or officer of the law duties of his office, shali malici ing prosecution for the punishment of violato law, or shall tolerate the commission of offenses 208, R.P.C.). The crimes of betrayal of trust by an a solicitor and revelation of secrets are commi attorney-at-law o r solicitor who, by any mali of professional duty or inexcusable neglige ance, shall prejudice his client, or reveal any of the latter learned by him in his professional cap or who, having undertaken the defense of a clie having received confidential information from said in a case, shall undertake the defense of
;

76
,

,. .~..

, .

77

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER


,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

party in the same case, without the consent of his first client (Art. 209, R.P.C.).

207; Mention the two forms of bribery and state the 'manner each is committed. They are (1) direct bribery and (2) indirect bribery. Direct bribery is committed by any public officer who shall agree to perform a n act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of his official duties. in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present ,,., . received by such officer, personally or through the media. . tion of another; or by any public officer who shall accept ' ' gift in consideration 01the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, and the officer executed said '. act, whether accomplished or not; or by any public.officer, if the object for which the gift was received or promised .was to make him refrain from doing something which s his official duty to do (Art. 210, R.P.C.). ...'.. &direct bribery is committed by any public officer ho shall accept gifts offered t o him by reason of his 2 6 ' '{Art. 211, R.P.C.).
. .

210. How is the crime of illegal exactions committed? It is committed by any public officer who, being entrusted with the collection of taxes, licenses, fees, and other imposts, shall be guilty of any of the following acts os ornissious : (a) Demanding, directly or indirectly, the payment of sums different from or larger than those authorized by law; (b) Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided by law, for any sum of money collected brr him officially; (c) Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by way of payment or otherwise, things or objects of a n different from that provided by law. (Art. 213, par. 2, R.P.

8. How is the crime of corruption of public officials com-

211. What is the additional penalty for, and whe imposed upon, a public officer who commitq';~ The additional penalty is temporary speei tion in its maximum period to perpetual special d tion. It shall be imposed when the public officer6 any of the frauds or deceits enumerated in A to 315 of the Revised Penal Code, taking a his official position (Art. 214, R.P.C.).
212. What are prohibited transactions? The crime known as prohibited tiansactions' mitted by any appointive public officer who, dunng incumbency, shall directly or indirectly become interested in any transaction of exchange or speculation within the territory subject t o his jurisdiction (Art. 215, R.P.C.).
213. How is the crime of possession of pmhibited interest a public officer committed? It is committed by: Any public officer who, directly or indirectly, shall come interested in any contract or business in which i his official duty to intervene;

It is committed by any person who shall have made 1's or promises or given the gifts or presents under circumstances that will make the pnblic officer liable for direct bribery or indirect bribery (Art. 212, R.P.C.).
How i the crime of frauds against the public treasury s committed? It is committed by any public officer who, in his official capacity, in dealing with any person with regard to furnishing supplies, the making of contracts, or the adjustment or settlement of accounts relating to public property or funds, shall enter into a n agreement with any interested party or speculator or make use of any other scheme, to defraud the Government (Art. 213, par. 1, R.P.C.).

78

79

*
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

:. ,

'~

Experts, arbitrators, and private accountants who, in like manner, shall take part in any contract or transaction connected with the estate or property in 'he appraisal, ,., ,. ;...,is . : ~ . distribution, or adjudication of which they shall have acted; Guardians and executors with respect t o the property to their wards o r the estate. (Art. 216, R.P.C.)
+

Q $
~

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

.
,
~

and who f d s t o do SO for a period of two months after such accwnts should be rendered (Art. 218, R.P.C.).

. '._

~:i

217. How is the crime of faihre of a responsible public officer


t o render accounts before leaving the wountry committed? ,. It is committed by any public officer who unlawfuuy. leaves or attempts to leave the Philippines without securing a certificate from the Auditor General, showing that his accounts have been finally settled {Art. 219, R2.C:).

: "

.
.

,,

.214. What are the crimes called mahersation cf public funds

. ,. .

..

or property? Malversation by appropriating, misappropriating or are: permit ng any other person t o take public funds or prop-

?@

..

'

,..

'

.t r g

8 "

ailure of accountable officer to render accounts. Failure of a responsible public officer to render before leaving the country. lXegal use of public funds or property. to make delivery of public funds or property.

218. How is the crime of illegal use of public funds o r property committed? It is committed by any public officer who shall apply . any public funds or property under hi8 administration to * any public use other than that for which such funds or ' property were appropriated by law or ordinance (Art. 220, I1.P.c.).
Nota: Darnage o r embarrassment to tlie public service is not necessary. It only increases the penalty.

215. How is malversation by appropriating, misappropriating,

k,,
..
.

$i

'~

or permitting any other person to take public funds OT property committed? It is committed by any puhlic officer who, being accountable for public funds o r property, by reason of the duties of his office, shall appropriate, or shali take or misappropriate the same, or shall consent or, through ahandonment or negligence, shall permit any other person to take such funds or property, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property (Art. 217, R.P.C.).

219. HOT is the crime of failure to make delivery of public funds or property committed? It is committed by any public officer, under obligation to make payment from Government funds in his possession who shall fail t o make such payment; or by any pub officer who, being ordered by competent authority deliver any property in his custody or under his admimstration, shall refuse to make such delivery (Art. 221, R.P.C..).

yt;

.~ 216. ffow is Uhe crime of failure of accountable officer to render .r":,! accounts committed? &;&; It is committed by any public officer, whether in the . ~. service or separated therefrom by resignation of any other cause, who is required by law or regulation to render accounta to the Auditor General, or to a provincial auditor, ..., I

220, May private individuals be held liable for malversation, under the Revised Penal Code? Yes, the provisions of the Revised 'Penal Code on ' versation shall apply t o private individuals who, in capacity whatever, have charge of any national, provin or municipal funds, revenues, or property or t o any a ministrator or depository of funds or property attache seized, or deposited by public authority, even if such pro erty belongs to a private individual (Art. 222, R.P.C.).

81
..

CRIMINAL LAW REVlEWER

CIIIMIKAL IAW REVIEWER

221. What a.re the crimes classified under infidelity of public


officers:! They are: 1. Infidelity in the custody of prisoners. 2. Infidelity in the custody of documents. 3 . Revelation of secrets.

&ow

i :J
,
'

. ,

is the crime of infidelity in the custody of documents by removal, concealment or destruction thereof committed? It is committed by any public officer who shall remove, ., destroy, or conceal documents or papers officially entrusted to him, causing damage to a third party or t o the public. interest (Art. 226. R.P.C.). . . . .

22. How is the crime of infidelity in the cnstody of prisonen by conniving with or consenting t o evasion committed? It is committed by any public officer who shall consent t o the escape of a prisoner, whether sentenced by final judgment or only held as a detention prisoner, in his custody or charge (Art. 223, R.P.C.).

227. How is the crime of officer breaking seal committed? It is committed by any puhlic officer, charged w t ih t h e custody of papers or property sealed by proper autliority, who shall break the seals or permit them t u be broken (Art. 227, R.P.C.).

, .

38.
I

HOW is

the crime of opening of closed documents com,..I.

'
i s

223. How is the crime of evasion through negligence committed? . It is committed by any public officer who, being ' qharged with the conveyance or custodv of a urisoner. his escape througJ1 negligence (Art. 224,'

_,., .. .

. i .

, ~ ,

. May a private person be held liable for infidelity in the


custody of prisoner? Yes. Any private person to whom the conveyance or custody of a prisoner or person under arrest shall have been confided, who shall consent to the escape of the prisoner or person under arrest, or through his negligence make possible the escape of the prisoner or person under arrest, shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed for the public officer (Art. 225, R.P.C.).

/"

.., : mitted? It is committed by any public officer who, without'',,z proper authority, shall open o r shall peymit to be opened I- *' any closed papers, documents, or objects entrusted t his"Y o custody, and t h e act does not constitute the crime of br king ,seal (Art. 228, R.P.C.).

. ,,

:d

/'

/
Y I

-i How is the crime ,of revelation of secrets by an offizer ~I ... ,, >;g > 3 committed? It is committed by any public officer any secret known t o him by reason of his offi or shall wrongfully deliver papers or copies which he may have charge and which s published (Art. 229, K.P.C.).
,

.,j

5. What a r k t h e crimes known a s infidelity in the custody of docykents?

emoval, concealment o r destruction of documents. fficer breaking seal. of closed documents.

230. How is the crime of public officer revealing. seer private individual oommitted? It is committed by any public officer t o wh crets of any private individual shall become reason of his office who shall reveal such 230, K.P.C.). 231. How is the crime of open disobedience c o m d t t e

82

83

1
,

CRIMINAL

LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

'

'
~

:.

..

':'

It is committed by any judicial or executive officer who shall openly refuse to execute the judgment, decision, or order of any superior authority made within the scope of the jurisdiction of the latter and issued with all the legal formalities (Art. 231, R.P.C.).

office committed? performance of the duties and powers of any public or employment without first being sworn in or h given the bond required by law (Art. 236, R.P.C.).

"

,232. How is the crime of disobedience to order of superior officer when said order was suspended by inferior officer ' . committed? It is Committed by any public officer who, havinq for any reason, suspended the execution of the orders of his . superiors, shall disobey such superiors after the latter ~*. have disapproved the suspemion (Art. 232, R.P.C.).

',

powers committed?

'

. ~ . .' . . ,." .. .
:
"~
~

233. Row is the crime of refusal of assistance committed? It is committed by a public officer who, upon demand . , from cumpetent authority, shall fail t o lend his coopera, >$, . tion towards the administration of justice or other public ., ., , . , , '..., . service, such failure resulting in damage to public in .: ." interest (Art. 233, R.P.C.).
,
~

ployment, or commission, beyond the period pro law, regulations, or special provisions applicabl ,&e (Art. 237, R.P.C.).

&

How is the crime of abandonment of office o committed? It is committed by any public acceptance of his resignation,

. ,>, , ., :. * . r :+

':7-%234.

: ,,, .

.<,*

How is l.he crime of refusal to discharge elective office committesd? It is committed by any person who, having been elected by popular election to a public office shall refuse without legal motive to be sworn in or t o discharge the duties of said office (Art. 234, R.P.C.).

235. How is the crime of maltreatment of prisoners committed?


'
"

&When is the offense of abandonment of office or position ; qualified? When the office is abandoned in order to evade the\ discharge of the duties of preventing, prosecuting, or punishing any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations or the crimes of rebellion o r sedition'. ,"'and allied offenses (Art. 238, par. 2, R.P.C.).

. ,

It is committed by any public officer or employee who shall overdo himself in the correction o r handling of a prisoner or detention prisoner under his charge, by the imposition of punishments not authorized by the regulations, or by inflicting such punishments in a cruel and humiliating manner; or shall maltreat a prisoner for the purpose of extorting a confession or obtaining some information from him (Art. 235, R.P.C.).

4'

..
,.d%*d mitted? > ,scrr It is committed by any public officer who shall croach upon the powers of the legislative branch of Government, either by making general rules or regulations beyond the scope of his authority, or by attempting t o repeal a law or suspending the execution thereof (A 239, R.P.C.).

b40. How is the crime of usurpation of legislative powers corn-;:@

,.

/,?;_

84

86

CRIMINAL LAW REVlEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

941.~. Ho+ is the crime of usimpation of executive functions

<.".

c:;

...

committed? I t is committed by any judge who shall assume any power pertaining t o the executive authorities, 01" shall . obstruct the latter in the lawful exercise of their powers .'(Art. 240, R.P.C.).
,

$42.- How is i.he crime of usuppation of judicial functions com1__

.:

',

, >~ -6.

, , ~ ..< ,. :
'

. ...~
'

mitted? It is committed by any officer of the executive branch of the Government who shall assume judicial powers or shall obstruct the execution of any order or decision rendered by any judge within his jurisdiction (Ad. 241, R.P.C.).

1. Any public officer who shall solicit o r make immoral or indecent advances to a woman interested in matters pending before such officer for decision, o r with respect t o which he is required to submit a report to, or consult with, a superior officer: 2 . Any warden o r other public of:ficer directly charged with the care and custody of prisonisrs or persons under arrest who shall solicit or make immoral or indecent advances t o a woman under his custody. 3. Any warden or officer who +Ihall solicit or make immoral or indecent advances t o the wife, daughter, sister, or relative within the same degree by affinity of any person in the custody of such warden or officer. (Art.245, R.P.C.).
47. How is the crime of parricide committed? , " It is committed by any person who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants o r descendants, or his spouse (Art.. 246, R.P.C.) , 248. What is the liability, if any, of a legally married person or parent for death or ,physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances? Any legally married person who, having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or both of them; in the act or immediatcly thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer of destierro. If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of other kind, he shall be exempt from punishment. These rules shall be applicable, under the same circu stances, to parents with respect to their daughters u eighteen years of age, and their seducers, while daughters are living with their parents. Any person who shall promote or facilitate th tution of his wife or daughter, or shall o

&45; How is the crime of disobeying request for disqualification

committed? +1 ' . , . " . ,-.- It is committed by any public officer who, .before the :; c question of jurisdiction is decided, shall continue any pro.(.,,ceeding after having been lawfully required to refrain from so doing (Art. 242, R.P.C.). .., CLT' 244. How is the crime of Qrders or requests by executive of.,& :I .ficers to any judicial authority committed? < , ,, . , It is committed by any executive officer who shall . . address any order or suggestion t o any judicial authority . "- . , with reapect to any case or business coming within the ~ exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of justice (Art. 243, R.P.C.,).
~ ~

, :

.~

'

245. How is the crime of unlawful appointments Committed? It is committed by any public officer who shall know., 'c...: ingly nominate or appoint to any public office any person . .~ lacking the legal qualification therefor (Art. 244, R.P.C.). -.
"'

. .

'

'

''

~236.How is the crime of abuses against chastity committed? It is committed by:

86

87

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWIER

consented t o the infidelity of the other spouse, shall not be entitled to the benefits of this article. (Art. 247, R.P.C.)

249. What is murder?


Murder is committed by any person who, not falling within the provisions of article 246, shall kill another, with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity; 2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise; 3 . By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment of or assault upon a street car or Iocomotivc, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin; 4 . On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic, or any other public calamity; 5. With evident premeditation; 6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing a t his person or corpse. (Art. 248, R.P.C.) What is homicide? Homicide is the unlawful killing of a person, which is neither parricide, murder, nor infanticide (Art. 249,
""' 'I
< ,;*
. i i .
"

of parricide, murder or homicide a penalty lower by one degree than that which should be im.posed under the provisions of article 50 (Art. 250, R.P.C.). Art. 50 provides . t h t a penalty one degree lower than that provided for the consummated felony shall be imposed for the commission of a frustrated felony. Hence, a penalty lower . by two degrees may be imposed upon the person guilty of frustrated crime of parricide, murder or homicide.

'

.'

; : '

,.~ ,,
',

252. May the courts reduce by three degrees the penalty to be imposed for an attempted fel'ony? Yes. The courts, considering the facts of the e y e , may likewise reduce by one degree the penalty whlc under article 51 should be imposed for an attemp mit any of the crimes of parricide, murder o r (Art. 250, pnr, 2, R.P.C.). Art. 51 provides that two degrees lower than that provided for the eonsu,?nm felony shall be imposed for the commission of an attempt felony. Hence, a penalty lower by .three degreei'inay imposed upon the person guilty of attempted p a r n u murder os homicide.
253. What is the criminal liability of a person or persons participated in a tumultuous affray for death caused t in? When, while several persons, not composing ganized for the common purpose of assaulting ing each other xciprocally, quarrel and assault ea in a confused and tumultuous manner, and in the of the affray someone is killed, and i t cannot be asce who actually killed the deceased, but the person or p who inflicted serious physical injuries can be ide such person or persons shall be liable for death cau in a tumultous affray. If it cannot be determined who inflicted the serio physical injuries on the deceased, all those who s used violence upon the person of the victim shall therefor (Art. 251, R.P.C.) .

..

_ i

syi ' , ,251. May the courts impose a penalty lower by two degrees
.
.,
:

for the commission of a frustrated felony? Yes. The courts, in view of the facts of the case, may impose upon the person guilty of the frustrated crime 88

.,

jl

83

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

': -258. What is {,he criminal liability of persons who participated . .


,

in a tumultuous affray for physical injuries i,lflicted there,.. in? .~ ' ., . When in a tumultuous affra,y only serious physical in' ' juries are inflicted upon t h e participants t k r e o f and the : person responsible therefor cannot be identified, all those , '. who appear to have used violence upon the person of the . offended party shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree , ' ' " than that provided for the physical injuries so inflicted. When the physical injuries inflicted are of a less serious nature and the person responsible therefor cannot be identified, all those who appear to have used any violence ..:. , ,~ upon the person of the offended party shall be punished by awesto from five to fifteen days. .. :, (Art. 252, R.P.C.)
~

If the Cirearm was not discharged a t or person, but the firearm was discharged' wi or public place and the discharge produced ala? or danger, he is liable for the crime of alarms and scandals.
257. If a person Idled a child less than three what crime was mmmitted by him and what liability therefor? The crime committed was infanticide. The penalty provided for parricide or for murder shall be imposed upon any person who shall kill any child less than three days of age. If the crime of infanticide be committed by the mother of the child for the purpose of concealing her dishonor, she shall suffer the penalty of prision correctional in its medium and maximum periods, and if said crime be eommitted for the same purpose by the maternal grandparents or either o them, the penalty be prision mugor.. (Art. 255, R.P.C.) 258. How is the crime of intentional abortion committed? It is committed by any person who shall intentionally cause an abortion, by using any violence upon the person of the pregnant woman or, without using violence, by acting with 01' without the consent of the woman (Art. 266, R.P.C.).
259. What is unintentional abortion? It is a crime committed by any person who shall cause an abortion by violence, but unintentionally (Art. 257,

: .

255. Is giving assistance to suicide punishable? If So, does the person giving assistance to suicide incur the same liability regardless of the nature and extent of the assistance given '. ' , . b y him? ., ,. Any person who shall assist another to commit suicide ,.,, .,i : ", L ,, 1 shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor; if such person .~<: ,.,,' lends his assistance t o another to the extent of doing the killing himself, he shall suffer the penalty of reclusion t; ' temporal. However, if the suicide is not consummated, ,,, . . the penalby of arrest0 mayor in its medium and maximum ., *(i : ~;*). periods shall be imposed (Art. 253, R.P.C.).
~

, .~..., ' . .," ~ , i r i ., '.yp256. When is a person criminally liable for discharging a fire. ?

arm? Any person who shall shoot a t another with any f i r e arm is liable for discharge of firearm, provided that he has no intention to kill the offended party, or that the act cannot he held to constitute any other crime f o r which a higher penalty is prescribed by the Code (Art. 254, R.P.C.). If he had intention t o kill the offended party, he will be liable for frustrated or attempted parricide, murder, or homicide, as the case may be.
90

R.P.C.).
260. 1s the woman who suffered an abortio Yes, if the woman (1) practiced an abortion herself or (2) consented that any other person shou so (Art. 268, R.P.C.). , ' Otherwise, she ip, not liable.

91

,~ d",

,
.I_

.
,.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRlMINAL LAW REV'IEWBR

."

for comimitting abortion? * . ,. : ; . w ,.3,:> d, , . , The .penalties provided for intentional abortion shall il ., ,~\!.<"., . ~, ,,*. . .. ~. . be imposed in their maximum period, respectively, upon . ., i.. ,~ . any physician or midwife who, taking advantage of their scientific knowledge or skill, shall came an abortion or ' assist in causing the same (Art. 259, R.P.C.).
.. <
i _ ~

%;..261. When are physicians and midwives more severely punished #& . ?&
.v
, . . ~?

.! They are: .. 1. Nlntilation. 2 . Serious physical injuries. 3. Administering injurious substance or beverages. 4. Less serious physical injuries. 5. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment. 266. What are the two kinds of mutilation? They are: 1. By intentionally mutilating another by depriving him, either totally o r partially, of some essential organ . ' for reproduction. 2. By intentionally making other mutilation, that is, ! by depriving the offended party of any p a r t o f the human body, other than the essential organ for reproduction, ' ~ , (Art. 262, R.P.C.) 267. What are serious physical injuries? They are: 1. When the injured person becomes insane, imbecile, impotent or blind, in consequence of .the physical injuries inflicted. 2. When the injured or the power to hear or a foot, an arm, or a leg, or (b) loses the us such member, or (e) becomes incapacitated f o r the in which he was theretofore habitually engaged, in sequence of the physical injuries inflicted. 3. Wheii the person injured (a) becomes ,deform or (b) loses any other member of his, body, or (c) I the use thereof, or (d) the performance of the engaged for more than 90 days, in consequence of physical injuries inflicted. 4. When the injured person becomes ill or inca for labor for more than 80 days (bul; must no

>

. . ..

'' i

'.~.i:

262. When is a pharmacist liable for dispensing any abortive? When the pharmacist, without the proper prescription ,, . . from a physician, shall dispense any abortive (Art. 259, , . .. . , par. 2, :R.P.C.).
. ,

263. What are the responsibilities of the participants and seeonds in a duel? '.:. *< The .penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed . . upon any person who shall kill his adversary in a duel. If he shaIl inflict upon the Iatter physical injuries only, ..,. , he shall suffer the penalty provided therefor, according , . to their nature. In any other case, the combatants shall suffer the penalty of arrest0 mayor although no physical injuries , . . , have been inflicted. .. . . The seconds shall in all events be punished as acconi: plices. (Art. 260, R.P.C.)
,. < :
$&:e :.

.,, ., . ,

'.

; .. $4.; . .,
':.ii::.i'
, , I

.: ;

,
'

'

'.,,:

;.'

..%

, ' . * . .. ,

. .. , ~. .

What are the acts punished as challenging to a duel? . ' They are: 1. By challenging another to a duel. 2 . By inciting another to give or accept a challenge in a duel. 3. By scoffing at or decrying another publicly for having refused to accept a challenge to fight a duel. (Art. 261, R.P.C.)

., , "265. What are the crimes of physical injuries? * ,~

92

93

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRININAL LAW REVIEWER.

... , . ...~

than 90 days), as a result of the ph3sica1 injuries inflicted. (Art. 263, R.P.C.)
268. How is the crime of administering injurious substance or beverages committed? It ir committed by any person who, without intent : > , ~ ,,, . t o kill, shall inflict upon another any serious physical in, ~. , . , jury, by knowingly administering to him any injurious substances or beverages or by taking advantage of his weakness of mind or credulity (Art. 264, R.P.C.).
'-"'
~

1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted

269. What are less serious physical injuries?


. ,

,~ .
,

I .

4. ,,

. What are the three kinds


:"
'

Less serious physical injuries are committed by any person who shall inflict upon another physical injuries, other than serious physical injuiies, but which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor for ten days or more, or shall require medical attendance for the same eriod (Art. 265, R.P.C.).

. more than five days; ,... 2 . If it shall have been committed simulating authority ; 3. If any serious physical injuries shall have bgen .' inflicted upon the person kidnapped or d threats to kill him shall have been made; 4 . I the person kidcapped or detained shall be a . minor, female, or a public officer. The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none' of the circumstances above mentioned were p the conimission of the offense. ... (Art. 267, R P C )
/ . I

..:I:*
..,,

,. h . ;

272. What is slight illegal detention?

of slight physical injuries? They are: ' 1. Physical injuries which incapacitated the offended party for labor from one (1) t o nine (9) days, or required medical attendance during the same period. 2. 'Physical injuries which did not prevent the offended party from engaging in his habitual work or which did not require medical attendance. 3. Illtreatment of another by deed without causing

It is a crime committed by any private individual wh shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other d e deprive him of his liberty, without the atte any o the circumstances enumerated in the article fining the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal det tion (Art. 268, R.P.C.).
273, What is the participation of the person who furnished' the place for the perpetration of the crime of slight d e tention? The same penalty provided for the principal shall incurred by anyone who shall furnish the place for perpetration of the crime (Art. 268, par. 2, R.P.C.). seems that while his participation is that plice he is pnnished as principal. l i 274. When is t.he penalty f o r slight illegal det by one degree? , J If the offender shall voluntarily release the per so kidnapped or detained within three days from the co

(Art. 266, R.P.C.)

71. How is the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention committed? It is committed by any private individual' who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, provided that any of the following circumstances is present in the co mission of the offense:

7-

96

I
,
,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

mencement of the detention, without having attained the purpose intended, and before the institution of criminal proceedings against him (Art. 268, par. 3, R.P.C.).

. ~. .

> .:

shall, against the latter's will, retain him in his seririee (Art. 273, R.F.G.) 280. How is the crime of services rendered under compulsion' in payment of debts committed? It is committed by any person who, in order to require or enforce the payment of a debt, shall compel the debtor to work f o r him, against his will, as household servant or farm laborer (Art. 274, R.P.C.).

.*
,-i

'1

" .'

276. How is the crime of kidnapping and failure to return a minor committed? It is committed by any person who, being entrusted with the custody of a minor person, shall deliberately fail t o restore the latter t o his parents or guardians (Art. 270, R.P.C., as amended by Republic Act No. 18).

,*

' 277. IIow is the crime of inducing a minor to abandon his home Committed? I t is committed by anyone who shall induce a minor to :rbandon the home of his parents or guardians or the

I.

279. HOW the crime of exploitation of child labor committed? is It is committed by anyone who, under the pretext of , p , ," /, g.:.. : : .: \e,.,,, - ,~ . .._i reimbursing himself of a debt incurred by an ascendant, guardian, or person entrusted with the custody of a minor, .y .. : .

1,'"'I ~ .a, ;..


*-..W~

i...
P.

278. Is slavery punished under the Revised Penal Code? Yes. It is committed by anyone who shall purchase, sell, kidnap, or detain a human being for the purpose of enslaving him. If the crime be committed for the purpose of assigning the offended party t o some immoral traffic, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period. (Art. 272, R.P.C.)

281. How is the crime of abaiidonment of persons in d a n g a and abaudcniuent of one's own victim committed? It is committed by: 1. Anyone who shall fail to render assistance to any person whom he shall find in an uninhabited place wounded or in danger of dying, when he can render such assistance without detriment t o himself, unless such omission shall constitute a more serious offense; . 2. Anyone who shall fail to help or render assistance to another whom he has accidentally wounded or injured; 3. Anyone who, having found an abandoned child under Seven years of age, shall fail to deliver said child t o the authorities or t o his family, or shall fail to take him t o a safe place. (AI-$. 275, R.P.C.)

.3 ..

282. How is the crime of abandoning a minor committed? It is committed by anyone who shall abandon a child under seven years of age, the custody of which is incumbent upon him. The same crime is committed even if the death of the minor shall have resulted or even if the life of the minor shall have been in danger, provided that the offender has " no intent to kill the minor. (Art. 276, R.P.C 283. How is the erinie of abandonment of minor by per entrusted with his custody commitl~ed?

.<

96

97
.,
:I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

. .

It is committed by anyone who, having charge of the rearing or education of a minor, shall deliver said minor to a public institution or .other persons, without the consent of the one who entrusted such child to Itis care or, in the absence of the latter, without the consent of the proper authorities (Art. 277, par. 1, R.P.C.).

gaged in any of the callings mentioned in paragraph 2 hereof, or t o accompany any habitual vagrant or beggar. (Art. 278, R.P.C.) 286. How is the crime of qualified trespass to dwelling committed? It is committed by any private person who shall enter the dwelling of another against the latter's will. It may be committed by means of violence or intimidation, in which case the penalty is higher.

''

284. IIoiv is the crime of indifference of parents Committed? It is committed by the parents who shall neglect their children by not giving them the education which their stal.ion in life requires and financial condition permits (Art. 277, par. 2, R.P.C.).
285. Wh80 are liable for exploitation of minors? They are: 1. Any person who shall cause any boy or girl under sixteen years of age to perform any dangerous feat of balancing, physical strength, or contortion. 2 . Any person who, being an acrobat, gymnast, ropewalker, diver, wild-animal tamer or circus manager, or engaged in a similar calling, shall employ in exhibitions of t.hese kinds, children under sixteen years of age who are not his children or descendants. 3. Any person engaged in any of the callings enumerated in the next preceding paragraph who shall em, ploy any descendant of his under twelve years of age in such dangerous exhibitions. 4. Any ascendant, guardian, teacher, or person entrmted in any capacity with the care of a child under sixteen years of age, who shall deliver such child gratuitously to any person following any of the callings enumer'ated in paragraph 2 hereof, or to Any habitual vagrant o r heggar. 5 . Any person whg shall induce any child under s x i. teen years of age to abandon the home of its ascendants, guardians, curators, or teachers t o follow any person en98

i?

-'-: ,...
:

~'

287. What are the ahsolutory causes in trespass to dwelling? m. The penalty for trespass to dwelling shall not be i posed upon any person who shall enter another's dwelling for the purpose of preventing some r;erious harm to hi& self, the occupants of the dwelling, or a third person, nor shall it be imposed upon any person who aha11 enter 'a dweiling for the purpose of rendering some service @ humanity or justice, nor upon anyone who shall enter cafbs, taverns, inns, and other public houses, while the sam,e are open (Art. 280, par. 3, 1L.P.C.).
288. What is other forms of trespass? It is a crime committed by any p,erson who shall e the clcsed premises or the fenced es either of them is uninhabited, if th be manifest and the trespasser has mission of the owner or the caretaker thereof (Art. R.P.C.).
289. What are the three .forms of threats?

They are: 1. Grave threats.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWl3R

290. How is the crime of grave threats committed? I:t is committed1. By threatening another with the infliction upon his penon, honor or property or that of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime and demanding money or imposing any other condition, even tl,o?gh not unlawful, . and the offender attained his purposz; 2 . By making such threat without the offender attaining his purpose. 3. By threatening another with t h t infliction upon his person, honor or property or that of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime which is not subject to a condition. (Art. 282, R..P.C.) 291. How is the crime of light threats committed? Tt is committed by making a threat to commit a wrong not constituting a crime, demanding money or imposing any other condition, even though not unlawful, the offender attaining or not attaining his purpose (Art. 283, R.P.C.). 292. What is bond for good behavior? In all cases of grave threats and light threats, the person making the threats may also be required to give bail not t o molest the person threatened, or if he shall fail to give such bail, he shall be sentenced to destierro (Art. 284, R.P.C.).
I ,

3 . By orally threatening t o do another any harm not constituting a felony. (Art. 285, R.P.C.)
294. How is the crime of grave coercion committed? It is committed by any person who, without authority of law, shall, by means of violence, prevent another from doing something not prohibited by law or compel him to do something against his will, whether it be right or wrong (Art. 286, R.P.C.). 295, Mow is the crime of light coercion committed? It is committed by any person who, by means of viclence, shall ssize any thing belonging to his debtor for .,, the purpose of applying the same to the payment of the ~' debt (Art. 287, R.P.C.).
296. How is the crime of other similar coercions committed? It is committed by any person, agent, or officer of any association or corporation who shall force or compel, directly or indirectly, or shall knowingly permit any laborer or employee employed by him or by such firm or corporation t o be forced or compelled, to purchase merchan. dise or commodities of any kind; or by any person who shall pay the wages due a laborer or employee employed by him, by means of tokens or objects other than the' legal tender currency of the Philippines, unless expressly requested by the laborer or employee (Art. 288, R.P.C.).

293. What are other light threats? They are: I. By threatening another with a weapon, or by drawing such weapon in a quarrel, unless it be in lawful selfdefense. r!. By orally threatening another, in the heat of anger, with some harm constituting a crime, without persisting in the idea involved in his threat.

297. How is the crime of formation, maintenance, and prohid bition of combination of capital or labor through violence 0.r threats committed? It is committed by any person who, for the purpos of organizing, maintaining, or preventing coalitions o capital or labor, strike of laborers, or lockout of emplo shall employ violence or threats in such a degree compel or lorce the laborers o r employers in the f r e legal exercise of thei.1. industry or work, if the act

100

101
. .

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

E:
.X,.

not constitute a more serious o-Cfense in accordance with the provisions of the Revised Penal Code (Art. 289,

R.P.C.)

'?
?\ $

:. ; 298.

Wha.t arc the three kinds of discovery and revelation of secrets? They are: 1. Discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence. 2:. Revealing secrets with abuse of office. 3,. Revealing of industrial secrets.
of correspondence committed?

s"

It is committed by the person in charge, employee, or workman of any manufaeturicg or industrial establishment who, to the prejudice of the owner thereof, shall reveal the secrets of the industry of the latter (Art. 292, R.P.C.).
.'
-';

303. Who are guilty OP robbery? Any person who, wifn intent to gain, shall take any personal proverty belonging t o another, by means of violence against, or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything, shall be guilty of robbery (Art. 293, R.P.C.).

299. How is the crime of discovering secrets through seizure

It is committed by any private individual who, in order to discover secrets of another, shall seize his papers or letters and reveal the contents thereof (Art. 290, R.P.C.). Tba penalty is lower if the offender does not reveal the secrets. . 300. Who are not liable for discovering secrets through seizure
of correspondence?

304. What are the two classes of robbery? .. . , They are: I 1. Robbery with violence against, or intimidation o f . '
1

.,I
. i

persons. 2. Robbery with force upon things.


305. What are the provisions of the Revised Penal robbery with violence against, or intimidation of persons? " Specifically, the acts punished as robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons are: 1. By committing homicide by reason or on the occasion of the robbery (taking personal property belonging' to another). 2. By committing rape or intentional mutilation accompanying the robbery; or by committing physical injuries by reason or on t'ne oc~zairmof the robbery, where th? offended party becomes insane, imbecile, impotent,'or blind (Subdivision 1 of Art. 263). 3. By inflicting physical injuries by reason or on. occasion vi the robbery, where the offended party lost use of speech or the power t o hear o r to smell, or an .eye, a hand, a foot, an arm, or a leg o r lost the. of any such member or became incapacitated f o r the in which he was theretofore habitually engaged division 2, Art. 263).

The parents, guardians, or persons entrusted with the custody of minors, with respect to the papers or letters of the children or minors placed under their care or custody, and the spouses, with respect to the papers or letters of either of them (Art. 290, par. 3, R.P.C.). Row is the crime of revealing secrets with abuse of office committed? It is committed by any manager, employee, or servant who, in such capacity, shall learn the secrets of his principal or master and shall reveal such secrets (Art. 291, R.P.C.) .

How is the crime of revelation of industrial secrets committ8ed?


102

103
_.

,a ..

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER


i

, .
( ,

.,
".
'
I

'

<.

* . b ~ ~

4. By carrying the violence o r intimidation employed in the commission of the robbery to a degree clearly un.. ,. necessary for the commission of the crime; or by inflicting upon any person not responsible for the commission of the robbery in the course of its execution, auy of the physical injuries in consequence of which the person injured became deformed or lost any other member of his body or lost the use thereof or became ill or incapacitated for the performance of the work in which he was habitually engaged for more than 90 days or that the person injured became ill or incapacitated for labor for more than 30 days (Subdivisions 3 and 4 of Art. 263). 5. By merely employing intimidatior. or violence which does not cause any of the serious physical injuries mentioned in Art. 263. The following are also the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons : When by reason or on occasion 09 an attempted or frustrated robbery a homicide is com.nitted (Art. 297, R.P.C.). A n y person who, with intent to defraud another, by means of violence o r intimidation, shall compel him to sign, execute, or deliver any public instrument or document, shall be guilty of robbery (Art. 298, R.P.C.).

5. On a street, road, highway, or alley, and the intimidation is made with the use of firearm. (Art. 295, R.P.C:)
Note: The qualifying circumstances are not applicable to robbery with hamioide, or robbery with rape or intentional mutilalation, qr robbery with serious physical injuries resulting in the insanity, imbecility, impotency or blindness of the victim.

' A

307. When i the robbery deemed to have been committed by s a bend and what is the penalty incurred by the members thereof? When more than three armed, malefactors take pa$ in the commission of robbery, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band. When any of the arms used in the conimission of the offense be an unlicensed firearm, the penalty t o be imposed upon all the malefactors shall be the maximum period of the corresponding penalty pro: vided by law, without prejudice to the criminal liability for illeel possession of such unlicensed firearm. Any member of a band who is present a t the commission of a robbery by the band, shall be punished as principal of any of the assaults committed by the .band, unless it be shown that he attempted t o prevent the same.. (Art. 296, as amended by Republic Act No. 12)
508. May robbery by the use of force upon things be committed in any place? No. Robbery by the use of force upon things may be committed only (1) in an inhabited house, public building, " o r edifice devoted to religious worship; or (2) in an un-' inhabited dace (which must be a building) or in a private building.

;306. What are the qualifying circumstances in the crime of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons?

When such robbery is committed1. In an uninhabited place. 2. By a hand. 3 . By attacking a moving train, street car, motor vehicle, or airship. 4. BY entering the passengers' compartments in a train, or in any manner taking the passengers thereof se in the respective conveyances.

309. How is the crime of robbery with force upOn things in an inhabited house, or publie buildikzg or edifice devoted: , ~~. to religious worshiu Committed?
. I

104

105

GRINJXAL LAW REWEWER

CRXMlWht LAW REVIEWER

..

It is committed by any person who shall enter the house o r building, in which the personal property is taken by him, by any of the following means: 1. Through an opening not intended for entrance o r egress ; 2. By breaking any wall, roof, OT floor or byeaking any door or window; 3 . By using false keys, picklocks, or similar tools; 4. B y using fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public authority. O r ifThe robhery be committed under any of the following circumstances : 1. By breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests, or any othei- kind of locked or sealed furniture or receptacle; 2. By taking such furniture or objects away to be broken or forced open outside the place of the, robbery. (Art. 299, R.P.C.)
What are the qualifying circumstances in the crime o f robbery with force upon things committed in inhabited house, public bnilding, or edifice devoted to religious worship? The robbery with force upon things in inhabited house, public building, or edifice deyioted to religious worship, if committed in an uninhabited place and by a band, shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty providsd therefor (Art. 300, R.P.C.) .

A 1 interior courts, corrals, warehouses, granaries, barns, 1 coachhouses, stables, or other departments, or inclosed places contiguous to the building or edifice, having an intenor entrance connected therewith and which form part of the whole, shall be deemed dependencies of an inhabited house, public building, or building dedicated to religious worship. Orchards and other iands for cultivation or production are not ineluded in the t e r m of the next preceding paragrzph, even if closed, contiguous t o the building, and having direct connection therewith. The term public building includes every building owned by the Government o r belonging to a private person but used OY rented by the Chemment, although ternporarily unoccupied by the sam-e. (Art. 301, R.P.C.)
312. How is the crime of robbery with force upon things i n an uninhabited place or in a privati: building c o r n m i t e ? It is robbery committed in an uninhabited place or in

: y ,:

3
: ,

::,

For the purpose of the crime of robbery with force upon things, what is inhabited house, public building, or their dependencies?
Inhabited house means any shelter, ship, or vessel constituting the dwelling of one or more persons, even thowh the inhabitants thereof shall temporarily be absent therefrom when the robbery is committed.
106

a building other than an inhabited house, public building, or edifice devoted to religious worshiy, provided that any of the following circumstances is present: 1, Tf the entrance has been effected through any opening not intended for entrance or egress; 2. If any wall, roof, floor, or outside door or window has been broken; 3. If the entrance has been effected through the use of false keys, picldoclcs, or other similar tools: 4. If any door, wardrobe, chest, or any sealed or closed furnitnre or receptacle has been broken; 5. If any closed or sealed receptacle, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, has been removed, even if t h same be broken open elsewhere. (Art. 302, RPG ...
313. When shall the offender in robbery suffer the pe next higher in degree?

107

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER


,~,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWIER

b,

,~ :

I:n the cases specified in articles 294, 295, 297, 299, 300, and 302 of the Revised Penal Code, when the property taken is mail matter or large cattle, the offender shall suffer the penalties next higher in degree than those provided in said articles (Art. 302, par. 3, R.P.C.). When is the robbery of cereals, fruits, or firewood to he punished with a penalty next lower in degree? When the robbery with force upon things in inhabited house, public building, or edifice devoted to religious worship, or in uninhabited place or private building, consists in t,he taking of c s &, fruits, or firewood, the cnlprit shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by the Code (Art. 303, R.P.C.). Hour .is the crime of possession of or making picklocks or similar tools comniitted? :It is committed by any person who shall, without lawful cause, have in his possession picklocks or similar tools specially adopted to the commission of the crime robbery: or by any person who shall make such tools (Art. 304, R.P.C.). What are false keys? The term "false keys" shall be deemed to include: :L. The tools mentioned in the next preceding article; 2. Genuine keys stolen from the owner; 3. Any keys other than those intended by the owner for nse in the lock forcibly opened by the offender. (Art. 305, R.P.C.) * Who are brigands? When more than three armed persons form a band of robbers for the purpose of committing robbery in the highway, or kidnapping persons for the purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom or for any other purpose to he attained by means of force and violence, they shall be deemed highway robbers or brigands (Art. 306, R.P.C.) . 108

318. When are mined persons presumed to be highway roblfeers or brigands? If any of the arms carried by any of said persons be an unlicensed firearm, it shall be presumed that said persons are highway robbers o r brigands, and in case of conviction, the penalty shall be imposed in the m a x i m m period (Art. 306, par. 3, R.P.C.).
319. How is the crime of aiding and abetting a hand of brigands committed? 'It is committed by any person knowingly and in any manner aiding, abetting, o r protecting a band of brigands, or giving them information of the movements of the police or other peace officers of the Governtnent, o r acquiring or rcceiving the property taken by such brigands (Art. 307, X.P.C.).

::

320. Who are liable far theft? Or, how is theft committed? Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against, or intimidation of, perisons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of ,mother without the latter's consent. Theft is likewise committed by: 1. Any person who, having found lost property, shaU fail t o deliver the szme to the local authorities or t o ita ,:: :*, owner; 'c 2 . Any person who, after having maliciously damaged,,,.$ . the property of another, shall remove or make use of the".,+ fruits or object of the damage caused by him; and ,..,j 3 . Any person who shall enter an inclos;?d estate or a field where trespass is forbidden or which belongs t o another and, without the consent of its owner, shall hunt, ' 4 or fish upon the same or shall gather fruits, cereals, or ..?9 @ other forest or farm products. . (Ark 308, R.P.C.) '& :
, . I ~
%. .

.# $

i4

:.g

321. What are qualified thefts?


109

2,
' 1

&',

..

..

.
.*

"

.,..: , > & .

I .

. . .

,:*:~
'

A<,% d. e:
.*j,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

!Ute foIlowing are qual%d thefts: 1. If the theft is comn&ted by a domestic servant. 5!. If the theft is committed with grave.abuse of confidence. 3. If the property stolen is a (a) motor vehicle, (b) mail matter, (e) large cattle, or consists of (d) coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation. 1. If the property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond or fishery. (Art. 310, R.P.C.)

r4
i

;*

'. 322. What are the crimes

of usurpation?

I.. Occupation of real property or usurpation of real right,s in property. 2!. Altering boundaries or landmarks.
How is the crime of occupation o real property or usurpaf tion of real rights in property committed? .,'' It is committed by any person who, by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, shall take possession of any real property or shall usurp any real rights in property belonging to another (Art. 312, R.P.C.).

324. How is the crime of altering boundaries or landmarks comI t i cosmitted by any person who shall alter the s boundary marks or monuments of towns, provinces, or estates, or any other marks intended to designate the boundaries of the same (Art. 313, R.P.C.). 325. How is the crime of fraudulent insolvency committed? It is committed by any person who shall his property to the prejudice of his

110

<

It is committed by,any person who shall defraud other by any of the following means: 1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely: (a) By altering the substance, quantity, or quality of anything of value which the offender shall del by virtue of a n obligation to do :so, even though such obligation bc based on an immoral or illegal consideration; (b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or m y other personal property received by the offender in trust o r on eommission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return the same, even though such,.obligation be totally o r partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received such money, goods, or other Property; (c) By taking undue advantage of' the signature of the offended party jn blank, and by writing any document above such signature iu blank, to the prejudice of the offended party or any third person. 2. By means of any of the following false pretellses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud: (a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business, os imaginary transactions; OT by means of other similar deceit$# (b) By altering the quality, fineness, or weight of anything pertaining to his art or business. (e) By pretending to have bribed any Government he employee, without prejudice to t m action for calumny, which the offended party may deem proper to bring against the offender. In this case, the offender shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty. (d) By postdating a check, or issuing a check.in payment of an obligation when the offender had n funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein wer not sufficient t o cover the amount of the check. The

e,'

'2s ? !
?

'
',,
I

111
, ,

. ...'**

, ,

,:r

cmrmib
~.
CR17dIXA1, LAW REVIEWE13

LAW REVIEWER

'S

the:honor

failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the amount necessary to cover his check within three (3) days from receipt of notice from the bank and/or the payce or holder- that said check has been dishonored for lack 01' insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act. (As amended by Rep. Act No. 4885, approved June 17, 1967) ( e ) By obtaining any food, nefreshment or amommodation a t a hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging house, or apartment house ahd the like without paying therefor, with intent to defraud the proprietor or manager thereof. or by obtaining credit al. a hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging house or apartment house by the use of any false pretenses, or by abandoning or surreptitiously removing any part of his baggage from a hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house, Iodging house, o r apartment house after obtain. ing credit, food, refreshment, or accommodation therein without paying for his food, refreshment, or aecommodation. 3. Through any of the following fraudulent nleaus: (a) BY inducing another, by means of deceit, t o sign any document: (b) BY resorting to some fraudulent practice to ., , insure success in a gambling game; (C) B removing, concealing, or destroying, in whole Y 0 ' in part, any court record, office files, docoment, 1 o r any other papers. a (Art. 315, R.F.C.) 27. What =e other fornls of swindling? , , Other forms of swiudling are committed by1. .Any person who, pretending to be the owner of any ' real property, shall convey, sell, encumber, or mortgage
2. Any person who, knowing that real property is en. cumbered, shall dispose of the same, zlthough such encumbrance be not recorded; 3. The owner of any personal property who shall wrongfully take it from its lawful possessor, t o the prejudice of the latter or any third person;

or reputation of another person (Art. 364, I*. n

, '.,,'

.-

.. \

~ . , 379! What are thc quasi-offenses? , They are the offenses committed by means of fault '.,. , or d p a , or ot'nerwise known as criminal negligence. . . The quasi-offenses are committed in four Ways: 1 . ~y committing through reckless imprudence any St ,':; which, had i been intentional, would constitute a grave t :,, or less grave felony o r light felony. \ , ,. ,i 2. committing through simple imprudence or ne&'' .. gence an act which would otherwise constitute a grave si: .A or a less serious felony. ,: :' ~ 3 . B~ causing damage to the property of another .$%:a,3 e, through reckless imprudence o r simple imprudence or ., -;i

__

nee or negligence which, if done maliciously, would have Constisorne tuted a light felony.

,
'

' "

xn

the imposition of the penalties for criminal ne&:,:$

,'

I 381. In

%enoe,the courts shall exercise their sound discretion, with-:; out. revard to the rules prescribed in Article sixty-four 1 . "-. (Art. 365, par. 5, R P C ) ....
_o .

what cases are the penalties prescribed for criminal negligence in Art. 365 not to be imposed? The provisions contained in Art. 365 of the Revis Penal Code shall not be applicable: '1. When the penalty provided for the offense is t o or lower than those provided in the first two p a r a s of that article, in which case the courts shall impose t penalty next lower in degree than that which should

,.

129

112

. . .. ">,
,

-,. ;

_.."., ,:. ,
'

'

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRININAL LAW REVIEWER

, S i % 3* c
,I

* .p, ; q : ,

.1v; ,
2

imposed in the period which they may deem proper to : i .. . . auply. 2 . When, by imprudence or negligence and with viola,' tion of the Automobile Law, the death of a person shall '.he caused, in which case the defendants shall be punisxed prision correccional in its medium and maximum (Art. 365, par. 6, R.P.C.)
,,,

,! ,2 binding on all persons who reside or Sojourn in ,?hiliPP@,,.,&a


It has general application, because Criminal .Law,,is
., . .,+ territory. It is territorial, in that Criminal Law undertakes b,,,.?+ Dunish crimes committed within the Philippine territory: -;" ~ ',X,~ * It is prospective, in that a penal law carnot make act punishable in a manner in which i t was not punishable when committed. Crimes are punished under the laws in force at the time of their commission. A S to i t 4 geneVal application: Art. 2 of the Revisd: Penal Code states that the provisions of this Code shall be enforced within the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, interior waters and .maritime zone, with-, out reference to the person or persons who might viola+' any of its provisions. Art. 14 of the new- Civil Code provides that penal shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in P pine territory. As to its territorial application: The same. Art-.:+

an

Define reckless imp,rudence. R.eckless imprudence consists ip voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing to do act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaut.ion on the part of the person performing or failin'g t o persuch act, taking into ,consideration his employment occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and ther circumtances regarding persons, time and place Art. 365, par. 7, R.P.C.). efine simple imprudence. Simple imprudence consists in the iack of precaution splayed in those cases in which the aamage impending caused is not immediate nor the danger clearly 'est (Art. 365, par. 8, R.B.C.).

. When is the penalty next higher

in degree to those pro. aided for i Art. 365 to be imposed? n The penalty next higher in degree to those provided for in Art. 365 shall he imposed upon the offender who 6 lend on the spot to the injured parties such help ay be in his hands to give (Art. 365, par. 9, R.P.C.).

of the Revised Penal Code states that the'provisions Of this Code shall be enforced within the Philippine Archi; pelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and , maritime zone, which constitute the Philippine terr As to the prospectivitll of Criminal Law: Art. 21 of the Revised Penal Code provides that no felony shall ,be punishable 'oy any penalty not prescribed by law t o its commission. Art, 366 oC the same Code provides that felonies are punishable under the laws enforced at the time of their commission. . . ~ ~ ~
386. In what cases is our Criminal Law mot applicable to per sons living or sojourning in this coantry? Art. 2 of the Revised Penal Code in effect provides that the general a.nd territorial applications of its provisions are subject to the exceptions that may be provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application.
131

and explain briefly the main characteristics o Criminal Lam and state the provisions of law based on those characteriqties. Criminal Law has three main characteristics: (1) gen2) territorial, and ( 3 ) prospective.
..

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

i' -

. . .
L

.i:
7

..

Art. 14 of the new Civil Code provides that the general application of penal. laws is subject to. the principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations. Hence, the following persons are not subject to the operation of our Criminal Law: 1. Those who, according to the treaties between the Philippines and a foreign country, are not amenable to our penal laws. Thus, under the Base Agreement between the Philip pines and the Uhited States, our penal laws shall not apply when(a) The offense is committed by any person within any base, except (1) where the ofender and the offended party are both Philippine citizens (not members of the armed forces of the United States on active duty), o r ( 2 ) where the offense is a.gainst the security of the Philiunines:

387. An American soldier committed the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, begun in Angeles, Pampanga, and continued all the way to Clark Field, a r d i t a r y b m , where
the victim was raped. May the offender be tried by the Court of First Instance of PampangaP Under the Rules of Court (Rule 107, Set. 14), in all criminal prosecutions, the action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or province wherein the ofiense was Committed or anyone of the ingredients thereof took place. In the case of Pamlan vs. Rodas, 78 Phil. 855, it was held that the offenders who kidnapped the victim from Menila and took him to a distant place in Bulacan, where the latter was killed, may be tried either by the Court of First Instance of Manila or by the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, but whichever takes cognizance of the case first acquires exclusive jurisdiction. The aforementioned rule and ruling may be applied

. ,

. ','
.:3

1
1

,:-.i

(e) The offense committed outside the bases by any member of the armed forces of the United States is against the securi.ty of the United States. 2. Those who, by virtue of laws of preferential application, are not amenable t o our penal laws. Thus, under Rep. Act No. 75, it is even a crime t o arrest or imprison any ambassador o r public minister of any foreign State or their domestic servant whose name is registered in the Department of Foreign Affairs and posted in some public place in the Office of the Chief of Police of Manila. 3 . Those who, under the principles of public international law, are not subject to the operation of our penal such as the sovereigns and other chiefs of States, :radars and ministers.
132

be tried either by the Court of First Instance of P a p ;$ panga, where the commission of the crime began, or by the military court of the armed forces of the United States , ',i$ in Clnrk Field. where it was continued and consummated. .. . :;!g Hence, the Court of First Instance of Pampanga may ..*. try the case. . '..*,

- . .~~~ .

:,d

~~~

Is our Criminal Law applicable to crimes committed by a soldier? I t depends on whether the offender is a soldier of the., Philippine Army or he is a soldier of the armed forces: of the United States. If he is a soldier of the Phi A m y , our civil court has concurrent jurisdiction w military court. If the civil court takes cognizance case first, then it shall have exclusive jurisdictio , the offense committed by the soldier of the Philip
133

CRIMINAL LAW RWIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER


. .

Army and our Criminal Law will be applicable to him. But if the offender is a soldier of the United States Armed Forces, the stipulations in the Base Agreement will apply. May a Philippine citizen who committed a crime in this country be punished by a law of a foreign nation? Explain your answer. Yes, when the crime is committed by a Philippine citizen within a base, provided that the offended party is not a Philippine citizen or that the offense is not against the security of the Philippines. In such case, the Artides o War of the United States Armed Forces will apply. ~390. When is a soldier of the armed forces of the United States liable for violation of our Criminal Law? The Base Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America recognizes the authority of our civil courts t o exercise jurisdiction over all offenses committed within the Philippines, except in certain cases specifically provided in the Agreement. Hence, a soldier of the armed forces of the United States is liable for violation of our penal law and triable .. by our civil court when the offense is committed (1) outside the bases and (2) the offended party is not a member of the armed forces of the United States or that the offense is not against the security of the United States. Not one of the exceptions provided in the Base Agreement is applicable to this case. "391. When may the United States exercise jurisdiction over a n offense committed outside the base by a member of its armed forces, even if the offended party is not a member ., thereof or the offense is not against the seeurity of the United States? If any offense committed outside the base (the ofoffended party not being a member of the armed forces of the United States or the offense is not against the security of the United States) is committed by any mem-

ber 01the armed forces of the United States (a) while engaged in the actual performance of a specific. military : duty, or (b) during a period of national emergency,. United States may exercise jurisdiction. 392. Do civil courts have jurisdiction during time of war over. a soldier who committed a crime? Notwithstanding the provision in the Articles of War requiring a soldier to be delivered to civil authorities for trial for an alleged crime except in time of war, the jurisdiction of military courts over x soldier is not ex-: clusive of the civil courts even during time of war, if .the soldier is stationed within the territory courts are functioning and where no actn in progress (Valdez vs. Lucero, 76 Phil. 356). But under the Base Agreement, in time 0 United States shall have the right to exercise jurisdiction over any offenses which may be By members of the armed forces of the Unit in We Philippines. 393. A and B, Filipino citi'ens, went to o%k n Ii !og on a pleasure; trip. When they returned to, and were already in, the Philippines, B discovered that A sto!le her di worth P2,OOO while they were in Hongkong Criminal Law be applied in this case? Explain your an2 swec. No, because this is not one of the cases where provisions of the Revised Penal Code may be enfor outside of the jurisdiction of the Philippines. The of@ was not committed while on a Philippine shi the offense does not involve forgery or cou any coin or currency note of the Philippines, or obli and securities issued by the Government of the Phili the offense does not involve any act connected introduction into the Philippines of forged o securities; the offender is not a public officer or empl who committed an offense in the exercise of his funct'

'

,.., . . . ,. . ,

'

134

135

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CKIMINAL LAW REVIEWIER


~~

.
.,

. .

or that the offense is not one of the ciimes against the


natimonal security and the law of nations.

or currency notes or obligations and securities issued by the Government may affect the economic life of the n e
tion. Crimes against the law of nations, such as piracy and mutiny on the high seas, are against mankind and may he punished by any civilized government.

.394. Why are the provisions of the Revised Penal Code applicable to crimes committed on board the Philippine ship or airship even if the Philippine ship cr airship is outside .>., ~~,,., the jurisdiction of the Philippines? The Philippine vessel o r aircraft, although beyond three miles from the seashore, is considered an extension of the national territory. E:ut when the Philippine vessel or aircraft is in the territory of a foreign country, the crime committed on said vessel or aircraft is subject to the laws of that foreim
'

'

397. When may our Criminal Law be given retroactive effect? Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as t h e y . favor a person guilty of a felony, who is not's habitual delinquent, and provided that the penal laws do not speeifically provide that the same shall not be applicable to 'r ; pending actions o r causes of actions. ., ."
I*

395. A, an employee of the Philippine Government, ivas assigned to Japan as a clerk of the Reparation Committee. While in Japan, A falsified the record prepared and kept by another employee of the Committee. .In case A returns or is brought back to the Philippines, may.he be prosecuted and punished for falsification committed by him in Japan? Explain your answer. No, because although A is a public officer or employee, he did not commit the offense in the exercise of his . . function. To commit an offense in the exercise of his .. functiou, the public officer or employee must have acted in his official capacity, or that the act committed must be related to or connected with the peiiformance of his official duty.

398. A, who had been once punished for the crime of theft, was on trial for estafa punishable by paision correecional i n view of the amount involved. Uefore the case was sub-

"

h are the crimes under the circumstances mentioned r


'

Art. 2 made punishable by the Revised Penal Code .'..even if they are committed outside of the jurisdiction of
Because the commission of any of those crimes may affect the political or economic life of the nation. .The Crimes against national security may affect the existence of the State. The forging or counterfeiting of our coins

mitted for decision, Congress amended Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code, reducing the penalty for estafa, corn- ". ', mitted by A, to arrest0 mayor. Is the new law applicable to A? Explain your answer. : On the basis of the facts given, A should be given the benefit of the new law, it being' favorable to him. Hence, . , the new law is applicable to him. A was only a recidivist, because a t the time of his trial for estafa he was convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the Code. A new favorable statute dealing with crimes cannot be given retroactive effect only in two cases, namely: (1) where the new law is expressly made inapplicable t o pending actions or existing causes of action; and ( 2 ) where the offender is a habitual delinquent under Rule No. 5 of Art. 6% of the Revised Penal Code. A habitual delinquent is one who, within a period O f ten years from the date of his release or last convidion~ of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or falsification, is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.

CRIMINAL LAW RlGVIEWER

..

,.
, I

.. I . .

_.

. '. ..
.,,

The three parts of the Revised Penal Code are: 1. Basic principles affecting crimina1 liability (Articles 1 to 20). 2 . Provisions on penalties, including criminal and civil liabilit,y (Articles '21 t o 113). 3. Felonies defined and penalized under fourteen (14) different titles (Articles I14 t o 365).

CRIMINAL LAW

REVIEWER
:

.400. Classify felonies according to their nature.

'.

. ,

&&

@ + %. ! :

2 '

Felonies are classified according t o their nature, as follows: 1. Crimes against the national security and the law OI nations. 2 . Crimes against the fundamental laws of the State. . . ,. . .,, 3. Crimes against public order. . , . '' 4. Crimes against public interest. '.... 5 . Crimes relative to opium and other prohibited drugs. 6. Crimes against public morals. 7. Crimes committed by public officers. 8. Crimes against persons. 9. Crimes against personal liberty and security. 10. Crimes against property. 11. Crimes against chastity. 12. Crimes against the civil status of persons. 13. Crimes against honor: ' 14. Quasi offenses.
~

2 . That inan is essentially a moral creature with an absolutely free will to choose between good and evil, thereby placing more stress upon the effect o r result of the felonious act than upon the man, the crimlnal himself. 3. I t has endeavored to establish a mechanical and direct proportion between crime and penalty. 4. There is a scant regard to .the human' element." (Basic Principles, Eationale, p. 2, by the Code COPmittee on Code of Crimes)

, .

$3
I$

.:,?. .

Positivist theory 1. That man is subdued occasionally by a strange: . ~ ' ; morbid phenomenon which constrains him to do .,~. .I ,. , , , p rnronx, in sDite of or contrary to his volition. . , 2 . That crime is essentially a. social and natural : . phenomenon, and as such, it cannot be treated and. ,! .; checked by the application of abstract principles of law; . ; and jurisprudence nor by the imposition of a punish-;, i ment, fixed and determined a priori; but rather through. .& the ellforcement of individual measures in each par tic-^ i i ular case after a thorough, perSona1 and individual investigation conducted by a competent body of psychia- ,; trists and social scientists. (Basic Principles, Rationale,; DD. 2 and 3, by the Code Commission on Code of. Crimes)
\ :

402. On what principles or theory of penalOgY is the Revised'

State the theories of penalogy and distinguish one from the other. There a r e two theories of penalogy, namely: ( 1 ) the classical theory and (2) the positivist theory. These two theories of penalogy may ba distinguished by their characteristics:
.'

Penal Code based? The Revised Penal Code continues, like the old Coae, t o be based on the principles of the classical 8 although some provisions of eminel1tly positivistic encies (those having reference t o the punishment of 1 possible crimes, juvenile delinquency, etc.) were inC 'uorated in the present Code.
403. Classify felonies according to the means by which

will^ and

1. The basis of criminal liability ip human free the purpose of the penalty ia retribution.

commit.ted and define each, and according to their and define each.

138

139

. _
. .
, ,

CRIMINAL LAW XEVIXWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER


AI%?

.. .

.I:

~. ..
:, ,
I
.

. . . .. , ; . .
.
, .,

I . ..: , ,. i . .,' . ,

: . ..
'

Felonies are classified according to the means by which they are committed into (1) intentional felonies or felonies committed with malice or intent and (2) culpable felonies or those resulting from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill (Art. 3, par. 2, R.P.C.). Felonies are classified according to their gravity into (1) grave felonies, (2) less grave felonies, and (3) light felonies. Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive. Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are correctipnal. Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of arrest0 1)zeno~or a fine not exceeding two hundred pesos or both is provided (Art. 9, R.P.C.).

When is an act or omission voluntary? A voluntary act is a free, +nteZZig& and ilttentiod act (U.S. vs. Ah Chong, 3 1 Phil. 488). IIence, an omission must also be free, intelligent and intentional. This is the meaning of voluntariness in intentional felony. In culpable felony, the act or omission must also be free and int.dligent, hut instead of intent or malice, which is necessary in intentional felonies, there is only imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.

j
j

407. What is mistake of fact and how does it affect~criminal liability? Mistake of f a d is a misapprehension of fact, showing lack of intent on the part of the person accused of - a felony. It exempts him from criminal liability, because intent, which is one of the conditions of voluntariness, iS 2ackir.g,
408 When is mistake of fact available as a defense? The rule is: that in mistake of fact, the act O the,. '! f ' . accused would have been lawful had the facts been aS he believed them t o be. His intention in pel-foming the act ' ', should be lawful. He should not be a t fault or negligent.
,':

. :404.. State t h e elements of felonies as t h q are &fined in the . .. Revised Penal Code. As the term is defined in Art. 3 of the Revised Penal . , Code, felonies have the following elemnts: . .
'

1. There must be an act or omission.

2 . The act or omission must he punishable by law. 3 . That the act must be committed or the omission incurred by means of deceit (dolo) or by means of fault

. ., . .
.+ ,.
' 1
'"
,

(culpa). It is not necessary to state that the act or omission be voluntary, as it is presumed.
!
1 I

-. 40 .

.'

What i s the meaning of the term "dolo" as used in the -:/'definition of intentional felonies in Art. 3 of the Revised .. Penal Code. The term dolo has been improperly translated to "deceit". Dolo is equivalent to malice, which is the intent ,to do an injury to another;/It implies malicious intention.

409. ~~~sthe mere fact that a <personhas acted under a mistake of fact mean that he is exempt from criminal Eability? Explain your answer. No, because it is reqnired that t h e . s t and the i&ntion of the accused must he la&]. Eence, if his act and intention are unlawful, the accused is not exempt from criminal liability, notwithstanding a mistake of fact on , . , '1 his part.
$1

; ;

910. A wanted to kill B by shooting him. with a pistol. A, thinking that he was B, fired at a person who was walk- ~'; :$ ing in a dark alley. It turned out that the person killed was C, the brother of A. A had no intention t o kill him. ,$ $ Considering that there was a mistake of fact in this case,., !: ;.

..*y

140

141

CllIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIiMIN.41, LAW REVIEWER

do you believe that A is exempt from criminal liability?


Explain your answer. No, because A had intent to kill when he fired his pistol. He & d w j k m a l i c e , since he had the intent to do an injury to another. Even if the person whom he shot was really B, the act done by A would not have been lawful. Under Art. 4, par. 1, of the Revised P e n d Code, he is liable criminally for the death of his brother C, because when he fired his pistol with intent t o kill B, A was committing a felony and the death of C was the direct, natlrral and logical consequence of the felony com-

rgteea.
411. A was awakened by the barking of his dog. Be looked out of the window of his house and saw a man in his yard. A got his shot-gun and, believing that man to be
When he went down to see the man he had killed, he found out that the n man was his brother who wanted to spend the night i As house. Can A successfully invoke mistake of fact as ' a, defense? Explain your answer. NQ,because even if the man was in fact a robber, not his brother, A would not have been bs6fied in shooting him to death. There was neither defense of A's person, defense of home nor defense of property in this case, because there was no~~unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased that might imperil the life or limb of A. Since the act done by A would noLhave been~lawfulhad the facts been as he believed them t o be, he is liable for the death of his brother.
a. robber, shot and killed him in his yard.

'

371. What is th'e Yenue of action in libel? The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written defamation shall be filed simultaneously or separately with t,he court of first instance of the province or city where the iibelous article is printed and first published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense: Provided, however, That where one of the offended parties is a public officer mhose office is ,in the City of Manila a t the time of the commission of the offense, the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila or of the city or province where the libelous article is printed and first. published, and in case such , public officer does not hold office in the City of Manila, : the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the provinre o r city where he held office,at the t i e of the commission of the offense o r where @e libelous article is printed and first published and in case one o the offended parties is a private individual, the action shall be filed in the Court of First lnstance of the province or city where he actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense or where the libelous matter is printed and first published: Provided, further, That the civil action shall be filed in the same court where the criminal action is filed and vice versa: Provided, further- * more, That the conrt where the criminal action or ci$il action for damages is first filed, shall acquire jurisdic. tion to the exclusion of other courts. (Grt. 360, par. 3, K.P.C.)
372. How shall the criminal action for d,efamation which .,ons?sstS in tlie impatation of a crime which can not be pro: secuted de oficio be '&ronght? -. It shall be brought at the instance of and upon plaint expressly filed by the offended party (Art. par. 5, R.P.C.).
373. What are the requisites f w acqkittal or of def

412. May malice and negligence or imprudence co-exist in the commission of a felony? Explain your auswer. No, because in criminal negligence, the injury caused to another should be unintentional, it being simply the incident of another act performed without malice (People vs. Guillen, 85 Phil. 307; People vs. Sara, 55 Phil. 939). In order that an act may be qualified a s imprudence, it i necessary that neither malice nor intention to cause s
142

libel?

3.27
,.

,.,;z

CRIMIKAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW KEYIEWER the honor or reputation of another person (Art. 364, R.P.C.) .

In every criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may


be given in evidence and if the matter charged as libelous ir, true, and, moreover, that it was published with good . .. motives and for justifiable ends, the defendant shall he acquitted (Art. 361, par. 1, R.P.C.).
,374. May proof aC the truth of an imputation of an act or om's-

i
i
1

sion not constituting a crime be admitted by the court? Proof of the truth of an imputation of an act or omission not constituting a crime shall not be admitted, unless the imputation shall have been made against Government employees with respect to facts related to the dischargc of their dutjes. In such cases if the defendant proves the truth of the imputation made by him, he shall be acquitted. , . (Art. 361, pars. 2 8z 3, R.P.C.) -"375.. the auth,olr of the libelous remarks or comments wnIs ' .. . . , nected with the matter privileged or the' editor or manag. ing editor of a newspaper in which they are published exempt from criminal liab:lity? Libelous remarks or comments connected with the matt e r privileged under the provisions of article 354, if madl with matice, shall not exempt the author thereof nor fhG: editor or managing editor of a newspaper from criminal liability (Art. 362, R.P.C.), 376. What a r e incriminatory machinations? They are : 1. IncQiinating innocent person. 2 . Intriguing against honor. 377.. How is the crime of incriminating innocent person com'. mitt&? It is committed by any person who, hy any act not constituliug perjury, shall directly incriminate or impute to an innocent person the commission of a crime (Art 863, R.P.C.).
i_

379. What are the quasi-offenses? They are the offenses committed by means of fault or culpa, or otherwise known as criminal negligence. The quasi-offenses are committed i n four ways: 1. By committing through reckless imprudence any act which, had i t been intentional, would constitute a grave, or less grave felony or light felony. 2, By committing through simple imprudence or negligence an act which would otherwise constitute a grave or a less serious felony. 3. By causing damage to the property of another through reckless imprudence or simple imprudence 01 negligence. 4. By causing through simple imprudence 'or some . m ~ n g which, if done maliciously, would h tuted a light felony.
380. Are the courts, in imposing the p a d t i e s for rriniind negligence, bound to apply the rules prescribed in Art. 64 of the Revised r e n d Code, for the application of penaltiwhich contain three periods? In the imposition of the penalties f o r criminal negligence, the courts shall exercise their sound discretion, with-, out regard to the rules prescribed in, Article sixty-four (Art. 365, par. 5, R.P.C.).

'

*,

381.

378. What is intriguing against honmr? It is a crime committed by 'any person who shall make

any intrigue which has for its principal purpose to blemiskr

what cases are the penalties prescribed for criminal.. negligence in Art. 365 not to be imposed? The provisions contained in Art. 865 of the Revised Penal Code shall not be applicable: 1. When the penalty provided for the offense to or lower than those provided in the first two Pa of that article, in which case the courts shall i penalty next lower in degree than that whi

129

128
,. , .. .,

I .&*xb:
. I

, ~,...,

, : ,<<;.&e:,.. .
,

CRIMINAL L A W REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAM' REVIEWER

::
. .

.. :
''.

'W

..
-

imposed in the period which they may deem proper to apply. ' 2 . When, by imprudence or negligence and with violation of the Automobile Law, the death of a person shall be caused, in which case the defendants shaJ be punished by p n s i o n covreccionat in its medium sild maximum periods. (Art. 365, par. 6, R.P.C.)

382. Define rekkiess imprudence.


Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but without malke, doing or failing to do act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and other' circumstances regarding persons, t:me and place (Art. 365, par. 7, R.P.C.).

383. Definc simple imprudence. Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those cases in which the damage impending to be caused is not immediate nor the dmger clearly manifest (Art. 3F5, par. 8, R.P.C.).
584. When is the penalty next higher in degree to those pro-

vided for in Art. 3G5 to be imposed? The. cnalty next higher in degree to tllose provided for in it,. 365 shall be imposed upon the offender who fails to..-lend on the spot to the injured parties such help be in h:s hands to give (Art. 365, par. 9, R.P.C.).

It has general application, because Criminal Law is. binding on all persons who reside or sojourn in Philipphie territory. It is territorial, in t h a t Criminal Law undertakes to punish crimes committed within the Philippine territory, It is prospective, in that a penal law cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when committed. Crimes are punished under the laws force at the t'me of their commission. As t o its general application: Art. 2 of the Revised Penal Code states that the provisiolls of this Code shall . be enforced within the Philippine Krchipelago, including ,,, its atmosphere, interior waters anc! maritime zone, with- ' i out reference t o the person o r persons who might violate m y of its provisions. Art. 1 4 of the new Civil Code provides that penal laws ,~, , ', shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in Philippine territory. A; to its terril&io,l application: The same Art. 2 , ; of the Revised Penal Code states that the provisions Of this Code shall be enforced wilhin the Philippine Archi- ,' pelego, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, which ccnstitute the Philippine territory. : As l o t h c pmspectivitg of C~nvinal Law: Art. 21 o f the Revised Penal Code provides that no felony shall be punishable by any penalty not pi-escribed by law prior to its commission. Art. 366 uC the same Code provides punishable under the laws enforced at t commission.
i

" ,

,.,+385. ..,
. , ,

_*

. .

, ~.

State and exp!ain briefly the main characteristics of Criminal L,nw and state the provisions of law based on thosc characteristics. Criminal t a w has three main characteristics: (1) general, ( 2 ) territorial, and (3) prospective.

-3%. In what eases is our Criminal Law not applicable to persans living or sojourning in this country? Art. 2 or the Revised Penal Code t,hat the general and territorial applicati sions arc subject to the cxoeptions that in the trcatics and laws of preferential

130

131

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CKInlINAL LAW REVIEWER

.,"

..
'.'

Art. 14 of the new Civil Godc provides that the general application of penal laws is subject to the principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations. Hence, the following persons ale not subject to the operation of our Criminal Law : 1. Those who, according to the treaties between the Philippines and a foreign country, are not amenable to our penal laws. Thus, under the Base Agreement between the Philip pines and the United States, our penal laws shall not apply when( a ) The offense is committed by any person within any base, except (1) where the offender and the offended party are hoth Philippine citizens (not members of the armed forces of the United States on active duty), or (2) where the offense is against the security of the Philippines; _, (b) The offense is committed outside the bases, but! the offender and the offended party are both members of the armed forces of the United States; and (e) The offense committed outside the bases hy any member of the armed forces of the United States is against the security of the United States. 2. Those who, by virtue of laws of preferential a p to our penal laws. under Rep. Act No. 75, it is even a crime t o imprison any ambassador or public minister of any foreign State or their domestic servant whose name is registered in the Department of Foreign Affairs and posted in some public place in the Office of the Chief of Police of Manila. 3. Those who, under the principles of public Interto the operation of our penal s and other chiefs of States,
132

387. An American soldier committed the complex crime of forc ble abduction with rape, begun in Angeles, Pampanga, and eontinned all the way to Clark Field, a military base, where the victim was raped. May the offender be tried by the Court of First Instance of Pampanga? Under the Rules of Court (Rule 107, Sec. 14), in al l criminal prosecutions, the action shall be instituted and tried in the court, of the municipality or province wherein the nfense was committed or anyone of the ingredients thereof tank place. In the case of Parulan vs. Rodas, 78 Phil. 855, it was held that the offendera who kidnapped the victim from Manila and took him t o a distant place in Bulacan, where, the latter was killed, may be tried either by the Cou of First Instance of Manila o r by the Court of F i r Instance of Bulacan, but whichever takes cognizance the case first acquires exclusive jurisdiction. The aforementioned rule and ruling may be appli in this case by analogy. The American soldier committed the complex crime offorcible abduction with rape. The complex crime of h1e abduction with rape, being a w n i h u i n w f f e n s e , be tried either by the Court of First Instance of panga, where the commission of the crime began, or b the military court of the armed forces of the United in Clark Field, where it was continued and consum Hence, the Court of First Instance of try the case.
388. Is 6ur Criminal Law applicable to crimes committed by a soldier? It depends on whether the offender is a soldier of the Philippine Army or he is a soldier of the armed forces: of the TJnited States. If he is a soldier of the Philippine: Army, our civil court has concurrent jurjsdiction with the; military court. If the civil court takes cognizance of the" ca,se first, then it shall have exclusive jurisdiction ovq; the offense committed by the soldier of the Philippine

..
-1

,'.
.

133

... ,
d ,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW RZVIEWER

"
.2,; '

Army and our Criminal Law will be applicable to him -But if the offender is a soldier of the United States Armed Forces, the stipulations in the Base Agreement will apply.

. ,
' ,

ber of the armed forces of the United States (a) engaged in the actual performance of a specific mi duty, or (b) during a period of national eme United States may exercise jurisdiction.

389. May a Philippine citizen who committed a crime in this country he punished by a law of a foreign nation? Ex' .

'

plain your answer. Yes, .when the crime is committed by a Philippine citizen within a base, provided that the offended party is not a Philippine citizen o r that the offense is not . .against the security of the Philippines. In such case, the .-< 'Articles of War of the United States Armea Forces will apply. When is a soldier of the armed forces of the United Slates liable for violation of our Criminal Law? The Base Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America recognizes the authority of our civil courts to exercise jurisdiction over all offenses committed within the Philippines, except in certain cases specifically provided in the Agreement. Hence, a soldier of the armed forces of the United States is liable for violation of our penal law and triable by our civil court when the ofense is committed (1) ontside the bases and ( 2 ) the offended party is not a member of the armed forces of the United Sta,tes or that the offense is not against the security of the United States. Not o&+of the exceptions provided in the Base Agreement is applicable to this case. offense committed outside the base by a member of its armed forces, even if the offended party is not a member thereof lor the offense is not against the security of the United States? any offense committed outside the base (the ofed party not being a member of the armed forces e 'United States or the offense is not against the h. Of the United States) is committed by any mem-

.~
"

392. Do civil courts have jurisdiction during time a soldier who committed a crime? Notwithstanding the provision in the Articles of War requiring a soldier to he delivered to civil authorities for trial for an alleged crime except in time of war,,,the jurisdiction of military courts over a soldier is not erelusive of thc civil courts even during time of war, if the soldier is stationed within the territory where the c i s 1 courts are functioning and where no' actual h in progress (Valdez vs. Lucero, 76 Phil. 356). But undei. the Base Agreement, in time United States shall have the right to exercis jurisdiction over any offenses which may be by members of the armed forces of the in the Philippines. and B, Filipino citizens, went to Hongkong on a pleasure trip. When they returned to, and were already in, the Philippines, 3 discovered that. A stole her diamond ring worth 82,000 while they were in 'Hongkong. May ow Criminal Law be applied in this case? Explain your an-' mer. rit No, because this is not one of the eases where the provisions of the Revised Penal Code may be enforced outside of the jurisdiction of the Philippines. The offense was not committed while on a Philippine ship o r airship: the offense does not involve forgery or counterfeiting of any coin or currency note of the Philippines, o r obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippines; the offense does not involve any act connected with the introduction into the Philippines of forged obligations and securities: the offender is not a public officer or employee who committed an offense in the exercise of his functions;

1
,'

391. When may the United States exercise jurisdiction over an

II
i
i
I
$?

134

135

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWISR

or that the offense is not one of the crimes against the national security and the law of nations.
394. Why are the provisions of the Revised Penal Code applicable to crimes committed on board the Philippine ship or airship even if the Philippine ship or airship is outside the jurisdiction of the Philippines? The Philippine vessel or aircraft, although beyond three miles from the seashore, is considered an extension of the national territory. But when the Philippine vessel or aircraft is in the territory of a foreign country, the crime committed on said vessel o r aircraft is subject to the laws of that foreign country. 395. A. an employee of the Philippine Government, was assigned to Japan'-as a clerk of t h e Reparation Committee. While in Japan, A falsified the record prepared and kept by an. . other employee of the Comntittee. In case A returns or is brought back to the Philippines, may he he prosecuted and punished for falsification committed by him in Japan? Explain your answex. No, because although A is a public officer or employee, he did not commit the offense in the exercise of his function. l f o commit an offense in the exercise of his function, the public officer or employee must have acted in his official capacity, o r that the act committed must be rel.%d to or connected with the performance of his official duty. 396. Why are the crimes under the circumstances mentioned in Art. 2 made punishable by the Revised Penal. Code even if they are committed outside of the jurisdiction of the Philippines? Because the commission of any of those crimes may a B c t tho p e l or economic life of the nation. The crimes against national security may affect the existence of the State. The forging or counterfeiting of our coins

11, 4

,7/;

or currency notes or obligations and securities issued by the Government may affect the economic life of the nation. Crimes against the law of nations, such as piracy and mutiny on the high seas, are against mankind and may be punished by any civilized government.
397. When may our Criminal Law be given retroactive effect? Penal 1aw.s shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor a person guilty of a felony, v h o is not a habitual delinquent, and provided that the penal laws do not specifically provide that the same shall not be applicable to pending actions or causes of actions.

398. A, who had been once punished for the crime of theft, was on trial for estafa punishable by pirision correcdonal in ,' view of the amount involved. Before the case was sub, : mitted for decision, Congress amended Art. 315 of the ' :i ; Revised Penal Ode, reducing the penalty for estaf'a, com- ' ; mitted hy A, to arrest0 mayor. Is the new law applicable to A? Explain your answer. On the basis of the facts given, .A should be given the ' ~;$ benefit of the new law, it being favorable t o him. Hence,' .: the new law is applicable to him. A was only a recidivist, ; because at tbe time of his trial for estafa he was convicted ,'., by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same : ih title of the Code. A new favorable statute dealing Wt * crimes cannot be given retroactive effect only in tw namely: (1) where the new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes o f and (2) where the offender is a habitual delinque Xule No. 5 of Art. 62 of the Revised Penal Code. A habitual delinquent is one who, within a per' ten years from the date of his release or last conv of the crimes of serious o r less serious robbery, theft, estafa or falsification, is any of said crimes a third time or oftener, 399. What are the three parts of the Ileyised P

136

137

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER


,!,
,

.
CRIMlNAL LAW REVIEWER

The three parts of the Revised Penal Code are: 1. Basic principles affecting criminal liability (Articles 1 to 20). 2. Provisions on penalties, including criminal and civil liability (Articles 21 to 113). 3. Felonies defined and penalized under fourteen (14) different titles (Articles 114 to 365).
'

400. Classify felonies according to their nature.


..
' .'

.
.
,

',,

. . ...

Feloni,es are classified according to their nature, a q follows : . 1. Crimes against the national security and the law of nations. 2. Crimes against the fundamental laws of the State. 3 . Crimes against public order. 4 . Crimes against public interest. 5. Crjmes relative to opium and other prohibited drugs. 6 . Crimes against public morals. 7. Crimes committed by pnbl:c officers. 8. Crimes against persons. 9. Crimes against personal liberty and s.x.urity.' 10. Crimes against property. 11. Crimes against chastity. 12. Crimes against the civil status of persons. 15. Crimes against honor. 14. Quasi offenses.

2 . That man is essentially a moral creature with an absolutely free will to choose between good and evil, thereby placing more stress upon the effect or result of the elonious act than upon the man, the criminal himself. 3. It has endeavored to establish a mechanical and direct proportion between crime and Penalty. 4 . There is a scant regard to the huma (Basic Principles, Rationale, p. 2, by the mittee on Code of Crimes) Positivist theory 1. That man is subdued occ:tsionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon which constrains him to do wrong, in spite of or contrary t o his volition. 2 . That crime is essentially a social and natU phenomenon, and as such, it cannot be 'checked by the application of abstract princ and jurisprudence nor by the imposition of . ment, 'iixed and determined a pn'ori; but rathe the enforcement of individual measures in ular case after a thorough, personal and indiv investigation conducted by a competent bod trists and social scientists. (Basic Principles, Rationale, pp. 2 and 3, by the Code Commission on Code of Crimes)

.-?'i '
' '

~.

<'$
.4 ,.

. .li .:+
' , I

.,% 4"

, ?$-

:;dol. State the theories of penalogy and distinguish one from : , tho other. . . There are two theories of penalogy, namely: (1) the - . ,- classical theory and (2) the positivist theory. .. These two theories of penalogy may be distinguished by their characteristics: Classical theory 1. The basis of criminal liability is human free will and *e purpose of the penalty i3 retribution.
I _

402. On what principles or theory of penalogy i Penal Code based? The R,evised Penal Code continues, like the old Code, to be based on the principles of the classical s although some provisions of eminently positivistic encies (those having reference to the punis possible crimes, juvenile delinquency, etc.) were incor porated in the present Code.
-403. Classify felonies according to the means by which they

are

committed and define. each, and according tu their gravity and define each.

138

139

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER


..
.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW%R

, ..

. ,

. I

Felonies are classified according to the maans by which they are committed into (1) intentional felonles or felonies committed with malice or intent and (2) culpable felonies or those resulting from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill (Art. 3, par. 2, R.P.C.). Felonies are classified according t o their gravity into (1) grave felonies, (2) less grave felonies, and (3) light felonies. Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive. Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are correctional. Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto mmnor or a fine not exceeding two hundred pesos or both is provided (Art. 9, 1I.P.C.).

6
I

406. When is an act or omission voluntary? A voluntary act is A free, intelligent, and intentional act (US. vs. Ah Chong, 1 Phil. 488). Hence, a n omis1 sion must also be free, intelligent and intentional. T i is hs the meaning of voluntariness in intentional felony. In culpable felony, the act or omission must also be free and intelljgent, but instead of intent o r malice, which is necessary in intentional felonies, there is only imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill. 407. What is mistake of fact and how dues it affect criminal liability? Mistake of fact is a misapprehenision of fact, showing lack of intent on the part of the person accused of a felony. It exempts him from criminal liability, because intent, which is one of the conditions of voluntariness, is lacking.
408. When is mistake of fact avaikdble as a defense?

404. State the elements of felonies as they are defined in the .. Revised P,enal Code. . . , As the term is defined in Art. 3 of the Revised Penal .. Code, felonies have the following elements: 1. There must be an act or omission. 2. T h e act or omission muvt be punishable by law. 3 . That the act must be committed o r the omission incurred by means of deceit (dolo) o r by means of fault

The rule is: that in mistake of fact, the act of the accused would have been lawful had the facts been as he believed them to be. His intention in performing the a& should be lawful. He should not be at fault or negligent.
409. Does the mere fact that a person has acted under a mistake of fact mean that he is exempt from criminal liability? Explain your answer. No, because it is required that the act and the intention of the accused must be lawful. Hence, if his act and intention are unlawful, the accused i s not exempt from criminal liability, notwithstanding a mistake of fact on his part.

:.

(culpa). It is not necessary to state that the act or omission be voluntaiy, as i t is presumed.
405. What is the meaning of the term dolo as used in the

,.

definiti,on of intentional felonies in Art. 3 of the Revised Penal Code. The term dolo has been improperly translated to deceit. Dolo is equivalent to malice, which is the intent to do an injury t o another. It implies malicious intention.
140

410. A wanted to kill B by shooting him with a pistol. A, thinking that he was B, fired a t a perso ing in a dark alley. It turned out tlhat was C , the brother of A. A had no inte Considering that there +vas a mistake of

141

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW RETIEWER

'.: . do yon believe that A is exempt from criminal liability?Explain YDW answer. 'No, because A had intent to kill when he fired his. pistol. H e acted with malice, since he had the intent .to do an injury to another. Even if the person whom he shot was really B, the act done by A would not have.been lawful. Under Art. 4, par. 1, of the Revised Penak Code, he Is'liable criminaily for the death of his brother C, because when he fired his pistol with intent to kill B,. A was committing a felony and the death of C was t h e '-direct, nat.ura1 and logical consequence of the felony committed.

,..

injury should intervene; where su intention exists, the act should be qualified by the felony i.t has produced even though it may not have been the intention of the actor to cause an evil of such gravity as that produced (Viada's comment on the Penal Code, Vol. 7, 5th ed., p. 7).

iK/

,. i

.. ,

.~

4 l y d was awakened by the barking of his dog. He IookeS out of the window of his house and saw a man in his yard. A got his shot-gun and, believing that man to bea robber, shot and killed him in his yard. When he went down t o see the man he had killed, he found out that the man was his brother who wanted to spend the night ia . A's house. Can A successfully inwlce mistake of fact a s . , a defense? Explain your answer. No, because even if the man was in fact a robber, not . . .. his brother, A would not have been justified in shootinghim to death. There was neither defense of A's person, ' defense of home nor defense of property in this case, because there was no unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased that might imperil the life or limb of A. 'Since the act done by A would not have been lawful h a s the facts been as he believed them to be, he is liable for'. . the death of his brother.
~

4t3:'^A, with n & to inflict physical injuries on B, threw a i & piece of stone at the latter. The stone d i c b o t hit B and ' instead hit and seriously injured C who was standing near. 13. The fiscai who investigated the case filed an informa- : tion against A for sPriousphysimtin,luries h t re&Jessimprudence, with C as the offended party. Did the fiscai properly charge A with that offense? Explain your . answer. No, because when A threw the stone at B, he h&t& intention to cauge an injury to the latter. Hence, A acted & w i t h a d i c e and his act was unlawful. . order that a n act may be qualified as imprudence, i t is ncmsmy that neither malice nor illtPnllnn t o - c y should intenren Where an u&ayful act i s x 3 f d l y done, a mistake in the' blow or a mistake in the identity of the victim caanet-b cwskkred as r e d s k s d m d s u e (Pe@plevs. Guillen, 85 Phil. 307; People vs. Gona, 54 Phil. 605).
~

xk

414. What are the conditions that make the act or omission

May malice and negligence or imprudence co-exist in the commission of a felony? Explain your answer. No, because in criminal negligence, the injury caused ' to another should be unintentional, it being simply the '. . . incident of another act performed without mhliee (People , -. ~ . *. vs. Guillen, 85 Phil. 307; People vs. Sara, 66 Phil. 9 9 . 3) In order that an act may be qualified a s imprudence, it -.. is necessary that neither malice nor interition to cause

F .

'voluntary in intentional felonies? In order that the act or omission in felonies by d d o t may be considered voluntary or performed with deliberate intent, the following requisites must concur : 1. Freedom, . 2. Intelligence, and 3. Intent.
415. What are the conditions that make the act voluntary in culpable felonies? Thev are:

142

i
i

dr omission

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWICR

3. Imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or 'lack of skill. As there is no intent or malice in culpable felonies, i d t is pat a rxxndith of voluntadness in that class O-eo ffl *

Malice or intent is not necessary i n these crimes, ,b ', cause in acts malo prohibita the mere execution of the prohibited act constitutes a crime; and i n culpable felonies, intent is replaced by negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill.

Because the act does not make a person Criminal unless his mind be criminal. This is the meaning of the maXlm, actus non facit yeurn, nisi mens sit Tea (U.S. vs. Catolico, 18 Phil. 507).
417. What are the three classes of crimes? They are: 1, Intentional felonies. 2. Culpable felonies. 3 . Crimes punished by special laws.

420. When is intent necessary in crimes punishable by special laws? When the acts or omissions punishable by special law are inherently immoral, they are mala per 6e and, hence, for such acts to be punishable, it must be shown that they were committed with malice. Thus, if the poll cIerk and the election inspectors in transferring the names of .: certain vo1,ers from the old list o m k e d . some names '": *: of voters and failed to record them in the new list, an omission which is inherently immoral, resulting in the disenfranchisement of those voters, the poll clerk and t h e ' '~ inspectors are not criminally liable for violation of the Election Code, because the omission was not malicious . " (People YS. Sunico, et ai., C.A., 60 O.G. 6880).

:~.
0 .

418. IIow is criminal liability determined in each class? I n intentional felony, whether or not the offender acted with dolo or malice. In culpable felony, whether or not the offender acted with imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill. I n crimes punished by special laws, whether or not the offender executed the prohibited ,act freely and consciously. Malice or negligence is immaterial.

421. In the prosecution of the offender, must the fiscal prove that the act or omission of the offender was voluntary? Explain your answer. No, it is not necessary to prove that the act o r omission of the offender was voluntary as it is presumed. 422. How is the presumplion of voluntariness of the act or omission constituting a felony rebutted? It is rebutted by proof of the fact that the act or omission was committed or incurred without freedom, or without intelligence or without intent or negligence on the part of the accused. 423. In what cases may a person who mnmitted a felony be exempt from criminal liability becituse he acted v&'h& freedoql? They are: 146

,i 1:

419. In what cases is malice or intent not necessary to hold a person criminally Iiable for the crime he committed? Explain your answer. In the following, criminal intent is not necessarY: 1. In acts mala prohibita, that is, crimes punishable by special law. 2. I n felonies committed through negligence or imprudence under Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code.

,?

144

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWIER

.. . .

i.

. .

1. When he acted under the cnmp&@n of an irresistible force; and 2. When he acted under the ig&ulse of uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.

421. What are acts mala in se? What are acts mala prohibita?
Acts mala in se are those which are wrongful from their nature, such as acts constituting homicide, rape or theft. Acts mala prohibita are those which are violations of mere rules of convenience designed to secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs of society. They are wrong merely because they are prohibited by the statutes.
.,

.,

.
:r

.^

24. In what cases may a person who committed a fdony be exempt from criminal liability because he acted without

. .

,..
;,.

iWir:enceL They are: 1. When the person who committed the felony was insane or imbecile; 2 . When he was a minor under nine years old; and . 3. When he was over nine but under fifteen years old and he acted without discernment.
exempt from criminal liability because he acted without intent! They are: 1. When he had performcd a lawful act with due care and caused an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it; 2. When he failed t o perform an act required by law, because he was prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause; and 3 . When there is mistake of fact. perpetrate the act. The term intent to commit the crime is used in relation to crimes Committed by means of dolo, which requires criminal intent. On the other hand, intent to perpetrate the act is a term used to determine criminal liability in crimes punishable by special law, where the doing of a prohibited act is a crime, as long as it is done freely and consciously. Intent or malice i s not rewired (U.S. vs. Siy Cong Bieng, et al., 30 Phil. 577;. People vs. Eayona., 61 Phil. 181). 146

. .

428. How would you classify the crimes punishable by the Revised Penal Code? Generally, the crimes punishable by the Revised Penal ., , Code are classified as crimes mala in sa, because most of the acts defined as mimes in that Code are wrongful >.; , . from their nature.

;
,

425. In what cases may a person who committed a felony be

429. What is motive and how i i t distinguished from intent? s

Motive is the moviug power which impeis one.to action for a definite result. Intent is the purpose to use. a particular means to effect such result. While rn-otive is never an essential element of a crime,. intent is an essential condition of voiuntariness in felonies 4 committed by means of dolo. 430. May a person be held criminally liable even if he has,.a good motive in perpetrating the act. Illustrate. : . Yes, as in the case of mercy killing, the painless k, &. ing of a patient who has no chance of recovery. The.% is still punished as b m e , for which the killer criminally responsible, notwithstanding his good motive

,y ,*

426. Distinguish intent to commit the crime from intent to

.
, ,

, ~,,

&When

. ,

..

$& $

.,.f~ >, :& .&,. ,

is proof of motive relevant i n criminal eases? Where the i & &y of a person accused of having mitted a crime is iL-te, the mative that may imaelled its comrr,ission is very r e l t z n t (People vs Rosario-Murray, G. R. No. L-4467, April 30, 1960) Motive is important in cases where there is as t o whether the defendant is or is not the pe ,
~

147

:&.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
' '

, .
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

-: ,

p-,

,
~

committed the offense. But where the defendant admits


the killing, it is not necessary to inquire into his motive for doing the act (People vs. Arcilla, G. R. No. L-11792, June SO, 1959). Where there are no eyewitnesses to the crime, and a number d - l l a s O a S , where s u s m o n is likely to @.llupon motive is relevant and significant (People vs. Mario, GAG. R. No. 371-R,July 21, 1947).

'.

injury to another, but the result is different from that which he intended.

'. ,

f l f stances mentioned in Art.&

4" / I f

,,

,,

.,

432. Shall wiminal liability be incurred even if the wrongfu~ act done by the accused be different from that which he intended or the means employed or the aims sought by him '. are impossible? Yes. Criminal liability shall be h%med: 1. By %person cnmmitting a f e h y (delito) although the wrongful act m e be d m t from that which he intended. 2. By any person performing an*which would be an offense agakst p g x s ~ ~ s OP+WPS&& vere it not for the & 'Mity of its accomplishment or 0% a i n t of the employmat of in&u& or ineffectual m m - ( A r t . 4, R.P.C.).
icle 4 of the Revised Penal Code prJvides-"Criminal

a person acted under any of the justifying circumthe Revised Penal code,^ and in so doing caused a ' ' lo anather which waa _not intended, did that person incur criminal liability? Ex-, plain your answer. No. There are two requisites that must be present in order that a person may be held liable criminally for the -Aane-which is different from that intended, namely: (1) that a Scny H L ~ Scommitted; and (2) that the wyang.$ane the agguer e h p e m n be the direct,/.T natural and 1gq1 e of the felnny cammiited. i n justifying circumstances, there is LIQ&&UJY comthe mitted as thcre is & h i n g xnlaxf&l in the da person who aded under any of them is deemed nOtte h m t r a m c a s e d the-. Hence, the f i r s t r e w i s i t e is': l& &g and = -o fn the first paragraph of Art. 4 . is not applicable. In such case, he is &&&e for the consequence& inieded b y h i w .
'

435. One evening when A entered his house, he surprised B, a stranger, in the act of taking jewelry from an open,

'-

apply to felonies committed by means of culpa? Explain. No, because paragraph 1 of Art. 4 speaks of wrnngful &different from that which the offenderIn culpable felony, the offender d p d b t e n d la_da. any yrongful act. The injury caused to another by the offender in culpable felony is simpjy the iwidenk.of_;tnather act wrfaaned w i d u j maliceorintent;Hence, the said provision agpliehoply to % e corn; Ms

wardrabe belonging to A. A approached B from behind and held the latter by his arms t o prevent him from carrying away his (A's) jewelry, but B struggled with A for the possession of the jewelry and in their scuffle A pushed B who fell through the window. B dropped to the ground below, resulting in B's death. A had no intent to kill B. The death of B was not intended by him. Is, A criminaliy liable for the death of B? Explain your answer. No. A was acting in the lawful exercise of a right (Art. II, par. 5, B.P.C.), because under the new Civil Code (Art. 429) the owner or lxwful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoy- , 149

.. .
CRIMlNAL LAW REVIEWER

,,

ment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use .. ... such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion . .. . or usurpation of his property. A then acted under a justifying circumstance. Such being the case, A was not committing a felony when he caused B to fall through the window to the ground below.Anly a person comfiib ting a Eelony may be held liable for the result different from that which he intended. A cannot be held liable for homicide through simple or reckless imprudence, because u . the cireumstances ~ n he could n_atbe expedal t o take the t o m s i&rsin-B.
b"i.~l
,

"

.,

436. What, in general, are the causes that may produce a result which is different from that intended by the offender? There are three hypotheses that may be considered in answering this question, namely: (1) Abernttio ictus o r mistake in the blow; (2) Ewer in personae or mistake in the identity of the victim; and (3) Praeter intentionem or that the injurious result is greater than that intended. In aberratio ictus, the offender i n k x x h g to cause an injury to one person actually inflicted it on another, a result which was not inteTided by him, For instance, A, with intent to kill, fired his pistol a t B; but he missed B and hit and seriously injured C who was standing Ije..hind B. Undoubtedly, A did not intend to cause an injury t o C and, therefore, the result was not intended by himkevertheless, A is criminally liable for the injury caused to 6, because when he fired his pistol at B with intent to kill, A . was wmnitting the felony of attempted homicide and the injury caused to C was the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony committed by him. The hypothesis of error in personae is illustrated in the case of People VS. Oanis, 74 Phil. 267. In this w e .

the accused fired his gun a t a sleeping person, believing him to be the notorious criminal named Balagtas, because the person sleeping was lying on the floor and facing the wall of fne house with his back towards the door where the accused were. The person killed was not the notorious criminal, but an innocent person. When he fired and killed the sleeping person, the accused made a mistake in the identity of the victim. Although the wrong done was different from that intended by the accused, he was, nevertheless, liable for the death of that person, becauseaHen he fired at the sleeping person he w a s cammi&& a t l e a s t the felony of &ensatehmurder and the &e& of that innocent person w s the d w , - n ad -1 cgmeauenqe of the felnny cm&d 1ys-bim Praeter intenlionem is illustrated in the case of People vs. Cagoco, 58 Phil. 524. In this case, the accused did not have the intent to kill the deceased. He gave the deceased a fist blow on the back part of his head. When the deceased fell as a result of the blow, his head hit the pavement and as a result i t wax fmctured. He died as a consequence. In this case,/though the death of the deceased was LoLintended by the accused, he was nevertheless liable f o r tlle reason that v&a> hcxaye a f i s t h l w oj), the d$;gs.ed the accused was camI&hg the felanr of sl&hf-pbpicaljnjuries, a t a s t , and the death of the deceased was the &u?A and lnsical consequence Ob)& ofe felm-mmitted.

.,

'.

' ,

:,. ~, ,

an&

':

437. When is the result deemed the direcit, natural and logical consequence of the felony committed by the offender? : The rc&f. is deemed the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony committed by the offender when n the W w camraitted is the proximahe-cause of the result. A proximate cause is that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervenin cause, produces the injury, and With'out which the would not have occurred (38 Am. Jur. 605; cited case of 'Villanueva vs. Medina, G. 13. Wo. L-1012

zz,

i95n.

150
..,*

161
,

. , '..,

'"Ita
. ,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CKIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

...,

'. , i, & ,. :
i
i_

i.
i"

'. .

....~,

. , ..

438. Give instances where the felony committed is the proximate cause of the result. Th,e following cases may be cited: 1. When the offender w t e n e d and chased the deceased with a knife and when he was about to be overtalcen the deceased jumped into the water and a8 he did . not know how to swim he died of drowning. 4'he ammiLted, which is tt -, WAS. the .of death of the deceased (US. vs. Valdez, 41 Phil. 497; People vs. Buhay, G. R. L-1003, Oct. 27, 1.947). , 2 . Giving fist blows or slightly injuring a person suffering from heart disease or other internal malady, resultinp in the death of the victim (People VS. Ilustre, 54 Phil. !j44; People vs. Rodriguez, 23 Phil. 22; and People vs. Reyes, 61 Phil. 341). In these cases, the fist blows or the physical injuries inflicted were the causes for the acceleration of the death of the deceased.
~

440. A and B were standing on the bank of the river.

A struck

'.
, ,~, ,
'

B on the jaw with his fist, causing the latter to fall into the water. As the water was deep and B did not know how to swim, B sznk down and was drowned. Is A liable

~439. A. an insane. with a bolo in hand came rushing towards B who retreated. Finding himself cornered in a place *;+;*i; . a' ;$*. , , , :*; ; without exit, B drew his pistol and fired a t A. B did not &~> hit A, but the slug fired from B's gun hit and killed C who was walking several meters behind A. Is B criminally liable for the death of C? Explain your answer. No. B was not committing a felony when he fired his gun at A, because there was unlawful aggression on the part of A and in view of the fact that there was an imminent peril to the life of B, the gun which B used was a reasonable means t o repel the aggression. And since B did not give any provocatim to A, B was

&!%~, ,; :

for the death of B? Explain ynulr answer. Yes, A is liable, because when A boxed B on the face .. A was committing a felony, that is, slight physical injuries or at least ill-treatment under Art. 266 of the Revised Penal Cocle. The felcny d c by A W W the proximate cawsiegf B's death (U.S. vs. Valdez; People h ks + v. Buhay).
A and B were fighting on a sidewalk of a street. WheR A hit B on the face, the latter fell on the street.& the moment a passing automobile was jn13ta meter from wh B fell. As a result, B was run over and was Billed. the time he boxed B, A did not see the automobile. Iia5le for the death of B? Explain your answer. .:.I No, because the blow given by A on the f ce of was &.the proximate cause of M's death. droxima cause is that cause, which, in natural and' continuous quence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, p duces the injury, and without whicb the result would n have occurred. In this case, there was an efficient inter vening cause that broke the rdaiic!p of cwS.e and that is, the running over of B by the pass1 mobile.
Note: An intervening cause is said to be efficientbroke the relation of cause and effect, the unlawful the consequence. It is an aotivs ylwdcaZ force that in between the felony committed and the result.

p .: ,*?.,, .
~ ~

acting in complete self-defense, which is 8 justifying circumstance. A person who acts under a jcstifying circnmstance does not transgress the law. His act is just and in accordance with law. /It is true that B caused the death of C, an innocent bystander. But under Art. 4, par. 1, of the Revised Penal Code, which makes a person criminally liable for the result which be never intended, t w m s must be pre162

153

.
"

, ,
;

,.

..

,,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

Does iuberratio ictus, error in personae, or praeter intentionem affect the criminal liability of the offender? Explain your answer. P m e t e r intentionem affects the criminal liability of the offender in the sense that it m i t i m a his criminal lizbility or lessens the penalty to be imposed on him. This is covered by paragraph 3 of Art. 13, which provides for 'the mitigating circumstance "that the,,offer.der had no .intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.". Error in personae may lessen the penalty to be imposed on the offender when the wrong kiefalls a person other than the intended victim and which, by reason of r w z s k i p or m k , c&ifiei the resulling crime. The penalty for the Issser offense is to be imposed, to be applied in the maximum-period (Art. 49, R.P.C.). But when the felony intended t o be committed and the one actually committed are e d with the =e penalty, error in personae does not affect the criminal liability of the offender. Aberratio ictus should result in a comolex crime. The p&Ao be imposed is that corresponding to the m r o& s J u % to be amlied in the maximum period (Art. 48, R.P.C.).
,: .,

t o death, the penalty f o r the lesser offense, eide, should be imposed on A, but the same to i n its maximum period (Art. 49, B.P.C. the intended victim and the actual ,victim t o the offender so that whoever was killed b e homicide or murder qualified by treache stance, the mistake will not chance the pen 49 is not applicable. Hence, the penalty posed in the maximum period. But if tm-cxiB$F are actually committed, hecause pfz,w%are affected by the udaxfulact, and crimes a r e the r t & of ?Le- sg_le aci, the pma& for the -offense shall be imposed, to be applied in its maximum . i period (Art. 48, R.P.C.). / Thus, if both E and A's fathe~rwere standing ClWe * .! to each other on the street and A fired his pistol at B to kill him, hut because of poor aim he hit and killed, his father, t i e ~ e ~ a l t y _ f o r p a r r i c i dshould be imposed e in the maximum period. A is liable for theX - C crime of parricide with attempted homicide.
444. What is an impossible crime?
..,>
-, ,1

.'

2
..

What then is the penalty to be imposed upon the principals when the crime committed is different from that for the lesser offense should be imposed, to be applied in its maximum period, if the crime intended to he committed and the crime actually committed are is punished with different penalties, hut0-a a * d by the commission of the unlawful act. Thus, if A wanted to kill B, a stranger, but when he shot a person whom he thought was B and killed him he found out that the person killed was his (A's) father, the crime -i to be committed being homicide punishable by reclusion temporal and the crime a m y committed being parricide punishable by reclusion perpetua

An immsible crime is one where the act performed by the offender would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of t.he employment of inadequate or ineffectual means (Art. 4, par. 2, R.P.C.).
L _

,':
:.'
';

445. What is the

; .
,'..?
, ., ,

.., ,,. :. . . .
. ,... . .

%q$: ,, . , ,**~.
,.

*'#.?.,.. $I p i~ " ;.~

,.,

,. .

;
'.

for punishing a person who committed an impossible crime? /According to the positivist thegry, on which' the provision on impossible crime is based, the community must be protected from a d h n r ' m k whether a.&ual PP ' , 1 , of the m_erhid trrpe of man called socially dangerms person. It is also the u m e of the law t o suanr_ess criminal , fljectively, the offendez pujpeasiy or in impossihle crime goes not commit a felony, but sub~ : jectively he is a crimina!.

,:
'

..

'

._l

154

156

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

446. What is an example of an impossible crime, where the act.

performed by the offender would have been an offense. against persons were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment? Stabbing a dead person on bed, the offender h a v i n g the intent to kill him and thinking that he was only sleeping. &e act performed by the offender would havebeen murder, an offense against persons, were it not for. the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment, i t being. impossible t o Bill a person who is already dead.
447. What is an example of an impossible crime, where the act:

Using small quantity of arsenic to kill a person., The small quantity of poison is inadequate to kill a person. Rut the one who used i t to kill another, believing that it was wficient to kill the latter, is liable for impossible crime, because subjectively he is a criminal.
4 0 . Give an e,xample of an impossible crime where the means

employed is ineffectual. Believing that a certain white powder was arsenic, A mixed i t with the coffee intended for B. When B drank it he was not injured at all, because the white powder was sugar.

performed by the offender would have been an offense against property were it not for the inherent impossibilitp. of its accomplishment? Picking the, pocket of another, without his knowledge and consent, t o take with intent to gain any personal property from that pocket which turned out to be empty. The act performed by the offender would have been theft, an offense against property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment, since theft cannot be committed when there is no personal property that could: be taken.
448. A picked the pocket of B and succeeded in extracting B s

d 5 1 . What is the penalty for impossible crime? What factors must be considered in determining the proper penalty for impossible crime? The lienalty for impossible crime is arresto mayor or a fine ranging from P200 to R O O . The fixtars that the court must consider in determining the proper penalty are (1) the Social danger and ( 2 ) the & r e e a i t y shown by the offender (Art. 59, R.P.C.).

/dZ. A fired his revolver


P

wallet. Once in possession of the wallet, A opened it, but finding it empty, he threw away the wallet. Is A guilty of an impossible crime? No, because the wallet has some value and the crime of theft is, consummated from the moment the offender has taken possession of the wallet with intent to gain. Hence, that person is guilty, not of an impossible crime,. but 01theft. d, impossible crime, the a-erformed I, ._ should natzonstitute another offense, specifically punished by law;
449. Give an example of an impossible crime where the means

: I

at B from a distance of one kilo. meter. Is A criminally liable? It is believ d that A shows stupidity rather than dangerousness. According to the msdkk&h?RW, A should @ be punished, because there is j&er social danger nor any degree of criminality shown by him. Even subjectively, a man with little common sense wilI know that he cannot hit a person by firing a revolver one.kilometer away.

employed is inadequate.
, .

453. A kicked the Pace o B who was lying on the floor of the latters house, believed that he was only sleeping, not knowina that B was then already dead. The physicalinjuries k l i c t e d by A on Bs face were punishable by arresto menor or a fine not exeee

~-

166

157

. .
.,
,

. ,

.~

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CIUMINAL LAW REVIEWE:R

Do you believe that A is liable for impossible crime, considering that the penalty for that crime is arrest0 mayor or a fine from F200 to F500? It ia believed that the provisions on impossible crime are ugrnd t o those cases where the a d performed would have been a gpye._or less grave felony. Hence; A is not liable for impossible crime, because the act performed by him would have been a light felony only. f i o hold otherwise would be t o recognize the a b & r g y that to_~ill&t. sii-g&t-physieal~ injuries on a dead person is a g r a e r - o f fense than to inflict them on a living person.

. and the injury caused by the offense, the Court should


not suspend tge execution of the ser,tence. What.it shoufd do is to.~su&it to the Chief Executive, through the De;partment of Justice, a staiement of the reasws. which, cl i t induce-t~he-cgurt to believe that the c r&c md%exe&&e clemency (A& 5 , R.P.C.).
456, What are the stages of the acts of execution in crime?, ''

,:'. :;

,:'

It is a. rule in Criminal Law that there is no crime if there is no law that punishes the act. What is the provision of the Revised Penal Code which is based on t h i s principle? Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it. may deem proper t o repress and which is not punishable by law, it shall r s d e r the groper.decision, and shall report to the Chief Executive, through the ELepartxent of Justice, the reasons which induce the court t o believe that said actshould be made the subject of penal legislation (Art. 5, R.P.C.). , In such case, the proper decision that the court should render is to dismiss the case and the defendanf because the act is not punishable by Isw.
,455. May the court, after finding the accusdd guilty of the crime ,charged, refuse to impose the penalty provided by law when the strict enforcement of the provisions of t h e Revised Penal Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty? Explain your answer.

Are they punishable? They are: (1) attempted, (2) frustrated, and (3) con: surmated stages. Ai+. 6, par. 1, .of the Revised .Penal Code provides that consummated felonies, as well as those which &e~ frustrated and attempted are punishable. &n :'h 'e the crime is punishable b y a special law, attempted and frustrated stages of the acts of execu are not punishable, unless the special law provides l :p b, aity. th,erefor. Thus, a councilor who offered to furnish sti-eet lamps t o the municipality is not liable for .violation of a special law prohibiting members of the m u n i c i d councils from acquiring any interest in contracts with the municipality, it appearing that his offer was not accepted (US. vs. Lopez Basa, 8 Phil. 89). But in the later case, it was held that the prohibition against interest in m u n b ipal contracts, includes all the steps .talcen to consummate'. the contract, that is, frustrated and attempted stages are included (ionteclaro vs. People, 51 O.G. 2392). '
457. Define preparatory acts and distinguish them from at- :; tempted stage of the acts of execution. Give two examples., of preparatory acts. Are preparatory acts punishable? /Preparatory acts are those initial acts of a person who has c2LEived the idea of committinil a crime but which Gannot by themselves logically and peces.ga&y_ r i d into a cSr&e-Qffense. They are pot^ _oULert-gis. and, hence, the acts they do not constitute the a.!&tq&$-stage-of of execution.
159

Court has to impose the penalty provided b y law X e d e s s of its opinian as t o the e t y of the
h o , the

When a strict enforcement of the provisions of t h e result in the imposition of a clearly excessiveenalty, taking into consideration the degree of inalice.

158

..

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

The examples of preparatory acts are (1) conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony, and (2) buying or securing a weapon to commit murder. Generally, preparatory acts are not punishable, hecause the law regards~ them as innocent or at least permissible, except in rare and exceptiona! cases. Preparatory. acts consisting in conspiracy to commit a felony is punishable in treason, rebellion and 3_edition, and pxoposal to commit a felony is punishable in treason and rebellion. Preparatory acts which are considered in themselves, by law, as ipdependent crimes are punishable, like POSsession of picIIocks which is preparatory to the commission of robbery with force upon things (Arts. 229 and 302, R.P.C.) Buying or securing a weapon, like a knife, is not punishable. But when one buys or secures a f i r e a m and he has no license to possess it, the mere possession of the same, although a preparatory act to the commission of murder, is punished by law. But note that i t in punished by law, . e Without not as preparatory act, but as a any relation t o another crime.

..

458. A and B, armed with a bolo and screw driver, respectively, went to the house of C. Once in the yard of C they , proceeded to open the back door of the house of C with

The attempt to commit an offense which the Revis& Penal Code punishes is that which has a.lo&al relation t o a particular and concrete offenae. It is necessary that the beginning of execution, if casried to its complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by an external obstacle nor by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripe? into a concrete offense. The acts of A and B, up to the time they tried t o escape, consisting merely in proceeding and trying to open the back .door of the house with tools that could break it open, do not have a logical relation to the crime of robbery with Eorce upon things. In robbery with force upon things, it is necessary that the offender, after entering the dwelling or any other building, shall commence to take, but without actually taking, personal prop:* belonging to another with intent to8 gain, in order that it may be considered as attempted robbery with force upon things. /ft is the nature of the external ;act, n o t the i&dQn alone, of the accused which should be considered in determining the question of whether o r not the commission of a particular crime is already commenced directly by overt acts.
459. A was questioned by a policeman fur acting suspiciously

. .
,'

'

: '

!
~:,sj

they were carrying. When they were thus breakthe 1,001s ing :and trying to open the back doos, C and t h e other perslms in the house were awakened. A and B, without succteeding in opening the door, ran away and tried to escape, but were arrested by the policeman who saw them rnnn#ingaway. When investigated, A and B admitted that they wanted to enter the house of C to take Rome property of C!. Are A and B liable for attempted robbery? Explain your answer. It i s submitted that A and B are not liable for attempted robbery.

near the house of B. When searched, a pistol was found in the possession of A who had a license to possess it. When investigated, A admitted that he carried the pistol to kill B. May A be prosecuted and punished also for attempted homicide? Explain your answer. It is submitted that A cannot be prosecuted and punished for attempted homicide. While it is .true that there was the external act of carrying the pistol and that A. admitted his intention to kill B, at mast the carrying of the pistol was only, a t to carry out the iritention to kill B. :A dici & yet cgmmenceJhe commission of homicide, directl

;,i

. .. . .

160

161

CRIMlNAL LAW REVIEWER

<. ... .
'1

. ~.
,
' '

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

'

,.
1

..

by overt acts. Had A fired his pistol at E, without hitting the latter, or infllcting only a wound which is not mortal, he would have commenced the commission of homi. cide directly by overt acts. &e commission of a crime is deemed commenced directly by overt acts when (1) there is an e a l ~ a c and (2) such external act has t direct connection with the crime intended to be committed.
~

, .. .

. ,

the pistol was f m t @ i r L g and the hullet \vas &d&&ve. by a .'$ The ,lmlELiing of the bullet is an acddent, i d e r m t defect of the *or Met. In impossible crime, the means- employed by the offender . , /is either inadequate or ineffectual. The means is ineffectual cannot produce the . ' . ,/ when beenuse of its intendod result.

;:

/"

-460. A, for the purpose of raping B in a room occupied by her


, ,

462. What is an overt act? In what stage of the acts of execution is it important to determine the existence-af

.:;.:'.
~

.s

.
. .

exclusively a s a boarder, used a fake key with which he opened its door. Once inside, hut before be could touch I?, A (changed his mind and went out of 'the room. Is A criminally liable? Explain your answer. 6 e s , but not for attempted rape, for he desisted before he could perform all the acts of execution. He was, however, liable for consummated...trespass to.dwelling, bewhich exempts from criminal liability which the accused intended .to commit, and n!)tto .that. already~~committed wh_en_he-desisted.
Note: Desistance made after all the acts af execution have been perlormed, does not exempt the accused from criminal liability. Thus, the return of the stolen property after the taking was ' complete, anly-mitigates biliky under Art. 13, par. 10, in relation to its par. 7, Revised Penal Code.

, . tho overt act? "e.: :~; An m e r t act is a physical activiky, more than a mere planning or preparation, which e & e ve the intentiop of . , the offender to commit a particular felony. The existence of the overt act Is important only in ; the attempted stage of the acts of execution. It is not necessary to determine' the existence of overt ' .' act in the other stages of execution, because in frustrated stage, as well as in the consummated stage, of execution; the offender has performed all the ' acts ' of ' exec which necessarily implies that the offender has done than an overt act. . .~

.
I

i B, aimed his pistol at the latter U and puilled the trigger. The bullet jammed and did not explode. For what crime must A be held liable? Explain

'

'

e for attempted bomicide, because he a menced the commission of the crime dirertly by o v t and if he did not perform all the acts of execution it was due t o a c , other than his spontaneous desistance. When he aimed it a t B and pulled the trigger of his pistol, A performed the 4-rrertact of h&ide. The cause or accident which prevented. A from performing all the acts of execution was the fact that the bullet jammed and did not explode.
Note: A is not liable for impoisible crime. because the employed in this case is bnih a w e and ,e -

463. Having been provoked to kill B, A drew his ,pistol fromhis waist, to wbieh it was tucked, but before he could aim the pistal at B, C held the w,rist of the hand of A holding the pistol and disarmed A. Is this attempted homicide? .No. The crime is other light threat in Art-285. In attempted homicide,, where the offender uses the overt act is the offender's &Qf..&Xh . . the opfended part.1 with & & . h inflicting a mortal wound on the latter (People vs. Tabago et al., C.A., 48 0. G. 3419).
464. A raised his bolo, as if to strike or stab B with

it.

since
B

blow was struck, because C. intervened and stopped' from striking or stabbing C. Is A liable for attemp homicide? No. A was liable only for t ~ t & & a % x 2 k b r , ~, .,~$ ~ ' ., a ;Ye_ilg_o_n_(U.S. Simeon, 3 Phil. 688). vs.

i . .i +

152
,., ,~

163

,
'C

.
' '! . "F

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER


, e .
..
J

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

'

'

where the offender uses a 6ple or a. knife, he must-be able to strike a blow with it, aiming at the offended party and with intent to kill him..
Note: In a-txd-homicide

a mortal wound on B ig of no moment, because the law.:'. requiry only that the offender performed &the +:&$ of execution, r5gardless of his belief.
Suppose after shooting B, A believed that he had inflicted a mortal wound and left B, when, as a matter of the wound inflicted was only sJght, can A be held 1 for frustrated homicide? . . , In some cases, the Supreme Court held .tkat~it n o t is necessary that the defendant a m g&oms all the acta of execution necessary to producs t h e death of his victim, was held that %e stage of execution was frustrated murder, becauss there was a full and cAmilete belief on the part of the assailant that he had performed all the acts of execution necessary to produce the death of the victim. ,It is submitted, however, that in defining frustrate'+ felony the law does not mention the &!kcof the o m % . ,

.,:;a
,,$

..::*3 .a,,

;-$ ...?

with intent to kill, fired his revolver at B but did not hit him. B cried, asking A not to kill him. Ad-d and left B. Is A w e for attempted homicide Why?
. ,

;,;:.x*$ J *

'. ,.,, , .

.,-.

e &of cpnmenced the of the and, not h a v h g inflicted a f e h y dirrxik p l o r t a l d 0which would c a u s his a m i d 0 n@..-pm&mn a t h e a&& of executiop by of his ox,n montaneous desistance.
Note: But if the question asked is, Is A orrminallv liable, the answer must be in the -tive, because although he is not liable f o r attempted homicide, A already committed t p b ,un? Art. 282, R.P.C. & s which enminal liability-to the crime which the accnsed intenl?e_d tn-wqmu't, and &-to t t already committed w & &
.I

No. A -tea exeukhn. A

d t h d perfarming u

. . ,, -y, .L,,.';6
,

;p .j

.:? *f !

. ~? , . !

$
:: -.

.. .

66;' A fired his gun at B who was at a distance of 50 meters away firom A. B was hit, but was able to run away and to hide in a vacant house. A looked for B to finish him, thinking that he did not inflict a mortal wound on B. Not having found B, A left. But B was seriously.-wounded in the chest, perforating his right lung. C, who saw B wounded, took the latter to the hospital and due to surgical operation performed by a doctor, B did not die. What stage of execution was reached by A in the commission of crime of homicide? It is frustrated .homicide, because A perfowed.al1 the ~8. acts of execution which-would produce the felony of homicide as a consequence but did not produce it by reason of a cjias-eindependent of the will of the perpetrator. The wound inflicted being mortal, that is, sufficient to produce the death of B, A performed the 1.ast.act.neceswLt.o..pwduce homicide. If the crime is not produced .. it is because of the surgical operation performed by the . . ,. ~'. doctor. p d f a c t that A believed that he did not inflict

R.

A, a doctor of medicine, shot B who wa!3 daUy-wounded. The intent to kill on the part of A is shown by the use of a revolver, a deadly weapon. Bul after having wounded B, A performed an operation on B and saved him from death. The injuries of B healed in lrwo months. What crime was committed by A? Why? A committed serious physical injuries, because as a " result of the woun$ inflicted by A, B became$for g.WX thsi&Llqs. ,-The i & e d d _ k i & which A e&xt&d at the beinning disappeared. when he pel.formed an operation 011 B to save his life. A is not IiabLe. f o r attempted homicide, because the wound inflicted was martaJ and, hence, he performed all ' i the acts of execution which would produce the crime of .$ homicide. A is not liable for frustrated homicide, because t h e was , : gis~e._o~homicide n o t produced by resson ..Of..h.&-~w will. In frustrated felony the crime is npt.p~&& by. : reason of causes@dSperi&&rof the wip of thUmE&zehtor.

~.::i

164

165
7.

,,,.,

CRIMINAL LAW RRVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

.-..

$69. Name some felonies which have no attempted and frus-

i. $ .
1 ~ .

..

.~ .
.i
" ,
I.

~* . .

trated stages of execution and explain why they do not have those stages of execution. They are: (1) flight t o enemy country, (2) corruption of minors, (3) formal felonies, like,slander and false testimony, (4) felonies by omission, like misprision of treason, and (5) treason. T'<e first two do not have the attempted and frustrated stages oi +xecution, because in flight to enemy country, the mere atte& .to fle? or go~.to.enemy country cons w ! a t e s the crime, azd in corruption of minors the . m e to. satisfy the !& uf another eon. In f e e s , there is no at-. ed stages of e x e c u t h . ated in. one instant by a single ri:t ormal crimes, there is no chain of acp, b W and the d & , that severed A .-link. In felonies by omission, there is either a felony when the offender fails to perform an act required by no felony, if the offender performs n, the o a i n - i t s e l f w@&Kt-%s

47,l.'HQW is consummated felony distinguished from the at,,., c' tempted or frustrated felony? . ..
In consummated felony, all the elemeztis. necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present. In attempted or frustrated felony, not all the elements of the felony. are present. Thus, in estafa with abuse of confidence, even if the ' element of abuse of confidence is present, but there is ~o actual damage caused to the offended party, the crime is not consummated, because the element of damage is of estafa a c h r e ' lackinff. Thes-e of confidence and ( 2 ) damagg.~ Dreiudice capable .of or^

',I
:,

'.

,'it

a @

.4,70. What felonies do not have frustrated stage of execution? not have the frustrated stage of
contest and . 1 ' afnublic of.: &&.do ', not have frustrated s t a z c u t i o n . These . felonies which e the i n k w n h ~ & . persons i of & L to commit them, are r&mummated by s e r e agreement. . The inducement made by one of the parties to the other constitutes attempted felony, if the offer is rejected. If . . the offer is accepted, the felony is consummated. Thus if the ofEer of & is # by the public of'. . ficer, the person offering it is guilty of att.emuted corru tion of mbli W r . If it is auepted by the public Ge is of mmummated c&n of m c

*E '

.
'

'

&r & k,

of e . :is .Jacking, the crime ; of estafa is in its attempted or frustrated stage. ': A cut timber without L>ermitfrom the forestry. officer '. nnd used said timber for building a house. V approached $ him and, representing to be authorized by the forestry ,', officer. asked and demanded from him the sum of P6.00 "::; for the purpose of avoiding the payment of a fine and with a view t o preparing a petition for obtaining a free .,' ixrmit t o cut timber. A offered to pay only F3.00, but V refused to receive the <amount (US.vs. Villanueva,':l Phil. 370). In this case, the element of deceit, consisting in the false z e p r e s e n t h n that V was authorized by the. forestry officer to ask lor and receive P6.00 from A, wag present. But the ele_m_ent. of..damage was also lacking. It is atternptcd estafa. , This case is different from the case of US. vs. mingnez, because in this case the offender ?ny money from A and, hence, V did not erf act necessarv to produce the f e l G & k ? % % case, the offender who as salesman &the 1 when from the customer performed the not turn it over to the cashier of the store. It i trated estafa. There would have bben actual dam the offended party, if it was not dis sold the books and received the procee out delivering them to the cashier, as

166

CKIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CKIMINAL LAW REVIEWEX

,..

. , : i . ~

In the case of U.S. vs. Dominguez, had the accused mi.sapprmp&ted the proceeds of the sale of the books which he sold, the crime of estafa would have been consummated, because there wouldbe &ual. .damage caused to the offended party. The element of damage would have been present. /When &&-the element of deceit or abuse of confidence a d that of damage are present, all the elements necwsary :for the execution and accomplishment of the crime of estafa are present.
Are light felonies punishable in d l the three stages of xplain your answer. As a general rule, &&&felonies are punishable only when they have been Under the general rule, attempted or frustrated light felonies are not puunish-

i.:472.

'

'

& e

But light felonies c = m &t are punishable even if they are o & S J o a x m .

or m m the a&@p&d
(Art. 7 R.P.C.) ,

3. Give examples of light fetonies which are punishable only when consummated. They are: (1) betting in sports contests, (2) illegal cock-fighting, and (3) intriguing against honor. These light felonies are punishable only when they are consummated, because they are not against persons or property and, hence, they are covered by the general rule.
Nota: Reason for the general rule: Light felonies produce EA& &At, such and ~ i n j m & that & s & cg-e issatisfied with p m a lieht nenalt," far their consummation.JIi they are not consummated, the wrong done is 8LCght that there is need of providing B penalty at all. Reason for the exception: The commission of felonies aKains1 Drmerty ppsu~poscs in the offender s g ~ ~ ? m l

'. There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony 2nd decide to commit it (Art. 8, 3L.P.C.). ~~.~~ i : , esoecially orovides Consoiracv is a f & o u when the .'! a penalty therefoy. In such case, the mere agreement '. and decision to commit a particular felony is punished hv law. Thus. Art. 115 of the Revised Penal Code punishes _" conspiracy t o commit treason, Art. 136 punishes conspiracy ,. to commit rebellion, and Art. 141 punishes conspiracy t o commit sedition. if the c?ns&Lcy the offenders m~.committed treason, rebellion or sedition, the s s m ceases to be a f e l o n ~ a n d 2s konly a manner o incurring d o i n a l liability, that is, the &of ,B I " conmiratar is the act of all the other conspirators. In other crimes, like murder or abduction, the mZ.C agreemenb and w n to commit them is not Dunishable, as there is n o i n the Revised Penal C & s conspiracy to commit m ? &r o r ab conspirators become liable only when the crime, like mur- ; der or abduction, is actually committed. But they are liable for the crime actually committed, not for conspiracy to commit it. The conspiracy will be considered odY to make the offenders equally liable, that is, they are ,: liable in the same degree and to the same. extent.
~ ~

Bat

475. What is proposal t o commit a felon:y? Is it p There is proposal when the person who has to commit, a felony proposes its execution to som person or persons (Art. 8, R.P.C.). It is punishable o a y in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor. Thus, Art. 115 of, the Revised Penal Code punishes proposal t o commit treaso on and Art. 136 of the same Code punishes proposal t commit rebellion. The Revised Penal Code does not punishthe proposal to commit sedition or any other crime.
'
~

iracy. Distinguish conspirasy aa a felony from conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability.
168

476. May a person be held liable for proposal to commit rebellion, if the proposal is reiected by the person t o whom the propo%il is made? Why?

,I

169

...>*, .
',

r,

....+>,. ....* ....


&:.
_.,.
'

.,: . . '.* < , . , ._.,,,. ,...,


% ,, .

. .

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

.% ,

%,'I

+*:<.<,

. r

..
.,. 477.

Yes, because what the law nunishes is the mere~nroga2l to , m a n 3 rebellion. or treason & one wh? is data commit it. The acceutima of such nrang3al is not neceg,

--

of a person who kills another in violation of that Law aqd f o r subsidiary imprisonment in ease of insolvency of the pers m liable. The Supreme Court amplied Arts. 100 and 39 of Revised Penal Code to supplement the provisions of the Motor
Vehicles Law.

.,

. .

State the reason why conspiracy and proposal is not punishable in common crimes. In ordinary crimes, the State survives the victim, and the culprit cannot find in the success of his work any impunif.y.+oreover, conspiracy and proposal to commit a crime 'are o2ly..-preparatory acts and the law regards them a.s iEoc$nt_ or a t least permissible except in ,rare and exceptional..cases. But in crimes against the intep-aL.security of the State, like rebellion and seditior,, or against the external of the State, like treason, if the culprit succeeds in his critninal enterprise, he would obtain the power and thereore impunity for the crime committed.

s~cecy

478. What i s a soecial law7 Are the Drovisions of the Revised Penal Code applicable to offenses which are punishable under special laws? A : w i a l Inw is a statute euacted by Congress, & ju character, which is an mendmeht to the Rfx&& &&Code. As a general rule, offenses which are punishable by special laws are not subject to the provisions of the Revised Penal Code (Art. 10, R.P.C.). The Revised Penal Code is sunplementary to ylch laws, the - 1 should specially provide the ec&wy (Art. 10, R.P.C.).

a .

Note: The provisions of the Revised Penal Code are plir;rble to the attempted or frustrated stage of execution of crimes punishable by special iaws and to mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the eomminsion of

u -

crimes punishable by special iaws. 9nt when the special iaws & I provisions necessary for the proper aaministration of jnstice, h-s te n of the Iievified Penal Code are zmlementary t n the special laws, like the Motor Vehicles Law wsi!r.h does not provide for eivil liability

State the circumstances which affect criminal liability and ' ,,, state the basis of each. . ; They are: (1) justifying circumstances, (2) exempting circumstances and other absolutory canses, (3) mitigating .,' circumstances, (4) aggravating circumstances, and ( 5 ) alternative circumstances. In jyskifyinz ,circumstances, the Revised Penal Code recoenizes the non-existence of a *by exnresslv stat1, in the o M n g sentence of Art. 11'&reof + $ t h & , =sons therein mentioned "do not incurcriminal liability." The act of a person under any of the justifying circum- . . stances is i m x e with lax, so that such person is deemed not to l m e transgressed-the law and is from. both r&minal and eivil 1iabiIi;y. Technically, one who &by virtue of any of the m, although by ' sxempting circumstances commits a & e the C D =of ofWconditions which the %orl volnntariness of the a , ne criminal !l i & sate of the liability a&%.,. .Hence, there is sn*.in the crime m L o f the conditions which make the act t s or negligent, There i , however, s Mitigating circumstances are 0 of either the freedom of action, j n l l i g e ~ ,or or on the lesser~.pervers&y. of the odfadelel: on the _$Si?& Aggravating circumstances are perversiQ of the offender manifested in the commissiolr of the felony, as shown by (1) the self, (2) the-of commission, (2 employed, (4) theor ( 5 ) the of the offendexor of the offended par !&of the alternative-circumstances is the The and -f o the crime and the other conditions ing its commission.

f ': a

170
. _*..'. , .:
+.t+.:

171

,.:> v :

,.I

I 1
. .
2.

1 .

1;

.,q
;,

'
I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

,. .

., < :~, , ..
,~
,

4dO. A, who had entered his room, found B, a stranger, inside without any justifiable reason. A s B was reluctant to . .,. leave the room and was acting suspiciously, A drew h i s knife, brandished it, and approached B with intention to

drive him away from the room. But B drew his pistol, the only weapon available to him and shot A, inflicting ;>ya;.: @ . ; . serious physical injuries on the latter. When prosecuted ... for the crime of serious physical injuries, B claimed self, < W;f * + ., i defense. Did B act in self-defense? Explain your answer. &, .<; . ,: ' . /It is submitted that B did not act in self-defense. A i-: had a ,right t o urotect his b e from a trespasser. " if the a 2 of A in drawing his knife, brmdishing it, and approaching B are considered as constituting Pmessip, a v e o n i s w s h d even if tho%'acts of A ' . constituted an unlawful aggression, B was &-iwtifid in injurinp A, because one defendinp himself from an- . other's aggression can stand ground ;nlL when he iSin --o be in the room of A. B the _ - ~B had ntt _ rig.& should have l e ~ X the room when A was approaching him,,'

.:

.. I

hat requisite of defense is so ipdisDensabk that without p .". it there IS no justifying or mitigating eircumst.;dce of incomplele self-defense to speak of? Explain. g I t is the of vnlawful aemezion. The orinc& i of % e l f - d e f m &.ense o b x h t i x e or -of , m e r is ' y+Jthe mce&..~ of azo.&sit in^ t h e m to oRek life, limb o a t . Such u&l sxisis, ession. Bnhif there s . n l ! L w b tilmis arili u lanbaul a mession, nothing tQ.@xwqt&r . o . was said by fhe Supreme Court in the case t ! As of PeoyJe vs. Yamang, if t a r e is no unlawful aggression, there i3 no occasion to speak of "reasonable necessity of 1 the means employed" or of "sufficient provocation" on the part of one invoking legitimate self-defense, because both circumstances presuppose unlawful aggression.

The act, against which a person may make must be an a c t kokunjustified and sufficient his life, limb o r right or that, of another ,/?t must be unjustified, because the clolthe fulfillment of a duty o r in t of a risht or office. Thus, the a d of a peace officer in making an a r r e s t , g done in a violent manner because of the refusal of the..&j .. :i person t o be arrested to submit t o the arrest, is an .c bGt.i$. not unlawful (People vs. Gayrama-n,, cq the case of a husband who. having surprised his wife and another man in the act of sexual intercourse, attacked the ,< man with a knife, but the man was able to parry the blow and killed the husband, the act of the husband w u aggression, b&jugtLudwfful. The husband was t h e n i n !. the exercise of a lawful right and such act would have.,,':: fallen within the sanction of Art. 247 (U.S. vs. Merced). ." Afingerf;he Civil Code, a personmay force or v i o l g s to protect his from beinp: taken by another. His act, in 3 of protecting his property i ' axression, but not- unlawful. " Thus, if A saw B inside his house taking his radio from the table and to prevent B from carrying it away A used violence and then and there B stabbed and killed A, R cannot successfully claim self-defense, because the act of A, although an aggression, is lawful. the life, limb o a t #L"USt h P su f f i c k t $0 of another or ofthe cne makin& a defense. Dhus, a s on the head with the hand cannot i 9 a one's life, limb or-or even one's safety from physical injuries. /But a w o n the fixe m a y . ' m i l . om's honor or safety from physical injury, because if it ' ,,' is not repelled or prevented it waulQ r - t in &&r -or -i

':A
I

+ .

482. What is the _nature of the act which may be considered an unlawful aggression?

. ,. 483. In what cases may unlawful aggression. be ' .>:>A a requisite of self-defense, defense of r e l a t z i n s e ? i' '!r ; of stranger? Explain. .. .e

173 . .

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

In the following eases: 1. When the unlawful aggression h a d ceased ar y da l e t o exj&at the time the one allegedly making a defense injured or killed the former aggressor; 2 . When there was an agreement k f t between the accused and the injured party. In these cases, even if a person was an unlawful aggressor, because he began the attack- c er or kill another, the latter c w t claim lwitimate defense, if he injured or killed the former aLa.iime YdXP there was unlawful RepressiQn, & a because the f.Q&L h r n n t m o r already ran away or because he m a refusal to f u m y IonR'er. The first is illustrated in the case of People vs. Alconga and the second is illustrated in the case of People vs. AIviar. In this last case, the Supreme Court stated: "In view of the fact that the deceased was then unarmed, from the loss of his bolo, the use made of the same weapon by the accused was . unjustifiable." '
N o t e : But if the aggressor w h o was disarmed by the person making a defense -and s & . ~led~ to-ain f his weapon, -o disable its owner. the latter could use the ,t In a fight which was acceptable to both combatants, the fact that it WBS the deceased who commenced the aggression is of n moment and, in such case, it cannot serve as a ground o for the plea o legitimate self-defense. f But an agreement to fight PIeSUDpOBeS a . & d k W S and-a d Hence, if the challenge has r&.X?Lbeen a-W+Q.t& when the challenger commences the W k , there is utrlawf 1 n-4 and the person challenged will be $ k & d *t 0.p prevent it L e . reasonable means. Again, if there i s an agreement to fight, but the aggression is made ahead of the stipulated time and place, sue11 aggression i s atently illegalThe acceptance of the challenge does not place; on the 0 en ed party the burden of preparing to meet any assault at any time even before reaching the appointed time and place.

No, it is not essential that there should be abs and positive danger to the party making the defens i s - e t that there was a well-grounded and -,on the part of the ?adit he was i ~ j n i m i n e n tdanger a hum-. Thus, the person making a defense, before shooting, is :: not obliged to wait until the aggressor has obtained corn-. . , j plete possession GI. control of' his weapon. Re i s not re- .. quired to do anything or refrain from doing something ..' which would increase the danger to his person or to the person of another or enhance the opportunity of the aggressor to accomplish his end.

a 0 -

---_

-4

485. Is threat an unlawful aggression? ., Mere thre ening a.tt%iZ% &-.unlawful aggression. e that IS offensive-ppsitivelv strong, show-- .. Bu I t to cause an i n i u r j , that threat I ing the wroncful is unlawful aggression, .a Thus, even though it were true that when the accuSed . , : ; appeared, the deceased ai-ose with a knife in her hand and ' . in a threatening manner asked the accused what had u m and materisl brought her there, w&& -a such asitti does not constitute unlawful aggression (U.S. vs. Guy-Sayco, 13 Phil. 292). ' ' '. . Rut drawing a weapon f o r the purpose of using it to attack another is an outward and material aggression.
\

./

--

4 -

$,,

..

486. Is the art of taking another's property or of forcibly entering another's home an unlawful aggression? Explain y answer.

484. For the existence of unlawful aggression, is it essential ' ' t h a t there should be ab_solute and positive d a n I r to the party malting the defense?

biles, C.A., 45 O.G., Sup: 5, 277)-.

174
..

175

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER


B

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

487.

an attack on the honor or chastity of a w o m q an un. lawful aggression? Yes. An attack upon a woman for the purpose of raping her or performing an act of lasciviousness on her person is an attack upon her honor and, therefore, an unlawful aggression (People vs. De la Cmz, 61 Phil. 344; People vs. Luague, 62 Phil. 604; and People -18. Jaungue, 76 Phil. 174).

. 488. A boxed the face of B The latter immediatdy drew out his knife a n d attacked A with it. A succeeded in disarming B, and as B was struggling to recover his weapon, A . . used it in killing B. Who is the unlawful aggressor? EX. plain your answer. B is the unlawful aggressor. When aDerso_n w m insulted, slightly i n i u r d or threatened mslies. stpng , , . , retaliation, he becomes a@, unlawfirl agl%SF& r -(tis. v s . . ~. ' Carrero, 9 Phil. 544).
9.:a:X'surprised a thief inside his house at late hour of the ,'' . evening when the latter was taking some personal ProPerW. X shot, the thief who was seriously injured. Is X criminalSince it does not appear that the thief was armed and ready to make an aggression upon being surprised, X was not justified in shooting him and, therefore, he is criminally

sufficient t r a ~ a u i l i tof mind t o think, to c ~ make eomparisAand t h o s e _ his weanon.@ emer-' gencies where the person orlife of another imperilled,' human nature does not act us2n m s e s . _ o f fg n but in obedience to the instinct of self-nreservation. Usually, he grabs the first weapon he can reach for and uses it without regard to the weapon of his assailant. But is not without ouslification (~1' limita.n.@hus, it has. been held that although as a general rule a dagger or a knife is more dangerous than a club, the knife or dagger used by the person attacked by another with a club must , be d that (1) had no otkr available m e a n p n d (2) couId not e@

.
'

- --

491. A was about to stab B with a knife.

C, who was near them and who saw the attack being mad,e by A against B, hit A on the head with a heavy piece of wood, causing: the latter's death. ConsLdering that C could have stNik+ the hand of A only, to prevent him from i n j u r h g B,. do you believe that there was a reason means used by C in defending B? Blxplain your answer. E U Yes. It is pot nroner to & B U

.,'

490. Does the second requisite of self-defense, defense of rela. tive or defense of stranger, that is, that there be reason. able n,ecessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression, mean that the person making the defense should employ the same kind of weapon as that which is being used by the assailant? Explain your anNo. It is not the indispensable need, but the rational necessity, which the law requires.&&&@ updert&&Wis & @ i n g _ m d a of defendin= a does n d h a v e

492. An ex.policeman, trained to use all kinds Qf weapon and to meet an attack with any kind of vveapon, was attacked by X with a club. The ex-policeman had a pistol and a clnh with him. In defending himself, the ex-policeman used his pistol, seriously wounding hrr assailant. Was the pistol a reasonable meaus to repel the aggression made by X? Explain your answer.

also armed.
177

176

..
c
.,

-;?v

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CKIDIINAL LAW REVIEWEIR

.' . +

493. Supposc, the person defending in the preceding question


is a policeman on active duty, would the answer be the same? No. His duty requires him to 0vercor.e his opponent. The force which the peace officer may exert and the weapon which he may use differ somewhat from those which a private individual may ordinarily offer in self-defense. a private individual can only repel or prevent an ~ ~ k aggression, a peace officer has t o overcome his i l opponent, because the latter represents the law he must uphold (US.vs. Mojica, 42 Phil. 784).

No, n . in-plete ~ self-deiense, & m e & gave suffi; The UiEd r$g&&~& cient provocation.d-t e -4, was not mesent.
What circumstance affecting criminal liability is present in the preceding question? d Incomplete self-defense. UIlder Art. G9, A is e to a .penalty x r . two deprees.,lz!Z than the penalty .~. fw' homicide,

:.

, ,

.~
, ,

~;':,,., $

;.'
/

494. G was trying to cuddle his wife but she pushed h m i depreciatingly and avoided his demonstration of husbandly

_s; .~,

arr
,

affection. Thinking that the couple were quarrelling, S went upstairs and upon seeing the angry wife warding off G's advances to her, hit G twice on the forehead with au iron bar. Whereupon G drew his loaded revolver and began zihooting wildly, thus inflicting serious wounds on several relatives of his. Considering that there iyas unlawful aggression on the part of S, do you believe that G acted in self-defense? G's act of self-defense was not exerclsed with due-care, since he did not aim a t his assailant but instead indiscriminal.ely fired his deadly weapon at the risk of the lives and limbs of the innocent persons whom he knew were at the ~ilaceof the occurrence. But absence of intent to kill, although not mitigating circumstance, reduces the felony to a mere physical injury in crimes against persons who do not die 3s a result of the assault (People vs. Galacgac, C.A., 54 O.G. 1027).
495. A was living in the house of B.

497. Suppose, in the same ease, after kissing the wife of B, A ran away and, tho next day, B casually met A on the street and then and there attacked A. with a bolo, but A killed B with his knife, can A successfully claim selfdefense? Yes, m e & h ~ & A xave sufficient provocat&n to E, it^ mas ( o F - t &T m> o the I_a!;ter's aggression, = e And suppose, A was surprised by B while making love t o the latter's wife, and then and there B attacked A with a IJOIO, but A killed B, did A act in self-defense? , Yes, because even if the act of A, making love to B'S .' wife, was provoking, it was not sufficient. Hence, all the three requisites of self-defense are present. --I ./' 4 9 d W h y is it that when the one defending himself gave suffi; / cient provocation to the aggressor, the former is not en-, .,; titled to the benefit of the justifying circumstance of self- '(.?~: defense? :* : ,4&

8 ,

One evening, A kissed the wife of B who saw them. B took a bolo and attacked A with it. A avoided the hlow, opened his nwn knife and "' . stabbed B to death. Prosecuted for homicide, A claimed . . self-defense. Did A act under the justifying circumstance of self-defense?
t

If the one defending himself has given sufficient pro- : . ; vocation to the aggressor, k,.kih tbbt e. -elmd ; & H ;? mt witlioa fault. That is why in such a case, he is :', liable for honiicide if he lrills the aggressor. The only B? :?a benefit he gets is, instead of being sentenced t o suffer, ; ; the penalty for homicide, he shall be sentenced to a a or two d e m e s Ipl?ler than the penalty for homicide. .%
'

$ ,:$

. .
"

178

'V."

\I .

.~
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWYER

500. A picked up a spear and with it tried to wound C, hut niisstd. C took out his knife and stabbed A fatally. At this moment, B, seeing his father A being stabbed by C, hit the latter with a bolo and, a s a consequence of which, the latter died. Did B act in defense of a relative? No, hecause A was the aggressor. T h e e b g h &fended should &be an unlawful ~ppresl(nr(People vs. Panuril, C.A., 40 0. G. 1477).
501. A was a M to give a fist blow on B, when the latter retreated and picked up a piece of wood with which t o strike A. C, brother of A, held B by the hand as the latter was about to strike A with the piece of wood, disarmed B, and struck him with it on the face, inflicting serious physical injuries. Did C act in defense of a relative? Explain your answer. No. The act of A in commeucinr to give a f i nw $i o n B is not only a provocation to B. 2 k n unlawful aggression. When B picked up a piece of wood with yhich t o strike A, B was merelv trying t o d a d .. .. W f Such being the case, C was not acting in defense L. of a relative. Defense of relatives is a justifying circumstance, even if the relative defended gave provocation, hut not when he appears to he an unlawful aggressor.
502. But suppose A only

They are: (1) the spouse, (2) ascendant, (3) descendant, (4) legitimate, natural, or adopted brother o r sister,. (5) relatives by affiaitjrin the -degree, and (6) those by consanguinity within the uukh...civil degree. A was in love with the wife of B. One day, A, at a distance of 50 yards, saw B in the act of stahbing c, a stranger, with a knife. A shot E who waa mortally l wounded. Did A act in defense of a stranger? It depends. If A killed B only to save C from being killed by B, A was justified in doing so.' But if A killed B to enable him t o marry B's w& then the third rei, auisite of defense of stranger is k c k n g , A L b X h Z .hSn i d & k e y i l mutive. ._ / T h e third reouhite of defense of stranger is that the ; ; <, , oDe defending be not induced by / resentment or :..,! 2 ~ . .. other evil . m ~

505. What is the provision of the Revised Penal Code under

'''.

73%:
."$.

*" .+', - t i d-,.,

the face of B and the latter took qut his knife and was in the act of stabbing A when C, bmtlier of A, struck B with his bolo, resulting in the death of B, did C act in defense of his relative? YI?~, hecause A in $lapping the face of B merely p c a t i e n t o the latter and C had no part therein. EIaving & a stronp retaliatbn, B h e c a e an u&w.ful a g g ~ m . The three requisites of defense of relatives are present.

-_

which the killing of the foetus in the uterus .may be' justified because it is necessary to save the life of the mother? Any person who, in order t o g an evil or injury, does an @ which causes d m t o another, provided that: the following requisites are present: First. That the s_ousht t o be avoided actually' exjsts; Second. That the h Q a & . & & be &r than t h a t to avoid it. &s l Third. That there be n o r p r a c t i d a & harmful means of Q~X&L?XZA. This provision covers the so-called justifying circumstance of state of necessity (Art. l:L, par. 4, R.P.C.).

,'

506. A, a married woman who had experienced difficult childbirth which almost cost her life, consulted a do,ctor. The

+y,..; : 2
L.

..,
' '

1503. Who a t e the relatives referred to in the justifying circum-

.'

stanco of defense of relatives?

doctor after mature consideration advised her that it wo$d he better to remove her ovary. By agreement of A and 181

.,

180

,,~,~.

.;... ,
*.
.j

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIiMlNAL LAW REVIEWER

,,

. ', .

'

the doctor, her ovary was removed by operation. Can A and the doctor escape criminal liability for mutilation under the justifying circumstance of state of necessity7 Emplain your answer. No, because the &sought to be ava e d did not a$tually exist, The -d that she mipht die of childbirth if she would be pregnant is a mere possibility. The first requisite is absent.

.~

~I

... ,,
. , ,

'507. The captain of the vessel loaded it with a quantity of cargoes beyond its ordinary capacity. While the vessel was in the sea, it met a storm. Sensin,? that the vessel '.,. wns going to sink because of the strong wind and big waws and due to its heavy load, the captain of the vessel ordered that part of the cargoes be jettisoned, which was done by the members of the crew. Can the captain successfully invoke the justifying circumstance of state of necesr;ity? Explain your answer. ut No, because the state of necessity was b his nezlirrence. y The .vil which brought about the state of necessity a of Am by the actor or must not result fsam a v from his nealieence or imarudence.

When he shot the murderer, the policeman was &he fulfillment of his duty. The injury c:aused to the murderer s , , the due performance of was the m of &isd & y . In the case of People vs. Gayrama, 60 Phil. 796, where the accused had slashed with a bolo the municipal president on his arm, the Supreme Court stated that if the chief of police had been armed with a revdlver and had used it against the accused, the act of the chief of police underthose c i r c u m - k w ~ o d w justified.
Note: Rule i i 3 , Sectiom 1, Rules of Court, provides that, "No unnecessary or unreasonable farce shall be used in making an arrest, and the person arrested shdl not be subject to any greater restraint than is necessary for his detention."
The Supreme Court believes that shooting a person who .-efused l o part with his dangerous weapon and to surrender to s peace officer who was arresting him, after be had attacked another wjth that weapon, i a necessnm and reaaons able fcvee to effect his arrest, and the peace officer was juatificd in shooting him even if it resulkd in his death.

. '

:
! :

.,),
*i

: .
,',

509. A picked the <pocketof B, while the latter was engromed

'

':
"

,$@ .'
f

08

. .

A policeman was trying to arrest a murderer who cmmmittell the crime within his hearing. Having gone immediately to the scene of the crime, the policeman asked the murderer to drop his bolo and to submit to the arrest being made. The murderer refused to drop his weapon and r,an away. The policeman shot him, inflicting a mortal wound which was the cause of death. Was the police man justified in shooting tlie murderer to death? Explain your answer. It is submitted that the policeman was completely justided, notwithstanding the fatal consequeme, because it was demanded by the circumstances. His refusal to drop his weapon and to sstbmit to the arrest being made by the policeman s j that the murderer was d a mined, t o for his liberty.

looking at the pictures in front of a theater, and ran away with the wallet extracted from the pocket of B. A policeman who saw the stealing of the wallet of B b y A whistled at the latter, but A did not stop and continued running away. The policeman fired his gun twice in the ab. h A continued to rnn away with the wallet of I, the poxce? man shot him t o death. Is the policeman liable for killing A? Explain your answer. Yes. W m the policeman a m - i n the performance of his duty, he exceeded the fulfillment of his duty when he shot the deceased. He is guilty of homicide (People vs. Eentres, C.A., 49 0. G. 4919).
N o t e : S m a thief who h a danaerous weapon m or to make good h e , is & a t o intimidate a ne and ref t o effect his arrest.

'~:

510. Is the guard justified in shooting a prisoner who has e + caped from jail? Explain your answer.

..

132

I j
i'

CRlMINAL LAW REVIEWER


.,

CIZIMINAL LAW REYIEWXR

Yes. In the cases of People vs. Delima, 46 Phil. 738, People vs. Lagata, 83 Phil. 159, and U.S.vs. Magno, et a]., 3 Phil. 314, the Supreme Court held that when the prisoner is escaping and in his & z e& t o escape and there was no other remedv but t o jh-aLhm in..mder ' t-mtihim fr -&bgA!za y, the guard in shooting the prisoner, even to the extent of killing him, acted in the fulfillment of his duty and, therefore, is not criminally liable.
Note: This ruling applies -the
r L L &

e-ine

nr i m w is&-

511. A prisoner succeeded in leaving the jail and in the yard of the iail the euard met him. The guard levelled his gun at the escaping prisoner, but the latter grabbed the muzzle of the gun and, in the struggle for the possession of the gun, the guard jerked away the gun from the hold of the prisoner, causing the latter to be thrown half-way around, and because of the force of the full, the guard squeezed . ., ,.the trigger, causing it to fire, hitting and killing the pis. . oner. Is the guard criminally liable for the death of the prisoner. Explain your answer. The guard is not criminaIly liable, because he acted in the fulfillment of a duty (People vs. Bisa, C.A., 51 O.G. 4091). When the guard levelled his gun at the escaping prisoner, f.he former was acting in the fulfillment of his duty, because it was his duty to prevent the escape of the prisoner. "?&-&&I of the prisoner was the -n c m s w e n c e of the due pwforman_ce of. It was the act of the prisoner in grabbing the muzzle of the gun which made the guard jerk it: away from his hold, thereby causing the latter's finger to squeeze the trigger.
I

less serious physical injuries. Is A criminally liable for. less serious physical injuries? Explain your answer. No. because A d i n the &&bxfxc% o f a u t ' caused to B was a necessarv conseauence . and the af that righi (Art. 11, par. 6, of the lawful ex, , R.P.C.). Under Art. 429 of the Civil Code of the Philip pines, t.he or lawful possessor -of a thing has the r&.to && u any person f-thi? eniovment and disforce. posal thereof. cor this nurvose, he may u ~ s u c h a&mity & w o n a b l y necessary to or prevent an . unlawful physical invasion or nsuruaactual ni. i!xei&& t i o n h i s Dropeqty. TJiider Art. 11, par. 5, in relation to said Art. I'L9 of the Civil Code, it is pot necessary that there be an altack on the person of the owner or on the 2 '7 person of the one charged with the protection of the property. Note: J the person takins the property is kUkd by the owner, .; f

$+

the not the and

liable, because the force emnlove9 was r e a s o n a b l k r 3 . But if the deceased, after dropping sack of palay drew out his bolo and attacked the owner, the iattcr killed him, the provision of the Revised Penal ?de apR,lieable i Art. 11, par. 1 There is self-defense, which s . includes defense of right to property.
l r is criminal1 &

"

.,

3
>

., :

513. When is obedience to an order of a superior a justifyjng circumstance?

'
~

.~...

al u ,

sac.

obedience t o that order is a

Note: Thus, the soldier who tortured to death a private individual in abedienw t o the order of his sergeant is criminally' liable. because the order to torture tlre deceased was not lawfk&n,

,-.~'

.~

,. ?, $.

'

.: ,

'

A, while supervising the threshing of his palay in his rice , saw B carrying away a sack of palay. A shouted a t B to stop and return the sack of palay, hut B continued t o run away with it. A picked up a piece of hard. wood and threw i t at B who was hit on the right leg, causing

the w n who & p m e e s s a r y severity i at -8 l w y d by the court is under Art. 129 of the Revised Penal Code, because w v the order to search was m ,the p e a m use& to c l m the . o&xLrs unlawful. When the && & .i m does_notknow the-of order and e d it , ha is not criminally lia because there is no criminal intent.

..

...~
,3;*>,'*:".?.
,.

184
.

185
,, ,

..

,. .

1 ~,

-3;
CRIMINAL LAW REYIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWEIL

..
'

. ..,

514. A, employee of a prison during the Japanese Occupation, was ordered by the Japanese officer, in charge of the prison, to torture to death an incorrigible prisoner. As A 1was reluctant to do it, the Japanese officer threatened to shoot him if he would not d o so, A tortured the prisoner who died as a Consequence. Assuming that there was abuse of superior strength, do you believe that A was liable for murder? Explain your answer. No. While it is true that the order was illegal and that murder was committed, because the killing o f the prisoner was accomplished with abuse of superior strength, A is e x d from criminal liability as he acted under-the, i d of uncontrollable fear o h n 9U.d or &Ajxry. The & that the & was1f -d &r t w t h a t A h d without freedom and intent and u t from criminal I i . is s u f f i c i a t to exempt there is a complete absence of freedom and there is a n exempting c i r c u m sce. Art. 12, uot Art. 11, of the Revised Penal Code is applicable.

committed the crime. In short,. their acts arc t s :516. At the time of his trial for homicide, A was insane 88 shown by the report of a doctor of She National Mental HQspital. Must the court declare A ezempt from criminal liability? Explain your answer. . . of the accused at the No, because the rn-dlh time of his trialt -d in anv wax affact his criminal It is the mental condition of the accused at the time of the c e a of the crime which the court has to consider for the purpose of deteImiIiing his criminal liability. If he was & n at the time of the c d i o n a$ of the crime, he should be aeauitted regardless of the n-c of his mind at the time of his trial. If he is insane at the time of his trial so that even with the assibtance of counsel he may not h x e a fair trial, the court on1 m d the t a a n d - i hm to the National =Hospital ue -h1 have - r d his reason.

'.

m j

'-;

~. ,

615. Mention all the persons who cannot be held criminally Iiable f o r whatever crimes they may have committed and

state the grounds for their exemption from punishment. They are: (1) the imbecile, (2) the insane, (3) the
,.
2:

I<
L

,,

,.
,i

minor under nine years of age, (4) the minor over nine years of age and under fifteen, who actcd without discernment, (5) the person who, while perfofming a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it, (6) the person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, (7) the person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury, and ( 8 ) the person who fails to perform an act required by law, when pi-evented by some lawful or insuperable cause. The grounds for exemption from punishment are (1) c o m u l e t f ! a G e of intelligence, (2) complete absence o f ,nf or (3) complete absence of intent or that there is no f m l t or negligence on the part of the person who
186

31'7. If the court, after trial, finds the accused not crimina&' liable, because at the time of the cummission of the crime he was insane or imbecile, can the court in dismissing the case provide in the decision of acquittal that the offended - . should be indemnified? Why? uarty Yes, because &exempting circumstances, like insanity , or imbecility, t m i s civil liability, which must be&.: the ~ e r he ~ n h t ~ insane or imbecile under his ; legal authority or control,,g&gs it appears that there was no fault or negligence on his part or that insolvent; in 'which case, the insane or imbecile s L U respond with his own property (Art. 101, R.P.C.).
~518. When may an insane who committed a crime be held criminally liable therefor? When he committed the crime during lucid interval. 519. May there be a case where an imbecile can be held e&. .! inally liable for the crime he Committed? Explain your I answer.

' "

u,

187

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CILIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

because an

imbecile

lucid interval.

Note: To he from criminal liability by reason of ina*&el.v & d sanity or imbecility the accused g&-he. o, f= at the & t of the eomrnission of t4e crime. Thus, feeblemindedness, eccentricity (deviatien from ordinary conduct or manner),, mental weakness or mere depression resulting from physical ailment, PI' extreme anger, which makes a mrson act like a madman, -~t a n d a h a d d a . b% $sab 9L sidered embraced in the term insanit , because the person h x i : such mental condition i s ~ o n w l e t e l yd e n r h d of reason and freedom of the-.
~

without discernmat,. The prosecution who has t h e m of proving the existence of discernment on the part of the accused failed toJmxe-&.

520. What is somnambolism and h,ow does it affect the criminal liability of the person who committed a crime in state of somnambolism? It is sleep-walking. It is embraced in a plea.of insanity (People vs. Gimena, 55 Phil. 604; People vs. Taneo, 68 Phil. 255). 521. What is dementia praecox? It is mental illness otherwise called schizophrenia. When a person becomes affected by this kind of mental illness, 1 nrrrantral r w of h is cats, (Legal Medicine and Toxicology the p e r i d . o f t by Pcterson, Haines and Webster, cited in the case of People vs. Bonoan, 64 Phil. 94). This kind of mental illness gnedc embraced the t e w '&&any," -b the person affected h a completely lost the s r & of his will power.

?*,

a s 523. When A committed theft he was mr old. During his t u f o r the crime be was 1 6 s old. Is A criminally sentence? Exliable? If so, can he he given a s-ded plain your answers. No. It appearing that at the time of the commission of the crime A was under fifteen p a r s - o f age and no fact is stated showing that he acted with' discernment, he is exempt from criminal liability (Art. 12, par. 3, R.P.C.). It is the age of the minor at the time of the commission of the crime, not his age a t the time of the trial, which determines whether or not he is exempt from criminal liability. f l e m from criminal liability, A should be' acquitted and the case against him dismissed. The susuended -s contemnlakdin Art. 80, R.P.C., presupposes tkat is not exempLfam criminal liability. the f i v e n if he was @ y A could :n&be &, given a upended sentence, because only minors under 1G years of a&at the hof the are e i d && t o a susuended sentence,
\

'

$ :'

: ! '

1
, i
..

,.

'"F

'

522. In the prosecution of the accused, a boy 13 years of age, the fiscal succeeded in proving the case of theft against the accused. There was no evidence that the accused, at the time of the commission of the crime, did not nnderstand the consequences of his act. If yon were the judge trying the case, would you acquit .or convict the accused. Explain your answer. ' m the presumvtipZz The accused musthearqiutted, b -i a & m oyer 9 y e a s hut under '15 actep

524. A girl 9: years of age pushed her p!aymate into a deep &LL place of the river, with intent to Ell her. The ~ . ! @ kill was -by the prosecution. Is she c r i m i n a liable for causing the death of her p!aymate who died of drowning? Explain your answer. Yes. The fact that the offender had the intent t o kiI1 the deceased when she pushed her into the river i s dence also of discernment, because her intent t o kill her , . .& playmate ,shows that she k n w whthe :' -s of her unlawful act of pushing her'victim into '! deep water and that she knew it t,o be wrong '(Peop!e ~?<

eon-

CllIMINAL LAW REVIEWER


,.. ,.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER truck Lumped and killed him. In this case, the driver of the truck is crimir.ally liable for homicide through reckless imprudence. Tlle iniury causgd was clearlv foreS a

vs. Nieto, G. R. No. L-11965, April 30, 1958). A minor,


over nine but under fifteen years of age, who acted with discernment, is criminally liable.
525. I n determining the guilt of a minor under 9 years of agecharged with a crime, must the court determine whether or not such minor acted with discernment? Why? No, hecause a &or under 9 y 3 o f e --i u Eively p r w u e d to have acted without disceYllnen t. Proof of discernme_nt is required only when the da is a minor over 9 but under 15 years ofe. -c _

527. A fired his pistol several times upward in the air on the
eve of a new year here in Manila. One of the slugs fired by him fell on the head of a boy who was playing on the street. Is A criminally liable for the death of the boy? Exlilain your answer. of p.nre accident, which is Yes. This is a t a an exempting circumstance under Art. 12, par. 4, Revised Penal Code. The digcharpe of firearm in such a thickly populated ulace as the City of Manila beinp penalized by Art. 155 of the Revised Penal Code as a .and m s , A_lras_notRerfomd%g a la&LacL (People vs. Galacgac, C.A., 54 O.G. 1027). Hence, the first element of accident is lacking. In fact, A was at fault. Hence, the fourth element of accident is also lacking.
528. If a person injured another or damaged the latters prop

526. What is accident as an exempting circumstance and how

is it disltinguished from negligence? Give an example of accident causing injury or damage to another and an example of negligence causing injury or damage to the offended party. /An accident is something that m ~&%the s SwaY of our will, and although i t comes a b % tlxawh some t act of our dlJ, lies beyond the it of humanlv foreseeable consequences. @If the injury or damage caused is c&&foreseeable, it is a case of nexlipence. Example of accident: A man standing on the platform of a steam roller, which was moving on the street, suddenly jumped on the street a t the moment a truck was passing and landed right in front of the truck which was running on the proper sidc of the street and at moderate speed. The man was run over and was killed as a consequence. The injury caused was not clearlv foreseeable. Example of negligence: That same example may be. come a case of negligence, if the driver of the truck saw the man on the platform of the steam roller in the , act of jumping and that fact notwithstanding he dkl-nat slacken h w whkh was not authorized by the traffic regulation, and when the man dropped on the street the

--

erty, because of pure accident, is he civilly liable for the injury or damage which resulted? Explain your answer. No, he is not civilly liable, because1 e R m _ E e n a i c o d e toes not mention paragrauh 4 .of which defines accident, in enumerating the exempting c i r c u m s t ; w where there is & L W t y . In other f whew words, this is w the exempting ci~e&~.skmces there is no civil liability.
529. Distinguish the exempting circumstance of irresistible force from the exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear. When any of these exempting circumstances is present, how many persons take part in the commission of the crime? Are all of them exempt from criminal liability? Explain your answers. In the exempting circumstance of kresistible force a person uses. physical forcp to make another commit a

190

191

. ..

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWEWEB.

crime: whereas, in that of uncontrollable fear, a person uses threat to make another c o w e. In both circumstances, there are at least two persons who take part in the commission of the crime. l b u ? J X A who USJS the force or makes the is a grinciual by indiand the one who commits the crime because o f force or threat is a principal by direct participa& t But o&, the princiual hy indmtfp is criminally liable. The principal by direct participation is tfrom criminal liahil@y, b.s.ause he acts without freedomof the conditions that admi the a vnlun t a p . t
EXPLANATION: But thc physical force must be irresistible, that is, sufficient t o control the will of the person againat whom the physical force is used. It must produce such an effect lipon tho individual that, in spite o all resistance, it f redneed him to a mere instrument. If the force is not irresistible, there m a y be only a mitigating, not an exempting, circumstance. The threat which caused the fear must pmmise an evil of such gravity and imminence that the ordinaw man would have inent and reasonsuccumbed to it. The fear must be real, i able, not speculathe, fanciful or remote. fear is d a " d m orlimbis st. the point imminent when the &ugq to o Qf t a k i n e p k r e The fear of a person that he might be killed by another if he would not do as he was told t o do so, & geoeulatiw. fanciful o r a t e .

A wounded her w t the bolo in the abdomen. Is A cr& ih


i n 7
Explain your answer.

vx. Ianeo, 68 Phil. 255).

t No. A person who &d while in, a dream W have criminal intent. Hence, his a .& were not voluntaq a&hg&m he i s m k t fgom criminal liability (People -

.io-.
"'

532. T was prosecuted for selling a can of Mennen' Talcum' Powder for B1.OO when the ceiting price for said article was only P0.86, as fixed by Executive Order No. 6.2, series of 1945. The defense contended that the government agent who arrested T induced the latter to violate the Iavv by pnrcliasing from him the article and paying for it in an amount above the ceiling price. Is there instigation

41 this case?

No. The agent did not induce T t o violate the law. Ne simply discovered the violation committed by T when he purchased the article. It was 7.' who charged and collected the price of P1.00 (People vs. Tan Tiong, C A , 43 0. G. 1255).
533. A policeman saw another person actiing suspiciously inside the premises of X. The policeman covered himself behind the stone wall and watched the person as he was taking i some valuabl~personal property in the premises. The 8' policeman saw the person carrying away the property 'r and when h e w a s out of the premises, the policeman stopped and placed him under arrest and seized from him : the property stolen, When prosecuted, that person con. .. tended that since the policeman saw him even before he .' began t take the property and, thwefore, the policeman o couId have prevented the commission of the crime, he should not be held liable for theft. If yon were the judge, would you acquit or would you convict the accused? E . x plain your answer. If I were the judge, I would convict the accused. The fact that the policeman saw him even before he commenced . ( ' the commission of the crime and did not prevent him from committing the wime is not a defense. There is, in this .
, I

530. A, ivbo was holding a lighted torch and standing close to B'B house made of nipa, threatened to burn that house il if B would not stab and k l C who was in the place, and

afraid that his house might be burned, B stabbed and kill$ C. Is B exempt from criminal liability? Explain your answer. /No, because the first requisite of uncontrollable fear is that the tj.~&&wllich caused- the & a ~ w d an SyiL g r e a m , or at lea& ~ L Qthat , S B p i r e d to commit. The threat which caused the fear of B was of an eyll less than that which he was r e a u w ' . to commit.

531. A suddenly got up in his sleep, picked up a bolo, and left the room. Upon meeting his wXe who tried to stop him,

192

193

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER


% .

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

. *;..<. - _:i

.'.~* . ..,

3;..,,

..

.. .'$$,34. But suppose that in the preceding question the policeman A :... . , toid the nian to enter the premises and get some valuable $ . . . . . property inside and promised that he would not arrest
I I
~

ease, entrapment which is&an e e p t i n g circumstance. In entrapment % Y are -0 by the r '.. public officers for the w e of t@miU? and canturinx ., . . the lawbreaker in the e m n of his ~ & and & & . ,

,-.

4. Less serious or slight physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. 5. Exemption from criminal liability of certain re&tives in the crimes of theft, estafa and malicious Inischief. *

.,.
, .
,

~.. -; ': L .

. .., .

6 . Marriage between the offended party and the offl fender in the crimes of rape, seduction, abduction or acts4 , of lasciviousness.

him and, because of the assurance thus given, the man committed theft then and there, and Iater the policeman arrested the man with the stolen goods, can that man : . ... be punished for the crime he committed? Explain your .. . answer. .. No, because the man was %d e to commit the crime . d 'on and insticratiotlof a public of,. .. by the active c Ticer. A sound uublic nolicv r& es that the court shall , ' condemn this practice by directinz an acauittal whenever i :' ' 4,.. it appe:ars that the public authorities or private detectives ;* '. ' " ; . have taken active stem to &xLthe accused into the .Q?Qmission of the crime. Instigation is a j.xx to the convic,. f tion of the lawbreaker. a,. . ' 'I/\ Note: Would the result be lhe same if the instieator is a ... . , ..
.. .
I

'.

--

~I

, #
'.
,

m i t e individual?

., c -

No, because the- j himself IE.Q!mes liable as rind ai by inductio In the ease of a public ofhe - d L h to ~ r ~ e the ~c e n u && s of the &e, but only to&c a record of arrest u r n .

z ;

535. Define and give some examples of ahsolubry causes. Absolutory causes are W e where the ~&c&bd & !., is a c e but for re,ax).ris of public pnlie;r and sentiment there is n m imm%d. . . "/ . The examples are: : 1. Snontaneous desistame during the attempted stage of exccution of the act constituting the., crime. , . .', . , , .., . . , 2 . Light felonies are not punishable unless they are . I . . consummated, except those committed against pWSonS o r . . ... L L -property. . . z i,, ., 3: Accessories are-not liable for light felonies.

536. What are the defenses for acquittal o f the person charged with the conimission of a crime? A person accused of a crime may be acquitted on any of tiie following Rrounds: 1. That of the essential e m of the crime is notn2.oved by the prosecution. When the other elements proved established the com- ,..> mission oI another crime, necessarily included in the one '' ' -'' charged, the accused may be found guilty of the former. 2 . That the accused acted under any of the justifying r' *', ,. , circumstances. 3 . That the accused acted under any of the exempting l t && n h& i ! . &the public circumstances, o r that : t c the crime. officer, which led the accused to & 4 . That the act for which the accused is prosecuted . . falls under any of the absolutorv causes especially prcvided by law. 5 . That. the ~ d of the accused is not established h beyond reasonable-.

? .

1-

j _ .

L..

..", ..'

837. When is an ineoniplete justifying circnnlslance or an incomplete exempting Circumstance an Ordillary mitiga circumstance and when is it a pTivileged mitigating 'cumstance? Explain your answer. In view of the provisions of Art. 69 of the Penal Code, it is a privileged mitigating eircu when the maj'ovity of the conditions required, to: ] u the act or to exempt from criminal liability is w e

194

195

CRIMINAL LAW REVZEWEII

CItIDlINAL LAW REVIEWER

The penalty lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law shall be imposed. It il; an ordinary mitigating circumstance if the ?miority of :such conditions is not present, provided that in the three kinds of defense unlawful aggression is present.
Noto: Even as a privileged mitigating circumstance, an incomplete self-defense, or incomplete defense of relative, or incomplete defense of stranger must have the requisite of unlawful aggression. What is lacking is either the second or thirti requisite of self-defcnse, defense of relatives or defensa of ctranzer.

_._c

hen is the age under eighteen years an ordhasy !tigating circumstance and when is it a privileged mitigating circumstance? Explain your answer. There are three ages contemplated in Art. 13, Par. 2 , of the Revised Penal Code, namely: ( ) under fifteen 1 but over nine years of age, who is not exempt from C r b inal liability by reason of the court having declared that he acted with discernment (Art. 68, par. l), (2) over fifteen and under sixteen years of age (Art. 68, par. 2, and Art. BO), and ( 3 ) under eighteen years of agb (Art. 13, par. 2) but sixteen years or above. A c c o r d i n g to Art. 68, when the offender is a minor under 15 but over 9 years of age and h e @ @ &h-.dk~ e m a n t , a discretionary D e w shall be &I!Ji%ed, but always lower by two deuees at least than that presclebed b a m h e & e which be committ.?d. When the offender is a &or a d a n d years of age, there is no question that the penaltv extl lower than that prescribed b y k w shall LejmDosed (Art. 68, par. 2). In these cases, the age under eighteen years (over 9 but under 15 years or over 15 but under 16 years) is a p~i~q&m&igalhg circumstanc because the penalty is lowered by one or two degrees. u t m view of the provision:; of Art. 80 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime committed by the minor under 15 or 16 years of age must b6.3-or-m. When the crime committed

is & a 1( 1 Art. 68 izi pot amlicable and m m is & an ordinary mitigating circumstance.. What is not settied is the question of whether the age under 18 years but 16 years or above is a privileged mitigating circumstance or it is an ordinary mitigating circumstance. In the case of People vs. Garcia, 85 PhiL651, the Supreme Court held that the age under 18 years but 16 years or above is a privileged mitigating circumstance. But in the case of People vs. Perez, et al., G.R. No. L3513, Sept. 29, 1951, the Supreme Court considered it an ordinary mitigating circumstance.
539. A, 15 years and 2 months old, inflicted on B u h t physical

_-

I i m

injuries punishable by arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 8200. In case A is p m u t e d .for and found guilty:.;; of slight 1)hysical injuries, must the court in the decision >? that. it will render impose a penalty one degree lower t h m , : that prescribed by law for slight physical injuries? Explain your answer. No. Art. 68, which & O E for privileped mitigating : y ,tsays in its opening circumstances by reason of m sentence: When the offender is a minor under eighteen years and his case is one coming under the provisions of the paragraph next to last of Ai+. 80 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty one or two degrees lower than that prescribed by law for the crime shall be imposed. On the other hand, Art. 80 applies only when the &&n~ comlnitted by the minor is a grave or less grave felanu. Sinca the felony committed by A is o & a lipht felony, Art. 80 is not adplicable and t w no room far agwlication of Art. 65. i?L, ., H s e , the to b e a g d a n A must minimum.perio+ of-.the m t y fsr the crime b committed, n s t me degree ]ewer.

---

540.

Is the age over seventy years a pr&legerlmitig.ating cumstance? Why? 197

cir-

196

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

/
,
,

CilIMINAL 4AW REVIEWER

* .

No. The @ article in the Revised Penal Code W L specifically urn far the privileged mikigating CirCUmby reason of age is Art. 68,which d o e s t DiWthe o s r seventy Years.

swe

d f i c i e n t . w v o cation_ar threat on the part immediately ureceded'.the & : ,. That the& was m d in the immediate en-..: . . -.-dicatipl?- a prave offense to the one commitf.inr the"; of .~~~ ~~~.~~~~ -. .--.. .. "~ felony, his spouse, ascendants, descendants, IegitiGte, nat-,' ' \ urzl, o r adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affimty ? : w i t h i d h e same degrees. That of having acted UPO? aneso uowerfql as nat,urally to have pnduced aassion or obfuscatien. / - " - ~~~~ ~

6 That

..

swei'. e

Evident premeditation and t?&%&LY are h&3.@. h on t ' d and not upon the o f s mind of the offender. On the other hand, the mitigating circumstance that the offender had no inten-

yerL

-#In

'

et al.,, 58 Phil. 536).


&laythe mitigating circumstance that the offender had no iritentjon to commit. so grave a wrong as that cornmittcd be appreciated in felonies committed by means of cul,pa or fault? Why? NO, because this mitigating circumstance is b & on the fiiminuhU f j n t e n t , whereas in felonies committed ' with negligence, imprudence or lack of foresight or skill, tHence, diminution of the offender a s.t-w intent is not possible in culpable felonies.
Note: This mitigating circumstance is not w be appreciated also in felonies where the il,tention of the offender is j ; m 1 , like in unintentional abortion.

. . ,542. .

a, party attended by prominent persons, . A called B a swlndle~'. Being humiliated and Raving lost his rewon and self-control, B grabbed a chair and.struck A with. it, inflicting serious physical injuries on the latter. When prosecuted for the crime he committed, I? claimed the following mitigating circumstances: (1) that suffilient provocation or threat on the pnrt .of the offended party immediately preceded the act, (2) Chat the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to him, and (3) that of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or ob-. fnscalion. Considering the meaning given to these mitigating circumstances, do yon believe that they should all be considered in favor of B? Explain your answer. In view of the occasion and peiisons present, the imputation made by A was a sufficient provocation to B. A provocation is "sufficient" when it is adequate to ex- , cite a person lo commit a wrong and must accordingly be proportionate to its gravity (People vs. Nabora, 73 Phil. 4341. Insults are held to be sufficient provocation (US. v Firmo, 37 Phil. 134; U.9. vs. Cortes, 36 Phil. 837). he ~ ~ f & i n n , ~ ~ B was a A that y

'

' .. -. . .543.
'
( I

Wh,& are the mitigating circumstances which are %the loss of r e a s w and s&.mUtd of the offender. . . e and as well as freedam
'* O? f
~.

~.

..

They are:

. ,

193
198

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL L A W REV1EW:ER

The act of ,E in attacking A hy ,striking him with a chair may alao be considered as having heen done in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to him. The remark of A under the circumstances in which he made if; was highly offensive to B and to any other person in his place. It is not strange that i t engendered obfuscalion i n him and impelled him to wt as he did, in the immediate vindication of a grave offense (People vs. Rosel, 66 Phil. 324).
Note: In the case of People vs. Rosel, supra, it as held that there was B grave offense when the deceased said in tho presence of several persons that the accused was living a t the expense of his wife,

No. The provocatioa m a t orijrinate from , t h e offended party. In this case, the offended party or the victim was C, while the person mho pave the provocation
W & .

546. Distinguish the mitigating circumstance of vindication of 8 grave o f f w e from the mitigating circumstances of pro-

The same Cause may also give rise to passion or Obfuscation on the part of B who last his reason a.nd selfcontrol, because! of the imputation made hy A against. him in the presence of prominent persons. The application of the mitigatjng circumstance of passion or obfuscation is justified when the act of the person injured is the immediate cause of the loss of reason and self-control on the part of the persan making the attack (U.S. vs. Esmedia, 17 Phil. 260). This extenuating circumstance is present when the offense committed was provoked by prior unjust or improper acts (People vs. Noynay, 68 Phil. 395). The conduct of A was the natural cause of the indignation and anger against him which was aroused in the breast

B. /But h M - & n fssm o a a n d the same cause, the .three n&k?.tiiIg cjrcumstances smmi.h cnnsidered as three distinct and sagapte circes, but should be 1t a s s n l r n n e (People vs. De 10s Santos, 47 O.G. 5131; People vs. Yaon, 43 O.G. 4142).
of

vocation or threat and passion or pJ)fuscation. In vindication, there must be a =me offmse cpmmitted to the m committiw the felony, his s m s e , azendant, e dscendant, brothers, sisters, or rehtives by affinity in the same degree. In Drovocatiw and uassion ar obfuscaEQJI, i t is p o t necessary that t b grave offense committed by the og.m&d party. The mitigating circumstance of vindication of a grave offense Concerns the honor of the person who c o w % t e d B the crime, o r the honor of any of his relatives mentioned in par. 6 of Art. 13. Provocation or threat and passion or obfuscation are & -Le& &t the one giving the provocation or threat or against the one whoso unjust or improper conduct produced in the offender t h e ' . passion or obfuscation. In bath the mitigating circumstances of provocation or ', threat and passion or obfuscation, the unjust o r improper, conduct of the offended party rnust immediately precede :', the commission of the crime by the defendant. In vindication of a grave offense, it is not necessary that the grave offense immediately precedes the commission of the crime by the defendant.
647. A had been fighting a losing battle in the courts with

545. A, a woman, gravely insulted B who immediately drew out a knif,e and a1.tacked A. C, the son of A, tried to protect .~' his mother, but was fatally wounded, and killed by B. In the prosecution of B for homicide, may the provocation made by A be taken into consideratior. as a mitigating circunistauce in favor of B? Why?

.. .

.-

respect to a coconut grove over which he had been asserting ownership. At one time he ;va9 prosecuted for stealing coconuts from the grove, but was acquitted beeawe the title was in dispute. In an earlier civil action was declared in default and lost the case by the negligence ' of his lawyer. Then, A was impleaded in a civil acti and an injunction was issued by the court restraining from molesting or obstructing plaiintiff in the exerc

200

201

*
CRIMINAL LAW. REVIEWER . . .. CKlMlNAL LAW REYIEWER
, ., .,

. . ~ ~,of .the. rights of ownership and possessi,on over said prop . <: . ., erty. ... s a result of these events, &hIUld himself ,, A e.: ., r a t circ , the d o f When'a and rebellious S eouxt. temuer policeman 'waS ...- .
.. * .

a m e f

. ... . .. . . attacked
,
e,

detailed in the property as a precautionary measure, A and seriously injured the policemall. Is A ell.. titled .to the benefit of the mitigating circunlsence of passion or obfuscation? Explain your answer. No.. When the -entertained by the defendant . .had been d3liberately fomented by him m a considerable '.,:~. period of ti-, it is pot mitigatng (People vs. Hernandez, .. - ..43 Phil. 104; People vs. Caliso, 58 Phil, 283). The reason ..,.......for thjs ruling is that the &e ., committed must. be the natu_ral~uncontrollable of a sudden imnulse

._,.

' '

told that C, his' brother, was killed hy B in a fight. A beean to look for B. After one day, A Sound B in front ; +. _. of a store and then and there killed the latter.. Can A . ,.., . .. properly invoke any of the. mitigating circumstances O f . ' . . . brovoeation, vindication of a grave offense to his brother, and passion or obfuscation? Explain your answer. No, for the following reasons: (1) M g W t h e r . -& Billin. of A's brother is s j i e n k . 1) ovocationI it &g i E w e to the commission of these,. qne day hav. . i?g elapsed; (2) it cqu@Aot. be a sax , because a grave ofiense is gne. & w i&es : ' the G h o f a person; and (3) Jmsion or obfuscation cannot be considered in favor of . A, because he . the fact that the in the s&it of revenge,- i i , , c w y h i c h g i v e t o the obfuscation was not immediate t o the c o m n k s h of the & e n. .. otnE i is not mitigating when it arises ,. , r from the spirit of .revenpe. irom the suirit of . . . It mnst a a f r o m I s i t i m a t e ~ _c feeling, ~?L&QDI a f m e or irnrnord. which is v&iom, u . , 549. A was maintaining illicit relations with a married woman. A and that woman went to a moviehouse. While seated

there, E sat on the seat at the other-side of tlie,womy$$ and touched her breasts against her will. A, 'Seeing thats*:%3 B would repeat another act of 1aseivioubness.on~the peIW$ of the woman, stabbed B who died. .as a consequent?: What mitigating circumstance do you find in. 'this e&?,. I.. , . Exohin vour answer. ,..\.,* Incomdete defense of stranger. The act of B in touch-',.; inrr tine breast of the woman against her will arid at&mL+@ : & to m t atlother act of7bv-S i on her is&n, unlawful a g g E s a (People vs. Jaurigue). ; But. the -8,:,;;s de e is not reasonage. It is submitted that A was I not induced hy ' r ,e p resedtment 01 e J i t e , b-eml&Se his mnvose in stabbing B was to d&?d.the woman from . ~ -~~ . r . an attack u r n her k&r. The mitigating circumstance' .' of passion or obfuscation c e b e consi-d in favor; : s n o -A of of A with .the woman 'were: 4 0*. , ~. ., ,e..:.,,, ;:. illegitimate (People vs. Holgado, et al., C.R. NO. L 4 6ps: i . March 31, 1952). . .

',,*,~..3. ,

.~

; :
il'

.i

m,

550. What are the mitigating circumstances which are &&bas4 o u h e diminution of any of the conditions which make the act voluntary? What then is their basis? They are: 1. That the offender had v a n t a r i l v surrendered himself t o a person in authority or his agent. 2. That he had voluntarilv c n ohis guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence f o r the prosecution. They are b x d on the lesser depree of criminal I W

e of the offender.

?.

sufficient irilelligence; (2 also affeet_s i n m e , o-rave offense, and defeet o r -of the o

202

203

CRIllIlNAL LAW REVIEWER

!
i

CRl3IIXhL LAW REVIIEIYER

&@n,

freedom of action. The mitieating circumstances of voluntary surrender and, voluntary plea of'guilty &wLinuaLue e t in t h e a d , & the nerves, or tho moral faeudty of the 0q -. of the b They are & d on , u - which m & -a the conmission of the crime. The Isw ehooaes-to be jeuiei?t_to the offender -~ w & . voluntarilv surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agent who voluntarily confessed his gUiltbefare the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution, b m s e such an act &E . s -r and t& t & u i t indicates a moral d i s n a s i a in the offender farnra l to his &e .
c _ -

& %

or communication with his fellow beings or whick &e of his x u = , thereby a f k t i u g his

reform.

551. As X was a t large and could not be arrested because hi5

,+

'

whereabouts were unknown, the fiscal filed an information. against him for serious physical injuries. The court issued' a warrant for his arrest. Six months after the warrant was issued, A presented himself to the justice of the peace and posted a bond for his provisional release. Is this voluntary surrender, to be eonsidered as a mitigating circumstance? Explain your answer. Ye!;, the fact that the order of arrest had already beem issued is no bar to the consideration of the circumstance, because the law does not require that the surrender of the accused be prior to the order of arrest. Moreover, the surrender of the accused to post a bond for his temporary release was in obedience to the order of arrest and was tantamount to the delivery of his person to the authorities to answer for the crime for which his arrest was or2ered.
Note: The low specifies tho public officers to whom the sur render should be made. If the public officer to whom the offender surrendered is not a person in authority or his agent,. it is not mitigating. I t i not necessary that the offender should look for a person s in authority or his agent to surrender; i t is sufficient that as Soon as he meets a policeman, for instance, he gives himself up. to him. !Phe offender must surrender himself. Suppose that the offender never presented himsdf to the justice of the peace, hut only a bondsman with a hail bond for the offender went to the

.'?% 552. A, who was %vag amtcncc by final judgment for homicide, g s m d from the prison. 'While a t large, A committed Later, A m m s e l f up to the authorities boxye the remaininp Deriod of his e c e for hommckle. Then, he was prosecuted for robbery which he committed after he had escaped from the prison. Is A entitled to the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender? Why? No. A c m t successfdly & b the W t of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, because he did not surr&the authorities h y m ~ the f commission of the c h e for which he was nrosecuted, but a having cv&& his w e for h d d e (see People vs. Semahda, G.R. No. L-11361, Oct. 26, 1958).

justice of the pe6ce n-ho accepted and approved the same, filing of that hail bond tantamount to dolivering himself td authorities? In the case of Peaple 7s. Ye&, the aeeused' sented himself to post a hond. It seems that thia question' not settled. But the law requires that he must surrender him-.;. .,:*I self to a person in authority or his agent.

&&=.

553. Can the circumstance that the accused did not resist arrest or did not struggle t o free himself after he was taken to custody by the authorities amount to voluntary surrender? No. While it is claimed that he intended to surrender, the fact remains t h a t the accused was arrested (People vs. Dimdiman, G.R. L-12622, Oct. 28, 1959).
Note: The offender may have heen actually arrested, but if he (a) helped in carrying his victim to the hospital, or (a) remained a t the scene of the crime and readily gave himself up,' and handed to the poiiceman the weapon he used, he should be given the benefit af this mitigating circumstance (People VB. Bahiera, C.A., 45 0. G., Sup. 5, 3:U; People vs. Parana, 64 Phil. 331).

,554. In what cases is plea of guilty not a mitigating circumstance? 1. When the plea of guilty is made after the presents-.:, tion of any evidence by the prosecution.

204

205

CKIbIINAL LA\V RIWIEWER

CIUPlINAL LAW REVIEFVHR

. .

:.
,

.,.

.
.

2. CVhen the plea of guilty is made in the Court of First Instance in a case appealed from the municipal court. or justice of the peace court. 3. When the plea of guilty is t3 a lesser offense than that charged in the information.
EXF'LANATION: The benefit of that mitigating cimumstance is not deserved by the accused who submits to the law only after the of s a n e evidence for th9 prosecution, helictving that in the end the trial will result in his conviction. Iiut a chansc of plea, from "not guilty" to "guilty" is still mitigating, provided that the prosecution has not presented any evidence. When (he accused pleads guilty on appeal before the Court of First Instance, he wished neither to acknowledge his crime nor t o repent when his fizst opportunity came, that is, during the trial in the municipal o r justice of the peace Court. A plea of guilty to B lesser offense is not a spontaneous confession of guilt which the law requires. But when the information is amended so as to charge the lesser hut proper offense, the plea of guilty to the offense ck:irged in the amended information is mitigating.

required the prosecution to present evidence to prove t& qualifying circumstance. The. prosecution failed to prove evident premeditation. Considering that the prosecution presented evidence. do you believe that A was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty? Explain.
Yes, because although the confession was qualified and introduction of evidence became necessary, the qualification did not deny A's guilt and, what is more, was subsequently justified. It was n o t the fault of A~ that' a qualifying circumstance was erioneously allegecl in the information !People vs. Ytumiaga, 86 Phil. 534).
' ,

. .
'

I ,

.,'.
..

557. Why is it that when the offender is deaf and 'dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect, such circumstance is mitigating? ' Because such physical defect m e - his ,means of ' ' ' a & &, defense, or c.mmun'cation with his sellow beings, thereby diminishing his freedom of s n .
558. Distinguish insanity from illness of the offender. Insanity presupposB e & of - i a t the -f o the eommiss:on of the crime. Illness of the offender only diminishes t h e w h of his;w i t should not deprive him of e o n s c i n m s s of, Insanity is an ge n circumstance. s1 of the offender is only a mitigating circumstance.

While the prosecution was presenting its evidence by Calling its first witness and before the direct testimony of that witness could be finished, A asked t h d the testimOnY . . of said witness be discontinued as he was willing to plead guilty to the offense charged. The court granted the motion of the defendant and ordered the first witness to with.'. 1 draw, ' A then withdrew his former plea of not guilty and r,.l .. pleaded guilty to the offense charged. Is A entitled to the - benefit of plea of guilty? Why? , . . No. Such plea of guilty cannot be given consideration : . as mitigating circumstance'for it was a t e r e d after the ., prosecution had presented part of its evidence (People Vs. Lambino, 55 0. G. 1565).

555. A was on trial for malversation after a plea of not guilty. ...
'

'.

'

u .

. 55F. A

:'

'

prosecuted for murder qualified by evident premeditation. He pleaded guilty when he was arraigned, but manifested to tlce court t h i t evid,ent premeditation did not attend the commission of the crime. The court
was

,. ..

Note: Examples of illness which are eonsidered mitigating circumstance are: (1) mild behavior disorder resulting from ill; ness which the offender had during'h,is early life; (2) acute neurosis which makes D person ill-tempered a n d . easily angered; (8) feeb!emindedness; ( 4 ) morbid infirmity, like that one which gives the offender the ohsession that the killing of a witch , . is f o r public good, because a person suffering from morbid infirmity does not have rea1 control over his wili, although he retains consciousness of his acts; and ( 6 ) . k m a n i a , which is an abnormal, persist.ent imdulse or' tendencv tn rtarl. . .~ l . , " l " When the illnesr,of the offender completely de~rivesb,. of the o e f his will nowe?, i t is embraced in the t m. '' '.' ''. insanity (People vs. Bonaan, 64 Phil. '87):
~~

206

ZOi

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL WW REV~EIVER
I

559. May the court consider, as mitigating, n circumstance not

specifically provided by the Revised Penal Code? Explain your answer. Yes, because paragraph 10 of Art. 13 of the Revised Penal Code provides that other circumstance of a similar nature and analogous to those mentioned in paragraphs 1 to 9 of said Article, is also mitigating.
Note: The other circumstances of similar nature and analogous ta those mentioned in mzrspraphs 1 to 9 of Art. 13 are: 1. Over 60 years old with Sailing sight, as similar to over 70 years of age. 2. V restitutjon of stolen property, as -a to f yoluntary surrender o the offender. 3. Extreme poverty and necessity, as s k i & to incomplete j3stifiention on state of news@. 4 . Any unjust or improper act or eonduct of the,offendad party which may affect the reason and self-control of the offender, like the act of tho debtor o f avoiding his oreditor, causing the latter to injure him, which is of similar nature and analogous to the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation.

4. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves e& stitute a crime specially punishable by lawor which are included hu the law in defining a crime and prescribing a penalty therefor shall not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty. 5. Awravnting circumstances which arise from the m.oral attributes of the offender, or from his private relations with the offended party, or from any other personal cause. ehall only serve t o aggravate the liability of the principals, accomnlices and accessories as t o whom such circumstances are attendant. 6 . The aggravating circumstances which consist in the material execution of the act, or in the means employed to accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate the liability of those persons only who had knowledge of them at the time of the executon of the act or their cooperation therein (Art. 62, pars. 1, 3 and 4, R.P.C.).

660. Wiiat are the effects of the attendance of aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime upon the lia.

bility of the offender? They are: 1 , The specific and the generic aggravating c wcumstances, tn e by any mitigating circumstances, to i w e m the penalty w ,t however, exceeding the m A x a m of the penalty provided by law for the offense. $!. The i n h e r e d aggravating circumstances shall & be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty (Art. 62, par. 2, R.P.C.). 3. The qualifying aggravating circumstances the e&@ its and exclusivo name but also pg & c the thereof in such a situation as t o dewm m o t h e r penalty t h m t sQecifieallv mescribed by law f f said crime. q-

e,

Note: Examples: (1) generic - dwelling, recidivism, nighttime; (2) specific - ignominy in crime3 against chastity, cruelty or treachery in crimes against persons, disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of rank, age or sex, applies evident only to crimes against persons or honor: (3) inherent premeditation is inherent in robberJ; #ex is inherent in rape, seducticn o r abduction; (4) qualifuing - treachery, evident premeditation, or price which qualifies the killing of a persou to murder. Note that dwelling, which is generic in other crimes -like murder-is inherent in certain crimes, like trespass to dwelhnp;, where dwe!ling must of necessity accompany the eammissiorl of the erime of trespass. As murder can be eommitted outside t h e dwelling of the offcended party, dwelling is not inherent in such crime. The aggravating circumstance which in itself constitutes a crime specially punished by law is That the crime be committed by means of fire. I n the crime of arson, such eircumstance is not aggravating. The aggravating circumstance which is included by the law in defininit a crime is dwelling in the crime of robbery in inhabited house (Art. 299, R P C ) .... The aggravating circumstance whieh arises from the moral attribute of the offender is evident premeditation. The aggravating circumstance nhich arises from the private relation of the offender with the offended party is the relation of the scrvant with his master.

208

209

CRINIINAL LAW REVIEWER


The aggravating circumstance which arise3 fyom other personal cause is recidivism. The aggravating circumstance which consists in the material execution of the act o r in the incam ernliloycd to accomplish it is treachery 01. nighttime.

CKlllIlNAL LAW IlEYIEiWER

i. !
!

.,. ., penalty for simple theft, involving the amount of F600,~$$ . ~, only to the n w eriod. ,,,. . ... i ..

,.L.<s

,. . ,

661. A is charged with murder in an information &? ig ?Z n tre-, e as the qualifying aggravating circumstance. During y r
the trial, where the prosecution established the conlmission of murder by A, the defense pgRed a grivilered mitigating that is, that A was, at the time circumstance of &rity, of the commission of the crime, over 15 F a r s but under 16 years of age. Can the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority offset the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery? Explain your answer. No, because notwithstanding the ixivileged mitigating circumstance of minority, the desim&ion & z u&lYLof the offense committed xemains.to be m m and the aualifying- a e of treachery c a a o t the privileged mitigating circumstance of be &-by minority. The &&.&of that privileged mitigating circumstance is to -the penalty for murder by ! % ? d m z
Note: A qualifying aggravating circumstance cannot be offset even by n privileged mitigating circumstance.

563. A policeman, upon seeing the offended party carrying a . n:? automobile tire, stopped the latter, charged him with hav- *, ing stolen it, and threatened him with arrest, unless he 1 would give 85.00, which the person gave to avoid being molested furt.her. The tire was the personal property of the offended party. The policeman, in taking the P5.00 from the, offended party with iintimidation, abused his public position. In case the policeman is charged with, prosecuted for, and convicted of robbery, must the aggravating circumstance that advantage be taken by the offendex of his public position be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty? Explain your answer. No, because in this particular form of robbery, the taking advantape of the public positio_n occupied by the offender is i w in the offense (People vs. Calderon, et al., G.R. No. 35889).
Note:/hhen the threat or intimidation employed by the public officer to commit @b&ry, consists in threatening. the offended party with a r m t and prosecution, taking advantage of his puhlic position is intemal in the offense. Taking advantage of e b l i c Dosition icxso I-i in (1) bribery, (2) f a f n i Art. 171, and (3) malversation. Hence, it does E have the ef&t uf increasing the penalty in those crimes. Taking advantage of public position is an aggravating circumstance and has the effect of increasing the penalty in the following cases: (1) il councilor who imposed and collected fines and misaypropriated the same (US. vs. Tornda, 23 Phil. 18S), (2) a goliceman. in miform who abducted a girl by availing himself of his position (U.S. YS. Yumul, 34 Phil. 169), and (8) the chief of police who duiing the search of a boat threatened the ere.,, with bodily h m snd demanded money, thereby a committing robbery (People vs. Cerdena, et al., 51 Phil. 393).

562. A is charged with sin~pleth,eft of a ring belonging to B and valued at E O O . During the trial, the prosecution p m d that A was a guest in the house of B at the time of the commission of the crime. Can the court convict A

of qualified theft committed with -b s a ue of cunfidenee? Explain your answer. No, because grave abuse of confidence is a aualifying aggraxating circumstance which must be alleged in the infarmation. Since A was charged only w i t h x p l e theft, of grave abuse which i m d e s that there was &legation of confidence, the d o f abuse of confidence should establish o & a ge-ggravating circumstance which, if not offset by a mitigating circumstance, should r&e the

!,

564. A attacked the mayor of his town who was in the performance of his duty. Did A commit the crime with the aggravating circumstance of in contempt of or with insult to the public authority? Explain your answer.
211

210

CizInimAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

No, because that aggravating Circumstance requires


that h&&o is enpaped in the exercise of public fun&n is & m should not b e t h e m n against whom the &e

cumstance would be to give i t double effect (US. vs. De la Torre. 3 Phil. 516). Note: The aceused must have w & l v intended to aftend
or i?m& the s u a @ . o u a n k of the offended party (People
1,s.

.m 565. Classify the aggravating circumstance of with insult or

Mangsant, 65 Phil. 648) ; othenviue, this aggravating eircumstance is not present.

in disregard of rank, age or sex and explain your answer. It is a c-s aggravating circumstance, because it may be taken into account only in u $ - a 9 a i n s t . p l S or honor. It is not annlicahie to c-s~ a~g&&prK!Wty. Thus, s w %e p & of a w even with a et d mrpose of offending ber, is not appravating.
666. In what cases is that aggravating circumstance not con.

sidered present, even if the offended party js a woman, an old man or a person of high rank? Explain your answer. In i.he following cases: 1. When the offender committed the crime with p-i-sion or obfuscation or because of pr-omcation by the offended party. A h e n a man is blinded by passion or obfuscation, or is provoked, he 1s his rsason.~.and self-control, and this beinz a mental condition, he could n & b Y e h a taus t h t his a was done with disrespect to the offended &
p. -

567. Explain why it is aggravating when the &me is epmn&ted in the &yelling of the offended party. There are two reasons why it is aggravating when the crime is committed in the &&ng of the offended party, namely: (I ) when the offender was w b e d in the home of the offended party and the former committed the crime . of c o n f L e ; and . against the latter, t u a a s (2) when the offender forced his w-into the m g of the offended party to e & tke crime therein, there was violi&bn of the sanctitv 0 - w . ~.
~

.Note: A combination house and store is not vs. Magnayc, G.R. L-3510, May 30, 1951),.

dwelling (People

568. In what cases is dwelling not aggravating?

In the following caseo:

1. When the o f f e n w party in his dwelling


f w a n d immediate provocation to 2. When h e b offender and are occupants of the same dwelling. 3 . When dwelling is inherent in . . in r - y wigl-arce upon thin= .d
h $

mfnf

the o m the offended party the crime. such as and in tresnass tQ

2 . When there exists a %elationship n b the offended party and the offender. When there exists a relationship between the offended party and the offender, there is norespect dus to the offended party, e& when the offended party is a relae tive of a hh&~$e.ae than the offender. 3 . When the cad&n of being a woman is in& @e in the commission of the crime, such as, in parricide, rape, abduction, or seduction. Thus, it was held that the only thing which makes the offense parricide is the fact that the deceased was the wife of the defendant. To allow it as an aggravating cir-

EXPLANATION: In the first case, the offended party right to.be respected in hisbecause he ro. v o e t o the o m . But the provocation contemplated has three repisites, nsmely: (1) i t must be given in dwellinp: (2) it must be s w n t ; and (3) i t must he h m m . If any a i these requisites is J t i n g , even if the offended party g a - p n a c a t i o n , the aggravating cireurnstanee of di&iig shall be t h into accoulG for the purpose of inereasins the pcnaliy l o be imposed on the offender. The provocation is disregarded. Thus, if A boxed the face of B 01: the road and immediately thereafter A ran into his house near-by and B followed A

212

213

CRIMISAL LAW REVIEWER into the latters house wherc B killed him, dwelling is still aggravating in spite of the provocation, because it was not given by A in his house. Also, the provocation may be sufficient, like the illicit relations that the deceased had in his house with the wife of the offender, but if the commission of the crime was not immediate to the provocation, dwelling is an aggravating circumstance (People vs. Dequiiia, GO Phil. 279). The prosecution must prove that no provocation was given by the offended party in the latters dwelling. I n the second case, where dwelling i s not aggravating because both the offender and the offended Party are occupants of the same dwelling, the offender m a y be a mere servant in tho house of the offended yarty. Hence, in the case of People vs. Caliso, 68 Phil, 283, this circumstance was not cansidered against the mvant who killed an infant i i i the house of its parents, because the servant was also living there. , d t when the offended party is @ - ~ h c of~ the dwelling, the iaet that the crime was committed against him while in anothers dwelling is not aggravating (People vs. Guhiting, e t al., G.R. No. L-2843, May 14, 1951). The ruling in the GUhiting case is not now authoritative. In the case of People vs. Base, 83 Phil. 622, it was held that d&k&Was-gL@E!!tinc, although the did n hn &J to the v k i h s who were murdered by the w.u&Cd . Tk22&p&oP & L , & S

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWEE

570. Is it necessary for the application of the aggravating circumstance of dwelling that the offender should enter the dwelling of the offended party in committing the crime? Explain pour auswer. No, because the .liur m u i r e s only that the &e d- c in the d w e l l a o f the offended partxi, w e 1 has not given provocation. In committing the crime in the dwellinE of the offended party, it is not necessary that the offender enter it. Thus, the offender on the street who shot his victixn in the latters house committed the crime in the dwelling of the victim. 571. If the unfaithful wife committed adultery in the conjugal dwelling, is dwelling aggravating? It depends. If the paramour is in the same dwelling, it is zg 2 even if it is also the dwelling of the unfaithful wife, because U k s the pf the E i d p a sh~~w her husbai~d,she and her paramour v m the resued due ..to the c a u e a l home and they h a . thereby iniure and commit a v m e offense c 2 the h e a d o f the house. But if the paramour is a k o Mrg in the same hause, aggravating, because both the wife and the dwelling is paramour had a righL t d . i n the house (People vs. Destrito and. De Ocampo, 23 Phil. 28).
672. What aggravating circumstance is present when a father

m>ZiiziGiL

569. X went to the h g% o Y in company with two other perq! sons, hound Y with a cord and, after taking him a hundred meters froni his house, slashed his abdomen with a bolo, resulting in his death. Considering that the crime was committed outside the dwelling of Y, do you believe that dwelling should be taken into account for the purpose of .. increasing the penalty to be imbposed on X? Explain yunr answer. n c of tCe crime Yes. It is s m t that the o the dwellinn of the victim. The & perwas b w i ~ i n formed cannot be divided or the U - r e m g ,f.mn~.& d&ds..he broken UI (US.vs. Lastimosa, 27 Phil. 432).
N01.e: But if the victim was called by the offender and the
victim wont down from his dwelling voluntarily, tho killing of the victim outside of his dwelling was not attended by this agipavatjng circumstance.

/raped

his daughter?

In the m e of U.S. vs. Viloria, 27 Phil. 466, it WBS held that the perpetrator of this h r r i f v i n a crime && I J i - i m w e e r the confjdenee v&h it is natural h b w n daughter sl d repose in him. In the case of People vs. Porras, 58 Phil. 578, it was held circumstance of relationship en -r that the a&rnative taken into consideration as an aggravatinz cir&mstance.
c ~ _ _ ~

573. When a husband took a man into his1 home, furnished him with food and lodging without charge, and treated him like tr a son, but the latter committed adultery with the wifeg 215

214

1 1
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CllIRIINAL LAW REVIEWEli

of the former, what aggravating circumstance attended the commissi,on of the crime?
A & e of confidence, not dwelling, because the paramour also lived in the same house (U.S. vs. Destrito and De Ocampo, 23 Phil. 229).
Note: It should have been obvious ungratefulness, because the M of a w d o a t to be rratefd t o the offelided party i committing a crime against him.

574. Suppose the husband, upon knowing that the man in the preceding question was in love with his wife, sent him out of the house and, when the husband left for his office, tha.t man went to the house and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with the wife, what aggravating circumstance would you consider against that man? Explain your an. .. swer. The aggravating circumstance is . &$ & n, not abuse of confidence. The husband h..&&&.&J P a& his.confidcnce . . of the .. . , illhim, a s shown by the fact that he . .. house upon knowing that the n a n was in love with his wife. The of the aggravating circumstance of :. abuse of confidence are: (1) that the offended uarty.had . _ . tg&aLthe offender; (2) that the offendera-d-such trust by committing a crime against the offended party; and (3) that the abuse of confidence facilitated the mmission of the crime. The first requisite is lacking in that case. The aggravating circumstance that the crime was comL . mitted in the dwelling of the offended party is present, because the man was no longer living in the house when :. : . .. -;o;: the mme of adultery was committed by him and, there. , . . fore, he had no right to be there.

1
1
I

circumstances attended the commission of the crime of grave oral defamation? Must all of -them be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty? Explain your answer. The aggravating circumstances are: (1) that the a e %as committed in the w e of the Chief Executive, (2) his oresenqe, and (3) where public a ~ r i t i e were e u e d s in the dkchaxge of their &ti@. Only m - o f them should be considered for the purpose of increasing the penalty to he imposed on A. Like in mitigating circumstances, one a d the same fact c m t be made the b g of two or more mip & -n y circumstances. There is great= u n to a & this rule in aggravating circumstances because they are unfavorable to the w d .

1
j

676. While the janitor of the Supreme Court was cleaning the Office of the Chief of Justice at six oclock i n the morning, another janitor attacked and seriously wounded the former then and there. Is the fact that the crime was committed in the Office of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court an aggravating circumstance? Explain your Rnswer. No, because the circumstance that the crime was comniitted in the office of the public authorities is aggravating only when the public authorities were engaged in the discharge of their duties in their office when the crime was committed.
Note: But the aggravating circumstance that the crime be committed in a @lace dedicated to religious worship does not require that there be a religious ceremony. And note the use of the ward edicated, meaning that the & e is evclusively u s o r re&ious womhig. A temporary altar built at thT Luneta, even if mass is being said there by a cardinal, i s not a place dedicated to religious worship. Note RlSO that paragraph 6 of Art. 14 requ!!ires that when the offender entered any of the places mentioned there, he r a v e the i&,&ipn t o tn a aiae i n that place. The ruling in the case of People va. Jaurigue should be considered applicable to other places mentioned in that garagraph 6 of Art. 14.

~-

-575. During the meeting of the Council of State in Malacafian Palace, presided over by the President of the Philippines, A, a member fo the Council of State, utte1e.l serious de. . famatory remarks against B, another member. The fiscal, :..... who investigated the complaint of B against A, charged ,. . the latter with grave oral defamation. What aggravating

i
1

216

217

CIZIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

577. When is nighttime, an uninhabited place or by a band an


,

:
, .

.
'

. ,
, .

aggravating circumstance? Any of them is an aggravating circumstance1. When it facilitated the commission of the mime; *, 2. When it is easeially sough_t-fo_r by the offender to insure the commission of the crime o r for the purpose of i s u t y ; or 3. When. the offender t&~~advantage .thereof for the .. purpose of j i .

into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty? Explain your answer. The question of whether or not it was difficult for the offended party to receive help must be considered. In the case of People vs. Rubia, 62 Phil. 172; it was held that the purely accidental circumstances that on t h e . day in question another banca with two persons was about 20 lrrazas from the banca where the deceased was killed did not alter the fact. that it was difficult for the victim to receive help, the incident having taken place at sea.
Note: That the crime is committed in an uninhabited place i s rq&.csA aggravating, because the !solation of jL& t a g t - the 4 n u m e n . ~ ~

'578. When is nighttime not an aggravating circumstance, evert


if the crime was committed dnring nighttime? In the following cases: 1. When the crime was the a t of a succession of. a & which took place within the period of two hours, commencing at 5:OO p.m. and continued up to 7:OO p.m.; 2 . When treach-.x!-_v d- w in the commission of the crime, because -n is a~ ~ . m .. .. in treachery; 3 . When the &ing between the offender and the offended party a t nighttime yas-casual and t h e m f committing the crime came_mtethcmind-of the offender only ' a t that time. The reason for this is thate-n ms not m se W&. Of course, it may be aggravating, if the darkncss f a c i l i b d the %m n&sh-of the c r i m M r that the Qffender tQok ta e
O U

580. Is the aggravating circumstance of by a band applicable

t o crimes against persons? Yes. Despite what has been said in some cases to the effect that it is to be applied only to crimes against property, i t is equally applicable to crimes against persons, such as murder (People vs. Alcaraz, e t al., G.R. L-9064-67, April 30, 1958).

, ~ %

Note: Case No. 3 and the rules mentioned therein apply also t o 1) uninhabited place and (2) by B band. The m e must be C O m m i t t P r l in dcvrknesg. Hence, if there IS &it e in the glace of the commission of the crime, the aggravating circumstance of nighttime is

//'

..

prgaent.

5.79. If in an, uninhabited place there were other persons pass-

ins by when a person killed another, may the circumstance that the crime was committed in uninhabited place be taken 218

-581. A, B, C and D, all armed with piFjtols, raped a woman one after another. What aggravating circumstance, if any, do you find in this case? Ex,plain your answer. None, because "by a band'' is ~ L m R l b k b l e C Z ~ W S to against chastity, like rape (People vs. Corpus, et al., C.A., 43 O.G. 2249). "Abuse of superior strength" ordinarily is not also applicable to the crime of rape or forcible abduction&cause the commissior? of the crime of rape or forcible abduction, which may be %cxmmEshd b a , presupposes suoezioxk-offorce on. the Dart of fenders. But abuse of silperior strength may be present in the commission of the crime of coercion or forcible abduction, if the strength availed of is clearly i m 9f t h o quired for the realization of the&knsg (People vs. Fernando, et al., C.A., 43 O.G. 1717).

__

219

I 1

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

582. Art. 296 of the Revised Penal Code, defining a band committing robbery, provides that When more than three armed malefactors take part in the commission of robbery, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band.

553. Why is it aggravating to commit a crime on the occasion


of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune?

x x x. . Any member of a band who is present at the commission of a robbery by the band, shall be punished a s prhcipal of any of the assaults committed by the band, unless it be shown that he attempted to prevent th,e same. Now, then, in determining the ,proper penalty to be imposed om t.he members of the band who committed robbery with homicide, must the aggravating circumstance that the crime was comniitted by a band be takeu into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty? Explain your answer. Yes, because Art. 296 of the Revised Penal Code does not define a felony. It merely defines a band committing robbery and the liability of any member thereof who is present at the commission of a robbery by a band. This provision should be distinguished from Art. %, 6 ! which & s & hsixandage as.Ltelony. This article provides that when more than three armed persons form a band of robbers for the purpose of committing robbery i n M g h w a y , or lddnapping persons for the purpose of e m o n o r to obtain ransom or for any other purpose to be atbined by means of f&cg..,apl-v&qce, they shall be deemed highway robbers o r brigands-whic his m.nn&$d as an offense. Because of that definition. of brigandage, g-r that there be the formation of a band of robbers by more than three armed persons, the aggravating circumstance of by a baud is iahez:gni. in brigandage, to such a degree that iLrnust of-necessity accompany the co&iian-thereof (Art. 62, par. 2). Thus, in the cases of People vs. Sawajan, et al., 53 Phil. 689, and People vs. Uday, et al., G.R. No. L-1979, Feb. 16, 1950, i t was held that in the imposition of the penalty for robbery with homicide, the aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed by a band should be taken into consideration.
tI. i. .

When any of such misfortune occurs, it is easier both to commit the crime in the midst of the confusion whieh danger always produces, and to escape from the hands of justice. It also shows a debasetlferm of cximinality on the & p of the Qf.&ez who, in&e.ad of renderinp help to the a = , si n their afflictiqn by t m advantage of their midortune to wrong them. 554. A committed theft of government property u p m assurance by the mayor of the toivn that he would not be arrested and punished for it, as in fact the mayor saw to it that no policeman would patrol near the place. What aggravating eircwustance attended the commission of the crime? That the & e conunittgd with the aid of person who insored or afforded impunity, Impunity means freedom from punishment.

wv

585. In what cases is aid of armed men riot to be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty? In the following cases: 1. When both the attacking party and the party attacked were equally armed; 2 . When one offender, as well as those who cooperated with him in the commission of the crime, acted under the same plan and for the same purpose.
586. When is aid of armed men absorbed in by a band,

and when can it be taken separately a s another aggravating circumstance? When the offenders are more than f.hree, all armed, and they actively cooperated in the commkion of the crime, the aid of armed men is absorbed in by the band (People vs. Piring, 63 Phil. 548). But ,when the offender secured the services of armed men to commit the crime, that offender committed the crime with the aid of armed men (People vs. Ilane, G.R. No. 4590% May 31, 1938). 221

, ~

>!~ ,,.,,.

220

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER


I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

587. May a person convicted of a crime punishable under aspecial 1a.w be declared a recidivist if at the time of h i s
trial he had been previously convicted by final judgment of the same crime? Explain your answer. No, because a recidivist is one who, at the time of his. trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same. title of the Revised Penal Code, not of a special law.
Note: But the second eonvictim of the same offense was considered aggravating in n usury ease. The Usury Law i s a special law. Art. 10 of the Code was applied (People Y. E. HodEcs, 68 n i l . 178).

588. When a person has been convicted of and served sentences for several crimes and is now convicted of a new crime, what are the aggravating circumstances that may possibly be taken into account for the purpose of increasing t h e . penalty to be imposed on him? To what extent may t h e penalty be increased? 1. If the f and the sycond. offenses are emb.?&c$d m in the sa_me title of the Revised Penal Code, he is a red-u t ~&=c.on of the secanddffense. 2. If the first and the second offenses are not embraced in the same title of khe Revised Penal Code, but the convict Qreviouslm.rv.ed s e n h x e for the f a t offense .t to which the attaches an e ~ i a l grecter penalty , or r for two o r more crimA to which it attaLhes a l k h i g ... 'L =then there is ?&@zw&n or habitnality. 3. When the s&exeaLcrimes for which h.e sen. " tences are s o r l ~ s _ s e r i o u s~ h ~ j ~ a l - i n j d rnhes, k y , t&f.t, estafa or f&sWio_n, the semnd and s & w n t camktions are wifhin.-ten..yw.rs fmm the I& c ~ ~ Y & L o J ~ r x l ~ e and is naw convicted of any of s3.W or , crimes the thirrlLime or-_oftener then he is a h a b i b a t delinquent.
I,

ginning to serve such sentence or uW~rwring the same, there is qu.+s.i,re.cidivism, Recidivism and reitzracion o r habituality, which are generic aggravating circumstances, have the effect of increasing the penalty to the maximum period, if not offset hy a mitigating circumstance. Habitual delinquency, which is an extra-ordinary aggravating circumstance, usually includes recidivism and it not only increases the penalty to the maximum, if recidivism is not offset by a mitigating circumstance, but also authorizes the imposition of additional penalty. Quasi-recidivism, which is a special aggravating circumstance, serves to increase the penalty for the new felony to the maximum period, regardless of the presence of any ordinary mitigating circumstance. In other words, quasirecidivism cannot be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance.
589. A previouslv served sentence for !%%+-serious physical in-

juries, punishable by arrest0 mayor. He is m c o n v i c t e d of estafa, punishable by prision curreccional. What aggravating Circumstance do you fins in this case? Explain your answer. could not be reiteraciolt There is m e , became, -it or habituality since the ?aen&L&tWd to t h e & & offense is .r 1 thmA?a& f o r h e mB o & ~ e ;and, Qd . second, it could not be recidivism since estafa and physical injuries are not embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code.
EXPLANATIOX: In & ~ b - , o r m t y , the convict s -, e t0 muot hsvo previously served s e w for a which the law a& @@ at ls&t an esual penalty; natlesser, as in We problem given. The penalty which the convict pre.iiously served may be lighter, but he must previously serve sentences for at least two crimes to which the law attaches lighter penalty.

4. When the person oz._tr_iaj, for one crime been convicted by finaLaudgment of another crime, and t h e crime for which he is a t r i a l was committed befoE be-

$90. A previously served the minimum period of reclusion tem-

poral, as the maximum of the indeterminate penalty, for


223

222

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIRllNAL LAW REVIEWER

rapc, upon a plea of gnilty. Now A i s couvicted of homicide. Since there is no mitigating circuiastance that attended the c~mmissionof th'e crime of horntcide, he penalty of reclusion temporal for homicide will have t o he imposed, in the period higher than the min'mnm. Is there habituality or reiteracion in this case? Why? Y e s , there is still reiteracion or habimality, because the penalty attached to the crime of rape and the penalty f o r homicide are the same (equal penalty), that is, yeelusion temporal. It is the penalty attached..to the oj%nse that s h d d he considered, notAhe penalty actually imposed. after having conceived the idea of killing C, looked B the next day and, upon meeting him, offered B P1,OOO to kill C. As soon as he accepted the offer, R took a hand grenade with him and when he saw C , B threw .the hand grenade at him. When the hand grenade cxplodf!d, C was killed. A gave P1,OOO t o B after the latter assured the former that C was already killed. What aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the crime? Against whom must they be considered? Must each o f them be taken into account separately ils a distinct aggravating circumstance for the purpose of increasing the penalty? Explain your answers. The aggravating circumstances that attended the commission of the crime are (1) that the crime was committed in consideration of a price, reward or promise; (2) that the act was committed with evident premeditation; and (3) that the crime was committed by means of explosion. There is evident premeditation in this case as regards A, because the time when A determined to commit the crime was known. A had conceived the idea of committing the crime the day before he offered E P1,OOO to kill C. A performed acts manifestly indicating that he clang to his determination to commit the crime, when he offered P1,OOO to B the next day after be had conceived the idea of killing C. Hence, there was sufficient lapse of time
for

between the determination t o commit the crime and its execution during which A could $&e@* the eonaequence of his act. Th.e aggravating'cireum~anceof evident premeditation, which arose from the r n d a e t e of the offender, being a&endant to A only, should senre to aggravate his liability, but it will riot aggravate the liability o i E, because evident premeditation was not attendant t o him (Art. 62, par. 3 R.P.C.). , qsfar_a,S_A..~-c.~~cer!led, a c 4 w d i R g circumstance the of BNnqd o r .ixomis-e. i W&illSd&&ai.~g~i~&&?n. It may be CQQ&%! as c& % QL ! :i@ the seeond _element of evident- prenieditation. But prim, reward or promise is aggravating as against 5 , because he earnmitted the crime in consideration thereof. The aggravating circumstance that the crime was comi ~ t e d e a n s . . o .explosion (the use of hand grenade) e & ! should be comidered agcdnst-B, he h & the o s w_ho uy $n. -&-s It c m be taken int.0 aceaunt for the purpose of i n c w i n g the penalty to be imposed on A, if the latter had lmaq&dge that the hand grenade would be u s e d h p B . But from the facts stated in the question, there is n a d k a t i o n that A knew th.at B would use a hand grenade, as they n-exer..t&Ced about the W w Y&h which B would kill. .C. Aggl'avating circumstances which consist in the material execution of the act, or in the means employed to accomplish it, shall serve t o aggravate the liability of those persons only who had kwxledge of them a t the time of the exe.cution-of the & or thAL3DR-B therein (Art. 62, par. 4, R.Y.C.).

%-.

592. When is the aggravating circumstance of price, reward or promise to be considered against the person who gave or offered it, and when is it to be taken into account only against the offender who received or accepted i t ? When it is alleged as a qiJalifying aggravating circnmstance of murder and there is an allegation of conspiracy, i t being an elemeiit of that offense, it shall affect both of them. In case of conviction both of them will be liable for murder, qualified by price, revard or promise. 225

224

l i

!
?
CIIiMIKAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

But when it is not alleged in the inforniation or, even if alleged, it is_pnly a generic aggravathg circumstance, it shall affect Znly the principal by direct participation: because he was the one who committed the crime in consideration of price, reward or promise,

,i

5 3 Art.. 14, par. 12, of the Revised Penal Code, providing for 9.
another aggravating circumstance states, "that the crinte be committed by means of inundation, fire, po:son, ex. plosion, stranding of a vessel or intentional damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice involving great waste and ruin." Now, then, when is this aggravating circumstance qualifyittg, inherent or one which in itself constitutes a crim,e or which is included by the law in defining a crime? State the effect of each upon the criminal liability of the offender. It is qualifying when t!le crime committed is against persons and the offender uses inundation, fire, poison, explosion, or any of the other means mentioned in paragraph 12 of Art. 14, to kill his victim. In this case, the killing of a person is qualified to murder. The penalty is that one provided for murder. Once any of the means mentioned in Art. 14, par. 12, is considered to qualify the killing of a person t o murder, it becomes an inherent aggravating circumstance in murder o r included by law in defining a crime and shall not be taken into account again for the purpose of increasing the penalty (Art. 62, par. 2, or par. I, R.P.C.). When any of the means mentioned in Art: 14, par. 12, is used to commit a crime against property, like arson, crimes involving destruction, or special cases of malicious mischief, it in itself constitutes a crime specially punished by law or which is included by the law in defining a crime and, therefore, it shall not he taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty (Art. 62, par. 1, R.P.C.). ~. . If there is no intent to kill on the part If the offender, F; but inundation, fire, poison or explos'on is wed as a means ;$.:'to commit a crime, and a person is Billed as a consequence, 226

the use of such means does not qualify the crime to murder. It is a compiex mime, either (1) of crimes involving destruction with homicide under Art. 48 in relation to Arts. 3 2 i a n d 219, when explosion or inundation is used, or (2) of arson -with homicide (U.S. vs. Burns, 41 Phil. 418). The penalty to be imposed is the penalty for the mose serious offense, to be applied in the maximum period.

594. A decided to kill B on May 29, 1959. On May 30, A killed 13. Is there evident prenieditation in this case? Explain your answer. No, because these was n g _ e x t m a L a t between t h e time A determined to commit the crime and the time he actually committed the crime. The premeditation must be h;iseri on e mLww.zm& from &time. en & mdfe.stlW&in.g- that the d p i t has clung to his d&exmination to cnmmit the crime.
595. Is evident premeditation aggravating in aherratio ictus? No. Fhick' ion m s h b e properly_takpn

i g u c s u t when the person whcm the defendant intended to kill was d s f r a m the one who became his victim. In such^ case, the. a&aL.u- '-tim was mLw&np plated in the s?r_emdihkion.
EXPLANATION f l ident premeditation may be considered a5 present, even if person other than the intended victim was killed, if it is shown that the offendem were &exnu&' t e k i y nataaly the intended victim but also a who ,It& p& n vi&RJLwand tho actual victim w s one a who would have helped the intended victim put a violent resisL ance (People vs. Ubina, G.R. No. L49G9, Sept. 1 1955). , It is not necessary that there be a plan to kill a particular pei2mi (CS.vs. Manalinde, 14 Phil. 77; U.S. YS. Zalsos and Rogmac, 40 Phil. 90). Zvident premeditation is i& in r u y (People v a d Daos, 60 Phil. 143), especially where it is committed by various Perso1is, became they must have an ng.reernent, they have to meditate and reflect on the manner of carryins out the crime and they have to irct-cudpa tely iL ' l ed (.Peop!e vs. Valeriano, et a . G.R. No. L - z l S g m ) . l,

227

l i

I
f

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER


Known premeditation is inherent or implied in estafa, adultery and other similar crimes (US.VS. Blaneo, 10 Phil. 298; U.S. v i . Hermosilln, 31 Phil. 406).

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWIER tion of outhority to gain entrance into the liouse where offender committed acts of Issaiviousness. F m d - U.S. vs. Vnndal, 3 Phil. 8!3 - inducing victim to go down to the lower story of his house, pretending to be buying wine stored there and when victim went down then and there killing him. Diaguise - by resorting to any devise to conceal identity before committing the crime, f i e eggravating circumstance of disguise is twhen the offender is reragnized 1 - u the d w e .

596. A courted the maid of the house of B to enable him to

enter the.t house. During the second meeting with the maid in the house and when the maid had already confidence in him, A stole money and jewelry of B. What aggravating circumstance attended the cornmission of the crime? Explain your answer. C d t , because A r m to i ? & d m w and i the house cvnning to induce the m a i d t o n of B.
Note: It cannot be &bus* of confidence, bec%&%eBd b &
w= Q. '

eejnit.

697. How is the aggravating circumstance of employing fraud

in the commission of the crime distinguis5ed from that of craft?

598. A, a big and husky fellow, in the heat of anger attacked B, a small and weak man, causing upon the latter serious physical injuries. Is the aggravating circumstance that advantage was taken of superior strength present in this case? Extplain your answer. No, because A attacked B while he was in the heat of anger and, therefore, he could not have taken advantage of his superior strength. . n o -t e of superior strength means t o puruosely excessive force o w . pLpMrtian to tlie m n o &&f . uraih& to the person attacked. 599. Is the mere fact that the offender is a man and the victim is a woman an aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior 8trengt.h in murder? No. The aggravating circumstance of abuse o f superior strength should not be taken into account just because the defendant is a man and the deceased is a woman, inasmuch, as this aggravating circumstance is inherent in the crime of m w d w (People vs. Mangsant, 65 Phil, 548).
Note: When the crime committed i murder qualified by abuse s of superior strength, it having qualified already the crime, i t shall not be taken into account to raise the penalty to the maximum. If murder is qualified hy trcaehery, abuse of superior strength is absorbed i r treachery. But the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength is present when a man attacked a woman with B weapon and the charge is homicide 01' physical injuries, be. cause his sex and weapon save the offender snperiority of strength and it is not inherent in the crime.

or
a manner as to make it easier for the offender t o commit the crime. Thus, if in the preceding problem, A told the maid that he was an employee of the Meralco and that he wanted t o get inside the house t o read the meter and because of his said representations, which were false, ne was allowed to enter the house and once inside, A at the point of his revolver succeeded in taking money and jewelry from the wardrobe of B, the owner of the house, the aggravating circumstance that fraud was employed in committing the crime of robbery with intimidation would be present.
Note: Craft U.9. vs. Gampona, 36 Phil. 817-inviting the victim to n distant mountain to see a tree of peculiar virtue and once there killed the victim; People VS. Daos, et al., 60 Phil. 143-pretending to be a passenger and once in the taxicab a t a certain place robbed the driver of the money in his pos' session: People vs. Timbol, C.A., 41 O.G. 1869 -assuming posi-

228

229

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

600. A and B, helping each other, attacked and iajdred C with fist blows. Is the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength present in this case? ' Therebeing uuhmymz of the d a i i q e plqisiealstrength b e b e s n - h and B, on one hand, and C, on the other, their e x r-i doesno& n s ea c& @ impLr abuse O f . 3 L p X i W h.
Note: But the greater number of aggressors, if armed, may point to abuse of superior strenpth. Nighttime, craft or fraud and abuse of Superior strength are inhe.r.4 or rbsnrhed in ts%~!%rY, Abuse of su,perior strenglli, ordinarily, is not aggravating in coercion, rape or forcible abduction, because these crimes presuppose the employment of force v js 1theresisti u of the offendehllarty, but when the abuse of superjor ' strength is great1v.h e x ~ ~ s . . o f c t b armshd t t w the O&JW, it i s aggravating. . Thus, abuae of superior strength .was considered by the Supreme Court in the commission of rape by four men who employed force and intimidation (U.S. VS. Camiloy, 3 Phil. G 767), and in the commission of forcible abduction by several abductors (People VS. Fernando, 44 O.G. 177).

of a m t -a by the accused was deliberately rho= by him with a sgecial view to tine accomnlishment of the act withoEsisk.to himself arisinp from the defense which the person attacked might make.
602. A, who wanted to commit acts of lasciviousness on B, a woman, suddenly and unexpectedly approached her from behind, grabbed her by placing his two arms around her waist, and then held her breast and her private parts. Must treachery be considered i n this case? Explain your answer. No, beause -t agnlies o n k t o crimes against p ,to a C r h e & cf?a&, like acts o f s not civiousness. Art. 14, par. l G , in defining this aggravating circumstance, states that t u t - r e r y fender commits &=of the crimes a b t the uerso_n, etc.
603. May the aggravating circumstance of treachery be present

u -

'

.
...

,.

601. A was found dead with a stab wound in the baclc. Accord. ing to the doctor who performed an autopsy, that stab v o u n d was the cause of death. B was suspected and in-

vestigated. B confessed to the authorities that he stabbed A in the back. Did B kill A with treachery? Explain your aitswer. The mere fact that the deceased had wounds in the back does not necessarily show that the accused attacked him from behind, giving the deceased no chance to defend himself, so as to bring the offense within the definition of the crIme of murder qualified by treachery (People vs. Embalido, 68 Phil. 152). In the case of People vs. Cafiete, 44 Phil. 478, the deceased received a~fatal thrust with a knife in the hack, and yet treachery was not considered against the accused. h e f o r e treachery can be found to be present in the killing of a person it must d a r l v muear t h a t t h e w 230

even if the assault was made face to face? Yes. The fact that the attack was made face t o face does not necessarily imply that there was no treachew. When the a a k was sudden &A unexpected, there is treachery if the offender puruoselv - that method ad&e_d or form of attack, as when it was done under the auiqe pf friendship. Bat when the offender Qted nuon a & & e whj& prodiiced passion ?r obfuscation, there can be n-achery, becaiise the method o r form of attack could mLha~% m - y adouted, h.e having & his m h.e.en I ,s~,.and self contl.01 ~ ~ ~ . s ~ , o y ~ o h f u s c a t i ~ . ~604. A killed I by shooting the Iatter_suddenIy and-unexpeetedly 3 immediately after B Itad gravely insdted A. Is there treachery in this case? W y ? No, because when the accused committed a crime veith passion orshfuscation, the offender e dd.i&p ately chosen that method of attack.
605. A, in the heat of anger, shot at a woman with

a child in her ann. The child, who was hit, died as a consequence. Is there treachery in this case?

231

I 1

'

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIlEWER

While it is a rule that killing a child is characterized by treachery, because the weakness of the victim due to his tender age results in the absence of any danger to the offender, yet when the offender, as in this case, committed the crime in the .heEf..anger, he c~?@d.~_npt have -. been conscious of the defenseless condition o f the child.
I .

Requisites of t r s u c k w : 1. !rhat the crime committed is at mers0ne. such as killing or injuring a person &hut iustifiahlaaw; 2. 'Chat when the victim is attacked, he must be defenseless, ihat is, he is n in a oositiox t o make a defeng; and & 3 . That the-!, method or-ef attack must b-&: e&& chosen by t h e f e n d e r .

him. In this case ignorr.iuy was considered, although t crime was against persons. (2) Embracing and kissing a ysoung woman ' &many ,so is unjust vexation or r s c i o n , hut -n iy c was considered. (3) Less serious physical injuries is qualified and the penalty is made higher by the attendance of i m n y .

606. Can treachery be considered in aberratio ictus? Explain your answer. Yes, because when there is treachery, it is ,impossible. a tl . victim t u l e f o r s h z r the e d e d victim or the @ fgden-himmself against the aggression.
607. When is the circumstance of ignominy present in the commission of a crime? Illustrate the circumstance of ig-

609. In what crimes is the aggravating circumstance of nnlawfnl entry inherent? Why? In (1) qualified trespass to dwelling by passing through the window (W.S. vs. Barberan, 17 Phil. 609) and (2) robbery with force upon things committed in inhabited house, because in these crimes unlawful entry is the specific and essential element.
,

nominy. The circumstance of ignominy is present when GI are employed or circumstances brought about, tending tp -nr the o e f the crimenr or to & the offended party to shame. Raping the wife in the presence of her husband (US. vs. Iglesia, 21 Phil. 6 5 ) ; raping a woman in front of her .' betrothed (US. vs. Casafias, 5 Phil. 377); and removing 5,: '. the drawers of an old woman to compel her to confess . to the theft of clothes (People vs. Fernando, C.A., 43 'i,. O.G. 1'71'7).
I' .

N o t e : There is unlawful entry whcn entrance into the house where the crime is committed is effected through an opening not intended for the purpose. The aggravating circumstance of breaking of a wall, rcuf, floor, door or window is inherent niso in robbery with force upon things and in qualified trespirss t o dwelling. This aggravating circumstance is present in rape or murder, or robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons if it is committed in the house of the offended party after breaking a part of the house. This aggravating circumstance is not inherent in those crimes.

t:.
'

608. Is ignominy as an aggravating circumstance applicable only to crinies against chastity? No. In other crimes, ignominy was considered: . (1) A with a pistol in hand made E, a rich and promi: ihent person, kneel in front of his servants and then killed

810. May the aggravating circumstances of nnlawful entry and dwelling be taken separately? Yes. Where it appears that the accused made his entrance into the house of another bj. forcibly opening a hole in the wall of the kitchen thereof, and then and there shot and wounded a person inside, the circumstances of unlawful entry and dwelling may be properly taken separately against the offender (People vs. Mutya, G.R. L-11255-66, September 30, 1959).
611. Explain why it is aggravating when the crime is committed with the aid of persons under 15 years of age.

232

233

1 1
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

i
I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

The purpose of the law is to.repress,so far as possible, the frequent practice resorted t o by professional criminals t o avail t.hemselves of minors takins adva!&a&e of their jrresponsibility.

-__--

long the suffering of his victim, is mLmfi&nt fbrdaking ' this simxnda.nce i-muidwdion (People vs. Dayug, e t a1.j.
Note: The first requisite of cruelty is lacking.

612. Explain why it is aggravating when the crimc is committed by means of motor vehicles, airships, or other similar means. The purpose of the law is to &emaat the w e d by m n d m r i m i n a l s in saLmeans to eomf a e 3 mit crimt-and flee and abscond O B the same is c m -

' \

-m E

mjtted.613. A, who hired and used a taxi and while inside thereof with his girl friend, stabbed and killed her. Is the use of motor vehicle an aggravating circumstance in this case? Yes. Tile crime was p e r n e t r a t d i n a LaLwhich was hirehandxsedh&A (People vs. Marasigan, 70 Phil. 583).
614. Define cruelty and state its requisites as an aggravating
1

circumstance. There is cruelty when the culprit &mr&and-delights in making his victim s ~ s ~ . s l o w anbxadually, causing ly him unnecessary physical pain in the e mation of the criminal act. The ~,&iLes o f cruelty are: 1. That the injury c a ~ & be deliberately i n m a d by c m i g other_wrong; 2. That the other w a n p be unnecessary for the execntion of the purpose of the offender.
~

615. A repeatedly and without let-up stabbed B with a knife, inflicting various wounds on the different parts of the latter's body. Is there cruelty? The mere fact of inflicting various successive wounds upon a person in order to cause his death, map.px&c.a&le time i n t g v r v p g e e s p the infliction .of one-xamd and t h a t o f a d k - t o show that the offender wanted to pro234

f
i
I

,616. What aggravating circumstances are those which cannot exist if the offender lost his reason and self-control due to provocation or passion or obfuscation? Exp!ain your answer. They are: 1. That the crime be committed with insult o r in dis/ regard of the respect due the offended party on account o f his rank, age or sex; 2 . That advantage be taken of superior strength; 3. Treachery ; 4 . Cruelty. These aggravating circumstances casMtexlst if the ' offender 10s.s~ rna d his - . n s&&&due to pwryaciltion os passi.?n o_r obfuscation, because in disregard of the respect due the oifended party, the offender must_delibecat& insult,.or d h e g a d t h e m age. or rank. of the offended narty : in abuLof-.auxerbLS.krn&.h, the offender -~ must & & pmalie use of excessive. force put ucouortion to the means.-pf d e ~ i k t o k offended the . party; in t m k e x y , the offender must eg5s-w adoDt articular+means,>rn-d_or f o m a f attack that would p__-.insure the e e u $ o n of the crime without risk to himself arising froin the defense which the offended party might make; and in c_r?Jey, the a i f a d e r must i Iong-the suifesing of the victim. On the other hand, if the offender I m h i s reason and self-control due to provoca.tion or passion or obfuscation, he ct a h x t - & d deliberately, gurnosel,~, consciously, o- & .& in ga .

_-

617. What are the alternative circumstances? Why are they called alterriative circumstances? 235

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

They are relationship, intoxication or -of

tion and education of the offend&(Art. 15, R.P.C.). They are called alternative circumstances, because they are &&r mitignting o r w a v a t i n g circumstances, acedins+ to. the .w natureand effect of the crime and the o attendirg its commission.

mI

,I
1)

618. A s a e the ring of his nephew who was then living with him. When prosecuted for theft, A contended that in view of his relationship with the offended party, he should be given the benefit of the alternative circumstance of relationship which, in this case, was mitigating because he was a relative of a higher degree than the offended party and that th,e crime comnlitted by him ivas against property. Is the contention of A tenable? Ex'plain your answer. No, because the alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration when the offended narty is the i m , ascendant, descendant, legitimate, naturai, or adopted- brother^ or sister, or relative .by afinity in the same degrees &-the affender The relation of uncle and nephew is n o t e d by any of the relationships mentioned.

Note: The relationship of stepfather a r stepmother and stepson or stepdaughter is ic&&d by~.analogy, as sHl&r to that of a s a t - a n d descendant. The relationships of adopted father or mother, adopted ?an or daughter, and adopted brother or sister are also included.

Relationship is mitigating in crimes against property, whether the offender is a relative of a higher degree or he is a ieir.tive of a iower degree than the offended party. Relationship is aggraraating in crimes a p i n s t m in cases whcre the offended party is a r&t~.e-of-a-kigher dzgree than the offender or when the offender and the offended party are relatives of the same level, as killing a brother o r brother-in-law. The exceptions are (1) when the deceased contracted adulterous relations with the wife of his brother-in-law mho killed him, and (2) when the cause of the maltreatment which resulted in the death of his brother-in.iaw was the desire of the accused to render service t o his relative. In these cases, relationship is mitigating, even if the offender and the deceased a r e relatives of the same level, because of the conditions attending the commission of the crime. The fact that the offend& party is a relative of a I?w>r-depree than the offender is mitigating in crimes against persons only when the crimes committed a r e & gc!e.or less grave felonies. Thus, if the serious physical injuries are inflicted upon any of the persons mentioned in the definition of the crime of parricide, such as the child of the offender, relationship is aggravating. Also, the killing of a step-daughter by the step-mother is aggravating, even if the deceased is a relative of s lower degree than the offender.
621.

Ie what crimes is relationship a&s.aggravating?

Why?

619. When is relationship neither mitigating nor aggravating? Relationship is neither mitigating nor aggravating when __ it is &herent in the crime, such as in r)arric!ide, adultery, or :on.c.!bj.n,?ge w_here._the o f f e n M m & y is the.3-e.
620. When is relationship mitigating and when aggravating?

//
l

Relationship is always aggravating in crimes against

,.I'
,,
'

_chastity, regardless of whether the offender is a relative

of a higher degree or he is a relative of a lower degree .I than the offended party, becawe..o:K thenature.and_e#ect . of the crime.

Relationship is mitigating in erimes-.against property by ag&sy to the provisions of the Revised Penal Code (Art. 332) which exempt from criminal liability certain relatives who qomlxted theft, swjhdling or malicb.n.s_misc h z ag@t--a.n?&er.

F22. The father stole the money of his Son, which was the latter's salary as an employee. Is relationship in this case mitigating? Why? No, because under Art. 332 of thc Code, Y. .!.c & and no criminaldiakiLity, when the crime committed &

236

237

CIIIDIINAL LAW REVIEWER

CIIIMINAL'LAiW REVlEWIIR

fsther agginst his-~son, vice versa, is either&& or an exempting CireUmStance? R m p is an e_xempting circumstance when the &me of &&, -S or malicious mischief is c a b m:tted or caused mutually by the following JEX~E: , or r&&i.xe$. 1. S & o ascendants and - d bz affinity in the same line; 2. The widowed spouse with respect to the QZQi?ZtY which b&&d to the deceased saouse -the Same shall have passed into the - d e r ; and

G.R. No. L-11568, March 30, 1959). Hence, intoxkation in this easa is a mitigating circumstance.
626. A, vue intoxicated and with uasshn nr obfuscation,.attacked and seriously injured B. What effect have the htoxication and the passion or obfuscation upon the criminal liability of A? Explain your answer. The intoxication of A is -& . to be accidental, that is, not habitual; there being no evidense i u h* & t or intentional. . be The circumstance of passion o r obfuscation c considered separately and indeuendently from drunkenness, since drunkenness n e c e s s a r i l y m i - a disorder i n h e qentalfaculties of a person (People vs. Baterna, 40 P h i l 996; People vs. Austria, 50 Phil. 5 3 5 ) . Hence, the two c i m a n r e s of -n o i and pasion or o b f u s c a G circumstance should be c o e e d as --e

i& n,

'.

--

3. B x o w a n d and brothers-in-law a n d d if livlna tozether. (Art. 332, R.P.C.)

624. When is intoxicatm a mit.igating circumstance and when is it an aggravating circumstance? Intoxication is mitigating (1) when it is n o t habitual or- (2) when it is -subsequent to the.J?&&to GQlBBi$

&. -_

rIntoxication is e(1) when it is lah ;i e c i r m g '

or

(2) when it is intentional, that is, subsequent to the plan to commit the crime.
Note: When intoxication is hahitux!- The fact that the accused had heen drinking liquor for seven months and that he had heen drunk once or twice Q m o n t h does not show that the intoxication is habitual. But it is not necessary that it be continuous OX of daily occurrenee (People YS. Amenamen). I t would seem that the offender must be intoxicated most of the time.

627. Does the that a person who committed a crime is h t e establish a low degree or l a m i o n so as E o his criminal liability? No, because nav -c alone, b . lack of suffic@t intelli~ence, are necessary to b e e the of the alternative circumstance o f lack of instruction.
Note: A person able to sign his name but so donsely ignorant and of such low intdligenee that he does not fuliv ' e the -i this consequences-of a criminal act, may still he et mitigating circumstance. /.ow dep.rekor lack of instrueti n is not rnitiaatiria in crimes against pr&, like arson, and in crimes n e a i u t a , like rape or acts of lasciviousness. In treason and homicide or murder, the ~ u l eis not settled.

625. The trial court found that the two defendants were drunk at the time of the commission of the crime. Is intoxication an aggravating circumstance in this case: Drunkenness is an alternat've circumstance which can m ~ . ~ . b intentional, but it be considered as aggravating if habituali or s e n c e . ~ ~ o f , mitigatigg if n-td presumG 'that the drunkenness in this case was but accicknt& (People vs. Dacanay, e t al.

628. Is lack of instruction a mitigating circumstance in the crime of murder or homicide? In the case of People vs. Talok, et al., ti5 Phil. 696, and People vs. Mantala, et al., G.R. L-12109, October 31, 1959, it was held that lack 'of instruction is mitigating in murder. In the esse of People vs. Hubero, 61 Phil. 64, it was held that it is mitigating in homicide.
239

238

' I'
CHIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
CRIMINAL LAW REYIEWEI(

,,' ,

But in the case of People vs. Mutya, G.R. L-11255-56, September 30, 1959, i t was held that l & k X & d u d K n and ' i-kion cannot mitigate the a o f the offender who committed m r e&s ud r -e t o i s forbidden bv natural -- which every rational being is endowed to&!! law aAd feel.
c _

D is a principal by inducement, because he directly induced others t o commit it: and E. is a principal by indispensable cooperation, because he cooperated in the commission of the offense by another act without whic,h it would not h m . k @ a a ' d (Art. 17, R.P.C.).
632. A made a bet of 85.00 with B on a cockfight. The latter havinp refused t o pay the amount thereof which the former Claimed to have won, il dispute arose between them which resulted in a fight. When the fight began, A held B by the hand. C , son of A, seized the front p r t of B's shirt and D, another son of A, came upon the scene and with a pen knife gave B a thrust In the abdominal region, causing B's death sometime thereafter. Are A, G and D principals in the crime committed? Explain your answer. No, only D is principal by direct participation in the crime committed which resulted in VS death. A and C are not responsible for the consequences of the wound inflicted u ~ o nthe deceased by D, because there are no facts stated showing - , A C and D had a e r s d UJ g; but on the contrary i t a r s $j& A and C h a n o t k3 t h a w o u l d stab B when they held the latter. There was po conspiracx among A, C and D, because the f t % . was brouzht abo& by B's refusal to Day A, and, tinerefore. the three c u hDe agreed and decided to kill B.

629. Who a.re criminally liable for felonies? Explain why ac. cessories are not liable for light felonies. Principals, accomplices, and accessories are liable for ' . Principals and accomplices and less -a are liable f 'w (Art. 16, R.P.C.). & c m are M e for I&ht felonies, because the gcial wrong as well as the u d i urejudice small that penal sanction is deemed g&L.WSW&

--

' I

630. If a corporation violates a criminal law, are all its officers criminally liable? Explain your answer. As a general rule, the president or manager, or the directors of a corporation are criminally liable for their acts though in their official capacity, if they participated in the unlawful act either directly or as aider, abettor or accessory, but are not liable criminally for the corporate a d s performed by other officers or agents thereof. Thus, if an agent of a partnership in his official capacity caused the death of a person because of his negligence, only he is liable, but not the manager of the partnership (People vs. Montilla, C.A., 62 O.G. 4327).
Note: Corporation could not have committed a crime in which a vilfull ~urmpseo r malicious intent or nediiaence is reymired.

PI

631. A, B, and C forcibly abducted a girl, in consideration of a sum of money given t o them by D, using a car driven
by E, said car being the only available means of transportation in the place of the commission of the offense. What kind of principals are A, B, C, D, and E? Why? A, B, and C are principals by direct participation, because they took a direct part in the execution of the act;

EXPLANATION: A and C are not principals by direct participation in tho crime committed by D, because there was no unity of purpose and intention among them, as the mere act of holding tlic hand and the front part of the shirt of B, without knowing that D would stab 11, does not indicate on their part an intention to kill (People vs. Ortiz and Zauza, 65 Phil. 9 3 3 ) . Hence, A and C did not share the guilty purpose of D. To be liable for the criminal act of another, a person (1) must have the same criminal purpore as that of the other and (2) he and the other must he united in ita ezeeulion.

'I
'

6.333. But suppose, in the preceding question, D was about to stab B when A and C held B for the purpose of enabling

'_

240

241

CFIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CKIllIINAL LAW REVIEWER

D to kill B without any risk on the part of D, are all


of the three principals by direct participation? . . Yes, because A, C and D a ,w, + . .L k L B ;and when 4 held B by the hand, & C by the front part of Bs shirt, and D stabbed .B, thCY . w s L% &d l of the cqmmanrwnunalpurm e . In this case, the effect is the same as that when there is anterior conspiracy. The act of one is the act of all. Thev have the same criminal liability and the same penalty shall be imposed on all of them. There is collec@Je C & g l + S d W Y.

7-

.. . .

. .

Not02-e persons are liable 8s principals by direct participation when (1) They participated in the criminal resolution, that is, (a) there was anterior consm . a n o n s .&em,. or (b) there was ; % o m . a n d intentiw a t the moment of the commission of the offense; and @)&of them osrried outnht and part in its execution, by -te&X 2qthe s d :

the place and without waiting for A, started burnbg the house of the mayor and, as they were running away, they were arrested by certain policemen. When A reached the place to help B and C, he saw that the Bouse was already burned. What is the liability, if any, of A in the crime of arson actually committed by B and C? Explain your answer. a consairator; and e was None, b m e C e , w a t the E m o n p f i t s ayrpose, & -n Runisme b , w e p t in treason, rebellion or sedition, a_nd the c r i w thev c o m k d to commit i t m one of them, A is : e.

I _

636. A killed B in a fight. provoked by A.

, ,

634. Is a conspirator Liable for the acts of another conspirator, ., -which are radically and substantially different from that
.

which they agreed to commit? Illustrate and explain. Yes. F o r instance, A, B, and C, all pclicemen, agreed and decided to extort a confession by mcan8 of violence from X, suspected of having Billed Y. LI subjecting to maltreatment, known as third degree, C hit X with an iron bar on the head, while being he14 by A and B, causing the latters death. In this case, A and B are also . liable for the death of X, because the killing of X was an incident and a consequence of the agreement among A, B and C to commit an unlawful act (see People vs. Enriqnez, 58 Phil. 536, and People vs. Rosario, 68 Phil. 720).

& &

After kiUing B, A went to C, his friend and the mortal enemy of B, and informed him that B was already dead and narrated b, C the manner he killed 3. C was very happy about it, expressed his satisfaction, and gave A a .sum of money, thereby concurring in the criminal purpose of A. Is,C, criminally liahle,for the crime committed by A? Explain your answer. NO, because particination in anothers criminal es U-+wt& ! m g U be odor to or & simi~2tn~n%csl~ t the c eo f a e . In this case, C c o n c u K d , in the criminal i i u r n m of A @the latter h a m mitted tine crime,
,~~
~~

635. A, B and C @ and d o t -

. .

burn the house of the mayor of their town as an act of revenge. When they went out t.o go to the house of the mayor for the purpose of burning it, A told B and C to proeeed and to go ahead and that he would follow later. B and C, upon reaching
242
i

637. A and B, who were together, were captured by C, D and E, the mortal enemies of B. One of them gave A a dagger while the others had their guns levelled at both A and B. C, with the concurrence of D and E, told A to choose between killing B with the dagger and himsell being shot t o death. To avoid being shot, A stabbed B with the dagser, causing the latters death. After B w a s killed, A was released by C, D and E. What kind of : principals are C, D and E? Was A a principal? Explai,+ :, your answers.
243

... .... .~
< .

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

and E are princiwl$ by &ig.&!?n, because tl1eY directly fa& to C O the &.%e of m ,rof which iCiD& was the victim. A was a p !@ .Y Q .h & d b d Dart t in the e&!xuh of the tion, because he , for h a d a . p i t A ia m % t from c &hout f m & m and intent, which are the IWO elements of voluntariness.

c, D

for convicting the alleged principal by induction. One


cannot be held guilty of having instigarted the commission of a crime without it first being shown that the crime was actually committed by another (People vs. Ong Chiat Lay, 60 Phil. 788). But if the m a l by 1p a t m is a a e d because of lack of intent, & m f or intelligence, the crime having been in fact commitkd, the principal by induction is criminally .liable. Thus, if P gave f a k e facts to an employee in the treasurers office who wrote them on the blank spaces of a residence certificate, the employee not knowing their falsity, P i q liahle for a a a o n l-, q d m n e\.enf the e m is n L W , because the e-e is a mere innncent w e n t of P in the p e m a 2 of the g constituting; t h m g (People vs. Po Giok To, G.X. L-7236, April 30, 1955). The employee acted without malice or intent.

..

~ ~ Theye is ~individual criminal responsibility in this case, t : there being no conspiracy or unity of purpose between C, D and E, on one hand, and A, on the other. A did n o t agree
with them as he was only fareed to do the act which he did. Of course, among C, D and E, there is collective criminal responsibility, there being, at least, B unity of criminal purpose.

u-

638. A went home wit11 injuries in the different parts of his body. When B, As father, asked him how he got wounded, A repliell that c attacked him without cause. B became angry and said, That fellow C ought to be killed. After cleaning and dressing his wounds, A armed himself with a bolo, looked for C, and upon seeing him, hacked the latter to death. Is B criminally liab2e for the death of C? Explain your answer. No, because the .aiards utterehby, E, W a U & ? @X k that they constituted an inducement, were n o t d e & r z t l v with the intentian that - h should kill C. A oughtless e m r e s s i p u t , w m any exnectatiqn or that it would nroduce the result, s ia .&icient inducement to c a m $ a d j - n e . Moreover, such inducement was not the determining cause of the commission of the crime by A, since A had a reason af h m taSnmmit these, having been injured by C w&hat any justifiakle r w n .
p

040. When the crime is committed in consideration of a price, reward or promise, how many principals take part in the crime? What are they? What is the nature of their

criminill responsibility? There are two principals: (I) principal by direct participation, and ( 2 ) principal by indacenient. There being an agreement and a decision t o commit a crime between them, there is cnnspiracy and, hence, there is collective criminal responsibility, 641. A and B, who were bnth armed with iboloes, were about to strike each other, although each was waiting for an opening before striking the other. C, who was present, said, Now B, hit him! And B struck A with his bolo, wounding and killing A. Is C criminally liable for the death of A? Explain your answer. The question whether a person present upon t h e occasion of a homicide but who takes no direct part in the act, can be held criminally liable for inciting and encouraging another with expressions such as, go ahead, hit him, 246

639. Is the acquittal of the principal by direct partieipationa ground for the acquittal of the principal by induction? It depends upon the cause of the acquittal of the principal by direct partieipation. If the acquittal of the principal by direct participation is based on reasonable-dmb1 or that ke&d-,n-@. commit, the^ crime, there is no basis
244

<'there

u,n we x
the

did

have him," "now is the time," etC., - d . . g,dkr q x h words a m u n m W S a direct and d m r n i n a t i v e influence W P bv direct participation. min$ of the submitted that since B was about to strike A C uttered the words. "now B, hit him," !hQSC % I % !& not -h a direct %nd determinative i d s & c e ~ 1 1

d o m

642. A paid 13 p1,000 t o hill C . 'ti went t o the plncr \\.here he expected to meet c. AS it \ Y ~ S a dnrlr evcnitw. 11 a stranger for c and billed that stranger. C was not there when B shot the stranEer. Is A CriminallY liable f o i the crime committed by B? Explain your answer. No, because the aimedc was nL-ed in the inducement, and in such case i t was held that the i&ement is not material and is x t the cg@zuPing c m e of the c e i o n of the &e % & the fitr a n e r . &
This is similar to the ease of People vs. Lawas, et al. Lawas ordered his home guards to fire at the men ill the ground floor of a house, but in the course of the melee that followed some of the home guards of Lnwas fired at the women and children who were in the second floor of the house. It was held that Lawas was not guilty of murder for tl1e killing of the women and children, because his order to fire a t the men in the ground floor of the house could not imply or include an order to go up the house and massacre the innocent end defenseless womm and children. Inducing another to commit d e r , w w &&& is got a f elow. Proposal to commit a felony is punishable only in proposal to commit treason or rehellion. Eence, since merely iz&sinz r-a to & t a & e is n m u f Z i w p r i n c i o a 1 bvinducemen t is not liabk thea:

causiug his death. Is C a principal or an aceompfiee?~ Explain yuur answer. . . It is submitted that C i s a princiaal - b le cooperation. It is t & the &* a of the knife to A, that C desired o r wishe4 the killing of B. Under the circumstances, the g o f thehnifeta-8 w i_ndiJpensable cooperation, -b W m an &. &,ut .& wh & tne corninof h o u d e would not have' been arcomvlislwl hT- ; He is .n&an ascpIice. because the L <s>Ly&&v: s:: .$?< ,"'qq&i. i+ <-! $"*?&%Q$~V, IWINNO :is iii L)U c(is<>,

_ z I

Noto: J n a crimc aminst property, the indispensable cooperation of a principal is shown in a case where the o m e ? of house, which is very close to another building, allowed the thief to pass through his house in going to the other'huilding where persona! property was stolen. "he owner .of the h o r n was a wincipal by indispensablc cooperation.

--

& &

. ,

,.

. 644. Certain andit clerks, together with the paymaster, of the. ,, .

Nota:

for

salt different frpm_tha..intended, under Art. 4, par. I, Revised Penal Code.

643. Whih A and B were having a fistic fight, C was an on, looker. Seeing that his friend A was getting the worse of the fight, C opened his knife, approached .A, and handed it to him. A, using the knife, stabbzd B in the chest,
~'

Bureau of Public Works were charged with the crime of malversation. The charge against the audit clerks ,+.,: that, through their recklessly negligent participation h.ini.1 ' i tiding the falsified payrolls, without verifying the .cor. reetness thereof, they had, in effect, cooperated with their$ eo-defendants in the commission of the crime of ml a: versation of public flunds. May those audit clerks, whose: 1 negligence made possible the actual ammission of t h e ? principals crime by their co-defendants, he held liable i ~ s by indispensable cooperation? One who cooperatss in the commjssion of a n offense by acts of negligence without which it could not have been' accomplished may be held guilty of the offense as a principal. The audit clerks could be held liable as principals of the crime of malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents by reckless negligence, for while they are not public officers entrusted with Government funds, lilrc their co-accused paymaster, it is obvious that they cooperated in the commission of that crime by acts without which the crime could not have been per~

246

241

,.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CIUMINAL LAW REVIEWER

petrated (people vs. Javier, et al., G.R. Nos. L-11670 8z


I

homicide, the -n o
&& I

c b e d as -,ICC

B, @ -

<.+?

T..11708.

Anril .~. 30. 1959).

a mprtal wound.

f l o t e : It would seem that the audit clerks were not liable 88

..

principals by indispensable cooperation, because they were not with having conspired with their co-defendants , in malvorsing public funds. To cowerate means to wish a t h w ln view of the meaning of the word "cooperate", in with due to the SuDremc Court, it is believed that when one or defendants merely acted with negligence, One m a thine in common with the defendants who . . L the crime with malice.
"' .J
"Y

647. The third kind of principal is one who cooperates with


the ,principal by direct participation in the commission is of the crime. HOIOW the principal by cooperation distinguished from an accomplice? The u r n i o n of the principal Q indisaens&Ie to the o -n of the crime, that is, without the cooperation of the principal who performed another .act the commission of the crime would not, have been accomplished by the principal by direct participation. On the other hand, the cooperation of the accomplice is only necessary.

....".

645. May the persons who took part subsequznt to the commission of the crime be considered as aecumpliees? Why? No, because- a are those persons who, not be. . ing principals, c-te in the ezecutio,l of the offense by w w i o z u or simultaneous & (Art, 1% R.P.C.).

646. Distinguish an accomplice from a principal. A principal is one who takes a direct part in the execution of the act; one who directly forces or induces others to commit it; or one who cooperates in the commission

648. Mar a person be considered a principal even if the assistance he rendered to the other offender is only necessary? Explain your answer. Yes, if there is conspiracy b e t w e e n u t . When there is conspiracy, the n o f the c%eration that o e e s to another i s not import&, since the act of me is eonsidered the act of all.

-_

--

of the offense by another act without which it would not

have been accomplished. An accomplice is one who, not being anyorle of the three kinds of principal, cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. Among principals, except that who directly forces another to commit the crime, there is anterior Conspiracy or unity of purpose and intention immediately before the commission of the crime. An accomplice merely C E S S with j;he criminal &sign of the principal. He is ?&S conspiracy Gith the principal. -. But even if only one of two indiviEuals originated the intention to kill the deceased while the other merely assisted the action of the initiator of the crime in its execution, but-bot11 inflicted mortal Wounds, the & -L& be Q. l considered as cg-r)rinciuals- ( U S . vs. Zalsos, et at., 40 Phil. 96). Hence, in crimes against persons, like murder or
I -

Note: An accomplice does not have previous agreement or understanding. with the principal by direct participation. Ie there is conspiracy, none of the conspirators can he eonsidered an accowlice. All of them are principals, regardless of tho nature of their participation.

649. In what respect is the accomplice simi1:rr to the principal?

In what way does one differ from the other?

What di&bg&hes the principal from the accomplice is that the pzincioal originates tine criminal design and the a m i c e merelv concurs with f i m in his criminal purpose and that the accomplice cooperates in the execp t.n-of the 9 n by ixevious o% r , o w t h m t h a t _ ) v h i e hwould charthe o w r a m a r i n c u pursuant to Art. 17 of the Revised Penal Code.

248

249

1
CKII\IINAL LAW REVIEM'RR

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

Thus, when the participation of a person in the commission of a crime is not shown, but he lcnows the criminal purpose of the principal by direct participation, he is only an accomplice and should not be Considered a principal, because to be considered a principal under Act. 17 Of the &+d \+ p e d c d e . the act of the offender must either (1) be direct, that is, it is t h RCI which p ~ hth.1,t C*IW ~ ~ 0 % 1 which tends to the same end, or ( 2 ) be illdispensable to the commission of the crime; or (3) that it induces the commission of the crime by another.

The driver was an accomplice, because the criminal d e s i q of A, B and C, for he saw the forcihln ~... ... taking of the girl, he concurred with them i w r &inal purpose by driving the &to their destination.

6 5 2 . May a person who m A d y concurred in the criminal desisn

650. X was the m p t a l eneuu of A and B. There existed a c m a e on the part of A and B to kill X. One dav. A. without knowing that B w a s following X to kill .~~., the latter, went to an alley where X used to pass by for the purpose of shooting him. When, X was coming towards the place where A was waiting for him, B, who was following X, shot him. X died. What is the criminal .. liahilitv of A. if any? Explain your answer. .. .. Ay - n is ,I e& . E as a PXiIldRal or a s x n & accomplice. A is &a of aml,iXbe, because his &of -r o X in an alley, even for the purpose of killing him, i-m.an overt so a to . e k e h4m s l& i & He is &-an acs.Qnl$ce in the crime committed by B, because there is no relat' n n b , the cdminal act of B and the act of enoughthat a a e m n an identical criminal desigll of the Drinciual (People vs. De la Cruz, et al., 61 Phil. 162). iY.&&a A nor B k s &X that the other would kill X. Hence, there was no community ofn.
~

of the principal by direct participation be held liable 88 principal, and not nicrely a s an aceom,pIice? Yes, the - J n f I ~ d is_ m~&& or the wound inflicted contributed-materiallx to Q2&th of the (People vs. Aplegido, 76 Phil. 571; People vs. Ascona, 59 Phil. 58C; People vs. Ragmaa and Zalsos, supre). - .

\ e
Note: musl fJ&S t e a

In crimes against persons where the death of the victim take place to coxsummate the crime, tho -s a o&zij,r~_wcunds. His act should not.mkibute _mak to the death of the victim.

653. How is moral aid given by an accomplice? Moral aid is -by an accomplice throuzh advice, encouragempt or agreement, but not nrevim s agreement to commit the cgme.
1

~~~

7 .
w

EXPLANATION: The moral aid' of the accomplice e m or ~2 the princimal to commit the eriqe. It must, be moral aid i n t h e erect&?% 0: the c r i m e
-8

651, A, B and C forcibly abducted a girl. placing her in a jeepney which was parked to get passengers, and then c told the driver to proceed to another town. Tlie driver saw the forcible takinx a w s of the girl, but he naert m drove his @epney with the girl and the cu1prit.s. , What is the participation of the driver in tbr crime of forcible abduction committed by A, B and C? Explain your answer.

In the case of People 7s. Ubina, e t al., G.R. No. L-6969, September 1, 1065, W e have an illustration of moral aid rendered by the accomplices. The participation of the three de-. fendants in the killing of the victim was limited to being p r e e n t , i and stayine around the premises, while the otllers fired at the:.+ victim and carried out their plan. The three deiendants were. i not among those who had conspired to kill the victim. They',.; joined the conspirators only on the way to the place where the .: victim was killed. The three defendants were heId Iiahle only.' as accomplices. . .. If the three defendants were also eonqirators, they would be liable as principals. In the case of People 7s. Siivestre and Atienza, 66 Phil. 363, Silvestre knew that Atienea would commit arson and &e 8: was present when the crimes was cbrnmitted, hut the Snpmmi:);

250

261

CRIMINAL LAW REYJEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REYIEVVER

courtheld that

her mere presence and silence, while they are simultaneous acts, do not appear that they encouraged or the crime of arson. Her failure to nerved Atienza to being a subsequent act (not previous or simultaneous), did not make her liable as accomplice.

654, When t,here in no conspiracy or there is no community of what is the nature of the criminal respon.

'

'

sibility of two or more persons who take part in the comiuission of a crime? Illustrate and explain your an-

, , .~"' could steal in the customhouse. B and C, with the4 truck driven by D, proceeded t o the customhonse, stole: certain goods then lying in the cilstomhouse, and lo&; ed them on the truck. D received from B and C some':c stolen goods. Later, A took delivery of the stolen goods in his warehouse and paid for them. The four were arrested and prosecuted f o r theft. A contended that 1d and assistegl B and C to profit since he only e by the effects of the crime, he should be held liable ils accessory. Is the contention of A tenable? Is D, the driver, criminally liable? Explain your answer. No, the contention of A is not tenable. hrrsnsr. fn,. ~~. inducing B and C t o s l the goods, & a p m a l by inducemeLt. & n accessory h L e ULhD,
~ ~

~..'

'--"-_-"

-1

atc riO&i&dl?.

~ k , naranspiwsy~ between A and C to kill B, ~ ~ as the fight between A and I was p m , &.E&ed. 3 They not h a previously agreed and decided to kill B. A did not know that C would stab B when he boxed him. Hence, there was not community of design on the part A and C . Such being the case, A and c h a i n .. dividnal c m Y.

--

c was the one wl-3 started the assault by stabbing B and then A kicked the body Of B ,?hen the on the ground, and sometime therelatter was lying after B died, what is the liability of A" A is liable as an aec~m,pli~lice the crime of homicide comin mitted by C.
~ ~ )But ~ : t supposethat

assisting the olender to b y the effccls of the -. e $.; ' Since A already u a r w d in the commission of' theft'$ as 1 , his taking part subsequent to its commission by profiting or assisting the offender to profit by the effects OS the crime cloes not make him onJy an aceessw; .:. He is a .princilsd in the crime of theft. If D, the driver of the truck used for hauling the g o {; od: from the customhouse to the warehouse of A, e d a some of the goods as his e ,s knaxeing from the begin- ! ning that the goods would be that driver is not an a c m m by profiting by the effects of the crime, .. for he already d a accomalice. But if h e . came to know that the goods he received were prop erty o & l a he yp.s receivme t IP,but not when he .. & was hauling all the goods from the customhouse. he WSR -, -__; Q & an a y , because he U et p as an accomplice.

m,

657. A, B and C saw X slaughtering a cow in the farm. X gave each of them a quantity of meat worth P10.00.
When the owner of the cnw complained to the authorities about the disappearance of his animal, X was ar252

253

~.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWE12

I/>.,

rested as a suspect and when investigatdd he admitted ' that he stole the cow which he later slaughtered. x named A, B and C as the persons who also profited by ed the stolen cow. May A, B and C be h ! liable as accessories? Explain your answer. No, because there is n o t h d s stated in the question that t h e y a w - that the cow had been stolen. The ETSiQW @+,must Lave knowIe@ of the commission of the crime and t h n p_roit by its effe&. that the cow had been stolen and notwithstanding that fact they accepted from X the meat frum the stden cow without paving. for it, would thcy 1m l i n h l ~ as accessories? Why? Suppose they paid for

; i
i

658. E A, 13 and C

".._. . .

/ff

Yes, because they b y p t h e m f thesc.b%. t M r f o r the meat, they would be accessories, . ! X a s s i s t i l u h e o m r to arofit by the effecf,.!i?o & f

Noto:

house, placed cans of gasoline with fuses connected,with*,g an electric wire in the warehouse a n d , set it on firey.3 After the fire, which destroyed the warehouse and the goods, inside, and before any investigator could get inside the burned warehouse, A told his servant to remove, all the empty cans from the burned warehouse and all traces of the conmission of arson, which' the servants did. Is t h e servant criminally iiablr? Explain your answer. Yes, because k z o a that the warehouse and the goods inside were intentionally burned by A, which is arson,. -d . . e d the hadu.of the the servant ck - .. or .~ of arson by r m n g the & e t k m f t o m v e n t ib &wry. In other words, the servant made it app& to be an accidental bYrning of the warehouse, thereby p n g the authorities from m w g the crime. Such act of the servant made him liable as accessory under the 2nd. paragraph of Art. 19 of the Revised Penal Code.

-~

Effffeots of the w i r n e are crime of theft; or the money or estafa. Hence, the money given stoim jeep is not the proceed 01-

the stolen property in the property miswpropriated in as s reward for locating a . effect of the crime.

659. Are A, ~3 and C in the preceding question accessories

to the crime of simple thect or to the crime of qualified

Note: The discovery of the crime may be prevented also by concealing or destroying the effects (the stolen prope*) or the instruments thereof (the pistol or knife used i killing the n victim). In such ease, the pelson who, knowing that a crime had been committed, concealed or destroyed the e f f E t s or instrument of the crime is an accessory. Either one of the following is destroyed o r concealed by tho accessory: (1) Body of the crime (the fact of the commission of the crime) ; (2) Effects of the crime; or ( 3 ) Instrument of the crime. The PurPose Of the accessory is to @revent the diseoveN of the crime (Art. 19, par. 2, R.P.C.).

46 Phil, 245). The reason for the ruling in the Valdelion ease is t h a t an aggravating ciroumstanee arising fram the . va* &'in .of the offender with the offended party and which w!ali&s the offenso shall ,the principals, accomplices and accessories to .whom it is attendant (Art. 62, R.P.C.)

affect...$file

660. A, after obtaining an insurance policy for

an amount much bigger than the value of the goods inside his ware254

4
4

661. When may a yrivale individual who liarbored, concealed, or assisted in the escape of the principal of the crime be held l i a h l ~as nn accessory? Whenever the -f o the crime is &of treason, parricide, m g or a n to take of the Chief Executive, or is known to .be habituallv +I& of some other crimes.

--

255

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWE11

662. A saw the commission of murder by B and C and the concealing of the body of the deceased by them, and
afterwards joined their company until the following day, without denouncing the crime i o the local authorities when he had the opportunity to do SO. If A was not in conspiracy with the killers or if there was no community of design between him and the Billers, can he be held liable a s an accessory? Explain your answer. No, because his failure to denounce the crime to the local authorities, knowing the commission of said crime, aside from the fact that i t is an omission, is not one Of the acts which make a person liable as a n accessory. A did not profit or assist the offenders to profit by the effects of the crime; he did not conceal or destroy the body of the crime, the effects or instruments thereof in order to prevent its discovery; and he did not harbor, conceal or assist in the escape of the principal of the crime.
N o t e : But if a person, who knows of the cornmission O the f crime, say murder, by another, volunteered false information which tended affirmatively to deceive the prosecuting authorities, thereby enabling the offender to escape, he i s liable as an accessory under pararmph 3 of Art. 19 ( U S VS. Romulo, 15 Phil. 408).

watch from B, knowing that i t had been stolen by B. At the time of the trial, B was already dead. Can c be held liable as accessory? Yes, because the prosecution and conviction of the principal is not an essential condition before the accessory can be held criminally liable, for while the principal may still be unknown or at large, the accessory may be held responsible, provided that he had knowledge of the commission of the crime and that he participated therein after its commission by any of the acts mentioned in Art. 19 of t h e Code.

6F5. Is the accessory criminally liable if the principal, after


trial, is acquitted? Explain your ansn-er. It depends on the ground of the acquittal. If the facts dleged in the informatior. are not proved o r that they do not c o n s t i t u k a crime, no- legal mounds e& for con- "' I _. x victing a defendant as an accessory for a crime n. e . : ped --. The responsihility of the accestsory is to that of the principal in a crime and his m i l t is di- .. rectly reiated to that of the principal in the punishable
L -

act.
But if the crime was in fact committed, but the principal was not held crimimlly liable, because of any exempt: ing circumstance, such as insanity or minority, conviction of the accessory is possibk notwithstanding the acquittal of the principal. The, reason for this is that in exempting circumstances there is a crime committed, only that the perpetrator of the crime is not a criminal, in view o f the complete absence of any of the conditions that make the act voluntary.
666. A, knowing that B and C had killed a person, assisted in the escape of 8, who, together with C, was later accused of murder. After trial, B was found guilty only a s an accomplice in the crime of rnnvrle,. r m r l c , as principal. Is A, a private individual, liible as an accessory? Why?
~~

663. May dereliction of duty by a pnblic officer make him an accessory? Explain your answer. Yes, when the public officer, like the municipal mayor, failed maliciously to move the prosecution of the culprit, after having been informed of the commission of the crime, and such malicious refusal to perform his duty made possible the escape of the principal of the crime, the public officer is liable as a n accessory under paragraph 3 Of Art. i!) (U.S.vs. Yacat, I Phil. 443).

664. A lost his watch. As A did not know that it was s t O h by U, no criminal action was filed agaiuat B. One day, A s a v the watch in the possession of C. Being in POSsession of the lost watch of A, C was prosecuted for theft. During the trial, it appeared thlC C bought the

.. .I

257

I
< ,:
,.C

,, ~.

.,

CllIMINAL LAW REYIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW

REYIEWER

No, the law mentions only the author and the prin!

&pal of the crime, whom the accessory harbors, conceals, or assists in his escape (Art, 19, par. 3, R.P.C.). It is submitted that the _ e r and p m r d w t i d e accomplice.

the effects of the crime, o r (2) aj!d the of&&& . W& by the &&&s of the& (Art. 20, R.P.C.),.:
Note: Only accessories under paragraphs 2 and 3 of AT^. -1s are exempt from criminal liability if they m e related to th&& .principal. Thus, the father who buried the dead body. of thei victim murdwed by his son, to prevent tho discovery of the,: crime, or assisted in the escape of his 13011 who committed treason is not erirninallv lkbie, h m the neither nrofited d 1 the offenderto -by the e m s of t u .
I

667. A. assisted in the escape of his first cousin, knowing that the latter committed murder. Is A criminally liable as an accessory? Explain your answer.

Yes, because the penalties prescribed for accessorfes shallnot be imposed upon those who are such, only with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendds, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees (Art. 20, R.P.C.). first cousin is &,one of those &&k&b, e-b h u by consanauinity in the third civil dearee. a:

&

669. A, who had killed his wife, went to his adopted brother and asked the latter to hide hint in his house. The adapted brother harbored and coneealed A, because the latter gave him his diamond ring worth P1,OOO. rS the adopted brother criminally liable? Why?

No, A- W

the diamond ring which.hedan effect of the crime o parricide.

from
II

668,. A stole a carabao and brought it to his home. B, a policeman in that locality, C, and D are all AS brothers who knew that the carabao had been stolen by A. C hid the carabao under their house surrounded by Stone walls. B, the policeman, helped in the escape of A, because the chief of police might discover the crime and and arrest him. Later, D sold the carabao and spent Ihe proceeds of the sale. Are B, C, and D accessories? Are they criminally liable? Explain your answer. They areall accessories, because B , a s s i s t d i n the S & P e of A with a b u s e ~ ~ & @ & ? L d b ! 2 l E - , C d o c the carabao to prevent the discovery of the crime, and 2, profited by the e f f e c t of the crime. But is criminally liable, because the &l&l (A) being his brother, he is & from criminal liability. C is not also criminally liable, for the same reason. Only is as m y , because he p& d r& by the the crime. An accessory i s B t exempt from criminal liability even if the DLi.QGiIlal is his Spouse, a w t , d e e n t , lepitimate, n a m r ad-xbrother or sister, or a r a b y af=-w@in the Same degrqs, if .such acces(1) profited by

he profited, the adopted brother did not p r o f i t b y the e u o f the xim.


Note: But if A killed his wife to &the -Iwith intent a n , and she acquired said && w before the m n e , and the diamond ring was one of the pieces of her said jewelry, such ring is an effect of the crime.

670. What is the j-srjof the _State in punishing crime.97 o m . To secure justke,. The State has ane-e own to maintain, a c o e of it?: own ta assert, and Penal justice must theremoral principles to be fore he exercised by the State in the service and sa&f a & o n o f y , and rests urimarilrjon the moral righhto ff the W k h m e n t inflicted.

.
259

mf
258

671. What penalties may be imposed for the commission of . a felony? Only that penalty prescribed b y l a w ]xior to its commission may he imposed for the commksion of a felony (Art. 21, R.P.C.). Felonies are punishable under the laws in force at the time of their commission (Art. 366, R.P.C.). But the penalty provided by a penal law enacted aftex, the commjssion of 8 felony may be imposed upon the person

guilty of that felony, in so far as it favors him, provided he is not a habitual criminal or that the new law does not expressly provide that it shall not apply to pending action or causes of action.
this question with the question calling liote; D~ not for the classification of penalties under Art. 25.

Principai pendty is that penalty which. is express$,.... . imposed by the court in the judgment of conviction. The Principal penalties and their diflerent classes Capital punishment-death; afflictive penalties-(1) re;: elusion perpetus., ( 2 ) reclusion teniporal, (3) perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification. (4) perpetual or temporary special disqualification, and (5) prision mayor. Correctional penadties-(i) prision correccional, (2) arresto mayor, (3) suspension, and (4) destierro. Light penalties-(]) arrest0 menor and ( 2 ) public censure. t i n u l f i c s r o i i i i ~ ~ o i.to the three preceding claSses-(i) i fine and ( 2 ) bond to keep the peace. 67F. What is an accessory penalty? Enumerate all the accessory penalties. An accessory penaity is that penalty which .is,deemed included in the imposition of the principal penalty. The accessory penaltics are: (1) perpetual or temporary absolute dispalification, ( 2 ) perpetual or temporary special disqua.lification, (3) suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the profession or e a l l i n ~ : (4, civil interdiction, (5) indemnification, (6) forfeitwe or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the offense, and (7) payment of costs (Art. 25, R.P.C.).
N o t e : The f i s t three above are either principal or accessory penalties, because they are mentioned under principal penalties as well as under aceessxy penalties in Art. 25, R.P.C. In Art. 236, the penalty for assuming the merformanee of the duties and powers of any public office without first being swoin in o r having given the bond required by law, i s SUS. pension and fine from P200 to P500. The suspension here ia a principal penalty. In Art. 22G, the additional penalty of temporary special diaqualification in its maximum period t o perpetual special dis. qualification i s irxposed far infidelity i s the custody of documents. Here, the disqualification is ii principal penalty.

.:;&

. , ..

672. May a favorable penal law apply to the Case of a coonviet w ] l ~ is already serving sentence? Yes, because Art. 22 of the Revised Penal Code says, a]thoul:h at the time of the publication of such laws a final has been pronounceit and the convict is serv.. . ing the same.

. .

..

/ :

673. If a penal law is repealed by another penal law, chawing the penalty for the crime and thereby alfectinr the jurisdiction of courts, which law determines the jurisdiction of the court in case the crime was committed before th.e repeal? Why? The jurisdiction of the court to try a criminal action . . is determined by the law in force a t the time of instituting the action, not by the law a t the time of the Commission of the crime (People vs. Pegarum, 58 Phil. 7x5).

674. What is the threedold purpose of the penalty under the

Revised Penal Code? Tht! penalty under the Revised Penal Code has threefold purpose: ... 1. Retribution or expiation-the penalty is commensurate with the gravity of the offense. 2 . Correction or reformation, as shown by the rules which regulate the execution of the penalties consisting in deprivation of liberty. 3 . ,yociaz defense-as shown by its inflexible severity to recidivists and habitual delinquents. Enumerate all the principal . . penalties and their different classes.
260

675. What is principal penalty?

677. State the classification of fines. A fine shall be considered an afflictive penalty, if it exceeds P6,OOO; a correctional penalty, if it does not exceed
261

''I'
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

p6,000, but is not less than PZOO; and light penalty, if it be less than P200 (Art. 26, R.P.C.). the classification of fines under Art. 26 of the Revised 678. penal Code as afflictive, correctional, and light applicable to fin,e imposed with another penalty? Explain your answer. No. Art. 26 of the Revised Penal Code providcs that '6% fine, whether imposed as a single or as an alternative penalty, shall be considered an afflictive penalty, if it exceeds pfi,oOo; correctional, if it does not exceed f6,009 but is not less than PZOO." Hence, that classification is not applicable when the fine is imposed together with .another penalty. Thus, the Supreme Court did not apply that classification in a case where the penalty provided by law is v i s i o n mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,OOO. In imposing the penalty next lower in degree, the Supreme Court fixed a fine of p50 (a light penalty) and imposed it together with mg.wh ~ correcoional, a correctional penalty (People vs. r . .- - . Quinto, 60 Phil. 311).

i
1

681.

The duration of suspension, a.s a priucipal penalty,. is from six months and one day to six years. But when it is imposed as an accessory penalty, its duration shall that of the principal penalty. ,<$3+< ,,,, ,<*,, * A was prosecuted for homicide, pmnishable by reclusion le

'

1 '

..

They do not have fixed durations. A convict sentenced to any of the perpetual penalties is pardoned after undergoing the penalty f o r 30 Years, - @ : cept when he is not worthy of pardon by reas011 Of b S or Some other cause. If he is not pardoned, the maximum duration of his sentence shall in no case exceed forty years, as may be inferred from the provisions Of the Revised Penal Code on the three-fold rule (Art. 70, R.P.C.) .

temporal. Pending his trial, A was detained in jail since May 10, 1968, because he could not post a hail bond. After trial. A was convicted on November 10, 1958, and was sentenced to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion s temporal a the maximum of the indeterminate penalty. Since A had been detained for six months before judgment was rendered and not having appealed therefrom, from what day must the duration of his penalty be cowputed? , E m your answer. .=e duration of his penalty must be computed from the day on which the defendant commences to serve his sentence. 2t'fiere are three rules provided by the Revised Penal Code for the computation of the penalties, namely: (1) If the offender is in prison., the term of the duration of the t e m p o m q pendkies is computed from the day on which the judgment of conviction shall have become final; (2) if the offender is not in prison, the term of the duration of the penalty consisting in deprivation of liberty shall he computed from the day that the offender is placed at the disposal o f the judicial authorities for the enforcement of the penalty; and ( 3 ) the term of the duration of other penalties is computed from the day on which the defendant commences t o serve his sentence. The first rule is not applicable, because it applies only to temporary penalties, not t o those consisting in deprivation of liberty, like reclusion temporal. The second rule is not applicable either, because it applies only when the offender is not. in prison. Hence, the third rule anolies. A should be credited with one-half of the time of the preventive imprisonment of six months.
~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~

262

263

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER


:

CKIMINAL LAW REVIEWER


.~

682. A was prosecuted for a crime punishable by arrest0 mayor or a fine from 8200 to P2,OOO. Pending the trial of the

...

case, A was detained because he ,could not put a bail bond. JJe was detained for 6 months. The court Ten. dered a judgment of conviction and sextenced him t0 pay a fine of 8500. Must A be credited with one-half of, his preventive imprisonment of six months? Why? No, because a person who underwent preventive imprisonment shall be credited with one-half of his preventive imprisonment only when the penalty imposed consists in deprivation of liberty. The penalty imposed, which is a fine of P500, does not consists in deprivation of liberty.

685. A served sentence for slight physical injuries twent& Years ago. Now, he is on trial for homicide and during? the pendency Qf the w e , he has been detained for one Year. If he is convicted of homicide, is he entitled tn

No, because he i s a recidivist and a recidivist is not entitled to be credited with one-half of the time of his preventive imprisonment.
686. Who are not entitled to be credited with one-half of the time of preventive imprisonment?

.,

..
.

683. A, having surprised his wife in the act of sexual intercourse with another man, k5lled her. Prosecuted for parricide, a crime which is not bailable, A was detained pending his trial which lasted for one year. After trial, A was sentenced to destierro. Must he be credited with . one-half of the time of his preventive imprisonment O t .~ one ye:ar? Explain your answer. yes, because the penalty of destierro also COnSiStS in . depriva,tion of liberty, since the convict is not free to enter

__
~

The following offenders are not entitled to be credited with one-half of the time of preventive imprisonment: 1. Recidivists O r those convicted previously twice or more tjmes of any crime. 2 . Those who, upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence, failed to surrender voluntarily. 3 . Those convicted of robbery, theft, estafa, malversation, falsification, vagra,ncy and pro:ititution.
Note: Habitual delinquent^ and those declared in reitemcion or habitually, if the latter are previously punished for two 01 more offensrs, are not entitled to be credited with one-half of the time of preventive imprisonment.

the prohibited area. Offenders who have undergone Preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the service of their sentences consisting in deprivation of liberty. MoreOver, this is not one of the cases where the convict is not credited in the service of his sentence with one-half Of the time during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment.
684. May a convict sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua be credited with one-half of the time of his preventive mi-

prisonment? Explain your answer. Yes, because the article of the Revised Penal Code governing preventive imprisonment does not make any distinctiorl betwecn temporal and perpetual penalties, Moreover, the duration of perpetual penalties is to be computed at 80 years.

68'7. Are those 'persons who did n.ut surrender voluntarily after the commission of the crime entitled to be credited with one-half of their preventive imprisonment? Yes, if they are not recidivists or are not convicted previously twice or more times of any crime, and the crime committed is not robbery, theft, estafa, malversation, falsification, vagrancy or prostitution. The persons not entitled to be credited with one-half of their preventive imprisonment are those who, upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence, fail to surrender voluntarily.
688. What is the purpose of the law in imposing the penalty of disqualification for the exercise of the right of s,,f-

frage?

264

266

. .

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRlMINAL LAW REVIEWER

The manifest purpose of such restrictions upon this right is to preserve the purity of elections. The presumption is that one rendered infamous by conviction of felony, or other base offenses indicative of moral turpitude, is unlit to exercise the privilege of suffrage or to hold office. The exclusion must for this reason he adjudged a mere disqualification, imposed for mere protection and not for punishment, the withholding of a privilege and not a denial of a personal right (People vs. Corral, 62 Phil. 945).
689. A, who was a government employee for 35 Years and already a t the age of 69, was prosecuted for and convicted of a crime and was sentenced t o 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as the maximum of the indeterminate penalty, with the accessory penalty of temporary ahsolute disqualification for mpnblic office. After service of sentence, can he get his retirement pay? Explain your answer. No, because one of the effects of perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification for public office is the loss of right to retirement pay or pension for any office formerly held, and such effect lasts even after the term of the sentence.
690. Supporie A was not yet retireahle, can he be reinstated after service of sentence? Explain your answer.

,692. What are the effects of pardon by the Chief Executive? Can the offended party in a crime legally pardon. the : ' offender? Explain your answer. .: ,, A pardon by the Chief Executive shall not work the restoration of the right to hold public office or the right of suffrage. unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon. A pardon by the Chief Executive shall in no case exempt the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence. No, the offended party cannot legally pardon the offender so as to extinguish criminal action. Even pardon nnder Art. 344 only constitutes a bar t o criminal prosecution. The reason for the rule is that a crime committed is an offense against the State. But civil liability with regard t o the interest of the injured party is extinguished by express waiver.
693. A was convicted of estafa and was sentenced to suffer 4 m~nths and 1 day of arrest0 mayor, with the accessory penalty of suspension of the right .to hold office and the right of suffrage. After service of the sentence for two months, A was granted an absolute pardon by the Pres. ident and was released from jail. Can A vote during the election held six months after he was granted a pardon? Explain your answer. No. While it is h u e that the accessory penalty of sus-, .;,, pension of the right to hold office and the right of suffrage lasts only during the term of the sentence (Art. 44, R.P.C.), and that it is not necessary that the same b : ! e! expressly remitted in the pardon, under See. 99 of the:;+ Revised Election Code, A is not qualified to vote, havinp?; been declared by final judgment guilty of a crime against',:! property.
"

No, because one of the effects of perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification is deprivation of public office or employment, even if conferred by popular election and such effect lasts even after the term of the.sentence.
691. What effects of temporary absolute disqudification shall last only during the term of the Sentence? They are: (1) the deprivation of the right to vote in

any election for any popular elective offize or to be elected to such office; and ( 2 ) the disqualification for the offices or public employments and for the exercise of any of the rights mentioned (Art. 30, last par.). 266

Note: The other accessory penalties of perpetual absolute din- : , quaiification, perpetual special disqualification, and temporary ,':: absolute or speeisl disqualification must be expressly remitted 2 in tho pardon in order that the ex-convict can vote or hold public, office. This is true even if the convict sentenced to life h-+* prisonment had already served 30 yeers when he was granted

~.:

267

'

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER absolute pardon. Unless expressly restored by the terms of t h e pardon, he cannot exercise the right of suffrage. l'he exception is when the absolute pardon is granted after the convict has served his sentence and the penalty imposed is lower than reclusion temporal. It is deemed that the pardon is intended to restore to him the right to vote or to be elected to public office.
- : ,' i

1
i
I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

! . ,

-694. What are included in costs in criminal cases? They are: (1) fees, and (2) indemnities in the course

damages, and fine, at the rate of one day for each subject to the rules provided by law. . .. No, subsidiary penalty must be expressly imposed ~b$ the. Court in order that the convict may be required . , ~ serve it. It is not an accessory penalty. It is imposed ,: upon the accused and served by him in lieu of certain pecuniary liabilities which he fails to pay on account of insolvency.
Note: From the definition of subsidiary penalty, it will be noted that the offender cannot choose to serve subsidiary penalty, instead of paying the Pecuniary liabilities, if he has property with which to pay them. The offender has to serve subsidiary penalty, only if he has no property with which to meet the pecuniary liabilities.

e,

of judicial proceedings.
, ,

695. Enumerate the pecuniary liabilities of a person giiilty

..

of a crime and state whether the court .can order their payment indiscriminately. The pecuniary liabilities of the offender are: (1) reparation of the damage causedi ( 2 ) indemnification of consequential damages, (3) the fine, and (4) the costs of the proceedings. In case the property of the offender should not be sufficie,nt for the payment of all his pecuniary liabilities, the same shall be met in the order in which they are enumerated in Art. 38 of the Revised Penal Code.
Note: Where the proceeds of the sale of the property of the offender are not sufficient to cover the damages adjudicated to the heirs of the deceased and the costs of the proceedings, i t is error to apply part of the proceeds to satisfy t h e costs; the damages should ho satisfied first (People vs. Maeaso, 39 0. G. 1504). Reparation of the damage caused is the pecuniary liability in climes against property, when restitution is not possible. Indemnification of Consequential damages is usually the pecuniar3liability in crimes against persons.

697. I n what cases is there no subsidiary penalty, even if the offender cannot pay the pecuniary liabilities by reason of^ insolvency? 1. When the penalty imposed is higher than p r k i o n corwccional, such as prision mayor, reclusion t e m p o r d , and reclusion pemetua, there is no subsidiary penalty. 2. For failure t o pay the costs o f the proceedings, there is no subsidiary penalty. 3 . When the penalty imposed is fine and a penalty not to be executed by confinement in a penal institution and has no fixed duration, there is no subsidiary penalty.
Note: Subsidiary penalty i possible only when any of the fols lowing penalties is imposed: (1) prision correccional, ( 2 ) suspension and fine, (3) destiewo, (4) w r e s t o meyor, ( 5 ) awesto menor, and (6) fine only. Even if ths penalty imposed is not higher than pdaion correccional, if the accused is a habitual delinquent who has to suffer an additional penalty, and the total penalty is higher than G years, there i n o subsidiary penalty (People vs. Cons eepcion, 59 Phil, 518).

. .

696. What iri subsidiary penalty? Is it deemed imposed in case t h o convict could not pay certain pecuniary Babilities by reason of insolvency? Explain your answer.

Subsidiary penalty is a subsidiary personal liability


t o be sufered by the convict who has no property with

which to meet the pecuniary liabilities for the reparation of the Camage caused, indemnification oE consequential 268

698. What is the ma.ximum duration of the subsidiary penalty? If the penalty imposed is prision correccional o r UTresto and fine, it shall not exceed one-third of the term

269 ',>*

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

i r

of the sentence, and in no case shall it continue for more .,than one year. ::/. , ~if the penalty imposed is fine only, it shall not ~ t ."'&ceed six months, if the offender is prosecuted for grave less, nave felony; and not more than fifteen days, if _. . ' prosecuted for a light felony
I

.~? 701. A was prosecuted for rebellion punishable by priaio&2


nlayor and a fine not exceeding P20,OOO. A surrendered ! . volnntarily to the mayor of hid town and during the' arraignment he pleaded guiltv to the charge. No aggravating circumstance wns alleged in the information. It appears that A could not pay the fine, because he was insolvent. Can A be required to suffer subsidiary imprisonment for non-payment of the fine? Explain your answer. Yes, became there are two mitigating. circumstances without any aggravating circumstance and, since the penalty of prision mayor is divisible, the penalty should be lowered b? one degree (Art. 64, par. 5, R.P.C.), which is Prision cor?eceionnl. Since the penalty actually imposed is not higher than prision correccional, A can be required t o serve subsidiary penalty.
Nota: When the penalty Drovided by the Code far the offenee is imprisonment, it is the penalty actually imposed, riot the penalty provided by the Code, which should be considered in determining whether or not there should be subsidiary penalty.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

i_

,....."I-__ . . . I f,he penalty imposed is prision correccional or arrest0 'and fine, the subsidiary penalty shall consist in imprisonment. [f the penalty imposed is destierro, the subsidiary n.,noltv i s also destierro. If the penalty imposed is sUS-Y".Y.",,
~

_ I

pension, the subsidiary penalty is also suspension. convicted of a crime for the commission of which 700. A the law provides a fine not exceeding 81,000, and Was. sentenced to pay a fine of P200. In case A cannot pay the fine of P200 by reason of insolvency, what is t h e duratbon of the subsidiary penalty. Explain your answer.
~~ ~~

Two months and twenty days. When the penalty imposed be only a fine, the subsidiary pena1t.y shall not exceed 6 months, if the culprit shall have been Drosecuted for a grave or less grave felony; and shall not exceed 15 days, if for a light felony (Art. 59, par. 2, R.P.C.). Since the fine provided by law is not exceeding PI,OOQ, it is a correctional penalty (AI*. 26, R.P.C.) Less 'grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penn l t i e s which in their maximum period are correctional .."(Art. 9, R.P.C.). . . . i. . p.200 + F2.60 = 80 days or 2 months and 20 days, which is less than 6 months. Hence, the duration Of the subidiary penalty is 2 months and 20 days.

702. A was tried for a crime, was convicted, and was sentenced to 2 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision cur-

reccional. He could not pay the reparation of the damage caused in the amount of PZDO, the indemnification of consequential damages in the aroonnt of 8150, the, fine in the amount of 8100, .and the costs of P32. A served subsidiary imprisonment for the first tluee pe- , .; cnniary liabilities. When released from prison, A w n e d a fortune. What pecuniary liabilitia must he pay, notwithstanding the service of subsidiary imprisonment? He must pay the reparation of the damage caused a n d , the indemnification of consequential damages.
Note: He is relieved from pecuniary liabi!ity as to fine, once he served subsidiary penalty therefor. Although, there is no subsidiary penalty for non-payment of the costs, he may be required t o pay them when his financial circumstances shouid improve.

N o t e : The crime committed by A is not a light felon)., befor light felonies ''a fine not ezoeedins 200 pesos X x X i s ed" by law (Art. o, R.P.c.). In the problem given the. fine provided by law is not exceeding P1,OOO. It is lhe fine pvmided bv law for the offense, not the fine ased by the court, which must be considered in determining liether the felony is grave, less grave or light.

i
/ .

703. Is subsidiary penalty unconstitutional as an imprisonment for debt? Explain your answer.

210

*
CRIMINAL LAW RRVIEWEK CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER such disability not having been removed by plenary pardon.

No, because the constitutional provision which prohibits


mprisonment for debt relates to the imprisonment of debtors for liability incnrred in the fulfillment of contracts, but not to the cases seeking the enforcement of penal statutes that provide for the payment of money as a penalty for the commission of crime or for damages ,arising in action e r delictu.

A is sentenced to 6 years and 1 day of imprisonment by the court, as the maximum term of the indeterminate penalt,y. While serving sentence, A wanted to sdl his " ' 'house and lot to realize the amount necessary to pay the "'lawver mho handled his defense. Can A legally sell his real property? Explain your answer. Yes, because A was sentenced to the penalty of prision m y o r , 6 years and 1 day being the minimum of that penalty. The only case where a convict cannot dispose of his property by any act or conveyance inter u<,uuos is when he is suffering from civil interdiction, which is an accessory penalty only in (1) death, when not executed by reason of commutation or pardon, (2) reclusion p e r p ~ l u a ,and (3) reclusion temporal.

.:

706. Is subsidiary penalty an accessory penalty? No. Subsidiary penalty is a personal penalty prescribed by law in substitution of the pecuniary liability.,, when the latter cannot be satisfied because of the culprit's,', insolvency. Hence, subsidiary imprisonment cannot be : served unless the judgment condemns the accused to suf-.: fer the same in case of insolvency (People vs. Fajardo,:: 65 Phil. 539, 541-542). Do accessory penalty and subsidiary penalty the jurisdiction of the court? Explain your Accessory penalty, like subsidiary penalty, does no determine the jurisdiction of the court, beca not' modify or alter the nature o the penalty hy the law. What determines jurisdiction in cases is the extent of the principal penalty w law imposes for the crime charged in the info complaint.

. A was convicted ofprision and was sentenced to maximum theft one year and one day of correccional, its the
term of the indeterminate penalty. After service of sentence, A was released from prison. A now consults you and asks for your legal advice whether or not he can vote in the coming election. What will be your advice? Explain your answer. N y advice is that he cannot vote. While it is true that the duration of imprisonment imposed on him did not exceed eighteen months and the only accessory penalty inhercmt in the principal penalty is suspension from public 'ce, and from the right to follow a profession or callunder See. 99 of the Revised Eiection Code, A is qnalified to vote, having been sentexiced by final judgnt to suffer one year or more of imprisonment, and
t...

708. X was prosecuted for illegal possession of a fire Upon a plea of guilty, X was sentenced to indeterminate penalty of not less than one ye maximum term. The fiscal presented no ev' cause X pleaded guilty. Can the court leg the confiscation and forfeiture of the firea possessed by X? Explain your answer. If the firearm was in the possession of tion, it being a party in the criminal case, legally order the confiscation and forfeiture of the fire-":: arm. In the case of U S . vs. Filart, et al., 30 'Phil. '80, : ; it was held that when the automobile which was the ob-: iect of the lottery and the money which 'was obtained" from the sale of the tickets were not in the possession of any party to the action, the court cannot legally order their confiscation. In this case, it is assumed that the firearm was in the possession of the prosecution, one;<. of the parties in the criminal case. lj ~.
273

272

;,,;,,.. . . ., .
,
"

.,.

,.,,"

.",
,,

CRIMINAL :LAW REVIEWER.


r

CKIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

en'may the property used in the c d not snhject to confiscation and fo 'Property of a third person not liable f ot subject to confiscation and Sorfeiture. Thus, the money 'of an innocent third person used . .. ~ .~. ,"bv" the accused in bribing a public officer should be re', :'~.: turned t:o the owner thereof.
~~ ~

imposed under existing laws" and, a stated by t h e % ! 3 Court, 'ks long as the death penalty rem2ins in the books, it is the duty of the judicial officers to and apply the law regardles$ of their prjvate

712. What is the purpose of the review by the Supreme Courtof a case in which capital punishment has been imposed by the sentence of the trial court?

,,,

i ' '' i.

710. 'In what crimes is death imposed as the maximum of , . : -. the penalty? What is the justification for the death penalty? . . I n the following crimes : (1) treason, ( 2 ) correspondence wit.h hostile country when it contains notice or in. formation useful to the.enemy and the intention of the . ., "offender .is to aid the enemy, ( 3 ) in certain acts Of ...... espioiiage under Commonwealth Act No. 616, ( 4 ) certain , . . . . violations o l the Anti-Subversion Act ,( 5 ) qualified piracy, . (6) parricide, (7) murder, ( 8 ) kidnapping and serious . . ~. .illegal detention, (9) robbery with homicide, and (10) rape with hoimicide. Tho justification for the death penalty is social deA convict, because of the nature ! ' fense and exemplarity. o the crime he committed, may prove himself to be a dangerous enemy of society. The death penalty imposed on him is a warning to others.

The requirement has for its object simply and solely the protection of the accused. He is entitled under the ' : law to have the sentence and all the facts and circum- ' stances upon which it is founded placed before the highest tribunal to the end that its justice and legality may be . . clearly and conclusiveIy determined. Such procedure is. " ; . ,', . merciful. It gives a second chance for life. , :.
. i

:I

713. What is a complex crime and what is the penalty therefor? A complex crime is one where a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave ofsense is a necessary means f o r Thc penalty for the more or most, serious crime be imposed, the same t o be applied
714. What are the requisites of the crime? They are: 1. Only oue act must be performed by the" offend 2 . The felonies produced by the single ac or less ginve felonies.
715. Ls the penalty for the complex

711. In what'eases shall the death penalty not he imposed?


Car? the court refuse to impose the death penalty, even if the t:ircumstar.ces of the case justify the imposition . . of that uenalty? Explain your answer. . . The death penalty shall not be imposed in the (follow1 ing cases: (1) When the guilty person be more than seventy years of age; ( 2 ) when upon appeal or revision of the case by the Supreme Court, eight justices are not unanimous in their voting as to the propriety of the imposition .of the death penalty. The court cannot refuse to impose the death penalty. . ~ . . ,because +he Revised Penal Code provides that "the death 3 penalty shall be imposed in all cases in which it must be
I _

...

j.

.i

defendant? Ordinarily, the peualty for the complex crime is fay able t o the defendant, because instead .of sufferi or more penalties he shall be sentenced to one only. But if the graver offense earties .with it t alty of death as the maximum, it may be said t o favorable to him.

214

275

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REYIIEWER

'.

716. What is the reason fpr the benevolent spirit of Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code? When two or more crimes are the result of a single ; , ' ~ 'act, tho offender is deemed less perverse than when he . ., commits said crimes through separate and distinct acts. .:'. ,. Instead of sentencing him for each crime independently . ..~<~+<,&~,.. from each other, he must suffer the maximum of tXe :, ~~1.;. +$*$;.penalty for the more serious one, on the assumption that .i.r , -.it is less grave than the sum total of the separate penalties = ' ' . ,, '. , . for each offense (People vs. Hernandez, et al. 52 O.G. . , ? .: _. . ,
,

. .

It cannot be a complex crime of the second .form,-, because one offense is not necessary means for. commit; .. ting the other.
719. A driver of a bus with 35 passengers drove it in a reckless and imprudent manner. The bus fell into a ravine:,

5506).

..L.

Five passengers were killed and the rest of the s e w e r s mere slightly injured. Elow many crimes committed by the driver of the bus? Explain answer. Thirty-one crimes were committed, because the

ps a:

. ,

were., your: five

.
,
'~

.,'.

,717. A woman was found dead with stab wounds. The doetor - .who examined her dead body found that she was also . raped. .Later, X, who was suspected, was investigated . by; the police. X confessed to the police that he raped the woman and that he also stabbed her to eliminate a witness against him. Can X be held liable for a complex crime of rape with homicide? Explain your answer. Yes, X can be held liable f o r a complex crime of rape with homicide. It is not necessary to determine whether !' one offense was a necessary means for committing the other, 01. whether the two felonies, which are both grave, . . . were the result of a single act, because Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code is not applicable. Art. 335,as amended, ! . of the Revised Penal Code defines and penalizes a special complex crime of rape with homicide, when the homicide ' ' , is comm.itted by reason or on the occasion of the rape.

suffered slight physical injuries are the offended p in the thirty different, separate and distinct cas juries, cannot form a complex crime. 720. The mayor of a town, while in the performance of plain your aaswer. Only one crime of direct assault was committed

718. A, while cleaning his revolver with several persons around ; him, accidentally pulled the trigger. It exploded and " ' the slug fired from the revolver hit and killed C and the same slug that passed through and through the hody . . , .. of C also hit and injured B, who suffered slight physical . . injuries, a crime punishable by arrest0 menor. Did A ' ' commit a complex crime? Explain your arswer. ..., ., ', , .: . No, because the crime committed as regards the in. ', jury caused to B is only a light felony and a li,ght felony - ,. ~@.: . cannot form a complex crime of the first form; F.
~

Yes, because the single act of shooting B

;-

i .

'

276

277

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

1.

kill a certain person, placed a . ! ! & & der a building where the intended vicer persons were working. When tlie building WAS & s h ! ? e d , killing twenty ly injuring thirty-one otl-er persons. were committed by A? .How many imposed. Explain yonr answer. There is only & e m committed by A. Although, there were twenty murders committed for killing twenty . . persons by means of explosion and thirty-one attempted .' ~, . , murders, since they w s e & g m . y e felonies and t h e r e s u l t s :~ of a single acL-of exploding a bomb, they constitute a c m m e p f murders with attemnted murdqxs, and only oue penalty should be imyosed, that is, the zor mnr<eFr, which is the graver offense, t& aQp.Led in its maximum period. There were thirty-one attempted murders, resulting from a single act, e a the thirty, ' & l injnred, because A one other persons were only s & ,. had the ~TT to kill them.
~

gun a t . As regards B, was iLttemuted h&d&e. a punish&le by grision GOTe committed against C vame mx .g use it is punishable by reclzlsion. kzwaal. for the complex crime of h m wB-&

This case of - P e w l e YS. Desiarta is.'lfkelg to be - d & , & understood, becawe there was a s j b - a c t tkigger. The reason for the ruiiup that % e &s of homicide as- t persona killed hy n is that i firing a Thompson sub-machine gun t a&uually iring s v e r 1 ot which may he a& &It is nnly be:au$ f its &a1 , mechanism that the:? person firing i t ha3 to m s the trigger .and keep his finger pressed 011 the trigger to make the ,gun fire continually. ' !

Note:

. .

.'

., ~: .

',,,

-723. A pulled the trigger of, and fired, his Thompson sub.

724. A burned the house of 8 to kill the latter who was .' then inside, as in fact B war lulled as a consequence. Since arson ,was the means med t(P kill 'B, ' i s A liable for the couiplex crime of murder with arson?' Why? Mo. The crime is plain murdey, because there w a s . intent t o u and'& was psed as a means to accomulish his criminal uuruose (Art. 248, R.P.C.). .. as a means of killing a person is .a m n g cjrcumstance of murder and although arson also resulted it c m t be taken into a& to f s p the csmplex crime of murder with arson (People vs. Villaroya, et-a]., 64 O.G. 3488). This is not the second form of complex crime, because aithough the commission of one offense (arson) was necessary to kill the victim, since the Revised Penal.Code specirically defines murder as the killing of a person by means of fire (among other means), it should not be governed by Art.. 48.
Note: But if there was no .intent and the purpose of A was only t o %e h house and 13 died, a consequence, 8s the answer is either (1) lain arson or (2) a comalex crime of a m i with homicide (geople YS. Paterna; US. VB. Bum?, 41 Phil. 418). The reason for the first is that honiicide, which is punished with reclusion temporal, is ahsorbed in arson which carries r d h i t the higher penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion pevpetua. The reason for the second is t h a t the single act of hurning the house where the deceased wa3 killed produce+, two crimes, arson and homicide. , , . When in the question there is no mention of intent to k W l on the part of the offender who burned the house of another,

. machine gun at a group of many persons, -EW -1 the Several shots were fired and five persons were killed. How many crimes were committed

m.

t, r m

Explain your answer. Five crimes of d e were committed, because & there was only one act of pulling the t a r perc formed by A, each death caused corresuonds & a td and separate shot fired by A, who 'thus made himself many offenses 2 i h s a i criminally liable & 't:;'from the single that produced the same (People VJ. #;merto, C.A., 46 O.G. 4642). ii

- --

278

279

.. ,. .

':'

,
I,.,

'

..
.'

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER resulting in the death of a person, use the rulings given in the tam canes of People YE. Paterna and US. vs. Burns, and then ,give your opinion based on either of them. In the case of U.S. vs. Burns, whieh states the better ruling, the Supreme Court stated that while the law on arson KL k d i k prescribes a Bevere penalt in view of the & ? which id involved in the s&ng of fire to a building, known to be occupied at the time by human beings, it does not follow h t IL resuitina homicide is t o he consideroh as &l.WSlt in the clime of arson. The -f that is there a m d is the danger to life, a t h e attendant homicide that may in fact ensue.

CIZIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

727. Is there a complex erime of rolbbery with attempted rape? Explain your answer. b is& a "'ems to c t & anstNone. A &= tempted rape, w a n &tempted Tape cannot be a meam tncommit a robbwy. N o r can both crimes b the result . g of oe s & w . There is an indivisible complex m e ofrobberv a h r m konsummated), defined and penalized in Art. 294, par. 2, K G g d T e n a l Code (People vs. Cariega, C.A., 54 O.G. 4307).

'-

5. ' A was arrested for posessing a firearm without license. During the investigation by the police, A admitted that he came into the possession of the firearm because he stole it from B, the person who had license t o possess ,:'it. Are there two separate crimes of theft and illegal .possession of firearm or do they constitute a complex .crime? Explain your answer. Theft of firearm and the illegal possession of it are two dislhct and separate crimes. The crime of illegal possession of firearm is not committed by mere tra%sie%t possessiom of the weapon. There must be intention to use, which is not necessarily the case in every theft of firearm. Moreover, the crime of illegal possession of firearm, being punishable by a special law, is not a felony. A complex crime of the compound type 'requires that a single amct should produce two or more grave or less grave felonies. A felony is an act or omission punishable by the Revised Penal Code.

728. Is there a complex crime of grave coercion with murder? Explain your answer. None, If a person compelled another to do something against his will and because of the refusal of the latter, the formcr killed him, such person executed two distinct. acts and not only one, and one offense cannot be a nccessary means to com it the other (People vs. Ang.,Cho I%:, 60 O.G. 3536). e can compel the victim to do thing against his will without murdering hm;:*a can murder him without compellin,g him t o do'some against. his will.

-rt"

p&.:
.",,.~, &'2&
I+ <. .

& .. ; &
~

'+

%'

'IS them a complex crime of attempted rape with theft? None. If a person, who failed t o consummate the rape because the woman kicked him, snatched her vanity case from her hand a s she was running away,& executed two -acts and the attempted rape

729. What are the requisites of the sccond form of .compl crime? They are: 1. That two or more crinles are committed by same individual; 2 . That one or some of them is o r are necessary commit the other; 3. That all the crimes are puiiished under the statute.

730. Is it a complex crime where several crimes were mitted tu commit another crime? Yes, as in the case of People vs. Gallardo C.A., 52 O.G. 3103, where the offenders had to seventeen falsifications on seventeen money orders

00

281

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

at the

same time to commit estafa by presenting all of them at the post office for cashing on only one ocoasion.

731. A, purchasing agent of a private company, bought for the company office supplies worth E 0 0 and paid it out of the PGCO he bad received from the treasurer, but in the receipt issued by the store from which the office ~., supplies were purchased, A erased the figure 5 and wrote in its place the figure 6 and made other alteratibns to make it appear in the receipt that the price of the office supplies was P600, and then spent the .difference of 8100. Did A commit a complex crime, only . . one simple crime, or two distinct and separate crimes? Explain your answer. Only &e e l o f s t & with abuse d . a . ? k QtIence was- c . It cannot h e a comtllex rSime of estafa through falsi. & f%hLXms. & I& I , fication, because the dncllmPnf: was & ? ! S W t # t h e , u b s j the money .. . iZlhispnsso and it would not be necessary f o r him , i , , , .to falsify the document to get the difference of ?lo0 and <. , . spend it. The falsificatiPn was wlnmfked to c o a a l & e , crime of estafa. Moreover, the receipt being a private f h -t iaM&&on . . document, a complex crime a0 There is n o h complex crime is not le&ly_passihle. : of estafa t k l d falsificatipri of a private nt, &e. . m a the eaudulent w i n obtained, in the c o e o n of -,. .,. e&fa is the v m $ . a l U d - by the tXsXbtion uf , , . , . the private docnment. . ! . ,Ahey are not two distinct and separate offenses, beocument is falsified to conceal the and the falsification will be dis-

732. The treaJurer of a municipality m h r o p r i a t e d Weti: anwunt of P1,COO in his official c u s t o h and then ma.&% a l k r d o n s in his books to make it appear that, t h e nmount of 81,000 was la.vfulIv disbwsul. & . t h e treas. , ,:.,, urer liable for a complex crime? Why? . . No; he committed two seuarate and ri : The treasure]; an accounMe Z b l--c .nfiirrr committed i malversation f o r misappropriating the 81,000, a public fund. The o n f of his book, an official -document, was p. oi J~ necessary m e u s to commit the crime of malversation, b s e h s the mmev in his n c m e s i t n The t m could m&atse &or a~~v-o funds io the his possession w h t t h e m of falsifving a&& ment., But since damam o r m t o _cause d m g e & not necessary in falsification of an ojificial document, it, m ~ seuarate crime. a

.,<qg

.:..

if the offender bad to rom another person and document and the will be

t o obtain theaoney,,goods or other

f m

tkx~ U

-733. The mayor, the treasurer of a municipality, and X, a private individual, signed an official payroll for 8473.70 to the effect that certain persons worked as laborers . n i< street projects, vvhen in fact no work was done and those persons were not entitled to pay. The amount corresponding to their Supposed wa,Ses were taken and misappropriated by the three offenders. How many crimes were committed by them. Explain )*our answer. The mayor, the treasurer o f the niunicipality, and X committed t m and independent offenses of mlversation and falsification. They were in constliracy and all are guilty of malversation (US. vs. Ponte. 20 Phil. 379). The first two committed falsification of a w a n d official document with a d and, aecord-ing to Viada, the private individual whodc o with them is m e f o r the same offense. s t the falsification k was not a necessary means to commif; malversation, the treasurer having had i & possession the m m midappropriated (see Regis vs. People, 68 Phil. 43).

e crime would be xddp falsification

absorbed.

734. A was forcibly and with intimidation taken from hh house by B and C, placed in a jeep, and in a secluded
253

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

'XIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

place one kilometer away from his house A was shot to death. lis this a complex crime of kidnapphg with naurder? Explain your answer. No, it is plain rmvder, & a w e n n & g w d d z d m J 3 and C showing that they had the i s t i o n . to.deprive A of his liberty or to &eamd rwuxp f a .-r e In this case, the forcible taking of A by B and C was solely for the eof Icillina him (People vs.. Camo, et al., XVII, L.J. 371; People vs. Remalante).
N o t e : When it is -that the -of the taking of the victim was to detain him ille,?dly for any IenRth o f e or t o obtain ransom, and later the victim was killed when in mnmm is not paid, then it i s a camolex crime of with m u r k (Parulan vs. Rodas, 78 !?hi]. 8.55);. In complex crimes, whether of the first or second form. each of the two crimes can stand by itself. It must have all the element8 or, a t least, the elements necessary to eonatitutc the attempted stage, like attempted estafa, which may be co-lcxed with falsification.
"

1. When the offender committed any of the crjmesunder Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code; 2 . When the @ecificalk f h a penalty for two or more offenses, such as robbery with homicide; 3. When the offender committt!d a continuing crime.

. ., .

735 A shot I with a pistol without license. R died as a 3 /result. Did A commit a complex crime of homicide through illegal possession of firearm? Explain pour answer. No, because the offender cQmmitted two different acts with t w o w e criminal intents, u t , tlhL&i& take unlawfully t h e m o f a = , and the willful violation of which penalizes the possmsioc of a I h ' arm w i t b u t the required permit. M ,e r the b l !p " -are not punished ! ! .z the Same st& te. Homigdf cide is punished under the Revised Penal Code, while illegal possesion of firearm is punished by a special law. , I u n ' w , WLQ one offense is nesessuy to e_ommit the other, it has ben a t h a t the b crimes. .m punished under the Same statutwf
.I,

7 7 What is the difference between a continued or continuing. 3. crime and plurality of crimes? There are two forms of plurality of crimes to be distinguished from continued or continuing crime. The formal or ideal plurality of crimes, which covers the two fornis of complex crime, is distinguished from continued o r continuing crime in the sense that the offender in continued or continuing crime does not perform a single act, but a series uf acts, and each of the series of acts is not a necessary means for committing the others. The real or material plurality of crimes and the continued or continuing crime are similar in that in both there is a series of acts performed by the offender. But while in real or material plurality, each act performed by the offender constitutes a separate crime, because each act is generated hy a criminal impulse; in continued 01- continuing crime, the different acts constitute only one crime, because all of the acts performed arise from one criminal resolution.
738. A, B C and D entered a oompound where there were , six houses, each occupied by a family. When they entered the compound, the culprits had the intention to ransack the different houses and take personal property therefroni which they djd after passing through the windows. How many robberies with force upon things were committed by A, B, C and I)? Explain your answer. They c0mmitte.d Q&L o u e x d h e q w thiqps, the different houses because the ssveral ads .of g were not uncounectsd and entirely d l from o n e a n other. They f&ccmponent pari$ of the general &

6. .

<.?&~~

736. In what cases may, a person who committed multipls. crimes be punished with one penalty? 3 : A person who committed multiple crimes may be pun; gished with one aeiialtv in t h e following cases:

285

I
i'
1

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER


..

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

.
I

..
:, ,

739. ,Suppose the six houses were standing on different lot%. . ' ' each lot ha.ving its own fence, and A, B, C and D en'

.,. ..

to despoil AIJ-those within the comnou&. (See People v s ~ u z et ai., G. R. L-1746,May 23,4950.) ,

tered each and every one of them throngh the window ,,.>;:. .,and took therefrom personal property, how many crimes. ..,.: , were comm,itted by them? Why? -.::i~ , . , There would be six different robberies with force won. .:.' ' t h i n g s , b s a i s e the six houses are e&elv distinct & fm one another and the culnrits have different criminal r a & k " w a s they &d e&and m r k 2 m of the six houses ,: .; r & b z in the six There was no general Dlan to r / '.. houses.'. (See People vs. Enguero, et al., 64 0. G . 8230' . 8231.)
;k$%l.
_/r
j . .

1
~

a common motive to run amok. They kd .& e&!n persons and seriously wounded t&&J!.Akrpersons. l,t appears that the killing and the i n j u r h g ,:.;!:, of other persons were the =It of a single imDulse b rim amok and that A and B did -~n m k not&xr&i m .~~~ ~. '... '., ' , any particular individual. How nmny crimes were committed by A and B? why? The ldlilof eleven persons and the injuring of twenty other pemons should be consideEd as resulting a s u e c3ninal impulse &nd constituting a sine'le offense . ., . 13477-R, Jan. 1956). .. *(People vs. Emit, C
'

740. A and B
.
~

742. Art. prnvides that "if the penalty prescribed for thr., .s . felony c m n ! be liigliec than that corresponding to the offense which the a c a i n t e n d e d to c<;mmit, the penalty corresponding to the latter shall be imjposed in its maxi. mum period." Now, suppose that A ivanted to kill B, a slranger, and upon seeing him aimed and fired his gun a t him, but he failed to hit him and instead he hit and killed his father who was passing behind B. The penalty for parricide, the crime A actually committed, is reclusion perpetua to death. The penalty for h<omicide, the cvime A intended to commit, is reclusion temporal. Which penaity should be imposed ?,nd in what period? Exmplain your answer. In this case, two crimes were actually committed: (1) parricide, of which A's father was the victim; and (2) attempted homicide, of which B was the oEfended party, : The two crimes being the result of a single act, A com-. mitted a complex crime of parricide with attempted homi- ' , cide, and the penalty for the graver offense shall be imposed in the maxhnum.
Note: A d @a when there is >&&,e in_tha_identitv ' of the (errov in -e) and 0;dy 0n -f hy the unlawfd a c t of thcqffendtr. Ezample: A, thinlr- I ., ing that the p z - x n g in a dark alley was B, a stranger, fired at him who was killed 8s a result. It turned out that that person was C A's father. 8 we , there. In such case, only msr,mn was & e. &d . by t h G d the offender and.,,.i therefore, only 0. e was &d. There could 4 con? lex crime when onlv one crime.is_nmdueed, because a : - c Qresuuposeg, the s p m r m s i n of atJe& . .~n & I crimes. Art. 49 does to izberratio ictus, because in this hypothesis there is a complex crime end Art. 48 applies. It does not a@ pa -l s o to p-aete? &&ticwm~, because in this 'h y p o t h x - l h e crime bef&.&e same person, whereas Art. 49 has no application t o cases where a more serious consequence not intended by the offender befalls the Same person (P-1. 7s. Alburquerquue, 55 Phil. 150).

u '

l ~ ; .

. .

741. X entered a church and began firing with his .45 caliber pistol at a crowd. Tyo persons were ki.kbmd.another seriously injured. One r m ~ t h r e bull& woJlLdS; t h e e 'other, two; and the third, one. How many crimes were committed by X? X committed tJwee crimes. Since the three victims were nptot by and the ggdldkk the three crimes were not nroduced by a single act (People vs. Basarain, .G;R. L-6690, May 24, 1956).

143. Art. 249 provides: "Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another without ': the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated.,;
287

286

+*:>? > ., ,,..


CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
,z

p:....' 'the i n

CRI&IIINAL LAW REVIEWER

next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of

'.,'<

and be punished by reclusion .temporal." Upon . ,,.; whom is that penalty of reclusion temporal to be im, "posed? To what stage of execution of the crime of :'. "homicide Is that penalty applicable? .. , The penalty prescribed by law for the commission of : a felony shall be imposed upon the principals in the com" , , , : I , ,,, .., mission of such felony. Whenever the law prescribes a ;'; penalty for a felony in general terms, it sLall be nnder'' ;, stood as applicable t o the consummated feiony (Art. 46, .' R.P.C.). ;744. May the court impose a penalty lower by two degrees , . than that prescribed by law for t h e consummated felony upon the principal in a frustrated Pelony? Yes. The court, in view of the facts of the ca,se, may impose upon the person wilty of the frustrated crime of parricide, murder, or homicide a penalty lower by one degree than that which should be imposed under the .provisions of Art. 50 (Art. 250, R.P.C.). Inasmuch as Art. 60 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principal . in a frustrated felony, and Art. 250 provides that the court may impose a penalty lower by one degree than that which should he imposed under Art. 50, it is clear that the court can impose a penalty lower by two degrees.
745. May the court impose a penalty lower by three degrees ,~ , than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony upon the principal in an attempted felony? , -. Yes. The court, considering the facts of the case, may ' . likewise reduce by one degree the penalty which under Art. 51 should be imposed for an attempt to commit any of such crimes (Art. 250, par. 2, R.P.C.). Inasmuch as Art. .. 51 provides that a penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principal in an attempt t o commit a &:.felony, and Art. 250 provides that the court may reduce "--,
.I
~

.''. homicide

by one degree the penalty which under Art. -51 sl?ould b?, impose2 for an attempt to commit the crime of pa:ricid'e, ..x rnnrder or homicide, it is elear that the court can mpose -a nenaltv lower by three degrees. . .
~

Note:

The rules referred to in the two prweding questions are true only in three crimes, namely: () Parri- ," 1. ';i &de, (2) murder, and (3) homicide. The annlieation of the rules is not mandatory. Their aP&cation is discretionary to the court.
R?8werg

__

. ,~*.

746, What i a degree in relation to the peUdtieS Provided s by the Revised Penal Code? A degree is one unit penalty or one of the Penalties enumerated in the graduated scales in Art. 71 Of the Re, vised Penal Code. Thus, Scale No. 1 of said article mentions the penalties in the following order: 1. Death, 2 . Reclusion perpetua, 3 . Reclusion temporal, 4 . Prision mayor, 5. Prision correceional, 6 . Arrcsto mayor, 7. Destierru, 8. Arresto menor, . , 9 . Public censure, .. .'t 10. Fine. One of them is a degree in relation to the other. P?'%Oe;$ mayor is one degree lower than reclusion temporal. PvkiOrr $$ +?; correcciod is two degrees lower than reclusion tempor ,

L,

747. For what purposes are the penalties provided by the Revised Penal Code lowered by one or more degrees? The penalties provided by the Revised Penitl Code are lowered by one or more degrees, for any of the following purposes : 1. For graduating the penalties to be imposed upon persons guilty as principals of any frustrated or attempted d fdony ; 2. For graduating the penalties to be imposed u p,. p accomplices or accessories (Art. 61, R.P.C.) ;
289

288

290

291
,.

.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEVVER

,, .

;,.,.

~<,:

to prision, mayor in its minimum and medium periods: It is also the penalty for the accessories t o the commission of a consummated murder. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death is; the penalty for the principals in a consummated murder (,4rt. 46, R.P.C.). Art. 5:1 provides that a penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony , shall be imposed upon the principals in a n attempt to commit a felony. Art. 53 provides that the penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the con. summated felony shall be imposed upon the accessories to the commission of a consummated felony. Hence, in both cases, the penalty is lowered by the same number of degrees. Art. 61 in its paragraph No. 3 provides that when the penalty prescribed for the crime is compose? of one or ' , . two indivisible penalties and the maximum period of a divisible penalty, the penalty next lower in degree shall be compos,cd of the medium and minimum periods of the proper divisible penalty and the maximum p z i o d of that .' ,.immediately following in Scale No. 1 prescribed in Art. 71. Applying the same rule in lowering tht penalty by another degree, because we have to lower the penalty by two degrees, we shall obtain the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its , , minimum and medium periods.
751. The crime of maltreatment of prisoners is punished by the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to

The proper penalty to be impos,:d on A is either tiewo in its medium and maximum pirriods or arresto in its minimum period. Art. 64, par. 5 , provides that when there are,.tw more mitigating circumstances, there 1s no a circumstance, and the penalty is divisible, the lower in degree shall be imposed. In this ea two mitigating circumstances, without any circnmstance. Art. 61 in its paragraph No. 4' provides that penalty prescribed for the crime is composed periods, corresponding to different divisible pe penalty next lower in degree shall be compos period immediately following the minimum prescri of the two next following, which shall be taken from penalty prescribed, if possible; otherwise, from the immediately following in Scale No. 1 prescribed in The penalty prescribed f o r the crime of maltre of prisoners is composed of several periods correspondi to difPerent divisible penalties (arresto mayor and P correccionnl) . Since destierro i the penalty follo s arresto mayor according to Scale No. 1 prescribed in 71, the penalty next lower is either wrresto mayor minimurn'ij or destierro in its medium and maximum periods, because : it is impractical to require the convict to serve two penalties -$ of different nature which are not specifically imposed by. ' law.
752. When the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the erinie is composed OC three periods corresponding to different penalties, how many periods must the penalty next lower in degree have? When. the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code bas three periods corresponding to diflerent penalties, the penalty next lower has three periods also, starting from the period where the higher penalty ends.

, ,. . .

prision corireccional in its minimum period. A, who committed this crime, pleaded guilty when he was arraigned before the court and proved that h had no intention to e m commit so grave a wrong as that eommitked, without an aggravating circumstance attending the cammission of the crime. What is the proper penalty t o be imposed on . ~ A ? Explain your answer, stating the rules for graduat. t> the penalties. .ing ..,

;:.,

753. When the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the crime has two ,periods, how many periods must the penalty next lower in degree have?
293

292

C
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

/Two

periods also.

754. When the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the crime has one period only, how many periods

must the penalty next lower in degree have? One period also. What is a complex penalty? Is it the penalty for complex crime? Give an example of complex penalty? A complex penalty is a penalty prescribed by law, composed of three distinct penalties, each forming a period: the lightest of them shall be the minimum; the next, the medium; and the most severe, the maximum period. It is not the penalty f o r complex crime, because the penalty f o r complex crime is the penalty for the graver offense, to be imposed in the maximum period. Example of complex penaltg: Eeclzcsion temporai to death. The minim'Jm is reclusion tenzpord; the medium is reclusion pepyetua (which is in-between r e o l d o n tamporal and death); and the maximum is death. Note: The rules in Art. G4 a@pIy when the penalty prescribed

,.

/ oi

bv Inw for the crime is a complex penalty, composed of threo morl? distinct penalties.

After committing robbery with homicide, A surrendered to a and when arraigned he pleaded guilty. There was no aggravating circumstance that attended the commission of the crime. . The penalty for robbery with homicide is reelnsion perqetua to death. There being two mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance, what is the proper penalty to he imposed on A? Explain your answer. Reclmion perpet?ra, because the penalty for the crime he committed is composed of two indivisible penalties and according to Art. 63, paragraph No. 3, when the commlssion of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstance3 and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied. The presence of two or more mltigating circumstances without any aggravating CircUmsbnce

7jS. In what cases are mitigating alld aggravating &e&. ' stances not considered in the imposition of penalty?

No, when the penalty for the crime is composed of two indivisible penalties, the lesser penalty shall be imposed. . if there is 110 mitigating and no aggravating. circumstance 63, R.P.C.).

!At.

-I

In the following cases: 1. When the penalty is singIe and indivisible, because Art. 63, R.P.C., so provides. 2. In felonies committed through negligence, because * Art. 365, R.P.C., so provides. 3 . The penalty to be imposed upon a Mohammedan in- ,"; habitant of Mindanao, because the Administrative Code h of Mindanao and Sulu so provides<. ,J$ . ' .ii 4. When the penalty is prescribed by special law, cause the provi8ions of the Revised Penal Code are applicable. 5. In deterniining the minimum term of the indete minate penalty.

.!

294

295

/
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

!
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
,,

/"

how many penalties must the court determine and what are they? he court must determine two penalties, called the the indeterminate penalty.

*,.

its full extent, it being the penalty prescribed by th4 Code for the crime. According to the rule in paragrapli" No. 2 of Art. 61, when the penalty prescribed for the, crime is composed of one or more divisible penalties to be'imposed to their full extent, the penalty next lower in
degree shall be that immediately following the divisible ,,(: penalty or the lesser of the penalties (in case there are ; ! . more than one) in Scale No. 1 prescribed in Art. 71. The penalty immediately following the divisible penalty of r e ', clusioit temporal is prision mayor, also in its full extent. But the court has the discretion to impose the penalty next lower in any of its period or without regard to the periods into which it may be divided.

0. What is the rule for determining the indeterminate penalty for the crime Ounishable by the Revised Penal Code? The indeterminate sentence shall have a maximum term . . which shall be that which, in view of bbe attending eircumnces, could be properly imposed under the rules of the evised Penal Code, and the minimum term shall be within of ..~ . b y the range for the penalty next lower to that prescribed .::, ; . .,. ., the Code the offense.

.:

.'/

~. 4 1 6.

What is the purpose o the law in requiring that the f court should fix a minimum term? The purpose of the law is to release the convict after service of the minimum term, unless his conduct is such that. he is not entitled to be released on parole; in which case, he shall serve the full term of the sentence.

Nota: Mitigating or aggravating cireumstanees are not considered in determining the minimum term of the indeterminate penalty. It is only in fixing the maximum term that the court will eon.;ider the mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

763. The penalty for illegal possession of firearm is 1 year to 5 ,years in case of small firearm. What is the rule for determining the indeterminate penalty for that offense?

62. When the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code

for the lelony is. reclusion temporal in its full extent, what is the maximum term ana what is the minimum term of the indeterminate penalty, if th,ere is neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance. Explain your answer. , ... The maximum term is reclusion tempord in its medium period and the minimum term is within the range of prision magor, without reference to the periods into which it may be divided. ,. < . The maximum term is the medium period of reclusion temporal, because according to Art. 64, which applies when the penalty is divisible, when there is neither miti.., .. gating nor aggravating circumstance, the divkible penalty .. should be imposed in the medium period. :' ._ .. ., .. . . , The minimum term should not be computed from reelusion temporal medium bnt from reclusion temporal in
296

Illegal possession nf firearms is punished by special law. When the crime is punished by a special law, the minimum term should not be less than the minimum prescribed (1 year) and the maximum term should not be more than the maximum prescribed (5 years). The court may impose 1 year, as the minimum term; and 2 years, as the maximum term.
764. If the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for a felony is reclusion temmporal what is the longest period of imprisonment that the court can impose for the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence? What is the shortest period of imprisonment for the minimum term? Explain your answers. Twelve years, bemuse the minimum term of the indeterminate penalty is the penalty next lower from the penalty prescribed by the Code for the crime, and in this case the penalty next lower is prision mayor, which the court can
297

.&'
CHIMINAL LAW REVIBWEIZ
.,?

CKIXINAL LAW REVIEWER


. ,. ,

jmpose .in ' i n y of its periods or without regard to arty


of its periods. Since the maximum duration of prision mayor is twelve years, the court has the discretion to impose twelve years, the longest period of imprisonment that it can impose for the minimum term of the indeterminate penalty. The shortest period of imprisonment that the court can impose as the minimunl term of the indeterminate penalty is six years and one day, i t being the minimum of the minimum period of prision muyor.

committed being a complex crime, reclt&on.temporal sho be imposed in its maximum period.
Note: In the ease of People VS. Fulgeneio, G. R. No. L S - h K November 10, 1952, the Supreme Court disregarded its nrl in the case of People YS. Ganzalez, 73 Phil. 549, which is better ruling. In the Fulgencia caiic, the penalty of mcZus~on p e r p e t w to d a t h was first a.pplied in the maximum (death) , and then lowered it by one degree. The result is redugion serpetun.

/'
~

766. When the accussed is found guilty of a complex crime

765. X, a minor 15 years and 6 months old, threw a hand grenade at his grandfather and grandmother, because the latter refused to g2ve him money. When the hand grenade exploded, both of the grandparents were killed. The penalty for parricide is reclusion perpetua to death. What is the proper penalty to he imposed on X, in case after trial he is found guilty and while in the reformat o r s institution he becomes incorrigible? Explain your answer. X should be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from piision mayor in any of its period or anywhere within its range without reference to the periods into which it may be divided, as the minimum term, to reclusion temporul in its.maximum period, as the maximum term of the indeterminate penalty. The offender, being a minor over 15 but less than 1 6 years of age, is entitled to a privileged mitigating circumstance. When there is B privileged mitigating circumstance, and this may be the only exception to the rule, the penalty next lower should be the starting point for the determiuation of the minimum term. One degree lower from reclusion perpetua to death is reclusion temporal. To determine what penalty should constitute the minimum teim, consider the penalty next lower from reclusion t~mporal,and this is prision mayor. After obtaining the penalty next lower in degree for the purpose of the minimum term, fix reclusion temporal in its proper period i n view of the attending circumstances. The crime
298

R : under Art. 4 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to, : other articles of the same Code, from what'penalty must the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence L ,' m computed? Illustrate. There are two principles 011 the matter when the crime,,.,. involved is a coniplex one. One is that the penalty immediately lower is the next below the penalty set for the.: gravest crime. The other is, the maximum peri ing an independmt penalty, the next lower is the pe immediately below which, by analogy, becomes also independent penalty. The first principle should be used, it being more favor able to the accused. Illusirntion: A is found guilty of discharge of arm (Art. 254) with less serious physical injuries 265). The penalty for the graver offense (discharge firearm) is p i s i o n correceional in its minimum and med periods. The minimum term of the indeterminate sente should be arrest0 mayor in its medium and maximum riods (People vs. Caburao, C.A., ti4 O.G. 8261).

. ,

767. A, a minor 15 years and 6 months old, committed der, without any other mitigating circumstance or gravating circumstance. He was found guilty i the reformatory institution, he became i n n The penalty for murder is reclusion temporal i n ' * mum period to death. 1s A entitled to an indet penalty? Explain yvur answer.

299

CRIMINAL LAW REVEWER

~.

. . ....

. .

-.

ClZIrMINAL LAW NEVIEWEIZ

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER


D

sentenced to the penalty o f destieiro or suspension.


p. *

the crime is punishable by the Revised Penal Code i s ~ t pergctlty which, in view of the attending circumstafice should he imposed according to the rules prescribed,by
A, being the servant of the offended party, is guilty of qualified theft punishable by a penalty two degrees. higher than the penalty for simple theft (Art. 310, R.P.C.). 3 is an accomplice in the crime of simple theft, because aggravating circumstances which arise from the private relations o the offender with the offended party shall serve to aggravate the liability of the principals, accomplices or accessories to whom they are attendant (Art. 62, ar. 3, R.P.C.) , Such private rela.tion existing between C (servant and master) is not attendant to B who i s a stranger.

is the Indeterminate Sentence Law not applicable penalt:v of destierro and suspension? Because the law applies to a prison sentence, and of the law are expressly granted t o those who are sentenced bo imprisonment exceeding one year.
the circumstances relating to the persons participating in the commission of the crime from the circumstances consisting in the material execution of the act or in the means employed t o accomplish it, as t3 the extent of their effect upon the criminal liability of the offenders. The former do not affect all the participants in the commission of the crime, but only those to whom they particularly apply, like aggravating or mitig6ting cireumstances- which arise from the moral attributes of the offender, or rom his private relations with the offended arty, or from any other personal cause; ttie latter have a direct beming upon the criminal liability of all the defendants who had knowledge thereof at the time of the commission of the crime, or of their cooperation therein.

, J:

,;

r<

74. Suppose, in the preceding question, A and B were h ~ conspiracy, what would be the crime committed by B? would he liable as principal for simple theft only, se the relation of master and servant existing beC and A at the time of the commission of the crime was not attendant to B. The rule in paragraph 3 of Art. 62, R.P.C., still applies, notwithstanding the fact ,? .~% that there was conspiracy between IL B. aud
775. May treachery or nighttime aggravate the criminal liabdity of the principal by induction who was never at the scene of the commission of the crime? Explain yollr

73. A, servant of C, and B, a stranger to C , were accused of stealing the ,property of C-A as principal and B as accomplice. The value of the stolen property is 8250. The penalty for simple theft is prision correccional i n its minimunl and medium periods, if the value of the property is more than 8200 but does not exceed B6,OOC. What penalty will be the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence for A and for B? Explain your answer. For A, the maximum term of the indeterminate penalty is prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods. For B, the maximum term of the indeterminate penalty . . is arresto mayor in its medium and maximum ,periods. The maximum term of the indeterminate penalty when
302

answer. Yes, iP the principal by induction had knowledge at > t h e time of the commission of the crime that the principal by direct participation committed the crime with treachery~ or that he purposely sought nighttime to facilitate t h e commission of the crime, because they consist in the material execution of the act or in the means employed to.: accomplish it. Under Art. 62, par. 4, of the Revised Penal Code; offender is not affected by the aggravating circumsta of nighttime unless he knew that it would beavailed

303

.u. .~~

, .

CRIMSNAL LAW REVIEWER


. 1

by the other offender in accomplishing the offense (People vs. Villanueva, 52 O.G. 5865).

779.
' /

A committed theft. <>*,In 1951, he


195.2, he was prosecuted for an information alleging only tho commission of &&gi of fakification in 1952. During the trial, A , aainit *'"on cross-examination that he committed theft in I@ and estafa In 951. After trial, A was convjcte_&& f a l s i f i c a t i o n . d A a habitual delinquent? ', Explain your ., answer. . .I . *;; ; ,~,
.s.,.a+

.".
'.

'

, ' /me

is a habitual delinquent? A habitual delinquent is one who, within a period of ten years from the date of hi8 release or last conviction of the crime of (1) serious or (2) less serious physical injuries, (3.) robbery, (4) theft, (5) estafa, or (6) falsification, ofkner. guilty of any of said crimes a third or is found
' N o t e : R,Emember the six crimes specified in the, dafinitian.
Slight physical injuries is not inchtded. Homicide 1s not also included. The stage of execution of any of those crimes need not be consummated. The offender may he only an accomplice or neces:;ory in any of those crimes.
'

because when he committed the cril;l$of y&ifi&&: *. tion he Was not yet convicted of the crimes of thefta~andj estafa. Moreover, since he only admitted-the co&'ssio$ of theft and estafa on cross-exanination and. there ' a gp no allegation of habitual delinquency in the i i x f o F t i $ n l he is not a habitual delinquent. . *'.:., ,. , : ! g
NO,
, ,,;<>a Note: In order that a person may he a habitual de '.''''_'+ it iS necessary that the second crime was committed after conviction of, or .after service of ,sentence for, t crime; the third crime was committed by him after 6 of, o r a f t e r service of sentence for, the second crime, The reason for this rule is that the additional. fixed by law for habitual delinquency are reformatory in acter and that their agplication should he gradual, and can be carried out only when the second crime is'co after conviction of the first crime or after service of f a r the first crime etc.

.~.I

; .

7 How many penalties are imposed on a habitual delin.

..
''

'

',

,. . .
..,

quent? Illustrate. q'wo pcinalties: that is, the penalty for the crime Of which he is found guilty and an additional penalty for being a habitual delinquent. ~&&i-~tio?t: A was previously punished for theft and within ten years; and five years after his last release, & committed falsification. If after trial and within ten years from his last conviction or release, A is found guilty of falsification, he shall be sentenced to the following penalties : " . (1) p&ion coweccional and fine, for falsification (Art. 172) : and ( 2 ) prision correctional in its medium and maximum , periods for being a habitual delinquent for the first time (Art. 62, par. 5 ) .

. In determining the proper mitigating circumstances topenperiod of the additional &, are aggravating and be
considered by the court? Why? . Yes, hedause it would be arbitrary to apply it in any :of its periods without regard to the attending circumstances. :.:(See People vs. De Jesus, 63 Phil. 761.) .. '

The information must allege: (1) the dates 'of th mission of the previous crimes: (2) the date af the la victim or release; and (3) the dates of the other convictions o r releaser. The ten-year period is complted from last conviction or release. The law does not require that all the three or mom: victims should take place within & lperiod' of ten years.,: the period hetween each eonvietion or release and the.: conviction should not exceed ten yevears. The ten-year period is not counted in relation to the of commission, but to the date of conviction, of subs;

crime.
In other words, the ten-year period should be e tween convictions or hetween release and convieti tween conviction or release and commission of su last offense.

304

305

/ '

,.:.w

, ,..." . .

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER


. ..^_ ..I.

CRIXINAL LAW REVIEWIER


' '

780. In the preceding question, can A be declared a recidivis{?

.>x* . ,.,.I..:. . ,.?.,.>$, ~#+


1 ,

<'

No, because even in recidivism, the offender at the time O f his trial for one offense must be convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the Code. Moreover, his previous crimes of theft and estafa and the crime of falsification for which he was on trial are not embraced in the same title of the Code. Theft and estafa are embraced in the title of crimes against 'property, while falsification is embraced in the title of
crimes against public interest.

The medium pericd: the maximuq of the min@$. period plus 1 da., as the minimum; and such m? @ i$ i ; : plus 1yr., 3 mas. & 1 0 das., as the maximum of the medmm period. =;;# ' The maximum period: the maximum of the rnedi*a period plus 1 da., as the minimum; and such minimum$ plus 1 yr.) 3 mos. & 10 das., as the maximum of the max-.y imum period. . .
782. A minor 13 years old who acted with discernment cum-. mitted the crime of slight physical injuries, punishable by arresto menor. May the court which tried him and.-./ found him guilty impose a penaltY two degrees lower .,... ~: than arresto menor? Explain your answer. It is submitted that the court cannot., impose a penalty lower than arresto menor. Art. 68 which provides for a privileged mitigating circumstance applies only after the minor was proceeded against under Art. 80 and while.' in the reformatory institution such minor became incorrigible. R u t Art. C0 applies only when the minor under: 16 years of age committed a Brave or less grave felony. In this case, the minor committed only a light felony, in : view of the penally provided for slight physical injuries.

;&l. What is the duration of each of the three periods of ;.'F, prision correecional maximum to prision mayor mkimum? ,*ST, Make and explain the computation. ,,:,~ .. Min. - 4 Yrs., 2 mos. & 1 da. to 5 yrs., 5 mos. g, P. 1 0 das. ', . ..,i, , Med. 5 yrs., 5 mos. & I1 das. to 6 yrs., 8 nios. &. . ,; : . i.~ . 20 das. Max. 6 yrs., 8 mos. & 21 das. to 3 yrs. I. Computation: 6 rnos. '& 1 da. to 6 yrs. is the d u r a tion of pTision correecional. 6 yrs. o r 5 yrs. & 12 mos. 6 mos. (eliminate " da.") = 5 rrs. Br 1 G mos: + 3 = 1 yr. & 10 mos. Min. 6 mos. & 1 da. to 2 yrs. & 4 moa. 2 yrs., 4 mos. & 1 da. to 4 yrs. & 2 mos. Med. Max. 4 yrs., 2 mas. & 1 da. to 6 yrs. 11. COVLputation: 6 Yrs. & 1 dn. to 12 yrs. is the duration of Prision mazJo?. 12 yrs. - F yrs. (eliminate "1 da.") = 6 yrs. + 3 = 2 yrs. Min. - 6 yrs. & 1 da. to Med. 8 yrs. 83 I da. to 10 JTS. Max. - 10 yrs. & 1 da. to 12 yrs. 111. Computation: 8 yrs. 4 yrs. & 2 rnos. = 3 yrs. & 1 0 mos. + 3 = 1 yr., 3 mas. & 10 ~ Z S . The minimom period: the minimum oP the maximum of prision coireccional, as the minimum; and such minimum plus the quotient of 1 yr., 3 mos. & 10 das., as the maximum '. of the minimum period.
%
j

733. A minor 15 years and 6 months old committed homicide, a grave felony. If after trial, the court found him guilty of the crime of homicide, can the court sentence him in 1.he decision to be rendered in the same proceedings to a penalty one degree lower than that prescribed for homicide? Explain your answer. No, because a minor under 16 years who is convicted of B grave or less grave felony is entitled l o a suspensi of the sentence. If he is found guilty after trial, no penalty is imposed as the sentence is snspended. He will be committed to a rcformatory institution until he rea the age of majority o r f o r such less period as.the court may deem proper (Art. 80, R.P.C.). It is orJy when the minor becomes incorrigible in h reformatory institiition that he shall be returned to th

306

CRINIINAL LAW REVIEWEK

CRIMINAL LAW REVIIdWEll of Court do not permit the cliarging of more than one in the same information.

, . ,...

::r'
:y
.
' '

court for the imposition of the proper penalty. In such case, the court will consider the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority and will impose the penalty one de ree lower than ?eelusion temporal. In other 'words, rt. 68 is not immediately applicable.

.. .. . T 8 4 If a minor stayed in the reformatory institution f5r 5 months and while there he became incorrigible so that ' he .had to be returned to the court, is that minor entitled to be credited with one-half of the time of his stay in the reformatory institution? Why? No, because his stay in the reformatory institution is .< not preventive imprisonment which is the period of detention of the accused before and/or during the trial. The confinement of the minor in the reformatory institution Ces place,afte? the trial.

787. X was convicted in eight estafa eases. He was sentene in the eight eases, 83 f o l l ~ w s :(1) 6 months, (2) 2 Yqt's, (3) 6 months, (4) 1 year, ( 5 ) 1 Year, ( 6 ) 2 y&m (7) 2 years and ( 8 ) 5 years. Row long will the total ',; . : period of his imprisonment be? Why? . , Only 14 years, not 15 years whic 6 years multiplied by 8, because the 1 limit of iiot morc than threefoId the length ,.of,,fime responding to the most severe of the penalties ilh If the sum total of all the penalties impose the most severe multiplied by 3, ail the penalti must be served.

?; .f
5

78 What is the meaning of the threefold rule? ,@ The three fold r i beans that the maximum duration ,..., .. of the convict's sentence shall not be more than threefold , , , ,..., .:. the length of time corresponding to the most severc o f the , :. penalties imposed upon him.

.i

786.- Does the threefold rule apply to, or does it regulate, the imposition of the penalty on the offender? , ' ' No. It is error for the trial court to impose a penalty ,"' in accordance with the threefold rule, since Art. 70 can ' he taken into account, not in the imposition of the penalty, u t only in connection with the service of the sentence imposed (People vs. Escares, G. R. No. L-11669, Jan. 29, 1958). N o t e : Hence, all the penalties f o r all the crimes of which t h
offender is found guilty must be imposed by the coun. Thus, if A was convicted of 60 estafas, for eaeh.of which he was sentenced to one year imprisonment, the court had to impose 60 years imprisonment for all the crimes ,of which he was t convicted. I is only in the service of the penalties that-% threefold rule shall be observed. . , The threefold rule applies even if the several penalties am imposed by different courts at diiferent time3, because the RuIsj
,
,'

4
~

'
I.

..
.

7R8. The fiscal filed six informatioua for theft The amount involved in each case was P45. for theft inrolving an amount not exceeding 85 resto mayor. X was convicted in the six e83 regular trial and was sentenced to 2 months and of arrest0 mayor in each ease. As he could not ret the stolen properties, he was required to indemnify ., offended parties in the total amount of P270. . If x' insolvent, what is the total period of imprisonment th .he has to serve? Explain your answer. m a s to serve ten (IO) months and twenty-four ( days of imprisonment. Under the threefold rule; the maximum the convict's sentence shalI not be more than the -length of time corresponding to the most ; :' th2 penalties imposed on him, Two months an multiplied by 3 equals 6 months and 63 days ' ' total of thc penalties after applying the t h does not exceed 6 years, the subsidiary penalty- for payment of the reparation of the damages ea computed by dividing F270 by P2.50 a n d t h e ,108days o r 3 months and 18 days. But the i pen& shal! not exceed one-third of the penal

&

:p

308

909

CRlI\IINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

I./j,-,, .,_,

&$;,..'. ;! ,. , +: ;.* .. .. .,. . ~.,, . '. :.., , , .


l > .

a.nd in no case shall it exceed one year. Hence, the sub.sidiary penalty shall not exceed 2 months and 21 days. Adding 2 months and 21 days to the total of the pena1t;es imposed, which is 6 months and 63 days, we have 8 months and 84 days or IO months and 24 days.
Note: When the tlireefold ride is applied, hecsuse the convict has to servo several penalties, lhe basis of the subsidiary penalty is the maximum duration of the convict's sentence, not the total of the penalties imposed.

There is only one penalty for complex crime, .coutiUU crime, and specific crimes, like robbery with .homicicI kidnapping and serious illegal detention with serioua sical injuries, because the greater penalty absorbs the 1 penalty. 790. What is the penalty following arrest0 order of their respective severity? Arrest0 mens; (Art. 70).
791,. What is the penalty next lower in mayor? . Destiewo (Art. 71).
Note: Dcstierro mag be imposcd by the Municjgal or J of the Peace Court (People vs. Santos).,. The reason for the order in Art. 7-i~ the mrnnlties by degrees, the classification of considered, n o t their respective aeveritr. Desti mayo? must bo close to each other, because 88 correctional penalties. It is not proper to place orresto men and dsstiewo because awesto menor is In Art. 70, rwresto menor is immediately below and dsstiwvo follows awesto meno?, hecsuge in their respective severity, w e s t 0 m6n01 is mor destiewo. The severity of penalty is judged not by the duratio the penalty, but by the degree of deprivptian of liberty h v

:/
, ",

'

9. game and explain the different systems of penalty. Are all of them applicable in this jurisdiction? The different systems or penalty are: (1) the material accumulation system, (2) the juridical accumulation system, and (3) the absorption system. They &e applicable in this jurisdiction. although the material accumulation system is made subject to the limitation fixed by the juridical accumulation system. Under the material accumulation system, all the penalties corresponding to several crimes must be served even if their sum total reaches beyond the natural span of human life, Under the juridical accumulation sgstem, the service of the several penalties imposed on one and the same culprit is limited to not more than threefold 'he length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed and in no case to exceed 40 years (par. 4 to 6, Art. 70,

"'

R.P.C.). Under the absorption system, the lesser penalties are absorbed by the greater penalties. The material accumulation system is followed in parag r a p h ~1, 2 and 3 of Art. 70, which provides that when the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously if the naturs of the penalties will so permit (par. 1). The order of severity shall be followed, .so that they may be executed successively (par. 2). F o r the purpose o the successive services of sentences, the respective severities of penalties are stated (par. 9).
,

792. A, as principal, B, as accomplice, and C, as were convicted of B crime punishable by a P200 to P2.000. What amount of the fine sho posed on A, B and C? Explain your answer. For A, the fine of from F200 to 82,000 should be posed, because the penalty prescribed for the crime is penalty for the principal (Art. 46, R.P.C.). For B, a fine of from ?ZOO to F'1,500 should b posed, because he is an accomplice and t&e penalty s be lowered by one degree (Art. 5 2 ) and whenever necessary to reduce the penalty of fine by

310
i

311

., , , .
;.

1~

.:

:, .. .

$~::-shonld reduced by one-fourth of the maximum amount be !:"-prescribed by law, without, however, changing the minimum. For c, a fine of from 8200 to P1,OOO should be im-' '' posed, because he is a n accessory and the penalty should be lowered by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the principal of a consummated felony (Art. 53). To get the proper amount of the fine for the accessory, which ' is to be reduced by two degrees, we have to reduce, for each degree, by one-fourth of the maximum amount prescribed by law without, however, changing the minimum (Art. 76, R.P.C.). 1 1 determining the specific amount of the fine which 1 should be imposed on A, B, and C, their wealth and means o r their ability to pay should be considered. But under no eifcumstance may the fine be less than 200. If A is a poor man, the least amount of the fine which may be imposed on him is P200. If B is a rich man, the biggest amount of the fine which may be imposed on him i s Pi,600. In the case of C, the biggest amount of the fine which may be imposed on him is 81,000.
,

xc

I/''
prudence.

CRIMINAL LAW REQIEWER

The amoimt of the damage was.8200.

the law, the penalty is a fine from an amount eq the ralue of the damage to three times such vah% What is the proper anionnt of the fine to be imposed; \ ; r on A? Explain your answer. a:>".' Since the offender is .a minor. I5 years and 6 mane? old, in case he becomes incorrigible in the reformatow' institution, the penalty to be imposed on him, should G ' one degree lower. A fins not less than P200 and not more than P460,: should be imposed on A, because the same rules shall'be observed with regard to fines that do not consist of a fixed amount, but are made proportional (Art. 76, par. 2, R.P.C.). ' Three times P200 equals P600. One-fourth of P600 is P160. F600 - P150 = F450. The minimum of ,?ZOO is not ?* .. changed.
795. How about when the fine has no minimurn?
I ,

*:

Note: The second reduction should be based on the maximum of PZ,OOO, not on 81,600, because the law provides that in making the reduction for each degree, the reduction is one-fourth of the ma%imumamount pvesc*ibed by law. In the problem given, the mtinimnm amount prescribed by law is P2,OOO.
1

It is discretionary to the court to impose any amount not exceeding Ihe maximum of the fine provided by law (Art. 6 6 ) .
796. What is the provision of the law governing the procedure for the trial of minor delinquents? Whenever a minor of either ,sex, under 16 years of age at the date of the commission of a grave o r ,less grave felony, is accused thereof, the court after hearing,, :,! instead of pronouncing judgment of conviction, shall su& :' peud all further proceedings and shall commit such miq to the custody o r care of a public. o r private, benevole or charitable institution or to the custody or care of "other responsible person subject to the visitation and su vision by the Commissioner of, Public Welfare, :until minor shall have reached his majority o r f o r such period as the court may deem proper. If the minor has behaved properly and h & with the conditions imposed upon him during his men$ he shall be returned to the court in order. same may order his final release. . ,.
~

?93.: Suppozie A, in the problem given, wmmitted the crime . .. with grave abuse of confidence and that under the Ian
crime penalty has to be raised by one ., punishing theamount the the fine should be imposed? Exdegree, what of ;,~.. ' plain your answer. The fine should be from P200 to 82,600, because when<.. ii ever it is necessary to increase the penalty of fine by one if.' , or more degrees, it shall be increased, for each degree, by :., one-fourkh of the maximum amount prescribed ' b y law. without, -however, changing the minimum which, in this .'' . "case, is B200 (Art. 75, R.P.C.).
"
. / .

fj
I

'94.'-A, a minor 15 years and 6 months old, was convicted , ..", of the crime of damage to property through reckless im-

1'
~ ~

p.<: ..
,~

,,,

:;(.7.; I ,,,, . ' < d.,,, ">:,>,,>: ,,

?;ryp;::: ; ;

,,?. ,

'

312

313

'

.., . ,

1 1
,-.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW .REVIEWER

.
I ,

. ,

.~

:~',: (.

In case the minor fails to behave properly or to comply with the regulations of the institution or with the conditions imposed upon him when he was committed to the care of a responsible person, or in case he should be found incorrigible, he shall be returned to the court in order that the same may render the judgment corresponding to the crime committed by him. (Art. 80, R.P.C.)
Note: The minor should be under 16, not only a t the time of the commissipn of the crime, but also at the time of his trial. Art. 80 is applicable only to grave or less grave felony. The minor has the right to nppeal in ease he is foound guilty. Hc has the right to bail,

.:%_ .

When a convict shall become an insane o r a after a final sentence has been pronounced, the of said sentence shall be suspended only with reg personal penalty (Art. 79, R.P.C.). This provision is a$ plicable to persons sentenced to the death, who becom insane.
800. Art. 47 of the Revised Penal Code pmvide8 &at th

797. Does the suspension of his sentence under Art, 80 of the Revised Penal Code relieve the minor of civil liability? No. The suspension of the sentence under Art. 80 of the Revised Penal Code does not wipe out 'his guilt, but merely put off the imposition of the corresponding penalty, in order to give the delinquent minor a chance to be reformed. When after he has observed good conduct, the criminal case is dismissed, this does not mean that he is .. exonerated from the crime charged, but simply that he will suffer no penalty. Nor does such dismissal of the criminal case obliterate his civil liability for damages (Magtibay vs. Tiangco, 74 Phil. 576).
,
''

8 1. I n . wha

798. May the court, in the same proceeding where the minor

is found guilty hut the sentence is suspended, impose his


civil liability? No. 'The imposition of the civil liability is not fe@ble without judgment of conviction (People vs. Bakil, et al., C.A., 40 O.G. 102).
Note: The offended party has to file B separate civil action to recover damages from the minor or from his narents or guard-

R4
*

death penalty shall not be imposed when the guilty person-' be more than 70 years of age. Art. 83 of t h Code provides that the death sentence shall not flicted upon any person over 70 pears of age, death sentence shall be commuted t o the pen clnsion perpetua. In what proceedings is Art. 47 plicable and when is Art. $3 applicable? Art. 47 is applicable in judicial proceedings when penalty of death may be, but should not be, imposed4 the judgment of conviction by the trial court. Art. is applicable when the death sentence is t o be eze that is, after the Supreme Court affirmed the decis the lower court imposing the death penalty and the co f origin already designated the day f o r the execution 0 the death sentence.

. . ..
~

iws,
1

cases is the penalty of destierro imposed? I the following cases: en death or serious physical injuries is or inflict under exceptional circumstances (Art. 247, R.P. W en a person fails to give bond for good behavlo (Art. 4, R.P.C.). a penalty for the concubine in the crime of co cubina e (Art. 334, R.P.C.). When after lowering the penalty, destierro is t proper penalty. ..

-:799.
:

... ,

What provision of the law is applicable when the convict -becomes insane after final sentence of death has been pronounced?
314

802. A, as an act of revenge, embraced and kissed B, young unmarried girl. Upon complaint of B, the fis filed a criminal action against A. After trial, the eo& convicted A of the crime he committed asainst B.
315

.. ,..

.~ ,
,

CRIMINAL LAW REVVIEWER

* .

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

r '

:,-',.

-. .~,. . si. ,
~

,.
"

appealed from the decision of the court. While t h e appeal was pending in the Court of Appeals, A married B. Do you believe that the criminal liability of A is extinguished by the marriage of A with B? Explain your answer. No, because the crime committed by A against 3 was oily uniust vexation (Art. 287, R.P.C.), nst acts of lasciviousness, rape, seduction or abduction. It id only when the crime committed is any of them that the marriage of the offender with the offendeci party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed on him (Art. 344, last par., R.P.C.). Prescription of crime is the forfeiture or loss of the right of the State to prosecute the crime after the lapse of certain time. Prescription of penalty is the forfeiture or loss of the right of the government to execute the filial sentence after the lapse of certain time.

Note: June has SO


31 days. From June 28 to 30, there are 3 d to 31, there are 31 27 days. All in all information was fil prescribed. But the rule id exclude the day was committed and include tho day when the filed in court. If June 28 i s excluded, the e start on June 29 and it will be exactly 60 d And if we consider that n month, is cornput ,30-day month, only will he only 69 days.

8 6. The penalty for simple trespass to dwelling is arr

d/

'803. What i,s prescription of crime?


'~
., .

804. What is prescription of penalty?


'~

4/05. A was arrested by a ,policeman for theft on June 28,


.'

1958, the very day he committed the crime. In view of the amount involved, the crime is punishable by arrestir ' ' menor. On August 27, 1958, an information for theft .., ,\vas filed by the fiscal in court against A. Had the crime prescribed before the fiscal filed the information : in court? Explain your answer. No, it being a light felony, because it is punishable by : . arresto menor, the crime shall prescribe in two months o r GO days. A month is computed as the regular 30-day month. In the computation of the period of prescription, the first day should be excluded and the last day included. Hence, the running of the prescriptive period should commmce from the day fallowing the day on which the crime i was commilted. The information was filed on the 59th day.

mayor and a fine not exceeding P3,000? What, is prescriptive period of that crime? Ten years. When the penalty fixed by law is a co": pound one, the highest penalty shall be made the basis of the computation of the prescriptive period (Art. 90, last paragraph). Crimes punishable by arresto m y o r prescribe in 5 years and crimes punishable by other cor- ' rectional penalty prescribe in ten year. A fine of '81,000. ~,' is a correctional penalty. It being the higher of the compound penalty, the fine should be made the basis for classifyinglhe crime for the purpose of determining the prescriptive period of that crime.
Noto: The same rule shouid 5e observed i the ease af au n alternative penalty, like that one provided in- Art. 319 of the Revised Penal Code, which is arrest0 mffor or a fine doublethe value of the property involved (People YS. Basalo). Hence, if tho value of the property involved in thE commission of the. crime of removing o r selling any personal property mortgaged. hder the Chatlei Mortgage Law is PZOO, the fine doubl amount is B correctional penalty, which is higher than aTTeatg.. nmyeynr.

807. When does the periorl of prescription of crime commence':

to run? It commences to run from the day on which the


mission of the crime is discoyered hy the (1) offe party, (2) the authorities, or (3) their agents. 311

..,, %

qt+ 808; A, in connivance with the policeman of the town, com';.


:,p::~.: ,.
.

1
.,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIhllNAL LAW REVIEWER Note: In the case of People "8. Tayc:o, 73 Phil. 609, it w ~ d held that the filing of the complaint with the fiscal's office ' does not interrupt the runnirlg of the period of prescription '? of th8 crime. In the case of People YS. Parao, 6% Phil. 712. it v a s held that the preliminary investigation or examination conducted by the municipal president (now m*micipul mayor) is a judioial function or that it partakes of the nature of x judicial proeeeding. The Supreme Court said that "judicial proceedings having been taken against the accused and his arrest having been ordered, vvhich was not carried into effnct, because he had absented himself from his residence, hiding in the Province of toyte, the crime has not prescribed."

., .

- . % ' .

~.
.1.

.
,.>

mitted theft in an establishnient in that town. The policeman got a share in the hot. Nobody else knew the coniniission of the crinie o f theft by A, but t h e policeman. The crime committed is punishable by prision eorreccional. After eleven years, A was prosecuted Cor the crime he committed. Did the crime prescribe? Ex. plain your answer. No, because although the commission of the crime was known to the policeman, an agent of the authorities, since he took part in the commission of the crime and himself criminally liable, the crime may be coiisidered as not having been discovered by the authorities or their agents. The period of prescription o f the crime never ran for eleven years. When A was prosecuted after eleven years, t h e crime did not yet prescribe.
Note: The fact that the offender IS unknown is immaterial, as long ,as the commission of the crime is known to the (1) offended party, (2) the authorities, or (a), their agents, in xhich case the period of prescription of crime commences to run.

,/

,+/
,

9. If the psriod or prescription of crime has commenced to run, because the crinie was discovered by the offended party, or the authorities or their agents, when is it interru,ptcd? It is interrupted by the filing 01' the complaint or inormation.
,

"

810. With what authority or psblic officer must the complaint or information be filed to interrupt the running of t h e :~ .prescription of the crime? The complaint or information must be filed in the court which has jurisdiction over the offense, such that the proceedings can terminate in the acquittal or conviction of the accused. But there aye cases here the Supreme Court held that the filing of the compiaint with the justice of the peace court for crimes not triable by that court ''interruptcmd the running of the period of prescription of the wine.

8 1. A attacked and inflicted on B slight physical injuries on February 24, 1964. The next day, B filed a complaint with the justice of the peace and within two months the justice of the' peace held a preliminary investigation. As the complaint of 3 was for serious. physical, injuries, after the preliminary investigation, the case was forwarded to the Court of First Instance. The fiscal filed an information for serious physical injuries ten months after February 24, l9G.2. After trial, the Court of First Instance found A guilty of slight physical injuries only. Had the crime prescribed before the fiscal filed the infomiation ten months after the commission of the crime? Explain your answer. Nb, because B immediately filed a complaint for serious physical injuries with the justice of the peace court. Preliminary investigation was conducted by the justice of the peace within two months. The filing of the information i ; by the fiscal ten months after the commission of the crime' S is of no consequence, because the period of prescription ' of the crime never ran from the time the complain was filed with the justice of the peace. (see U.S. vs. Lozada, ' " 9 Phil. 509).

. s

/of

dote: The preliminary investigation conducted by the justice ' :" the peace was considered "criminal proceedings" in this ease. ri :# . ..:,
r

On December 27, 1963, A committed simple slander.'ql against R. The next day, B denounced the act to the&&

,,.<,I.~

,.,,x.L', . ,

318
I

., .,: ; :

,,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

.,

CRIHINAL LAW REVIEWER

'.

justice of the peace who immediately conducted prcliminary investigation. On February 18, 1964, the complaint was dismissed for lack of midence. On March 15, l!)G4, B filed a new oomplaint against A, now in the Court of First Instance which referred the ease to the justice' of the peace of the provincial capital for proper preliminary investigation. Having found merits in the complaint, the justice of the peace of the provincial capital forwarded the case to the Court o f First Instance, eltarping A with grave oral defamation. After trial, judgment was rendered convicting the accused of simple slander, punishable by arrest0 menor. Did the crime prescribe? Explain your answer. No, the prescription of the crime commenced to run only on February IS, 19134, when the justice of the peace dismissed Bs cornplaint. Simple slander prescribes in two months. Only about 25 days elapsed when B filed a new complaint in the Court of First Instame on March 15, 1964. The running of the period of prescription of the crime was interrupted on the day when B derounced the act to the justice o f the peace.

No. From July 25, 1952, when the crime was committed, until Augnst i, 1952, when the complaint was filed in the Justice of the Peace Court, only seven days had elapsed. The filing of the complaint on the latter date suspended the running of the prescriptive period. Said period commenced to rcn again at most frgm May 18, 1956, the date of the Supreme Court's decision, when the proceedings may be said t o have been terminated. . From that date until June 12, 1956, when the second information was filed, less than a month had elapsed. Adding this perind to the seven days which had already run, there is only about a month, which is certainly much less than six months prescriptive period provided for the crime of serious oral defamation (People vs. Uba, et al., G.R. L/;3&, October 16, 19.59);
A committed serious physical injuries pnnishable b r prision correcclonal and soon thereafter succeeded in leaving for Japan where he remained for 20 years. During that time there was an extradition treaty between the Philippines and Japan. Did the crime prescribe? Explain your answer. No, the term of prescription of the crime does not run when the offender is absent from the Philippines, and the fact that we have an extradition treaty with the country to which the offender fled is of no consequence.
Note: Extradition treaty is important only in prescription of penalty, not in prescription of crime.

813. On Angust 1, 1952, Demetria Somod-oug filed a complaint in the Justice of the Peace Court, charging the accused Juliana Uba and Calixta Uba with the crime of serious oral defamation said to have been comitted against her on or before July 25, 1052. Finding probable cause, the court elevated the case to the Court of First Instance where the Provincial Fiscal filed the corresponding information. However, by mistake, Pastora Somod-ong was designated the offended party, instead of Demetria. Because of this, the trial court dismissed the case. The government appealed to the Supreme Court. On May lS, 1956, the Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal, but ordered the Provincial Fiscal to fill! a new inforniation. On June 12, 1956, the Provincial Fiscal filed a new information. Did tho crime prescribe? Explain your answer.
320

After the filing of the complaint or information, when does the period of prescription of the crime commence to run again? When tine proceedings (1) terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted, or (2) are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to the accused.
The proceedings terminated without the accused being convicted or acquitted, when the ease was dismis;ed upon matian of the accused, based on the failure of the prosecution to present its evidence because its witnesses could not be 10eatcd, and the court dismissed the ease.
NOt5:.

321

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER


~

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

The proceedings are unjustifiably stopped for. any reason. not imputable to the accused, when the trial of a criminal eaae did n o t proceed, because the prosecution neglected to mow f o r the trial and the case remained pending for several years. But when the proceedings stop f o r a season imputahle to, the accused, as in the case of Pewpie YS. Para", et ai., the period of prescription of the crime does not commence to run azain.

A was tried and found guilty and later the proper pen9
ally had to be imposed, because he became incorrigible. He wi?s sentenced to a penalty one degree lower, which.' is destierro. Did the crime prescribe? Why? Yes, because the crime being punishable by awesto mayor prescribes in five years. The information against him was filed after six years from the discovery of the crime. In prescription of crime, as in this case, it is the penalty prescribed by law for the offense which must be considered, not the penalty that may be imposed after considering the attending circumstances. 818. A was prosecuted for theft punishable by prision correccional, in view of the amount involved. I t appears that A voluntarily surrendered to a policernan when he learned that the court had issued a warrant for his arrest and during the arraignment A pleaded guilty. There being no aggmvating circumstance, the court imposed 2 months and 1 day of arrest0 mayor. While serving the sentence for one month, A escaped. What is the prescriptive period of the penalty? Why? Five years, because the penalty imposed is urresto
mayor.
i '

816. A was convicted of a crime and FYHS sentenced to pay a fine of P200, which he could not pay by reason of
insolvency. He had to serve the subsidiary penalty of 2 months and 20 days. While serving 1 month in prison, he escaped and remained at large for 1 year. After 1 year, A was captured. What is involved in this case, prescription of crime or prescription of penalty? Did it prescribe? Explain your answers. Prescription of penalty is involved in this case, because A commenced to serve his sentence and, therefore, there is a final sentence. No, it did not prescribe. The fine of F200, having been imposed in a final sentence, is a correctional penalty and prescribes in 10 years. Since only one year elapsed from the time A had escaped, the penalty did not prescribe. The fine of E200 is a penalty imposed by a final sentence. Under Art. 26, a fine of less than E200 is a light penalty, and prescribes in one year, and if not less than P200, as in this case, it is a correctional penalty, which prescribes in ten years. The subsidiary penalty for nonpayment of the fine should not be considered in determining the period of prescription of the penalty of fine (People vs. Salazar, 52 O.G. 1941; People vs. Yu Hai Q Haya, 52 O.G. 5116).
,

In prescription uf penalty, it is the penalty imposed by final sentence, not the penalty prescribed by law for the offense, which should be considered in the computation of the prescriptive period.
819. When does the prescription of penally commence to run? It comrnefces t o rim from the day on which the convict evaded the service of his sentence. 820. A was convicted of theft, and was senltenced to 4 months and 1 day of arrest0 mayor. While serving sentence for 1 month, A was convicted of serious physical injuries, conimitted before he was convicted of theft, and was sentenced to 1 year of prision correecional for the crime of serious physical injuries. A did not appeal. The penalty for serious physical injuries was to be served
323
. .

Note: When the fine is exactly W O O , apply Art. 9 when the issue is prescription of the crime; and Art. 26 when the issue. is prescription of lho penalty.

817. A, a m,inor 15 years and 6 months old, committed the crime o,f less serious physical injuries punishable by arresto mayor. The information for less serious 'physical' injuries was filed by the fiscal six years after the authorities came t~ know of the commission of the crime..
322

CIZIMIXAL LAW REVIEWER

CILli\llNAL LAW I~EYIEwEI<

by A after the service of the penalty for theft, While serving the sentence for theft for 2 months, A escaped and, was captured after 17 years. Did the penalties for theft and serious physical injuries prescribe? Explain your answer. As regards the penalty for theft, there is no Guestion that the penalty prescribed, it being only urresto mayor which prescribes in 5 years. But the penalty of 1 year of prision correceiona.1 did not prescribe, because when A escaped he evaded the service of the sentence for theft, and not the sentence for serious physical injuries which he would serve only after service of the sentence for thelt. I-Ience, since he did not evade the service of the sentence for serious physical injuries, the term of the prescription of the penalty for that crime did not commence to run. Evasion of the service of the sentence is an essential condition for the running of the period of prescription of penalties.

Yes, A can be required to serve the remgining period of 3 months and 1 day of his sentence of 4 months and 1 day, because although the penalty of urresto mayor (4 months and 1 day) prescriben in 5 years, yet he committed the crime of rape before the expiration of the period of prescription. A can be prosecuted and punished for rape, because rape is punishable by reclusion temporal and prescribes in 20 Years. Since A was captured 19 years after the commission of rape, the crime did not yet prescribe when he was captured. If the information is iled in court within the remaining one year, the court can try and punish A for the crime of rape. 823. What is the usual condition imposed in conditional par. don? How long will that condition be operative? In conditional pardon, the condition usually imposed upon the convict is that he shall not again violate any of the penallaws of the Philippines. The condition of the conditional pardon is limited to the remaining period of the sentence, unless an intention to extend i t beyond that time is manifest from the nature of the condition or the language in which it is imposed.
Note: lllu8tmtion- A was sentenced to 12 years and 1 day upon a plea of guilty to the charge of homicide. After serving 8 years, he W ~ Sgranted a conditional pardon, the Condition being that he should not commit any crime in the future. After five years from the time he was released by virtue of the conditional pardon, he committed the crime of coercion. Prosecuted for, he was convicted of, coercion. Can he be prosecuted and punished f o r violation of the conditional oardon? No, because when he committed coercion, the condition of the pardon was no longer operative. But if the condition says, that he should not commit any crime as Ions ns he lives ur somethins to that effect, then he can be prosecuted and punished for violation of the eonditional pardon, because the Condition is operative 8 s long as he lives.

821. What are the causes that may interrupt the running oE the period of prescription of penalties? When after evading the service of hi3 sentence, the .. .._.. . culprit (1) gives himself upJ (2) ,d (3) should wn to a foreign country with which this Government has no extradition treaty, or (4) s m o m m i t another &,e, before the expiration of the period -f o
~

N0t.e: It is believed that when the crime Committed is not one of those covered by the extradition treaty it is a3 if there i s

no extradition treaty between the Philippines and the country t o which the offender fled.

822. A, while serving for one month his sentence of four months and one day of imprisonmert, escaped. Four years, eleven months and twenty-nine days from the day he escaped, A committed rape punishchle by reclusion temporal and remained at large for nineteen years since he committed rape. He was captured. Can A be required t6 serve the remaining three months and one day impri!ronrnent? Can he he prosecuted and punished for \ rapc? Explain your answers. 324

824. What is commutation of sentence? In what cases is commutation of sentence provided by the Revised Penal Code? 325

.
s,,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

Commutation of sentence is a change of the decision of the court, made by the Chief Executive, by reducing the degree of the penalty inflicted upon-the convict, or by decreasing We length of the inlprlsoment or the amount of the fine. In the following cases. the Code prcvides for commutation of sentence: 1 . When the convict is over 70 years of age, the death penalty is commuted t o life imprisonment (Art. 83. R.P.C.). 2 . When the Supreme Court fails to confirm the death penalty imposed by the lower court. (Art. 47, R.P.C.). 825. What is parole and how is it distinguished from eonditional pardon? Parole is a suspension of the sentence or a conditional release of a convict who has served the minimum term of the indeterminate penalty. Conditional pardon, which may be granted at any time after final judgment, is granted by the Chief Executive under the provisions of the Administrative Code; parole, which may be given after the prisoner has served the minimum penalty, is granted by the Board of Pardons and Parole under the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. F o r violation of the conditional pardon, the convict may be ordered re-arrested and reincarcerated by the Chief Executive and/or may be prosecuted under Art. 159 of the Code; for viola,tion of the terms , " of the parole, the convict cannot be prosecuted under ?p9 Art. l!59. He can be re-arrested and reincarcerated to !g@ serve the unserved portion of his original penalty.
' ~ '

.,:-.

d'

In the first, the deduction is granted in consideration of good conduct shown by the prisoner during the service of his sentence; in the second, the deduction is granted because of the loyalty of the prisoner who gives himself up to the authorities within 48 hours following the issuance of the proclamation by the Chief Executive, announring the passing away of the calamity or mutiny. The deduction in allowance for good conduct is gradual and based on each month of good behavior; that in allowance ?or loyalby is fixed at one-fifth of the period of his sentence. The granting of allowance for good conduct is disc.retionary to the Director of Prisons; the deduction in case of loyalty, wlien all requisites are present, is a matter of right of the prisoner.

27. How would you distinguish them from deduction of one-

828. A was convicted of theft of jewelry which the policeman recovered from him when he was arrested, but which was suhsequently lost, because someone in the

:'1

half of the time of preventive imprisonment? The time of preventive imprisonment, 1/2 of which is deducted from the penalty consisting in deprivation of liberty, is that period of detention hefore conviction or before service of sentence and the deduction is nof based on the good behavior or loyalty of the prisoner. One-hrilf sf the time of preventive imprisonment is deducted from the penalty, except in certain cases, regard ess of the conduct of the prisoner during temporary de ntion.

: I

' , ~

,826. Distinguish allowance for good conduct from special time allowance for loyalty. In allowance for good conduct, the prisoner does not evade the service of his sentence; in special time allowance :for.loyalty, the prisoner evades the service of his sen.tence under certain circumstances.
326

office of the police stole i t from the safe. As the jewelry could not be returned, may the court order A to pay the value of the jewelry? Yes, because the rule is that a person criminally liable for a felony is civilly liable and in crimes against property he is responsible to the owner, either for the payment of its value if it cannot be returned, and this is whether the property is lost or destroyed by the act

327

I I

I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRII\IlNAL LAW REVIEWER

of the malefactor himself, or that of any other person,


or is the result of whatever other cause.
829. What are the rules governing civil actions arising from offenses? Except as otherwise provided by law, the following rules shall be observed: 1. When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from the ofrenss charged is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party expressly waives the civil action or reserves his right to institute it separately; 2 . Criminal and civil actions arisizrg from the same offense may be instituted separately, but after the criminal action has been commenced, the civil action cannot be ins1,ituted until final judgment has been rendered in the criminal action; 3. After a criminal action has been commenced, no civil action arising from the same offense can be prcsecuted; and the same shall be suspended, in whatever stage it may be found, until final judgment in the criminal proceeding has been rendered; 4. Extinction of the penal action does not carry with i t extinction of the civil, unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist; 5 . A final judgment rendered in a civil &ion absolving the defendant from civil liability, is no bar to criminal action. (Rule 107, Sec. 1, Rules of Court)

demand civil responsibility arising from a crime before e the criminal prosecution.

d 1. !

May the prosecution prove, over the objection of the defense, damages resulting from the commission of the crime, when the information does not allege them? Explain your amwer. Yes, because every person criminally liable for a ffrlony is also civilly liable. Allegation of damages is ot necessary.

Suppose, the fiscal alleges in the information that as a result of reckless driving by the one of the passengers of his jeepney ,&ere injuries and damages in the amount of Pl,OOO, but fails t o allege the damage suffered by the o v o s e property loaded in the jeepney was 4 estruyed, can the pro. secution prove the - d ffrrell by the other passenger? In criminal prosecution where the intervention of the aggrieved parties is limited to being witnesses for the prosecution, the civil liability of the accused should not extend only in favor of the person o r persons mentioned in the information. Unless the record shows that an omitted party has waived the civil liability or has reserved the right to file a separate civil action to recover the same, it is impliedly included in the criminal action.

830. Art. 100 of the Revised Penal Code provides that evezy person criminally liahle for a felony is also civilly liable. Does iit mean that a person must first be declared criminally liable in a criminal prosecution before h e can be held civilly liable? Explain your answer. No, because Sec. 1, Eule 107, of tilie kules of Court, .. expresslly permits the institution of a civil action to

833. In a case of frustrated homicide, with the aggravating circumstance of nighttime, there was no allegation in the information and no proof off damages. May t h e court sentence the acLvsed to indemnify the offended party in the sum of F2,000? Yes, because civil liability covers not only actual or compensatory, but also moral, exemplary or corrective damages in criminal offenses resulting in physical in- : juries. No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary to prove :j moral damages, it being left to the discretion of t h e ~ r ...d court. %?

328

329

-8 4. In what cases may a person, who is acquitted of the


crime with which he i s charged, be held eivilly liable for the same act? Civil liability may still be enforced, despite the acquittal or defendant in the criminal case, in the following cases: 1 . Acquittal on the ground that the guilt of the defendant has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt (Art. 29, Civil Code): 2 . In any of the cases referred to in Arts. 32, 33 and 34 of the Civil Code. which permit a separate and independent civil action. 3 . Where the judgment in thc criminal case does not contain any declaration that the fact from which civil liability may arise did not exist (Rule 107, Sec. 1, par. (d), Rules of Court). 4. Responsibility for fault or negligence under Art. 2176, which is entirely separate and dis%nct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Revised Penal Code (Art. 2177, Civil Code); 6 , Exemption from criminal liability established in Art. 12, except pars. 4 and 7, and justification under Art. 11, par. 4, which according to Art. 101 of the Revised Penal Code do not include exemption from civil liability: (a) of imbecile or insane person; (b) of minor under 9 years of age; (c) of minor over 9 and under 15 years, unless he acted with discernment; (d) by reason of irresistible force; (e) by reason of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greatsr injory; and ( S ) for acting under state of necessity.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

/ /
I

CKINIKAL LAW REVIEWEh

836. If a person charged with criminal offense is acquitted, can the offended party institute a chi1 action hased on the same act of the accused? Explain your answer. Yes, because extinction of the penal action does not carry witii it extinction of the civil, unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the tact from which the cly&might arise did not exist.
Note: Thus, in the case of Tan vs. StandaEd Vacuum Oil Co., et al., 48 O.G. 2745, it apmearing that the trial court in the criminal case stated in ita decision that the accused cannot in any manner he held responsible for tho fire,) there was B declaration that the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist and, hence, the civil action for damages hased on the same act of the accused cannot prosper. In this case, while discharging gasoline at the garage of the Rural Transit Co., the gasoline caught fire. The driver drove the trailer t o the middle of the sl.reet and abandoned it there, but the trailer continued mcving to the other side of the street, eaoeing the building there to he burned. When prosecuted for ~ m o nthrough reckless imprudence. tho driver was acquitted. Subsequently, a civil action was filed in court to recover damages. This civil action was dismi:;sed, because of the dedaration of the court in its judgment in the criminal case that the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist.

837. A, who is charged with estafa with abuse of confidence,


is acquitted because there is no misappropriation or conversion of t.he jerelry which A received from the offended party. May the offended party bring a civil action against A to recover the jewelry or its value? Explain j o u r answer. Yes, since i t appears that - received the jewelry from 4 the offended party, the fact from which civil liability might arise exists (De Guzman. et a]. vs. Avila, e t al., 61 O.G. 1311).

83

. cover case amount the civil action was the defendant enIn a where instituted to rethe misapprnpriated by
trusted with it, the case was dismissed, absolving the defendant from civil liability. The judgment became final. May lhe plaintiff file a criminal action for estafa based on the same act of the defendant? Yes, because Sec. 1, par. (e), Rule 107, provides that a final judgment rendered in a civil action absolving the defendant from civil liability, is no bar to a criminal action. 330

d38. May the court, acquitting the accused in a criminal case, sentence the accused in the same proceedings to return the property belonging to the complainant? It depends upon whether the ljabjlify t return the o property arises from contract or it arises from the proof

, ,

331

. .~

i
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

of the right of the offended party, not based on contract. to recover his property.
Thus, if the accused who is charged with estafa appears t have received the jewelry but the evidence shows that o he did not misappr0priat.e it, all that the court can do is to acquit the accused, but not 60 order the return of the jewelry, because the liability to return the jewelry arosp from contract, not from a criminal act. Restitution may be ordered, even if the accused w s a acquitted, when the identity of the thief was not established, provided that the offense wus proved and it was. shown 1.Ilat the stolen jewelry belonged to, and was formerly in the possession of, the complainant and the accused denied having pawned it in the pawnshop from which it. was recovered (People vs. Alejano, 54 Phil. OX!).

No, hec.ause this is an independent civil action. The term physicai injuries in Art. 33 of the new Civil Code has been construed to mean bodily injury, not the crime of physlcal injuries, and includes attempted, frustrated and even consummated homicide (Carandang vs. Santiago, et al., &. No. L-8233, May 25, 1955). R. Note: The term defamation includes slander and libel. The

/
1,
.

.I

839. In what eases may the civil action be tried notwith.standin:: the pendency of the criminal action? In Ihe following cases: 1. In cases of independent civil actiohs (Arts. 32, 33, & 34, new Civil Code). 2 . When there is prejudicial question. 3 . When the civil case is an action based o n quasi-. delict (Arts. 2176 & 2180 of the new Civil Code).
40. A policeman was charged with the crime of violation, of domicile in a criminal case. B, the offended party. filed a civil action for damages. Must the trial of
i

8 2. What is a prejudicial question? What are its elements? A prejudicikl question is one based on a fact distinct and sepamte from the crime but so intimately connected with it that i t determines the guilt. or innocence of the accused. Its elements are: 1. The prejudicial question must be determinative of the case before the court. 2. Jurisdiction t o try said question must be lodged in another tribunal.
84.3. A, who was entrusted with the Torrens title of B, forged the sixnature of B on a siipposed deed of sale and sold the property t o C. B filed a civil action with the Court of First Instance of Manila against A and

term finud ineliides estafa. Hence, civil actions based on the crimes of libel, slander and estnfsean proceed notwithstanding tho pendency of the criminal actions therefor.

the civil case be suspended until the criminal case is decided? No, because the civil case involves an independent civil action, based on the violation of a fundamental right under bhe Constitution (Aft. 32 of the new Civil Code).

41. A was accused of homicide for having killed B.

While, the criminal case was pending trial, the surviving wife. of I1 filed a civil action for damages. Must the trial: of :the civil action be suspended until the criminal case -: i .aecial?d? . .., s

C, the latter as vendee of the property. Later, a criminal action at the instance of B was filed in the same court (Coart of First Instance of Manila) against A for estafa through falsification of a public document. A now claims that the trial of the criminal case should be suspended and that the ciyil action sltould be. tried first, there being a prejudicial question. Is the claim of A tenable? Ezplain your answer. No, because there is no prejudicial question, as both the., civil and the criminal cases are predicated upon t same ground, that is, forgery; and that both the ciy and criminal cases are lodged with the same tribunal.

. .
I

332

333

I /
J

CKIMINAL L 4 W REVIEWER

This case does not f,t the definition of prejudic:al question and the second element of prejudicial qnestiom is lacking (People vs. Garde, C.A. 54 O.G. 399).

i/
P

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

844. A, a s driver of a bus, was 'irosecuted for homicide and damage to propert? throngh reckless iinprndencc in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. While the criminal case was pendiug trial, the owner of the damaged car filed a civil sction in the Court of First lnstanw of Kim1 to recover damages from the owner of the hns. Must the trhJ of the civil case be snspended until the criminal ehse is decided? Explain your answer. No, because the civil cas,! involves an action based on quasi-delict under Arts. 2176 and 2180 of the new Civil Code. 'The action is entirely separate from negligence under t.he Revised Penal Code and cannot be classified as a civil action arising from the criminal offense. Such civil action may proceed independently of the crj.minal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter (Chan YS. Yatco, G.R. No. L-11163, April SO, 1958).
845. In what cases may a person be held subzidiarily liable for wstitution, reparation or indemnification for consequential damages resulting from crimes committed by

r the restitution of goods taken by robbery or theft within the inn from guests lodging therein, or f o r the payment of their evalue. , , 0 . When the employers, teachers, or corporations are engaged in ally kind of industry, and their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees committed felonies while in the discharge of their duties, and the latter could not pay the civil liability, the formzr are subsidiarily liable therefois. 4 . Persons who acted under the compulsion of irresistible force or under the impulse of uncontrollable fear are civilly liable, if the persons who used violence o r who caused the feay are insolvent or cannot be found. 5. Those persons having under th-ir legal authority or cor;trol an imbecile o r insane person or minor who committed the crime and i t appears that those persons are at fault or negligent. 6. The persons for whose benefit the harm was prevente are civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which the may have received.

,.

another'? In the allowing cases: 1. When the innkeepers, tavernkeepers or any other persons or corporations who uwn the establishments committed R violation of municipal ordinance or some general or special police regulation, and the person who Committed a crime therein during such violation cannot be found or is insolvent, the innkeepers, tavernkeepers, or the persons or corporitions who own the establishments are civilly liable. 2. When the guests notified the innkeepers or their representatives in advance of the deposit of their goods within the inn and they iollowed the directions of the innkeepers or representatives with respect to the care of, and vigilance over, such goods, the innkeepers are civilly liable
334

hile operating the car of a doctor, the 'driver who was driving it in a reckless and im'prudent manner' ran over a pedestrian who was killed as a consequence. If

the driver is convicted of homicide throngh reckless imprudence and appears to be insolvent, may the doctor he held subsidiarily liable for damages? The doctor is not subsidia.rily liable for damages, because he was not engaged in industiy. "Industry" is any department or branch of art, occupation 01- business; especial one which employs much labor and is distinct branch rade. There is nothing stated in the problem that the octor was negligent in the selection of his chauffeur. H e x e , even nnder the Civil Code the doctor is not liable for the damages caused by his driver.

847. A deposited his goods in an inn. A notified the innkeeper of such deposit and followed the instruction of
535

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

the innkeeper as to the care of and vigilance over the goods. B entered the room of A and burned the goods of A a s an act of revenge. D was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to the corresponding penalty and to pay A the value of the goods. B was insolvent.. Can the innkeeper be held subsidiarily liable for the value of the goods? No. Innkeepers are subsidiarily liable only for the restitution or payment of the goods taken by robbery or theft. The crime committed is arson.

No. The law (Art. 106) says "the restitution of the thing itself must be made whenever possible." The purpose of the law is to place the offended party as much as possible in the same condition as he was before the Doffense was committed against him.
. .

852. Suppose that in the preceding problem, B, after buy-

848. What does civil liahility in criminal cases include? The civil liability in criminal cases includes: (1) restitution, (2) reparation of the damage caused, and (3) indemnification or consequential damages.
849. May thc! court order the restitution of the property involved in a charge of estafa pending the trial of that

criminal case? Why? No. The restitution of the property involved in a criminal case may be ordered only after trial and the court is convinced that the offended party is the owner thereof.
850. The courrt in the judgment of conviction ordered the defendant t o pay the offended party the value of the jewelry stolen by him, although the defendant admitted during the trial that he had the jewelry in his possession. Was the court in error? Explain your answer. Yes, because the first remedy granted by the law to the offended party is restitution of the thing taken away by the olfender. It is only when restitution is not possible, because the offender or his heirs cannot return it, that reparation should be made,

ing the pig from A, without knowing t h a t . i t had been stolen, slaughtered it and consumed the meat, is B civilly liable for the value of the pig? Explain your answer. / No, beiause the law (Art. 105) merely provides for the restoration of the thing by the person who acquired it by lawful means. The reparation (Art. 106), in case the restitution is not possible, should be made by the offender, not by the person who acquired by lawful means and consumed the thing. Indemnification (Art. 107) 'is also to be made by the ofender, not by the person who acquired by lawul means and consumed the thing. But if B participated gratuitously in the proceeds of the felony (Art. 111), he shall be bound to make restitu- ' tion in an amount equivalent to the extent of such participation.
N o t e : It would seem that B n a y be held liable for the value of the pig, if he received it gretuitousfy from A. However, there is an opinion that the person who participated gratuitously in the proceeds of the lelony may be held liable civilly only when tl:e proceeds of the felony enhanced his fortune. According to this opinion, if that person did not sell the pig or its meat but only ate it, he i not bound to pay for the pig. s

S51: A sold t o B a pig whicli the former had stolen from


C Can A gi5-e to C another pig of the same size and . weight in case the court orders the restitution? Why?
336

853. If a person is unlawfully and feloniously killed, what damages are recoverable by the heirs of the deceased from the defendant? In the case of People vs. Tan, CA..G.R. No. 12578-R, Oct. 23, 1956, the Court of Appeals held that the award o f damages to the heirs of the deceascd in the sum of (1) P3,000 for moral damages, (2) P6,OOO for the death of the deceased, (3) P10,OOO for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased, and (4) P1,000 for exemplary

337

,, .

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER


I

C l l l h l l h A L LAW

REVIEWER

damages made by the trial court is authorized by law, taking into consideration the occupation, educational attain,merits, and age of the deceased and the ages of the orphaned children.
4. What damages may be recovered in criminal offenses

9. Piracyand m u t h y , 857. Wh a Filipino citizen, was prosecuted for treason dJdgedly committed during the Japanese occupation, the eGidence of the prosecution disclosed that A wanted to aid the Japanese army, by buying trucks and other means f transportation to he delivered t them, as he wanted a them to win the war. Several witnesses testified to the foregoing facts. On the basis of those facts, can the court properly and legally cunvict A of treason? Why7

resulting in physical injuries? They are: (1) actual or compensatory damages, (2) moral and exemplary or torrective damages, especially when the clime is attended by one or more aggravating circumstances.
Note: No proof of pecuniary loss is nceessary in order that moral or exemplary damages may bo adjudicated, for the assessment of such damages is left t o the discretion of the court. Hence, even if there is no evidence that the offended party who suffered multiple wounds inflicted by the accused sustained a loss amounting to P2,400, that amount was not unjustly awarded to fie offended party (People YS. Gerodias, C.A., 51 0.G 4614).

/"

damages may be recovered by the offended party in libel? "_ They are: (1) genemi da?nages - those that the law &., .

No. There are two ways of committing the crime of treason, namely: (1) by adhering to the enemies, giving them aid or comfort; and ( 2 ) by levying war against the Government of the Fhilippines. A cannot be held liable or treason by levying war against the Government of the Philippines, because this form of.. treason requires two things, namely: I v / a d w . l a s ~ g e of men, and (2) t h e purpose of the Not one of these a greasonabie-design byforce. was preserit. A cannot be held liable for

,, . . . .
I

.,

They are: 1. Treason 2. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason. 3. Misprision of treason, 4 . Espionage, 5 . Inciting to war or giving motives for ieprisals, 6 . Violation of neutrality. 7. Correspondence with hostile country, 8. Plight to enemy country,
338

to the enemy. actually purchased s them to the Japanese Army, there i There must be delivering them to the enemy to constitute the crime of treason by adhering to the enemies, giving them aid or comfort. Intention alone is not enough.
." i

Elernentr df baason: 1. That he offender owes allegiance to the Government of the Fhili ines; 2. Tha there is a war in which the Philippines is involved, S. Th the offender eithera levies war against the Government, o r A, adheres to tho enemies, giving them aid or comfort

/ .

339

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRlWINAL LAW REVIEWER

858. Assuming that a foreign country has the intention to invade the Philippines in the near future, and a group of Filipinos in sympathy with that country has been ' . sending financial help 'to its government, thereby giving aid and comfort to that country, do yon believe those Filipinos are liable for treason? No. Although t , w s an oy&actLof.aid DL c o ~ & ~ r t given to the foreign copntry, and because ,of their sympathy to its government those Filipinos maniPested adherence the~eto, they c E n n t b e held liable for reason because the crime of treason can be com-mji@&.only in .ti=~.of War. That treason can be committed only in time of war, was definitely decided in the case of Laurel, vs. Misa. 859. Supposing that those Filipinos, together wit!i others, aetually assembled and gathered together for the purpose of ' overthrowing the government to pave the. way for the enemy in, the event of invasion, would they be liable for treason? It is submitted that they are not liable for treason. Even in treason by levying war against the Governnient . , of ,the Philippines, it is necessary that the levying of war , should take place in time of war. In the first place, , h a s o n is a crime against the national security which involves danger from wit&&. Hence, there must be a

.Although the law (Art. 114) provides that treason is committed by any person who owes allegiance t o the Government of the Philippines, not being a loreigner, it is likewise committed by an alien, residing in the Philippines. y!hnmary allegiance is the obligation- of fidelity andobedience which a resident alien owes to our Government.
Note.: Art. 114, R.P.C., as amended by Executive Order No. 44, punishes an alien, residing in the Philippines, who commits act8 of treason.

,L

_,>

:$$

wai'.
Those who would levy war against tlie Government to overthrow it for the purpose of delivering the country in whole or in part to the enemy are traitors and there are no traitors until war has started.
Note: The element of treason which is not lpresent in the t w o preceding pestions is: That there is a war in which the Philippines is involved.

861. A group of Filipino citizens and some Chinese have been residing in Japan for ten years. Siippose war breaks out between tlie Phili'ppines and a foreign country a n d diiring the existence of that war, those Filipino citizens and Chinese nationals send financial contribution to the enemy ' country from .Japan and after the war, with the eooperation of the Japanese Government, our NBI agents succeed in arresting them and later they are brought here, can all of them be punished for treason? Explain your answer. No, 0-nly the Eilipino citizens can be punished for treason. While it is true that treason can be committed in the Philippines or elsewhere (Arts. 2 and 114), only aliens. _'esiding in the Philippines can be held liable for treason.
'The element of treason which is not present is: The offender Y . S allegiapkg to the Government of the Philippines. Y C Aliens who are not residing in the Philippines do not owe
Note:

allegiance to

OUT

Government.

862. During the Japanese occupation, A, a Filipin,o, was always

S 0 In treason, the offender mnst be o a - l g i a n c e 6: to the Government. What kind of allegiance is contemplated in ' the crime of treamn? BQth ! a &1 allegiance and temporary allegiance are :.contemplated in the crime of treason.
340

entertaining Japanese army officers in his house and was giving them parties on special occasions. A, however, managed to avoid talking with them or with anyone else about war and the countries at war. Was A guilty of treasun? Why? No. The fact that a Filipino is friendiy with 0r-sy-gpathetic to the enemy is not necessarily a n act. of trea>on. To beCtreasonous, the egtent of aid- and comfort given
4

341

. I

,.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

to the enemies must be to Xender assistance to them as enemies and not..merely as individuals and, in addition, be directly in furtherance of the enemies hostile designs.
~~

Note: Thus, to give^ mpney to m enemy soldier ~a ~f&ld or o!it of charity to him so that ha may buy peraonal necessities is to assist him as an individual.-.But if the money iS given to enable him to, buy arms t o m e them in piaging war against the givers country, the givci. is yuilty of treason. In the first ewe, the element of treason by giving aid or comfort which is not ,present is: Giving tho enemies aid or comfort, or adhering t o the enemies, or bnth.

~s

*.

$3.

IC during the war, a citizen made speeches critical to


his own government, or opposed its measures, or engaged in profil.eering or headed and promoted strikes in defense plants, thereby diminishing the strength of his own eountry, is that citizen liable for treason? Why? No, because &id or c o m w t x!!bhguJ adll:rence..ip not treason. Thus, in the case of Cramer vs. U.S., it was said that a citizen may take actions that do aid and comfort to the enemy, as making speeches critical to the government, or opposing its measures, profiteering, staging strike8 in defense plants or essential works and other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength, but if there is no adherence to the enemy, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason.
Note: The element of treason by giving nid or comfort, which is not present is: The offerider adheres to Lhc enemies.

territory over to the advancing Japanese troops. Before they could carry out their purpose, they were surrounded by the, policemen and arrested. However, the Japanese release$ them when they obtained control of the place. Wh n prosecuted for treason aftcir the liberation, they. , con ended that they could not have levied war against the government at that time, because their weapons were inadequate and it was impossible for them to succeed. They further contended that assumling that they committed a crime against the national security, it was at most conspiracy to commit treason. IIow would you dispose of these contentions if YOU were the judge trying them? If I were the judge, I would convict them o f treason. It is not necessary that those attempting to overthrow a the government by force of arms should have the =ex, to succeed in their design in .whole or in part (U.S. vs. Lagnason). ~ ~ ~ ~ a I . . c l a s h ~ a f nsaym s . is ~s~ -r in treason by lwying war. Actual assemblage of men which .~ is present in the case isLYicient. Moreover, their .wry PO+. if to_Eeecute a trsscnable desip>x force.

l-

.:

:/
86

Ole: The two requisites of treason hy levying war are present: 8 1 ) actual assemblage of men; and (2) the purpose is to

execute a treasonable design by force.

866.

,/ hat

. What uponusual formadherence? comfort that constitutes the of aid and treason proof of
is

/
I

Furnishing the enemy with arms, supplies, troops, information, or means of transportation is the usual f o r m of aid and comfort.
. i

in your opinion is the justification for punishing resident alien who commit treason against the Philippines? Resident aliens have the gbliaatiog of fidelity and obediecce-to our Government under which they live. While they o t OiiFGovernment, they are here under the pro:ection should reir-in from taking active part in any attempt to to weaken the power of this counor t o attack the enemy. with treason for giving,aid and comfort hy assisting the soldiers in the capture of named X. B and C are witnesses that he saw A with a nnmber Japanse soldiers on their way to the house of X on ;.

i 865. During the invasion of the Philippines by the Japanese,

a group of Filip o citizens whose weapons were inadequate gathered together in the plaza of the town for the purpose of a tacking the officials and policbmen in the municipal b ilding and, if successful, to turn the

,~

342

343

I I

*
'

C R I ~ I N A LLAW REVIEWER

I
1

CRIMINAL,,LAW -REVIEWER

Augost 13, 1942.' C testified that on the same day he gaw A in the house of X, while A was tying the hands of X. Can A be convicted on the basis of the testimony of B .kd C? 0, because the two-witness rule requires t h a t there must tie twq~xitnessesto each-part ,of the overt act. Tho overt act which is the subject of the prosecution is the giving of assistance to the enemy by A, leading to the capture of X. One part of the overt act is A'S going with the Japanese.soldiers to the house of X. The other part of the overt act is the tying of the hands of X by A in the house of the former. Only B'testified to the first part of the overt act of A, and only C testified to the second part of his overt act.

*.

;c
,
.

..

';

Note: In this jurisdiction, w e fallow the zeverely .restrictive rule, as .distinguished from the eommosite theory. Under the composite theory, it is, not necessary that two witnesses testify to each part of tho overt act or cireumstanoe, as long as the parts OY circumstances constitute B single, ecntinvaus, and eomfinsite overt act.

'86

. arraignment. The clerkA of court read toto th6 court for Charged with treason, was brought him the in-

formation which alleged that A was a Filipino citizen who joined the NIakapili organization which fought on the side of the Japanese Imperial Army against the, Philippines :inn the United States and took part in the exeeet1, . tion of guerilla suspects. When asked if he was plead, ... - .in&! guilty or not, A ad~nitt.edall the facts allege$ in the 'information but that he had to do them because he was kfraid of the Japanese. Can he be convicted of treason . .... . on' the hasis of his said admission? Why? NO. The statement of the accused is tantamount- to p l e a d i u a g u i l t . .. - -. confession mentioned in the law y . The meanS a 1 L E n A s i d g u i l t i ! . I C&rcession and avoidance is not _a confession of guilt.
: :

a complex crime of treason with murder or serious physical injuries? Explain your answer, giving. a n iE lustration. No. In a case, the accused was a Japanese spy. He also took part i n the execution of some of the guerilla suspects and in the infliction of physical injuries'on the ' others. In that case, it was held that murders and phwwa1 injuries were inherent in the crime of treason' character.. ized by gNnx.&id aidcomfor t .to_thunemy. The murders and physical injuries committed, although criminal .dffenses in themselves separately punished by, the Revised Penal are the very acts of giving. aid 'and comfort to the In the nature of things, the giving of aid and comfort can be accomplished only by some kind of act. Its very nature partakes of a deed or physical activity as opposed to a mental operation (People vs. Prieto). ,,. . . B agreed and decided to commit treason.,: Then, they proposed the commission of the crime. t o several other .persons who were also deterntined lo dommit treason. .._ Thereafter, all -of them committed treason. how many ' , cfimes were committed by them? . , . . Only one, and that is treason.' conspiracy to commit treason between A and B and the proposal to commit treason made by them to several persons ,are absorbed in the crime of treason which they later committed.',
~~

c,,

TG

N q t e : In conspiracy to commit treason and in .proposal to commit treason: the crime of treason>E' $be a&?& e ~ ~ ~ i i m i t t e d ~ p r o p tos a l o commit treason, the -s.al ne a _*Led by the person, !O-&~?LP the proposal is made. If the p p o ~ s d . i s ~ e & s d , and t4ere is a decision t o commit the Arne of treason, it would he pnspiracy to commit 'treason.
I

'871. How, is conspiracy to commit treason ' committed? Conspiracy to commit treason is committed when k o . : . o r more persons come to a n agreement concerning the of treason aud c!ed&xi to commit it. (Arts. and 115, R.P.C.)

Note: Had A made a confession nf guilt, that'g, he pleaded guilty w&houLexplanation, A could have been lawfully ,convicted.

'i
!
I

to commit treason committed?

344

345

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWEIt

Proposal to commit treason is committed when the person who has decided to commit treason prcposes its execution to some other person or persons. (Arts. 8 and 116, R.P.C.)
873. Is misprision of felony punishable? A t common law, misprision of felony is a criminal . Meet either (1) to prevent a felony from being committed or (2) to bring the offender to justice a.fter its commiz:sion. Our penal law does not consider misprision of felony as a crime. The only single instdnce where it is considered a crime is in misprision of treason. Thus, i t has been held that the failure.of 8 private individual to report to the authorities the commission of an offense is not a crime and the r.ere silence of one who w h e s s e d the commission of a crime does not make him criminally liable.
Note:
#

favored emotionally and intellectually. A did not report it to the governor or fiscal where he was residing and where the act of treason was committed. Is A criminally liable? Explain your answer. No. In this case, there is no misprision of treason, because the crime of treason was already committed. Art. 116 sags having knowledge of any conspiracy against the Government of the Philippines, which means that there is only conspiracy to commit treason. When treason is ?ctuallg committed, m$?.csilence of one who knows of ita commission d9e3 not make him criminally liable, either as princigal, accomplice o r accessory.
Elements of mispvison of tmaron: 1. The offender must be owing allegiance to the Government, and must not be a foreigner. 2. Ie has knowledge of any e_onsp>r?y (to commit treason) against the Government. 3. H e conceals or does-not disclose and make known the same as S & as possible. O 4. To the Governor or Fiscal of the province, or Mayor or Fiscal of the City in which the offender resides. Thc element of misprision of treason which is not present is: IIe has knowledge of any conspiracy against the Govern-

But a publie.afficer who has th; duty to prosecute or


* .

cause the prosecution of a law violator may be held liable for

dorelictiol of .duty under Art. 208, if he maliciously tolerates the commission of a crime which is about to be committed or maliciously refrains from prosecuting. 8 violator of the law.

874. Is the person gnilty of m i o n of treason only

a9
i

accesso;ry to the crime of treason? He is o n a K n i s h e d as an accessory to the crime. of treason, but he is principal in the crime of misprision of treason, this being a separate and indegendent crime defined in a different article of the Revised Penal Code.
Note: It is absurd to think that a person guilty of misprision of treason is only an accessory to the crime of treason, when there is no treason committed. What is being committed by other persons is onlp conspiracy to commit trcawn, and wbat constitutes misprision of treason is the failure to make known to the proper authorities the existence of that conspiracy.
k

-/

S76. May an alien residing in the Philippines commit misprision of treason? Why? merit.

No, because the law (Art. 116) provides that the offender is not being a foreigner.

677. A, a private individual and a IWpino citizen, knowing that B was in conspiracy with others to commit treason against the Government of the Philippines, during the time of war, harbored, concealed and later assisted in the escape of B. Is A criminally liable? Yes, not under Art. 19, but under Art. 116, because he is guilty of misprision of treason f o r not reporting the conspiracy to the proper authority.
Note: A private individual i3 liable a s a n aeeessorg par. 3 of Art. 19, R.P.C., for hairboring, concealing or

.,~? . _., ~. ,875. A, a l?ilipino citizen, knew that B committed treason, having given aid and comfort to the enemy whom he

346
,
i

347

I
CRIMINAL LAW IWViBWEI: CRIMINAL LAW REVIEIVER
#

.. . .

is q - o f i r s a s o n (not y c to commit treason), parricide. mur er or a n attempt to take the life of the .Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty. of some other crime.

ing in the escape of the principal, ,_.rlyif the pcin.&al

8. Malting or causing war materials to be made in a defective manner when the Philippines is at war; etc.

/ 8 8 What a m the e!ements of the crime of espionage, as it ,7. is defined in the Revised Penal Code? Elements of the ist way of committing espionage: . _ 1. That the offender enters a warship, fort or naval: or military establishment or reservation; 2 . That he has no authority therefor; 3 . That his purpose is t o ~ o b t ~ ~ n . i a n y ~ n ~ ~ r m - a ~ o n , plans,. photographs or other data o f a confidential nature relative to the defense of the Philippines. Elements of the 2nd way of committing espionage: 1 . Offender is a public officer; 2 . He has in. his. &.$esssn the articles, data or in6rmation referred to in the first way of committing espionage, bxreason~.oC his- .afice; He & A d h e i r contents to the rmIesenJ*bive of a foreign nation.
879.

880. A foreigner was arrested by the military police in a * base of the U.S. Army, stationed in the Philippines. He was caught in possession of a photograph of a certain place in the base which was off-limit to the civilians.

Which has jurisdiction over the offense of espionage committed, the Philippine Government or the United States authorities? Either one could try and punish the offender, because the act of espionage committed affects the security of both nations.
If the offense is against the security of the Philippines, even if it is committed within the base, the Philippine courts have jurisdiction. If the offense is against the security of the United States, even if it is committed outside the base by 8 member of the.armed forces of the United States, the latter has jurisdiction over the offense.
Note:
*'

.i

,:

:"' /'r
. .
:

.,.
~./.,

ay espionage be committed by acts other than those defined as acts of espionage in the Revised Penal Code? s Explain yonr answer Yes. Commonwealth Act No. G16 punishes as acts of espionage, the following : I. Unlawfully obtaining or permitting, through gross negligence, to be obtained information affecting national defe e ; Unlawfully disclosing information affecting national d ense; 3 . Disloyal acts or words in time of pcaee; 4. Disloyal acts or words in time of war; 5 . Conspiracy to violate certain sections of t h e Act; 6. Harboring or concealing violators of the Act; . '7. Destroying or injuring or attempting to injure or . aestroy war'materials when the Philippines is at war;

881. What are the crinles clasgified as provoking war and ,. disloyally in case of war? They are: (1) inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals; ( 2 ) violation of neutrality, (3) correspondence .with hostile country, and (4) flight to enemy's country. The first two are crimes that may,provoke war. The last two are crimes involving disloyalty during the war.
Note: In inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals, even mere negligent act, which is unlawful or unauthorized, is contemplated in the definition of said crime, for the effect is the , same whether committed intentionally OP through negligence. In the crime of flight to enemy's country, mere attempt t&-o~x~.goAmemm. consummates the crime. The q3 law doen not require that the offender should not be a foreigner. This crime may be eqgmjt&d by a resident alien, In the crime of cmrespondenee with hostile country, the penalty is +-eclusioit temporal to death when the correspondence. contains notice or information which may be useful to the ene and the offendw intended to aid the enemy thereby. The e is not treason, because in corrcspondenee with hostile eaua adherence to the enemy is not necessary.

948
i

549

CRIXINAL LAW IZEYIFXER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

882. A group of men in a fast motor boat intercepted a cargo

vessel in ithe waters on the seacoast of Sumatra and by means of violence and intimidation took valuable personal property from the cargo vessel. They came to the Philippines in the same motor boat. If they are apprehended ' here, can they be prosecuted criminally before our court? For what crime? Explain. Yes, for piracy. It was committed on the @gh seas, which mea.ns any waters on the seacoast which a r e without the boundaries of low-water mark, alkhourh such waters m?x.be~in the jurisdictional limits of a foreign government. Insofar as the PhTIippines is concerned, the crime was committed on the high seas. -.

1 /

883. Suppose that in the same case they were caught in the very 'placs where they had committed the forcible de. predation, what crime was committed by them? Explain. I n that case, the crime committed was j:obber+with -~ violence against or intimidation of persons.
884. What is mutiny and state the venue of action in case of

They are: 1. Arbitrary detention, /. 2 . Delay in the delivery of the person arrested to th proper judicial authorities, 3. Delaying relea,se, 4. Expulsion, 5 . Violation of domicile. 6. Search warrants ,maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those legally obtained, 7 . Searching domicile without witnesses, 8,. Prohibition, interruption and dissolution of peaceful meetings, 9 . Interruption of religious worship, and 10. Offending the religious feelings.

,..

<*

Note: It will be noted that with the-single exception of the crime of offending the religious feelings in Art. 133, the offender in all the crimes against the fundamental laws of the State is n public officer or e@oyf!!
I

I'
'/

., .

7
. ., . .

prosecution Tor mutiny on the high seas? Explain your answer to the second part of the question. I . It is the raising of commotions and disturbance on board a ship against the authority of its commander. It being a crime against the law of nations, the crime may be prosecuted and punished i n any country where the offenders may be found. hen is piracy or mutiny on t h e high sea^ punishable +leath? Whenever the pirates seized the vessel by boarding or firing upon the same; when the pirates os mutineers &andoned their victims without means of saving themselves; whenever the crime was accompanied. by murder, .omicide, physical injuries, ox rape.
the State7

i.,

887. What are the classes of arbitrary detention? The classes of arbitrary detention a r e : ,~ Arbitrary~detention by arresting ' and detaining a I. . person without legal guounds (Art. 1 2 4 ) ; 2 . Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities; and s:;peia,:ing release.
Note: In these three classes of arbitrary detention the penalties depend on the periods of detention: (1) if the detention has not exceeded 3 days; (2) if the detention has continued for more than 3 days hut not more than 15 days: (3) if the detention has continued for inore than 15 days but pot more than 6 mcnths; and ( 4 ) if the detention has exceeded$ months. E l ~ ? n e ? i l sof wbitrarll dotentdon b y wresting and detmining (i person without legal grounds: 1. The offender is a public officer or employee. ' 2 . He detains a person. 3 . Without lcgal grounds.

'

6. What are the crimes against the fundamental laws-of .

d W h a t is the usual cause of arbitrary detention by arresting and detrinin:: a person without legal grounds?

350

361

'i

CRIalNAL LAW RE

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

The usual cause of the commission of the crime is ar. resting a person without warrant by a public officer. A . . .peace officer must have a warrant of arrest properly issued by the court in order to justify an arrest made by him. f there is m - r m n t o..arrest, the arrest of a person

889

a public officer may constitute arbitrary detention.

1
.

In w!hat cases may a public officer who detained a person without warrant not criminally liable for arbitrary detention? In general, when the following requisites concur: (a) there is reasonabkground of suspicion that a person has committed or is about to commit an offense or breach of the peace; and (h) the public officer has a c t e d ~ ~ i n go-od~..faith. In particular, when the detention is a consequence Of a dwful arrest without warrant in the three cases proded by the Rules of Court, namely: (1) when the person to be arrested has copmitted, is actually committing, or is about t o commit an offense in his presence, (2) when an offense has in fact been committed and'he has reasonabre ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it, and ( 3 ) when the person ,to be arrested is' a prisoner who has escaped.

/.

890. Is actual commission of the crime by the person to be arrested necessary to justify his detention? Explain yuur answer. No, because the legality of the detention of a person does not depend upon the actual commisSion of a crime b;him, but upon the nature of his deed which makes the rresting officer believe that a crime has been committed o r is about to be committed by him ( U S . vs. Batallones).
Note: Even if the person arrested without warrant 09 arrest w a , s innocent as he did not in fact commit a crime, the arresting officer i s not liable f o r arbitrary detention, if (1) there was reason to believe that the person arrested had committed or was about to commit a crime o r breach of the peace; and (2) the peace' officer acted in good faith.

8 d m u n i c i p a l treasurer of a town, having found h i ' . . servant quarreling with his wife, seized him and detained:!! him in the municipal jail. Is the mnnicipd treasurer: : guilty of arbitrary detention or of illegal detention?, Explain your answer. ,It is_submitted that the municipal treasurer is guilty o&n116wfnl arrest (Art. 269, R.P.C.), not arb;trary detention or illegal detention, When the w m o s e of arresting a person without authority of law or reasonable ground therefor is to -d the person arrested to the proper authority, like the jailer, it is unlawful arrest. (See US. vs. Fontanilla.) Unlawful arrest may be committed by any person (People VS. Malasugui). of The municipal treasurer is ~ o t g ~ l t x arbitrary ,detention, because he is not the public officer who can commit the crime. Although Art. 124 mentions public officer or employee, without qualification, the offender @ u s t a c t in his official person^ in otder to be liable for c ~ z & y in detaining , a ~ arbitrary detention. Only uublic o m r s w u e the authoritr to dzt-Gn oz to order the d ~ mofya person can commit the crime, and the treasurer has no such authority. *mIikicipal tFeasurer is not guilty of illegal detenof thk purpose of the detention.
Note: The crimes of arbitrary detention, illegal detention, and , unlawful arrest are committed in the same manner; that i s : ; the offender arrests or detains a person without legal grounq4 In arbitrary detention, the offender is a public officer; &i illegal detention, the offender is a private individual; in un- .' lawful arrest, which is committed by any person, thk offender has the purpcse of delivering the person arrested or detained t o the proper authority, not necessarily judicial authority.

'
'8

892. Suppose a policeman arrested a person without legal. : gr'round and detained him in his house, not in the jail, ?; would he be liable for arbitrary detention? It is submitted that the place of detention is immat6- ,? .<.< rial., The law v i d e t a i n s a person."

352

//

353

# iI
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWlER
~, > :

..

..,

..
a

Note: But if the poliecrnan detains a person f o r e , personal motive m n d s the public oosithn of the offende: =-commits i l G d c i e n t i o n with the aggravating. cireumst:mee of taking. s g e of his public position. If the crime committed is arbitrary detention, taking advantage of public position is inherent aggravating circnmstance in the crime and does not serve to increase the penalty.

mitted it. A warrant of arrest,is not necessary to arres@ a person under those circumstances, because ,the offens$$ was in fact committed and the peace officer had reasonable8:: around to believe that the person to be arrested committed':: it (People vs. Malasugui).
Note: The element that is lacking Is: Without legal groupds;:,, There was legal ground for arresting C. , .
,
, ,.i:

893. A policeman, suspecting that X stole the missing jeep :of M, called X to the police precinct at about 8 o'clock in the evening and was investigated then and, there. X . ' . ' , .was told to stay in the precinct until the investigation dernninated, but allowing him to go to the near-by when he wanted to drink and to eat and permitting go around the premises of the police precinct. He :go home until the next morning., t o . his disgust .. ..and annizyance. Was the policeman guilty of arbitrary . . detent'&? Explain your answer. . . tiecause no confinement and no restraint on his .. person was made by the policeman. At most, there was , only unjust vexation.
..,
.

.,

I
i

.
,

.
,

.,

Note: The element of arbitrary detention by Cetaining a person without legal ground, which is lacking, id: That the offender detains B person. T b cn, on there m.%i.be confir,em*ent w..restraint on the person of the offended party.

894. A, who was carrying with him a pocketbook, containing money bills in the sum o 8230 and his identification f

while on patrol duty, heard somebody'&-.,: iag, "Police! Police!" When the policeman arrived,at the: sceae he saw a priest just getting u]p and freeing h& m& i from the accused. The policeman did not see the attack:! made by the accused, but he heard the cries of the priest. calling for help at a very short distance of forty -metem',; away. The policeman arrested the accused and detained him in jail. Is the pdiceman who maide the arrest without : warrant of arrest liable for arbitrary detention? ' Explaii, i, .. your answer. ; 'A I . . _ ,- , No, because the arrest was lawful and the detention of the accused was or some legal ground. The warrant,: of arrest is not necessary in this case, because the person arrested had committed an offense in the presence of t h e peace officer. The policeman heard the disturbance creatdd by the act of the accused and .proceeded a t once to the scene. Direct personal knowledge of the commission 'of the crime may be through sense of sight or hearing.

\'T%

.. .
i i

' ,

,.

.
~

card, wazi found lying on the ground with several wounds. B asked A to name the person who had attacked him. A said t h a t C did it. Later, A died because of the wounds. policeman, who had received information that C was possession of much money, arrested the latter searched, the pocketbook of A with his identification card was found in the pocket of C. The pokeman locked up C in jail. Is the policeman who made the arrest without warrant of arrest liable for arbitrary . detention? Explain your answer. No, because the crime was in fact committed and the ' had reasonable ground to believe that C corn:
354

896. May the chief of police order the icrrest of the offender,
2
!

after hearing the complainant and hi:r witnesses and being satisfied that the person complained igainst committed robbery? Explain your amwer. ' No. What the chief of police should do is to file a complaint with the proper authority, such as the justice of the peace in the municipality or the fiscal in the province or city. Any of these authorities will conduct pre-liminary investigation and, if there is probable cause, may file the corresponding complaint o r information with t h e proper court.

355

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

I
~

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER


8 . . He fails to deliver such person to the proper judici$& "?

. .

This is t h e ruling in the case of Sayo vs. Chief of Police, U S . vs. Sanchez, the Supreme Court held complained against may be arrested.
.

crime of arbitrary detention limited or employees who actually detained ground? Explain your answer. do, because a judge of the Court of First Instance, a justice of the peace or the jodge of a city court, or the fiscal, before whom an arrested person is brought for .*. the -d n of that person wh & ' ,_ investigation, may &r ,,, o k v e r i f y i n g t h m h o the charge. In such a case, f ,, such public officer, even though he does not actually de. , tain a person, becomes a principal by induction in&e '. , c&oof arbitrary detention.
I

auihority within: v n. six (6) hours, if detained for crimes or offenses punish-,, able by light penalties, or their equivalent; b. nine (9) hours, fcr erimeft or offenses punisliable by correctional penalties, or their equivalent; o r C . eighteen (18) hours, f o r crimes or offenses punishabla by capital punishment or iifflietive Qenalties, or their equiva!ent.

would be the crime if a private individual detained another for some lezal ground and failed to deliver the person detained to the proper judicial authority within the time specified by Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code? The private individual would be guilty of illegal de-

kntion.

!
!
!

Note: What is the liability of B private individual who effee,,;,:';.; t i d y induced a policeman to detain a person without legal ground and the policeman actually so detsined that person? That private individual should be held liable for arbitrary , detention, 8s principal by induct.ion. Private individuals who conspired with public officers in detaining certain policemen are guilty of arbitrary detention . : . I , (:People vs. Camerino, CA-G.11. No. 14207-R, Dee. 14, 1056).
1

Note: While the private individual may make an arrest in vim of the provisions of the Rules of Court, he must u r the person arre-tted to the police officer without unnoce888~p d .But the private individual who failed to do m is not liable for arbitrary detention, because only public officers may be held liable for that crime.

.$9&

When may a public officer or employes who arrested some legal ground be held liable
f &

t o r l ~iw such person l (1) within 6 hours, if

900. The second element of the crime of delay in the delivery of detained person to the proper judicial authority is that the person is detained for some legal ground. What would be the offense if that element is Racking? The offense would be arbitrary detention by arresting and detaining a person without legal ground under Art. 124. 901. A inflicted on B serious physical injuries resulting in the latter's total blindness, punishable by prision mayor. The policeman who saw the commission of the crime arrested and detained A. For how long a time ean the policeman w y detain A without delivering him to the proper judicial autkionty? The crime being punishable by prision mayor, which, is an afflictive penalty, the policeman can legally. detain.; A Miithout delivering him to the proper judicial authorities 1 within 18 hours.

punishable by light pen,.'.:, I alt&i or their equivalent; (2) within 9 hours, if detained for crimes or offenses punishable by correctional penalties .: , . or their equivalent; or (3) within 18 hours, if detained I ( > .. for crimes or offenses puuishable by capital punishment / t i . or afflictive penalties or their equivalent. (Art. 125, R.P.C.)
I

.
(,i,,,

>I;!

of arbitrary detention by delaying the daliuew of detained peison to the pvoper judicial authorities: ,. . 1. The offender is a public officer or employe$,. .I,: 2. IIe has detained B person f o r some .. ,- pound., lb$al ..

. . . . Elements

I
i

356

357

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CKIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

"

..
'

'

'

',

..
,.

'arrested X for theft committed within his penalty for theft is arrest0 mayor. The policernan.detained X for 2 days, after which the chief of police filed the corresponding complaint with the justice of the! peace court. Later, a petition for habeas corpus was filed- in court in which X contended that he should be released because the complaint was filed after 9 hours and, hence, his detention was illegal. Is the contention of X tenable? Explain your answer. The -f o the policeman to him to the court within the period of 9 hours does not affect the lezality

+v-

The purpose of this provision is to prevent any abu,se,; that may result from confining a person without infom~,, ing him of his offense and without permitting him'to go on bail. Note: Art. 126 does not apply when there is a warrant d
arrest, because his detontian is b~ virtue of ah qrder. of :the+ e. & A . 125 a d i s s - m l y when a pliblie officer akeded t or,detained a person without warrant of arrest. When a ,public,'

905. Upon order of the m

' ,

The judicial authorities are the Justices of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, the Judgee of the Court of First .[nstance, the Judge of the City Court, and the Justices of the Peace Court, , P d & c a l or any of the other prosecuting attorneys with whom the complaint may be filed isnot a judicial authority.

and confined in jail for direct assault at 5:OO pm. the following morning, a co was filed against them with the justice of but the justice of the peace did ]not conduct investigation, as required by mained in jail for six days liminary investigation. It a the complaint, the justice of the peace advised the, of police to release A, B and C, hut the mayor obj , because it would be hard to locate them later they go in biding. Is the m tsntion? ExpIah your answer. No. On the assumption for some legal mound, the them with the justice of the peace, a judicial a the next day is a sufficient compliance with the and C should have heen delivered t o the proper judicialT' authority within nine hours, yet in the computati the period for the filing of the cornplaint-which is valent to the delivery of a detained person to the judicial authority-the means of communication as the hour of arrest and other ckumstances material possibility for the fiscayto make the'i y d ' f i l e in time the necessary information, mu

'

'

authority?

. .
358

,__ I

369

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER


' '

CRIMINAL LAW REYIE,WEK


Of the jailer, he is liable for arbitrary detention by d 8 laying release through negligence.

..'
..?

into consideration (People vs. Acosta. C.A.). The objection of the mayor to the release of A, B, and C does not make him liable criminally, because the justice of the peace has the sole power to order the re:ease or commit,,. , ment of the persons arrested, after preliminary investigation.

jq

906
,

A policeman, on mere suspicion that B committed theft R a n d without reasonable ground thercfor, arrested the latter and locked him up in jail, but ,5 hours later he delivered B t o the justice of the peace, by filing a' eomplaint for theft. Finding that the coaplaint was not suppoi:ted by any evidence, the justice of the peace dismissed the complaint. Is the policeman- liable for arbitrary detention? Why? The policeman is guilty of arbitrary detention by arresting B without legal ground under Art. 124, because . he arrested the person without warrant of arrest and the arrest was made not under any of the circumstances provided by the Rules of Court, whereby an arrest . m y be made without warrant of arrest. He arrested the person on mere suspicion and without reasonable ground therefor.
Note: .Henee, even if the geaee officer delivered the person (horn he had arrested to the proper ludieial authority within the time specified in Art. 125, if the arrest WBB without legal praund, the peace officer is liable under Art. 124.

Elements of Selaziins mleasa: 1. The offender i s a public officer or employee. 2. That there is a judicial or executive arder.for 'the r e lease of a prisoner or detention pi-isoner, or that there i s 8 proceeding upon a petition for the liberation of such p e r s m 3. The affender without good reii~onsdelay (1) the serving of the notice of such order to the prisoner, or (2) the rperfomanee of such judicial or executive order for the release of tha prisoner, or (3) the proceedings upon a petition for the release of such person.
1

~l

4
i

4i

908. What are the crimes known as violation of domicile? They are: 1. Violation of domicile by entering a dwelling against the will of the owner thereof or making search without the previous consent of the owner; 2. Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those legaily obtained; and 3 . Searching domicile without witnesses. A policeman, becoming angry with the owner of a house, forcibly entered the same against the will of said owner and attacked him inside his house. Is the policeman liable for violation of domicile? Explain your answer. No, because the policeman was n ~ t _ a c t i in h i s q f f N a l g capacity- when he entered the house. The policeman should be held .liable for physical injuries committed on the person of the owner 3f the house, with the aggravating cir-, cumstance that the crime was committed in t h e - n l g of the offended party.
Note: It cannot be trespass to .dwelling, because when trespass to dwelling is_.a ,direct m e a n s . . t o - ~ ~ m - ~ i t _ . . ~ ~ o ~it ~ . _ c ~ e , h is .. absorbed in the other crime. .. Vioiation of domicile under Art. 128 i s usuallv committed when the publie officer has eesea-ant.

907. The justice of the peace who dismissed a criminal case for insufficiency of evidence told his clerk to tell the jailer l o release the accused, unless held on other charges. ' The jailer did not release the accused, because the order . was not in writing. As a consequence, the accused continued to be detained in jail until the next day when the justice of the peace called the jailer to his office and , reprimanded him for disobeying his order. Is the jailer , criminally liable? Why? Yes, because a verbal order of release from the justice ~' . . , of the peace is sufficient. Hence, the jailer is liable for delaying release. Since there is no malice on the part
360

910. In what cases may a public officer who 'entered the:? domicile of an individ?tal and searched papers and other,&
"

961

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER


effects found therein, without search warrant, not be held c:riminally liable? When the owner has consented to the entry of the ..public officer to his house, or when some crime or set of' disturbance of public order is actually being committed in the dwelling and he enters the same to prevent the commission of the crime or to arrest the offender. A public officer may lawfully .make a search without search warrant in the house of a person, if the latter consented to the search. 'What the law'punishes is searching "papers o r other effects found therein w o h & t the previous consent of such owner."
Nots: There is still violation of domicile even if the owner of the house is absent when the public officer enters the same, -It proyided that thcrf: is an i n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . o f - p ~ h . ~ b i ~ ~ ~ . n b the owner. {

CllIDfINAL LAW REVIEWER

Elements of violation of domicile by enta*ing and/w aearehhgi


the dweiling: 1. The: offender is e public officer or employee; .
,

,...

2. He is not authorized by judicial order;


3 . . Re performs any of the following acts: a . Entering any dwelling against the will of the owner

, '
, '

thereof; or b. Searching papers or other effects found 'therein without the prevlous consent of such owner; o r C. Refusing to leave the premises, after having surreptitiously entered said dwelling and a f t e r having hem. required to leave the same.

y?
. .
"

912. In what cases may a public officer who, in making a search, is armed with a search warrant legally procured from the court, be held liable for violation of domicile?

..
..

'.
,

policeman, without search warrant and having been ihformt:d that B was detaining his wife in a room of his house, and seeing that the door of B house was not ' s locked, entered the same at 4:OO p.m. to verify the report. When 3 went out of his room he saw the wliceman inside the house. Is the policeman guilty of viola. tion of domicile? Explain your answer. It is submitted that the policeman is not liable for violation of domi,cile, because his entry_ into the d a n g of B ix only w m u t the latter's consent. If itt ! w da timi and the door was only c&%l but not locked, +? here is no indieatian of&ik&on o n the Dart of B.
Note: A policeman may enter the dwelling of another evm without search warrant and even wainst the will of the owner, ,FK& the i n m f L m u b l j c _ o - r & r and public 8ecurity jus$ifies such entry. For instance, a policeman who is arresting 8 person who has committed B crime may follow him to the house of another even against the lstters will, or when the mime is being committed in the dwelling of another, B policeman may enter the name even against the will of the owner to p r e vent the consummation of the crime, OF when B public officer enters the dwelling in order to attach the property of %e odmi!r, which is inside the dwelling.

A public officer who, in making a search, is armed with a search warrant legally procured from the court in the followmay be heId l i n b M i @alation of b ing cases : +-l.)-.when he exceeds h i s authority ui ing the search warrant; =hen. he .us S , -thue m ese in (Art. 19%, 2?=. he searches the dwelling yith-&um:tp?sses (Art. 130)..
Note: The public officer who uses unnecessary severity in execut-

rant without iust. cause. may be held. liable is so, because Art. 129 says, "in addition t o ing to the affonder for the commission of

. ,.

without the previous consent of the owner of the d

without search w a w t and the


~

362

363

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

is committed even if the search was made in the presence of the owner or in the presence of other persons, provided
that the owner did not give his consent to the search. 914. During the meeting in Manila of the municipal mayors of the different municipalities in the Philippines, several of them created a disturbance, resulting in the interruption of the meeting. Are those mayors who created the disturbance which resulted in the interruption of the ,. . meetina liable for intermution of ,oezceful meetina under Art. 131 of the Revised Penal Code? No. The public officer or employee liable under Art. 131 of the Revised Penal Code must have the intention to prohibit, interrupt or dissolve the peaceful meeting. It would seem that the public officer o r employee, committing the crime under Art. 131 must be acting in their .,.. official capacity. And even if that is not required, a distinction should be made between a case where the public . . officers are participants in the meeting and a, case where they are not participants therein. In the first case, it is disturbance of public order under Art, 153; in the second case, it is interruption of peaceful meetkg without legal ground under Art. 131. Since they were participants in the meeting which was interrupted by reason of the disturbance they created, they are not liable under Art. 131.

i
$

917. Does a policeman or chief of police have a legal g o for interrupting a meeting simply 1Secause the speaker talking against his religion? If the meeting is peaceful, the fact that the speake , , is talking against his religion is not a legal ground interrupting. such meeting. He must respect the free If the speech is defamatory, he may later a cdmplaint for defamation against; the speaker, but /Of chief o f police o r the policeman cannot legally stop t h speech. ,' moeting.
918. May a public school principal stop' the speaker 'in the commencement exercises who delivered a campaign speech, it being election time? Yes. There is a legal ground f o r stopping him, b e cause the speaker was talking about a prohibited subject . ' in view 01 the occasion.

2
J, , ,

Illustration: The municipal president bf a town stopped the s eaker from continuing with his speech at a publie meeting, ecause the speaker talked of politics contrary to the agreement. It was held tliat the munioipal president was not liable or interruptins peaceful meeting (People vs. Yalung, C A ) ...

'

919.

915. What crime would be committed if the offenders who dissolved or interrupted a peaceful meeting without legal ground a private individuals who are not participants in the neeting? isturbance of public order (Art. 153). If there is violence or intimidation, grave coercion is committed (Art. 286).

hat are the crimes against' religious worship? They are: ' I,, Interruption of religious worship (Art. 132); and 1 2 . Offending the religious feelings (Art. 133). vented or disturbed the religious ceremony or manifestation of a religion used violence or threat? It is still interruption' of religions worship, ohly that the penalty is higher (Art. 132, 2nd par.).

'$60. What would be the crime if the public officer who pre- ~Y
6

916. When may a public officer prohibit, interrupt or dissolve a meeting without incurring criminal liability? e & When the meeting is Rot peacefuland there is a l g r r for prohibicthg, dissolving or interrupting it. 364

d' What

crime is committed by a private individual who prevented or disturbed a religous ceremony or manifeststion of any religi,on? &$& G q CJwy. If there is only a distur ance, it is st hanc of public order under Art. 153; if prevented by violence or

I'

365

% I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWIER


I ,

intimidation, it is grave coercion and the penalty is one


degree higher (Art. 286).

925. A group of persons rose puhlicly and took arms against,!

922. A policeman and a private individual threw stones a t

the minister of the Iglesia Ni Cristo who was then preaching in their chapel. What crime was committed by the policeman and what crime was committed by private individual? Both are liable for offending religious feelings under Art. 133. It is not necessary that the offender is a public officer. The act of throwing stones at the minister i s notoriously offensive to the feeling of the members of the Iglesia ni Cristo.

the forces of the government, resulting in the killing'; Some of thoije who rose publielyj were killed and those who were captured refused t~ give: any statement or make any admission. Are. they liable for rebellion? Why? No, because the purpose of the public uprising is not known.&hen the w u e of the public uprising and taking arms against the forces of the government iiJmkq_ow_n, the offenders cannotbe held liable for rebellion.
of certain policeman.
Elenenl.8 4 j rebellion: ;/That thore bo (a); public upriaing and (b) taking a m against the Government. 2:'The p-ssuf the uprising or movement is * c a . To remove from the allegiance to said Government of its laws, (1) the territory of the Philippines or any part there,of, or ( 2 ) any body of land, naval 0.c other armed forces; or b,' 'To deprive the Chief Executive or Congress, wholly o r partially, of any of their powers or prerogative.?. ,.

923. Suppose, that in a baptismal party where all the guestswere Catholics, a priest who was there was slapped and gravely slandered by a man belonging to another religion, is that man liable for offending the religious feeling? Why? No, because the acts wei'e ilot performed in (1) a place d c z m o religjous worship or ( 2 ) during t h e ~ c d e bration of any religious ceremony.
- . N o t e : Art. 133 requires that the acts notoriously offensive t e the feelings of the faithful must be perfomled either (1) in a place devoted to religious worship or ( 2 ) during the eelehratiom of any religious ceremony.
5.

924. A Protestant meeting was being held on the middle o f a road. The procession of the Catholics was approaeh-

. ,

,. ..

..

i n g that meeting when the accused, who had been speaking against the Pope, shouted, "This criminal and de-vouring beast!", referring to the Pope. Is the accused, liable for the crime of offending the religions feelings? Explain. No. In that crime, the offender must act with deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithfuls. The accused did not purposely attack the Pope and deviate from the topic of his speech when the procession was approaching the meeting place.

. I
'j

366

.j,

926. , Suppose, those who were captured admitted that their purpose was to overthrow the Philippine Government, but they failed to accomplish their said purpose, because they were overp3wered by the forces of the Government, what stage of the execution of the crime of rebellion did they reach? The crime of rebellion is complete or consummated the very moment a group of rebels rise publicly and take arms against the GoxemBent, for the purpose of overthrowing the same by force./he i&ent or mrpase of overthrowing the Government is only the $ubjec&te element of the offense and it is m i c i e n t , that such pmse_exists. It is not necessarx that they accomulish it. 4:.? T? in the case of U.S. vs. acmes, where a great riumber of individuals gathered at a place with the object ': of attacking the government and of taking possession by means of force ytown, which object .they did not aceom;%$$ i / :,. . i ,,'*.i, ! . & i ?. 567 . &
1

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REV123WEII

plish because they were surprised a t their headquarters


by some constabulary forces who succeeded in dispersing them after an engagement in which some were either killed or wounded and others were captured, i t was held that they were guilty of consummated rebellion.
t

:'

927. One of the purposes of the crime defined in Art. 134 is to deprive the Chief Executive or Congress, whofly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives. What ivas the crime conimitted if the movement merely sought to effect some change of minor importance or to prevent: the exercise of governmental authority with respect t o particular matters or subjects? The crime committed was insurrection. The crime committed was not rebellion, since the purpose was not t o completely overthrow and supersede the existing government. 928. What is the nature of the crime of rebellion? It i:r by nature a crime of masses, of a multitude. It is a vast movement of men and a complex net of intrigues and plots. It is an uprising of large extent and long duration, directed against the government. 929. May a person who did not actually take arms against the government, but entertaining the purpose of rebellion and performing other overt act, be held liable f,or rebellion? Yes, like the courier or, spy, provided that he is in con-spiracy with those engaged actually in taking arms against the government. Rebellion may be 'Committed by prom>ting, maintaining, o r heading a rebellion. It may be committed by a ' public officer or employee who exacts contributions or diverts public funds from the lawful purpose for which ,they have been appropriated (Art. 135). These acts do , not involve actual public uprising and taking arms against the government.

930. The treasurer of a town voluntarily g a m to the dissidents actually taking arms to overthrow the government all the public funds under his custody for use in financing the uprising. Is the treasurer gnilty of the complex crime of rebellion with malversation, or of two distinct crimes of rebellion and malversation? Is there any aggravating circumstance present in this case? There is only one crime and that is rebellion. This is so, because while holding public office or employment, the municipal treasurer took part in the rebellion by diverting public funds from the lawful purpose for which they were appropriated. The aggravating circumstance of having taken advantage of public position cannot be considered against him, it being the essential element of the crime he committed. p e f do not constitute a complex crime, because the . act' of diverting public funds from the lawful purpose for which they are appropriated, which may constitute malversation, is one of the means of committing the crime of rebellion by B public officer. It is the very act Of rebellion committed by a public offtcer and, therefore, cannot be considered as another crime to be complexed with rebellion. For the scme reason, the act of diverting public funds from the lawful purpose for which they are . appropriated cannot be treated as a s p r a t e and distinct . J offense.

931. A , p i t K other Huks, ,.@.ked.. the..people in a b d o for ,fuodstufb, at the same time warning; them, on pain of having their heads cut off, not to .LeprL.tlikmefmce of Huks in those parts to the constabulary. Disregarding
the warning, B and C denounced the Hvks to t h e W ,~onstabulazy.d~t+chment with the r$lsult_that the were ambushed by the constabulary soldiers. In r!lt&tion for what B and C had done, a group of H u h led by A returned t o the barrio and apprehended B and C , and with their hands bound A cut off their heads. Then, A and his companions took everything they could use from the house of B and C. Can the court convict A of

368

369

I. 1
I.

..

CIIIMIXAL LAW REVIEWER

CR131INAL LAW REVIEWER

..

.. ..
.
,

murder as a separate crime from rebellion? Can the crime of murder committed by A be cnmplexed with rebellion? No. The act was perpetrated in furtherbrce of rebellion. Since murder was committed in iurtheraiice of rebellion, murder is not a separate offense. Any or all of the acts described in Art. 135, when committed a: a means to or in furtherance of the subversive ends dexribed in Art. 134, become absorbed in the crime of rebellion. It cannot be I-egarded or penalized as distinct c k n e s in themselves. In law, they are part and parcel of the rebellion itself and cannot be considered as giving rise to a separate crime that, under Art. 48 of the Code, would constitute a complex one with that of rebellion (People vs. Togonon, et ai.).

be punished as leaders of the rebellion (Art. 135, last par..,: R.P.C.).

932. In what cases may a public officer or employee be held liable for rebellion? A public officer or employee may be held liable for rebellion by doing any of the following: ( I ) engaging in war against the forces of the government; (2) destroying property or committing serious violence; and (3) exacting contributions o r diverting public funds from the lawful purposc for which they are appropriated (Art. 135, R.P.C.).
Note: A public offieer or enipioyec m a y also be guilty o re- f bellion by promoting, maintaining o r headinz a rebellion, or by merely participating o r executing the commands of others in the rebellion. This is so, because Art. 135 States that rebellion may be committed by any person who promotes, msintnins or heads a rebellion. The same article a h says, any person merely particioating O P execotinp. the command of others in a rebellion is liable.

934. May a group of alien residents in this country who rose. publicly and took arms against the government for the purpose of overthrowing the same be held liable f o r rebellion? Why? Yes, because Art. 135, which provides for the penalty for those guilty of rebellion mentions, Any person without qualification as to his nationality. Moreover, in the case of U S . vs. Del Rosario, it was held that it is not a defense in the prosecution for rebellion that the offenders never to3k the oath of allegiance t o the government or that they never recognized it. It is submitted that this ruling may apply Lo resident aliens. To hold otherwise, is to negate the right of the government to exercise authority ovei certain class of the population.
935. When i s the crime of murder, lxbber-y or arson cam-mit-. tcd in the oourse of the rebellion punished as a separate offense, and when is it considered as part of tile commission of rebelfion?

The common crimes of murder, robbery, and arson committed in the coiixe of rebellion may be punished as seperalc offenses when they are committed_ for private purposes or profit, vilhout any p d i t j .a!.motiW_o_n. But .ivhen any of these common crimes s committed in the course oC t h e rebellion, not for pri ate ends or profit, but to accomplish any of the purposes of rebellion, it shall he considered a ~ ~ b ~ o r b e the crime of rebellion. in d
- I -

936. Several ,persons had the purpose of overthrowing the

933. Who shnll he punished as leaders of the rebellion, if their i&entities are not known? . , Those who in fact directed the others, spoke for them, signed receipts and other documents issued in their names, .. . or performed similar acts on behalf of the rebels shall
I

Government. They secretly enlisted their sympathizers

,as future soldiers of the movement and solicited contrihu-

.-<
370

tions from those willing to give. Before they could organize to rise publicly and take arms against the GOVernment, they were arrested by the . ~ a h and when investigaled they confessed t o the foregoing

372

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIIGWER

facts. For what crime can they be prosecuted and pnnished? C &_yt. & aco commit rebellion. There is an agreement as shown by the purpose; there is a decision to commit rebellion, as shown by enlisting men and soliciting contributions to carry out the purpose.
9o

proclamations, writings, emblems, banners and other representations tending to the same end.
939. What wonld be the crime, if the crime of rebellion &s a s k committed by the peoplo to whom the p r o p o d was made or who were incited to commit it? The crime committed is e n . The proposal or inciting to connnit rebellion is absorbed.

c;/.i
93

Under Art. 135, public officers or employees may also commit the crime of rebellion by any of the manners specified therein. How wonld you distinguish 'rebellion committed by public officers from disloyalty of public officers? I n rebellion, the public officers perform any of the following acts (1) s a ~ n i n e war against the forces of in the government; (2) &&o@ng-praperty or committing serious violence; (3) cxaacting_cnntz&tutic-m and divawing public_fu.nds from the lawful purpose for which they have been appropriated. In d ~ o y a ~ t ~ ~ f - , p . u b l i c - o f the ~ s , ~c public officers are guilty o f . w o f the foliowing: (l).f$k in2 to resist a rebellion by all t h e means ,in their power;" (2) co,ntinuing t o d-e-the-dutiies of their offices under t.he coocol of the rebels; and (3) acceuting&ppoint. p p ~ t to office under them. If he is in campiracy with the rebels, the public officer performing a n act of disloyalty is liable for rebellion.
IIow is proposal to commit rebellion distinguished from inciting to rebellion? Similarities: In both, the offender dEsLot--@ke =mi o r is not in open hostility against the government; and in both, the offender -.,another to commit rebellion. Differences: - In proposal, the offender is &xiddto commit. the crime; in inciting, it is not.necessary that the offender is decided to commit rebellion. In proposal, the offender proposes the .execution of the crime by secret means; in inciting, the offender incites othbrs to the cornmission of rebellion p-ublicly and by means of speeches,

j
I

j
I

940. Two rival groups of jeepney driv,ers, all armed, attacked each other in a public plaza, using their arms even against the policemen who tried to stop them and to restore order in the place. The attack being t_um.ultnnus and the commotions occurring in a puEig!b, did they commit sedition? Explain your answer. No. Although there was public and tumultuous uprising, the$ject of the uprising w > u o J to urevent the polico m e n s a r e public officers from fr$ely_.e.z%rc&hg their hnetion, or $-attain any-other object of sedition. .~ ~.. ____ 94.1. Two persons, who bated a councilor of their town, burned' the latter's house. Is this sedition, their object being to inflict an act of hate or revenge upon the property7 of a public officer? No, because they did not rise p.ubljcly and tumultuoW. They did not use force or intimidation or means outside of legal methods. The existen,ce of tho object of sedition is not enough. There m u s t &.public and tumultuous u p rising. The word :f;umultuoua" .means that at least four persons who are a r m e b o r wX6 are provided with means o m e n c e took part in the uprising.
~

9. %

N o t e : The element of sedition that is not preacnt ia:&at the offenders rise~publielyand tumultuously, using.foF5 ar~intimidation or o t l ~ e means outside of loga\..m$thods. ~.

942. What object must the offenders pursue in order that public and tumultous uprising, using force or intimidation,

or employing means outside of lmegal methods, may be considered sedition?

>? .'W '. .

372

373

CRIMINAL L A W REV1EWF:R

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

They must pursue any of the following objects: 1. To prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of any popular election: 2. To prevent the National Government, or a h provincial or municipal government, 01 any public officer thereof from freely exercising its or his functions, or to prevent the execution .of any administrative order; 3 . To inflict any act of hate nr revenge upon the person or property of any public officer or employee: 4 . To commit, for any political or socialend, any act of hate or revenge against p r i n t e persons or any social class: and 5 . To despoil, for any political or social end, any person, municipality or province, o r the National Government of all its property or any part thereof.
043. A wanted to eliminate his political rival B before the election which was about to take place in their province. A had an understanding With the Huks, whose commander was his friend, to the effect that the Huks would attack the barrio where B was living, with a particular end in view of killing B. During the attack madc by the Hukri in which A also took part, B was seriously injured and his house was burned. Considering that the Huks were engaged in rebellion and A was in conspiracy with the Huks, do you believe that A committed rebellion? Explain your answer. NO. A committed pkditioa If the purpose of the vpr&ing is cot exactly against thesovernment and not for the purpose of doing any of the things defined in Art. 134 of the Revised Penal Code, bi:t-.-merely to attain by force or other means outside of legal methods one object, to wit, to commit for any political end an act of hate against private person, the crime committed is sedition.
<
s N o t e : While it i true that the Huks were engaged in rebellion and that A was in w n s p i r a c y with them, their purpose was not to overthrow the government, but o&&Q-@fljct fozL&iEl end an act ..of hate against B. .

9.14. What is the nature of the crime of sedition? It is one of those offenses which a r e directed against the authority, not against the existence of the government, or the general peace. The u@g&?-_objsst of sedition is a vglation of tine puhlic-.peace.,
945. E, in a meeting, uttered: The big ones are persecuting and oppressing us, who are small, which they have no right to do. Then shouts were heard from the audience, R saying, Let u s fight them until death. Is this inciting t o rebellion o r inciting to se,rlition? Why? Inciting t o sedition, because the people were actually incited when they said, Let us fight them, followed .by Rs shouting, Let us fight them tc death. When E uttered that the big oues ivere persecuting and oppressing them, he was lamenting a feeling of hatred andxexe.we among them (People vs. Evangelista). To inflict an act of hate or rcvenge against the person or property of public officer is one of the objects of sedition. The crime of inciting to sedition is committed when the offender who does not take direct part in the crime of sedition i& others to the accomplishment of any o f the objects of sedition by means 01 speeches.

1,

94F. Suppose, the speaker uttered and told the audience, Overthrow the present Government and establish your own government, the government of the poor. Use your whip so t.hat there may he marks on their sides. Is this inciting to rebellion? State your reason. No. This is inciting to sedition. The reason is that the words uttered suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots, which is one of the ways of inciting to sedition under Art. 142 of the Revised Penal Code (People vs. Nabong) .
947. May there be inciting t sedition even if the inciting does n not relate to the accomplishment of any of the objects, of sedition mentioned in Art. 139?

374

375

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIhlINAL LAW REVIEWER

Yes. There are two parts of Art. 142. The first part defines inciting to sedition by inciting others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition, by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, ernblems or other representations tending to the same end. The second part defines inciting to sedition, as by uttering seditious words or speeches, or by writing, publishing or circulating scurrilous libels against the Government or any of the duly constituted authorities thereof, which tends to disturb the public peace. ,,In the second part of Art. 142, the accomplishment of any of the objects of sedition is not the purpose of the act of inciting others.
948. What is the justification for punishing the uttering or

.
i

~ducedisaffection among the people a n d - a state of feeling:;,. incompatible with a disposition to remain 1oyalto the . .. , Government and obedient to, the la.ws. Under the clear and present danger rule, it is required~ ,thatthere must be a reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent and that the evil to be prevented is a serious one. There iaust be theprobability of serious injury to the State.
Eznntpl~ of the application of c l e w and v e s e n t danger &: A political @arty applied for a permit to hold a publIc mecting in Mimila. The Mayor refused to grant permit. The refusal of the mayor to grant permit for the holding of a public meeting was predicated upon fear that in view of the bitterness af the speeches expected from the minority men - who^ were fresh from political defeat and were smarting with ,charges of fraud agaiiist those in power, there might be hreach of the peace and of public order. o Held: The danger was not imminent and the evil t he prevented was not a serious one. The mayor was ordered t o issue a permit (Primieias VB. Fugono)

..

writing and publishing of sediti,ous words or speeches? The justification for punishing it is that the utterances or writings which tend to overthrow, or undermine the security of, the governmellt or t o weaken the confidence of the people in the government are against the public peace, and are criminal not only because they tend t0 incite a breach of the peace but also because they are conducive t~ the destruction of the goxe.rgment itself.

--

949. Does not the second part of Art. 142 violate the eonstitutional guaranty of freedom of speech and of the press?

It is opined that it does, because what is Dunisheid in that part: of Art. 142 is cot, the act of ineicing to sedition but the Citterances. or the-publication of words or speeches,. thereby affecting the freedom of speech and press. Under the c!e&r-and..present danger rule, the second part of Art. 142 may be dgc&red~u.nconstitntiona1.
950. What is. your understanding of the dangerous tendency .. . . rule in relation to the crime of inciting to seditbn, and

951. What are the crimes against legislative or similar bodies. They are: (1) preventing the meeting of a deliberative body by force or fraud (Art, 143); (2) disturbing its session or meeting; and (3) misbehaving in .the presence of any such bodies as to interrupt its proceedings or to impair the respect due to it (Art. 144).
Note: The legislative or similar bodies referred to nre eithe? House of Congress, its committees or sub-committees, constitutional commissions, provincial hoard or city or municipal council OF board.

how is it distinguished from the clear and present danger rule? Under the (angerous tongency rule, there is inciting to sedition when the yords uttered or. nublished have a seditious, tendency, in the sense that they could easily pro~

952. What is the liability of il person who disturbs the proceedings of either House of Congress? The same act of disturbing the proceedings of either House of Congress may be made the basis for contempt proceeding and/or for criminal prosecution (Lopez vS. De 10s Reyes).
953. What do you understand by parliamentary immunity?,

376

377

I I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

i
CIUMINAL LAW REVIEWER

Parlinmentary immunity, under the Constitution, means that the members of Congress shall, in all cases except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be pivileged from arrcst during their attendance bt the session of Congress, and in going to and returning from the same. Under the Revised Penal Code, it means that the members of Congress should not be arrested or searched during the regular or special session, except in case a member has committed a crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code by a penalty higher than pvision mayor. search a senator or a rempresentative? In the following cases a public officer may lawfully arrest or search a senator or representative: (1) when Congress is not in regular or special session, he may lawfully arrest or search a senator or representative in connection with any crime; and ( 2 ) when Congress is in regular o r special session, he may lawfully arrest or search a senator or representative, provided that the crime committed is punishable under the Revised Penal Code by a penalty lt<gher than prision mal/or.
Note: A member of Congress may bc arrostod or searched during regular or special session, if he committed homicide o r rape, because these crimes are punishable by re02usio.n ?ernporal, a penalty higher than pvision. magor.

Ui

2156. D,oes parliamentary immunity mean exemption from crunBq , ,.>.y ina1 liability?

,SW*

1
I

954. In what cases may a public officer lawfully arrest or

No, because the immunity under the Revised Penal Code extends only to awest and search during regular or special, session of Congress and the felony committed is not punishable under the Revised Penal Code by a penalty higher than pi.ision .irztqior. Even if a senator o r representative committed a crime under circumstances where his arrest and/or search would be punished as a crime, he can be prosecuted and, if found guilty, he can be punished. Eveu under the Constitution, parliamentary immunity is limited only to civil arrest. T e immunity excludes all h indictable offcnses.
,1157. In n meding where many persons were invited to con-

sider the ways and means of improving the community, A volunteered to speak and, in the course of his speech, he incited the audience to carry arms and use force and violence against the mnyor and councilors for neglecting their duties. Js that meeting an illegal assembly? E X plain vour aiiswer. No, because to constitute a n illegal assemblx, where T the audience is incited, the meeting must be organized for the purpose of inciting the audience to the ;commission of treason, rebellion, sedition or direct assank4 pose of the meeting mentioned in the question w
Note: A is liable for alarms and scandals under par. 4, of tlie Revised Penal Code.

955. May a member of Congress, who, during its session, has

in his possession a revolver without license be searched and arrested, the crime not being punishable under the Revised Penal Code? Explain your answer. No. The crime of illegal possession of firearm is punishable by imprisonment from one to five years, which-is not higher than prision mayor. The part of the provision relating t o crime punishable under this Code states the exception. Hence, crimes punished by special laws are included in the prohibition. It is only when the penalty is higher than prision mayo? that the crime should be punishable under the Revised Penal Code.

958. A group of about 20 persons, armed with bolos, daggers

,
.

and licensed pistols, were gathered together in a c e r t a i n place holding a meeting. A group of PC soldiersJwho were suspecting them investigated each and every one of them on the spot, but n,ot one of those persons revealed the purpose of the meeting. Can they be prosecuted and and punished far illegal assembly? Explain your answer. No, because to constitute the crime of illegal assembly the meeting must be either one of the following: (1) any meeting atteuded by a m e d persons for the purpose ?f

378

319
>c

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEYYER

punishable under the Revised Penal Code, and ( 2 ) associations totally or partially organized for some purpose contrary to pubiic morals.
961. Distinguish illegal association from illegal assembly, as to (1) the act or acts constituting the crime, ( 2 ) the person or persons criminally liable. What is punished in illegal assembly is the holding of meeting and attendance a t such meeting; whereas, what i s punished in illegal association is the formation or organization of an associntion and membership thereof. In illegal assembly, the persons liable are the organizers or leaders and persons merely present a t the meeting; whereas, in illegal association the persons liable are the founders, directors and presidents, and mere members of the association.

"

purpose o'f the meeting was to commit any of the crimes punishable by the Revised Penal Code. In this kind of illegal assembly, two requisites must concur, namely: (1)

'959. Suppose, one of the persons who attended the meeting

?vas carrying an unlicensed firearm, what crime, if any, was committed and by whom? Explain your answer. $ Only the persons carrying unlicensed firearm may be held liable for illegal assembly, because under the law, if . any person present a t the meeting carries an unlicensed , firearm, it shall be presumed that the pur7ose of said -meeting, insofar as he is concerned, is t o commit acts . . punishable under the Revised Penal Code, and he shall be ' considered a leader o r an organizer of the meeting.
I

.,

962. What is the difference between ill'egal association nnder the Revived Penal Code and illegal association under the Anti-Subversion Act? Under the Revised Penal Code, the illegal association must be totally or partially organized f o r the purpose of committing any of the crimes punishable under that Code, o r totally o r partially organized for some purpose contrary to public morals; whereas, nnder the Anti-Subversion Act, the association or organization must have the purpose of overthrowing the Government of the Republic of the .Philippines to establish in the Philippines a totalitarian regime and place the government under the control and domination of an alien power.

Note: 13ut that provision of the law establishes only a p r ~ sumption and may be rebutted by proof of lack of such purpose.

,960. What are the two forms of illegal associations?

...

,.

..

They are: (1) associations totally or partially organized.for the purpose of comrnitting any of the crimes

963. What are the acts punishable under the Anti-Subversion Act? The acts punishable nnder that Act are: 1. By knowingly, wilfully and by overt acts (a) af' filiating oneself with, (b) becoming or (e) remaining a member of the Communist Party of the Philippines and/ or its successor or any subversive association defined in that Act;

380

381

I
I

CRIhIIXAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVItEWER

.~

. .

2. By conspiring with any other person to overthrobthe Government of the Republic of the Philippines or the

986. What is the difference between conspiracy to coma

. '/
'.

government of any of its political subdivisions by force, violence, deceit, subversion or other illegal means f o r the purpose of placing such government or political subdivisions. under the control and domination of any alien power. 3 . By taking up arms against the Government to over-~ throw it, to establish a totalitarian regimd in the 'Philippines, and to place the government under the control and domination of an alien power. guise of forming a political party with a different name. presented a ticket of their candidates , for the coming election, with the intention of obtaining control .of t h e . Government and, once successful, of plaLing t h e government under the o n t r o l and domination of an alien power, are they liable for violation of the Anti-Subversion A e t ? ~ Yes, because one of the acts punished is by conspiring t ' overthrow the Government of the Repuhlic of the Phil: pines by deceit for the purpose of placing such Govern-. ment oi' political subdivision under the control and domination of any alien power.

..9 4. Suppose, the members of the Communist Party under the


.,

/
,

rebellion under the Revised Penal Code and conspiracy .overthr,ow the government under the Anti-Subversion Act?;! In conspiracy to commit rebellion under the Revised Penal Code, the conspiracy relates to the crime of rebellion_ as t!ie latter crime is defined in the Revised Penal Code) whereas, in conspiracy to overthrow the government under the Anti-Subversion Act, the purpose of the offender is to estahlish in tb.e Philippines a totalitarian regime and to lace the government under the control and domination an alien power. What are the two forms of direct assault? The two forms of direct assault are: (1) without pub-

.,/
?

lic uprising., by employing force or intimidation for, the attainment of any o f the purposes enumerated in defining the crime of yebellion, or of any of the objects of sedition; * and ( 2 ) without public uprising, by attacking, by employing force, or by' seriously intimidating or by seriously resisting any person in authority or any of his agents while engaged in the performance of official duties or on the occasion of such performance,
Elements of dived assault of the 1 s t form: 1. The offender employs farce or intimidation. 2 . The aim of the offcnder is to attain any of the purposes of t h e crime of rebellion or any of the objects of the crime of sedition. 2. There is no public uprising. Xlaments of d.bect nssuult of the Bnd / o w n : 1. That the offender (a) ,makes an attack, (2) employs farce, ( e ) . makes a serious intimidation, or (d) makes B serious resistance. 2 . That the peisan assaulted is n person in authority or his agent. 8 . That t h e person i n authority o r his agent is (a) engaged in the perfarinanee of official duties, or (b) on the OCCBSi0,l of SUCII performnaee. 4 . There is no ,iiublie uprising. Note: The phrase "on the occasion of such performance'' should be undwsloud as "by reason thereof."

9 a. What is the difference between rebellion or insurrectionunder the Revised Penal Code and violation of the AntiSubversion Act where the purpose of the offender is to take up arms against the government? Both in rebellion or insurrection and in violation of the Anti-Subversion Act, the offender takes up a.rms.ta overthrow the government. Gut while in rebellion or insurrection the purpose of the ofEender in taking arms is only to overthrow the existing government and replace it with a new government, in violation of the Anti-Subversion ., Act the purpose of the offender in taking arms to overthrow the government is to establish in the Philippines , . .a totalitarian regime and to place the government under the control and domination of an alien power.
382

jf

383

,.

i
. .. .

/'

,~,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIllIINAL LAW REVIEWER

8. May direct assault 'be committed against a private individual? Explain. Yes. if the crime committed is direct assault of the first form. because in this form of direct assault the object of the offender may be any of the objects of sedition. When the object is to commit for any political or social end an act of hate or revenge against private person or social class, and there is no public and tumultuous uprising, but only force or intimidation, the crime is direct assault even if the offended party is a private individual. But in the second form of direct assault, the crime is always committed against a person in authority or his agent.

They are : (1) By attacking; (2) By using force; ( 5 ) By seriously intimidating; or , (4) By seriously resisting a person in authority o r his ,,"agent while in the performance of his olficial duty or by reason of the past performance o f such duty.

'S
B

How do you distinguish persons in authority from their agents? Persons in authority are those public officers directly vested with jurisdiction, that is, those who have the power and authority to govern and execute the laws. Thus, the Provincial Treasurer is a person in authority because within the province for which he is appointed, he has the duty t o execute all the laws pertaining to finance and collection of taxes in addition to hi6 other duties; tine Provincial Health Officer, within the province where he is appointed, has the duty to execute all the laws relating to health and sanitation; the Division Superintendent of Schools, with respect to all the laws pertaining to education, in additioii to his general superintendence over all the schools and school teachers within the province to which he is assigu ed On the other hand, agents of persons in authority are only charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and property. He is a subordinate official of a person in authority. Thus, the municipal treasurer and the municipal health officer are only agents of the provincial treasurer and district health officer, respectively.

971. What degree of force is necessary t o constitute direct assault? If the offended party is only an agent of a person; in authority, the force employed must be of a serious character as t o inclicate determination to defy the law and its representative at all hazards. The force employed need not be serious when the ofended party is a person in authority. The mere laying of hands, as slspaing his face, is sufficient.
the purpose of the crime of direct assault by resisting a person in authority or his agent, what is the nature of the resistance? Why? Serious resistance; otherwise, it would be resistance and serious disobedience only.

~~

A, the mayor of the town, and B, a private individual, were conversing in front of the municipal building. I n the course of their conversation about politics, B and the mayor became engaged in an altercation, resulting i n B's giving a fist blow on the lips of the mayor. Is B IiabIe .for direct assault? Explain your answer. No, because the mayor was& in the performance

Note: The crime committed is o

&

970. What are the different ways of committing direct assault of the 2nd form?

384

385

CRIXINAL LAW REYIEWER I)

/
.,.,

:..,

formance of his official duty when he is attacked o r seriously intimidated by the offender? Why? No, as long as the attack or the intimidation a made by of the past l3erformance of his officiat duty, there is direct assault even if the person in auG t y o r his agent was at the time of the attack o r intimidation in the actual performance of his official duty.

b a w n that the a m c k w
,,&his agent.

- -performance of pfficial duties ofhe +-

e by reason of the past , :, , person in euthoritx

*975.

The .Division Superintendent of Schools who was asked by the Provincial Governor to appoint certain applicants recommended by the latter for the position o teachers .. openly refused to do so, because the applicants were not eligibles. The agent of the Governor who met the Superintendent in the railroad station gave the latter fist . blows, causing contusions on his face. Since the agent . . of the Governor was not the person affected by t h e performance of the official duties of the Superintendent, . .. can that agent be punished for direct assault? Explain .. . . . your answer. Yes, because it is not necessary to commit the crinie of direct assault that the offender was personally affected by the pi?rformance of the official duty of the person in authority or his agent. Since the attack appeared t o have been prompted by the desire of the special agent to revenge a supposed affront to the Governor by the Superintendent in connection with the appointment of teachers, which involves the performance of official duty, the agent is liable for direct assault committed by reason of the performance of official duty of the person in authority.

A learned from his neighbor that B, the mayor of his town, was maintaining an illicit relation with, his wife. A got his pistol and proceeded to the municipal building. As soon as A saw I in the latter's office going over 3 some ,pending papers, A shot B but failed to hit him. Is A guilty of direct assault with attempted homicide@ $$& Explain your answer. The m n v e here is iptnaterial,,because B, a person in authority, was attacked w s l e p r r f a r m 3 n c e of his official duty. Hence, A is liable for direct assault. 1 978. What c&umstane&tuay qualify the crime of direct asMUlt? when it is committed Direct assault is with a weapon, 0 when the offend% is a public officer or employee, or when the offender lays hands u I n a person in authority.

p)

P
97

When is the &ve of the offender important in delermining 111is guilt in connection with the crime of direct assault? If tho person in authority or his agent is attacked . ' while he is n o t i n the performance of his official duties, '. , . :the 9 v e or reason for t h e k is necessary. It must

.A, councilor of a town, upon knowing tllat some PC soldiers were arresting his political leaders and followers for playing a gambling game, went to. the place and requested the soldiers to release them. When the sergeant of the FC refused, the councilor hit the sergeant with a cane several times on the different parts of the body, causing serious physical injuries on the sergeant. Considering that the councilor who attacked the PC sergeant is a person in authority, do you believe that the councilor is guilty of direct assault? Explain your answer. Yes, because the sergeant ya&Ata.cked while in the performance of his duties _and by reason of the nesfomance of his duties, while tliemuncilor was&in the performame of his duties. It was n his official duty to g intervene in a case where an agent of a-person 3iT authority, like the PC sergeant, had lawfully arrested law387

386

-I

?.,

98 , A harboir policeman and a policeman of the Manila Police


Department happened to investigate a complaint for theft committed in the pier. The harbor policeman claimed that the MPD policeman had no right or authority to investigate any case mithin the harbor compound. The MPD policeman seriously injured the harbor policeman. Is the MPD policeman guilty of direct assault? Explain your an., e r . w & because No. He is liable for physical injuries o & b w s e contendine in the exercise of authority. Jhere t was no i,ntention t w h e authority of the n t , k u t on s o in authority. policeman in preserving order in a procession., Is the crime direct assault? Explain your answer. Yes, because the barrio lieutenant is a person in authority by direct provision of Art. 152, as amended. = e f w w d , when the offended uarty is a person i n a, y t need not be serious. The law simply mentions laying oP hands, without making any distinction as to different cases. It is to be noted that the same provision of Art. 148 with regard to intimidation or resstance as other constitutive elements of assault expressly requires that they be serious. If the law had intended to distinguish between the case of a serious laying of hands and that which is not serious, i t would have laid down that distinction. This indicates that the distinction which the law makes in the cases of intimidation or resistance is

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWIER

breakers. In other words, the councilor was . not contend, ing in the exercise of official duties.

'

&. When the person in authority o r his agent at the time of the attack, is& in the performance of his official duty and the attack is not bv reasop of the aast performance of hisofficial duty; n n the Derson in authority or his agent has acted without authority of l a q in excess o y when. he is attacked; . +d When the offend!@ & a person in ald.bm& , he and the offended or an agent. of authority and

.. , ~,.>

' .?# I
~

..

9 1 A slapp,ed the barrio lieutenant who was helping the .

..
.

. ,.

blows. Is A liable for direct assault? I t is submitted that inasmuch ai3 the offended party was no longer a person in authority at the time he was attacked, A was not liable f o r direct assault. One of the elements of direct assault is that the offended party is a person in authority or his agent.
984. A policeman saw X when the latter attacked the justice
i

.
~

,I

itted by X?

.',
'

. .

'

cases is an attack against a person in authority

ficial duty.

. .. . ..

4
i

388

389

-v

CRIMINAL LAW n E v i E w m i

CRIRIIXAL LAW REYIEWHR


~

..

Elements of indiyeot assault: 1. That a person in authority or his agent is the victim
of any of the forms of direct assault defined in Art. 148. 2. That a person comes to the aid of such authority o r his agent. 3. The offender makes use of force o r intimidation upon suck person coming to the aid of the authority of his agent.

and the Chinaman were taken to the. police precinct for investigation, hecause the policema.n, believed that there
was no law requiring aliens to carry their .gegistration

985. Several strikers obstructed the free passage along a


:,

road by 1:ying on the road forming roadblocks. A constabulary major ordered them t o get out from the road ; and clear the way. They refused to do so. What crime . . . was committed by the strikers? Explain your answer. The strikers committed the crime of simule disobedienxe, H person in abecause the disobedieuce Lo an-of w t y was not of a serious n a b.e (Art. 151, par. 2, R.P.C.). For raiding his house where some gamblers were arrested, A became resentful against the policeman who made the raid. The next day, A met that policeman, while patrolling on the street, and struck him with his fist which hit the latter on his breast; but when the policeman held his hand, A desisted from further attacking hm What i . crime wais committed by A? A wa2: liable f o r 6 t r e a t m e n t on@ He w a s not liable for resistance and serious disobedience, beeause there was no order by the policeman that A disobeyed. u d & I Le gkect assault, be&se the force employed k.p& ofasedous nature as to inilkate &e, Ofthebw

certificate. In the police precinct, the Malacafiang agent shouted at the policeman, telling hdm that . h e , d i d not know how to investigate. Whereupon, the policeman grabbed the hand of the agent to take him to, the police sergeant. The agent refused to go with him and gave fist bXo\vs on the policeman. What crime was committed against the policeman, direct assmlt or resistance and serious disobedience? Why? The crime committed was only qSistance and serious The order disobeyed is that which requiTed him to go to the police sergeant. ,The foree emdovef i u t o f a &s nature and did not indicate defiance of the law 01: its r e p r e s e n w e , iEview f& &at the aecusedadxde i .r. ,, :.

: n

>

G 3

-of

resistance and serious rii8i-e: 1. That a p s n in authority orh-t

ikenaaaedh

. ,.

the nerformaneeqf_official duty. 2. Such official duty c o d i: givinp a Iawful~order to the ofgnder. . , S . That the offender resists or seriously disobeys such pereon in authority or his azent. . 4. That the act of the offender is not included in- the provisions of Arts. 148, 149, and 150.
I

case of US. vd. Tabiana, wherein the policeman who was struck on the breast by T a l h n a with his hand had ordered Tabianr to submit himself to the arrest being effected. There w88 then in order disobeyed.

What are the6rimes against public o r a They are: Tumults and other disturbances of Oublic order. Unlawful use of means of ph un and unlawfui

--

, 4 Delivering prisoners from i&&


I

Alarms and scandals.

a certain Chinam? alien registration both the agent

98# A, beccming angry with the employees in a government office, shouted to the top of his voice and chaenggd them to a fight. There was disturbance in the office.

390
.*

391

I I

. .
. .

./
..,

i'
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

,
f

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

'

..

.99

p'
.

.I--.

Is A liable for tumults and other disturbances ,of publie order? Why? No, because even if there was serious disturbance in the office, it was n& p~& && or intended, A having been .' p e d to cause the disturbance ( U S . vs. Domingo, 1 9 'Phil. 69). -,
Note: A is liable

;$

of the peace, rind then presented it the jailer who, not knowing the falsification, released upon receipt of the forged document. What crime was

,:

fw @arms

and seandal$u.ider

Art. 166.

If a reporter published in a newspaper as news the false


news that the President of the Philippine% died in his sleep, is that reporter liable for unlawful use of means of publication? Explain. No, because such false news may not endanger the public order or cause damage to the interest or credit of the St,ate. a

,'., . .
I

99

fired the . If a person crime his pistol upwardbyinhim? air within town, what was committed Explain.

It is a eomdex crime of delivering prisoner from jail through falsification of x w&.A - 1 . n t by a private iGdividual. The usual means for committing the crime of delivering prisoners from jail are -, e intimidation or bigy rJr. I t is true that the law (Art, 156) spF& of "other means", but the penalty for falsification of a public document by a priyate individual under Art. 172 is prision correccional medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding F 5 0 0 which is higher than the penalty ',0, for delivering prisoner from jail if other means are used (awesto m a g o r ) . Although the falsification was the means used to commit the crime of delivering prisoners from jail, the falsiiication which is a graver offense cannot be absorbed by the lesser offense.
E l m m t s of deJive&ng p7isoneru ,from jail: 1. That there is B pemm confined in> jail or penal estab lishment. 2 . That the offender removes therefrom such person, or elps the escape of such person. 3 . By means of violence, intimidation, or bribery, or by other means.

"

.j

The crime of4i&ms and scandamwas committed by him, bsakse it producd alarm or d a n e r , since the slug ired from the pistol would fall down and might hit a person.

a perison caused serious disturbance in 'the meeting of a municipal council, what crime was committed by him? He committed disturbance of proceedings of a legislative body unddr Art. 144 of the Revised Penal Code.

994. A is a detention prisoner in jail.

h the intention of helping B to escape from jail,

ed an order of release and counterfeited the signa...


,

B scut through C to A file wrapped in the clothes delivered to A. Later, A ed the file in cutting the iron bars and succeeded i n escaping. What crime was committed by B who sent the file to C? Explain your answer. Delivering prisoners irom jail. There are two ways of committing the crime o f deliver@ ing prisoners from jail: , f by E m A n g a person eonfined in jail or penal establishment, and @ by such person to escape. The act of helping the escape of a person confined in jail or penal establishment de ~ $ thaL&f Lrovidinq the m'isonc with tools armeaps && that may facilitate his escape.

392
~

393

,-*:;,:., :.r,.:~, ' .~.


.

I i

CRIMTN-AL LAW REYIEVVER,


ii

CRIWINAL LAW REYIEWER


'

. .

Not6:
ar tt -e l doeJt

A !

e an accomplice in the escape.of A, -b


who
eseaQeg

not 8. nrinchal. A commit a crime,

+fThe

ova&

o~sa7.u-

cc hzr escagixg:

A.

offender i B convict b y final i s I& is -8 hissontenen which cn ? o%n :

t.
deprivation -d

of+ul&.

detained in the city jail on a charge of murder. money to the jailer who permitted A to leave jail, thereby making possible the escape ' o f A. I? be punished for delivering prisoner from jail? :>Why? A is found milty of the crime of murder@.evidence to show that A committed would be l&le as an 6 c c e s s a t o the crime ' @ , of murder, because he assisted in the escape of'a aersou guilty of murcer (Art. 19, par. 3, 'R.P.C.). should be the liahility of B, because tKe llenalty
eeessorv to the crime of m u r k i s h i p h e r t u h e the crime of delivering prisoners from jail,

He e d s the service of his sentence b n g the term of his s e d q e e .

4.

crimes of evasion of the service of sen,.

._ '

They ape: Evasion by escaping during the term of sentence. , Evasion during a disorder, by failing to give up $ to the authorities within 48 hours after the Chief Executive has annonneed the passing away of the calamity; and , Evasion by violation of conditional pardon.
"

For committing parricide under exceptional circumstances contemplated in Art. 247 o f the Revised Penal Code, A was sentenced to 4 years, 9 months and l 0 ' d a y s of destierro, during which period of time he was prohibited from entering the City of Manila. While serving that penalty, he entered the 6ity of Manila. In case of conviction for evasion of the service of the sentence, must he he sentenced to destierro or to the penalty of prision, c~rreccionalin its medium and maximum periods? The penalty plovided for evasion of the servica&.&e during t h e t e r m of his s&?&ce& a m E t cannot ei prescribed by law for_the_crun e. Hence, the D e n a l t y b ' be imuosed m a b e pision eol.relxh& in its medium &&.igp. because it i s - n p t and maximum t~ parricide, was confined in the Bilibid Prisims in Muntinlupa pending his trial. There occurred a disorder resulting from a strong earthquake. A was .one of those who left the prison, because of the earthquake. He never returned to the prison or gave himself up to the authorities within 48 hours followkg the issuance of the proclamation amnouncing the passing away of the calamity. May A be prosecuted and punished for a violation of Art. 158 of the Revised Penal Coiie? No, because he is& I a c & serving sentence penal institution, which is an e m t of the offense. The Z f3 f e evasion on the occasion of a disorder ia; .., that the offender is a convict who is serving sentence hi!.! a penal institution. This element presupposes b h & : ' ' 595
4,

, .

s convicted of murder and way sentenced to' death. id not appeal. After -months from the time udgm(ent was promulgated and while being confined ;:in the Bilibid Prisons in Mnntinlupa; A escaped. Later, &A,, was captured by the Philippine Constabdlary. 'Can L4.rbe. prosecuted and punished for evasion of tho service @:of. the senltence? Explain your answer. , . , Whether heappeals o r t , the judgment of the e penalty of death does shall have been d e,A wsi&&&&

&

. . ~ ..

, .

I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

person is not a detention prisoner. A person confined .. in prison pending his trial & i a detention urisoner.
-9of

--

Lf.

u penal institution. 2. Them is r d resultina frma. conflagration. b. earthquake, e. explosion, or d. similar catastrophe; or e. in which he has & participated. 3. The offender evades the service of his sentence by .leaving the penal institution where he is confined, 0.1 the oceasipn of such disorder or during the mutiny. 4. The offender fails- t o p to the authorities , w i g n 48 hours following the issuance of a pmelamation by the Chief Executive announcing the passhg away of such +unity. Note: If the offender fails to give himself up, ire ets an in penalty is that the m c u s e h ~ f the time still remainine to be served under the origina ntence, n a exceed six (6) months. ' in 48 hours, If he ives himself u to the authorities he shall z T & d of the of.J&&.w

evasion on the oocasion of disordem: 1. The o f f e n d g is a convict who is se&ng sentence i

he might also he killed. He never gave himself up hi; the authorities even if the disorder already ceased to exist.) Is he liable criminally? Not under Art. 158, because the disordgr mustresult from conflagration, earthquake, e s u o n or similar catas-" * t, e o r d i n g the m u t i w in which h e x a s not particie d . But he is liable under Art.157, for evasion by escaping during tile +am of his sentence. ' . -.y Noti: F i s an i ed resistance to superior officers. Hence, lsarmlng the guards hy certain prisoners is not mutiny. B U the guard@ attacked th&m~&s, there is mutin=.
1002. A. was gwa>ted a a d i t i o n a l pardon after serving four years of the six years imprisonment imposed on him by the court. The condition was that he ShQuld not commit any other crime in the future. Oln year after, he wi1q accused and found guilty of concealing deadly weapon punishable under a special law and was sentenced to pay a fine of twenty-five pesos. By order of the President, A was reincarcerated and required ito serve the unexpired portion of his sentence of six years. A filed a petition for habeas corpus claiming and contending that he was illegally detained, because he was never prosecuted and tried for violation of the conditional pardon under Art. 159. Will his petition prosper? Why? No, because the President of the P s , &r the Revised Administrative C o b (See. [64]), may order & the arresi a reincarceration of the person without previous judicial trial. the conditions of the = o dn Jn such case, it would not be necessary to urosecute i LIL &~ under Art. 159 of the Revised him and to l Penal Code.

(Art.

98).

1000: Explain why those prisoners who & . n o t leave the pen&

institution during a disorder are n o t entitled to a reduction of their penalty. Those convicts who remain in the penal institution are m &entitled to 1/5 deduction of their sentence, b there is no assurawe that had they successfullv run away and ' w d their . they would have, neverts -, - l$ v ed i -1 with the a r i v a w of prison life - i d by that sense of rightand loyalty - - t h e ~ w e r ~which is sought to be rewarded by t that special allowance (Losada vs. Acenas), the disorder in the Bilibid Prisons, resulting from the killings of certain prisoners by the other prisoners, A, a prisoner by final judgment, escaped for fear that
396

--

1003. A was convicted of concubinage amd, as the concubine of her co-accused, was sentenced to 4 years, 9 months and 1 0 days of 9 t i e r r o . After one month,/she was granted a conditional pardon. Later, she violated the condition by committing vagrancy, of which she was later found guilty. In case she is prosecuted for and 397
J

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW..KEVIEWER

convicted of violation of the conditional pardon, w h a t will be her penalty, the unexpired portion of destierrw which she was serving when granted a conditional pardon,. or the penalty of prision correcciondl in it3 minimum period? The Supreme Court held in one case that in such a . case ' the m u l d .be s e m e d t d e unexuirtxl: portion of destierro. B the law provices the nenaltY & of prision. eorreceio~@Z in its minimum erfbd,' when the unexpired Dortion of his sentence is years. It is un\y when the d1 h~ he t s u years that tksxmuct shall suffer the unexpired portion. ' It is submitted that, with due respect to the Supreme Court, the penalty to be imposed on A is p?.ision eorreeeional in its minimum period.

'

& $

."

violation of the conditional pardon, as there was no coiidii tion violated. The duration of the condition subsequent annexed to a pardon would be limited to the remitted portion of the' prisoner's sentence, unless an intention to extend it beyond that time was manifest from the nature of the condition or the language in which it was imposed (Infante vs. Provincial Warden).
@

.
',

1005. A, 15 years and 7 months old, i s confined in the r q

'

$'-Note: The @of the netion for violation of !he canditio?lal ardon is the province or bity where the n 1 n i s violated,. h 8 , where the new crime is e o m m i t t e d e q L o n ofthe n c of the J J on. W!

formatory institution pursuant to Art. 80 of the Revised Penal Code, having been found guilty of homicide. While in that institution, A killed a guard there. Is there quasi-recidivism in this case? Why? None, hecause the &r w a G a c o n v i c t e d hv final judgment. His sentence was suspended (Art. 80, R.P.C.).
1006. A comniitted theft in 1935 and est:afa in 1936.

04. A was corivicted of murder and was sentenced t o 17 yeam. 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal. On March 6, 1 9 a after serving 15 years, 7 months and 11 days, and when only 1 year, 6 months and 20 days remained'

"

'_

to be served by A, he was granted a conditional pardon, the condition being that "he shall not again violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines." On April 29, 19fi 10 years after he was granted the conditionaX on, A committed the crime, and was found guilty,. drivin,g without license. May A be prosecuted fox of the conditional pardon? Explain your answer. No. The condition of the pardon which A was charged: with having breached was no longer operative when h e committed a violation of the Motor Vehicle Law; for driving without license. A's pardon dld not s t a t e t = i s within which the condition thereof was to be observed.. Hence, A had to observe the condition of the pardon only 'within 1 year, 6 months and 20 days. When he committed another crime thereafter, it did not result in the

In 1937, A was convicted of theft comrnitted in 1935. While serving sentence for theft, A w a s convicted of estafa ' committed in 1936. Is A a recidivist or a quasi-recidivist? , ' Why? A is a recidivist, not a quasi-recidivist, because when , . he committed rstafa in 1936, he was& yet m e d of theft by final judgment.
N o t e : To be a q u a s i - r e c i w t wo - re 3"mite must be present: ,< F 4. He must be aiready convicted by final iudgment; and He commits a new felony b v b-g &u to SeNe or while sciwino the sentence. In the probiern givtn, when A conimitted estafa, there was no final judgment and he was not yet serving the sentence , , far theft. .. Suppose A committed estafa after service of sentence for ' theft? Is A a quasi-recidivist or a recidivist? Why? .; A is a recidivist, because at the time A committed estafa.% it was after service of sentence for theft. To be a qua?i-'** recidivist, A must have committed estafa before beginning . o t, serve or while Eerving the sentence for theft. As e s t a f a . ' d theft are embraced in tho same title of the Code, A i s ' ? reeidivisc.

't

4.

...

<

398

399

,,,

' i, i

,.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRlMINAL LAW REVIEWER

.,I

~, ' , :.
1

i'.,.

1407. While A was serving sentence for homicide, he inflicted . . .serious physical injuries on another prisoner. Is A a recidivist or a quasi-recidivist? Why? .. A i s a quasi-recidivist, because when he committed the
. . .
.

', '

felony of serious physical injuries he was alreadz cmYi&ed b a a L i u & m a t of homicide a he committed the new & felony while serving the sentence for homicide.

1008. Suppose that A committed serious physical'kjuries before serving the sentence f o r homicide, but the judgment in 3 the homicide case was already final, is A 'a quasi-reei.. ' divist? A is still a quasi-recidivist, because he committed the last crime ater final ixdgnm~ as regards the first crime t and p-serving sentence for the first crime.

of the peace in favor of X. M stole from the desk of secretary the paper with the signature of the Presidei#j in blank and typewrote a document over it, making :the>,,: President liable to him for a sum of money. What c&e7< was committed by M? Explain. Is M liable for forge+$ under Art. 161? Why7 Falsification of a private docum& The President w ma.de m a r as a &bto> & u I - > n his private a : c w The document prepared over his signature thena private one. M is m i l _forgery under4 l bfor & e Art. 161, be h t z g n a t u r e of-tha PredtXIt m . @ s I ) fd. s i m a t y r e o f the President mvst be forged :, The on official document? of _ t h e _ B e p u h P nf the : , . Philippines.
"'

4i$!

9; :-

sm

1009. What are the Gimes called forgeries3 They are: A. Forging the seal of the Government, signature or stamp of the Chief Executive. A Counterfeiting coins. . A. Mutilation of coins. Forging treasury or bank notes or other documents payable to bearer. Counterfeiting instruments not payable to bearer. Falsification of legislative documents. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastical minister. Falsification by private individuals. . .. Falsification of wireless, cable, telegraph and telephone messages. Falsification of medical certificates, certificates of merit or service.

4 .
4

. S? , , -,!4 1011. What are the crimes under cud"Z , ;*: i_ ": They are: .1. M m and importine false coins and utterine false i CAS in connivance w u e c-feiter or ~L?.Q&. r ; 2. Mutilat,ion of coins, importation u m e of mutilated coins i ~ ! n i v :', ',. a o m e r ; and 3 . Selling of faJsrormufiktehcoin, c o n i i + i n ,. ; ,&,'~ a & J:.. .: ,
1

..

< :

i i

,, .
.I_

8
&

4.

1012. A made a dollar coin of the United States. Is he'liable's ', . ,,-. for counterfeiting coins? Why? Yes, because & s n a m e a , n s the imitation of a genuine coin. Under the law (Art. 163) , the counterfeit- : .-ing of a c u a foreien country ig punishable. The,:, . Spanish text of the law (Art. 163) Eses the word-! -w any Qualifying word, w i h embraces not odx$ hc those that are legal tender, but also those out of circulation.!

-- -

1010. The ]?resident of the Philippines left to his s e c r e b ' a signature in blank with instruction to typewrite above his .signature the usual form of appoifltment for justice
..

1013. If the imitation of the coin is so imperfect that no onq, may be deceived, is the counterfeiter criminally Iiablel,! Explain your answer. &i Yes, because it is $ttempted counkFZEiEZ3 B $ :a imitation of a genuine coin, the offender commence!4$ ,, .
..$.
1

400

401

.% -"

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEMTER

. -the m m o -c

directlv b v 'Oas ,&t, c '

ot perform a the acts of sxeeutiin -w &


ce the felony, i t is because
Lf

&

d a t i n g after liberation.
Explain y o u amwer.

Is A liable for mutilating e


t

. . 9t he does not know how agmdmuL .. ve,r, there are a who claim that when i ~ imperfect t& no one rrav.be deceiwd o h t h P a l pu -de oc r
~

the cause 4s

m-&.l

No, because the law (Art. 164) r tender.


Note: Art. 164 uses the phrase8 "eo and "current coins", which mean t h t a s .

,:~?~~.'1~14; I-peso silver .coin, which was in circulation before The ., ,* .the war, h;w been withdrawn from circulation.' If A ' . counterfeited several of such 1-peso silver coin, may he be held liable for counterfeiting coins? Explain your answer. Yes, because under the law (Art. 163) even coins ,.:~: . ... ..cI , .. . > . .' < . drawn from circulation m a e the subject of counterfeiting. , ' , : . The for punishing tlie fabrication of a coin with... drawn from circulation is not alone, the harm caiiwcl to
1 . .

":~~.,

!i "
%

a 1

1017. A Chinaman was caught by a detective mutilating a dollar gold coin of the United States. Is t h a t China liable for mutilation of coins? Explain your answer. No, because the gold coins have been withdrawn f r circulation by the United States Government and they are not legal tender in this country. T h e w Dunishes &S mutilation offiegal tender eo%&; those that have been withdrawn from circulatign.
1018. May a person i m s s i o u of cmulterfcited or mutilated nivanee with lhe counterfeiter or mutilator? Why?

1
1015; What is -niutilation of .,coins?

G s m o f i sa crime d e c bv a ' erson u ._who shall take off part of the metal either by filing i t ..,. .-, of inferior qualiv. One . . piubstitutind with another -1 o . : ~ y h mutilates a coin does not do so for the sake o f t i , . 1 9 , bot to take advantage of the metal abstracted; :i f : :appro riates a p. r t .of . . metal of the coin. & a the & ',e % e . ... -,---L-?, coin diminlsks in intrlnslc value. One who utters said ,..mutilated coin receives ita legal. value, much more thm -its.intrinsic value (People vs. Tin Ching Ting, C.A.).
r .

'i
mutilator. 1013. What erinie is eoiiunitted by a person who makes 1-p biils which are imitations of the I-peso bill issued by Central Bank?

,r.

/ .

.
?016.,,A. was surprised by .. _ . ,

. .

siIv5r 'coiri;'.which ' w .;*2.-:.. ":

plicenian -e ; t h 1-peso ;circpl+on bef& "the war in tlie Philippin&s;.but ,w&i1 has,bekn withdrawn from cir4Q2

1020. What crime is committed hy a person who Philippine National Bank check?

403

,.

, .

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

j
:.~ :aqj .../ 1 .; chased from his store, is that storekeeper criminally Iiabl'g for possession of forged treasury or bank note? . ExpM,p:; your answer. , the intent to use the counter-.'. . . to defraud or
CRIMINAL LAW RZVIEWER

:i

The falsification of a Philionine National Bank e h k is(&$ification of eommacial documenfiPeople vs, Samson, C.A.,and People vs. Cruz, C.A.). Note: The "checks" mentioned in the law as obligation and
raferred t o as obligation and security of the Philippines a by the Government and drawn aaainst DUbliC fnnda.
security of the Philinpinea does not include e h a s i Is51 or foreim banks *Qrivate core-. ThecEEQj

..

I.

t o is& h2

, .'

:T

..MI I

1 2 . Is there any difference a8 to the manner the crime is 01 ' committed when the instrument involved in the forgery , , . ;j . Is payable to order? - , . <':. . No, the manner of committing t m e i t i A e a , that is,? , f & imuorting, or @ utterins in$ ! '*.,. . strumen s p a y a b l e t o s o t h e r documents M t ....' not payable t o b a in connivance with the forser _o_r . er, " w g r in case of uttering (Art. 167, R.P.C.).
I

1025. What crime was committed by a person who wrote the;^^.

y,

-_

14i2. Ib the mere possession of forged treasury or bank notea .. ' or othier instruments of credit punishable under the . Revised Penal Code? Why? . . No. I necessary that the pr u o k m t h a t & a ..- ' ofe instruments i s false or falsified and that h e l .r: .: ' &e same. , ..,~ the intent to use QJ i .
I

word "Victory" in ink at the back of a one-peio .bill, zv.3 genuine pre-war treasury certificate "payable t o the &?arer on demand", which has been, however, withdrawn ftom,.. eirculation? h a b y giving to a treasury o r bank note o r any.':, instrument payable to bearer or to order, the appeirance ...: of a true and genuine document. The forgery cons$& i '% . n the addition of a word in an effort to give to the one-pe bill the appearance of the true and genuine eertifi that it used t o have before it was withdrawn from cir- .' culation (People vs. Galano, C.A.),.
.L,

1026. A resolution was under considera.tion by the munici

.,i

1623. A, who was buying merchandise, offered in payment of the same a bogus 100hpeso bill, knowing it to be falsified. '. The owner of the merchandise discovered that the 100... peso bill was falsified and refused to accept it. Is A . . liable for frustrated or consummated use of falsified ~.. . : money bill? .. :. . . ,.. . A is I u e & @onsummated use of falsified rnonis r ! " . bill, although it wa : -a by the w of the I,. . merchandise (Peoples G!Santos, C.A.)A=~G%L . sary to obtain the cain in.tm&d,
i

J.,

council. B took it from the table of the secret counterfeited or forged the signatures of the See and the Mayor thereon to make it appear that passed and Rpproved. Is this falijificatinn of leg document? & The crime of falsification is committed - & y b -~ & or phrase w r i E n in thebill, resolution or ordinance by changing t h a n oTuc a n f )nt t ui o o r adding a t ,-I or signs of punctuation,
The -of fa-ava docunent: 1. That there be a bill, resolution or ordinance enacted approved or pending apbrovsl by oilher House of Cane or anv nrovineial board or munieiaal council. . _ . 2.. That the offender a t h e same. ..
3 . That the a

. .

--

.~ 1024.

&$,: be used by him

If the storekeeper keeps a counterfeited 50-peso hill to for comparison with bogus 50-peso bills 'is,, @ z : that may be presented to him in payment .ofgoods parq:

n has ehan;wd the mealline::.


'

.td
4 . He has no proner

s:;Y$::.::.,

th-or.

404

405

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRlMINAL LAW REYIEWER . ,... .

1027; A was'in charge of preparing the payroll'in the office - of the governor. .When 'the payroll for the month of March was presented to the governor for signature, he noticed that the name of X . was included as- janitor in . .. . .that office when X was not employed i n . that office. , Instead of signing it, the governor sent the payroll to ,, , . the provincial fiscal for action. For making a false statement in the narration of h c t s in an official decument, the fiscal accused A of falsification. Is ,A liable Why? ..,. . . for falsification? .-:. No, because the payroll was not si@ by the s c o x x g r azd, hence, it was not vet a doumenL .A document . .,. , . w n : & statement by whicht-a , is established or an , ,> .; o a i i o n extinguished. Before it is simed by the QOY.: e m r , the pavr?llpiece of paper.
' '
- '

1029. A protestant ministet altered in the residence Certifi . . issued t o him his age and"tlie date O h i s birth: f liable for~'fa1slsificationcommitfed by an ecclesiastical ' . .' 'ister under the'lash paragraph of"'Art. 171 of t h e R ' 'Penal Code? Explain 'your answer., ' , . No, because the falsificatiori' by an ecclesiasti

$Ii.

1028. What are the different acts of falsification that may ,or be committed on any document? > * .i '. . They are: 1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signa. . ture o r rubric: f,:, ' 2 . Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not^ in fact so participate; 3. Attributing to persons who have participated in . , an act o r proceeding statements other than those i L k L 2i : .' ,; ,, made b y ; ;.. . 4 . Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts; i .. ;.::I.: ... " 6 . A a n g true dates: or intercalation in a. 6 . Making anyna document which c h a d meaning; 7 . Issuina in authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document, when no such original exists, or including in such copy statements contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original; and 8. Intercalating any instrument e n & relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book.
I(,<

1030. The paymaster in a government office wrotkrthe of one of the janitors of the tiffice on;thk space f signature of that janitor on the payroll, took the of that janitor who was then absent for being ill, and ap the money. What act of falsifica.tion was committed : A? What document was falsified? Why? If there was an attemut or intent tr, imitate the s' ture of the janitor and there were some points of re blance between the signature as written by A and

~~

--

On the other hand, if ther to imitate the signature of the an attempt o r intent, the forged did not bear sQme resemblance falsification is by causing it to

406

407

4
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWEE

!
I .

CRIMINAL LAW REYI.R%ER

. , - ?,?

.. .
b

n investigator and soldier of the Philippire Constabulary, while investigating a suspect, typewrote his questions and, after each question, typewrote an answer to the effect that the suspect admitted the commission of the crime, knowing that the suspect did not admit anything, as in fact he! denied having committed the crime. As the 811sd not know how to read, he signed it. Was the investigator guilty of falsification? In the affirmative, what act of falsification did he commit? Yes, .attributing to the suspect who participated in or proceeding statements other than those in fa& made or given by him.

1@%?.In what cases is the making af untruthfd.statementh$ m


in a narration of facts not a punishable act of .faLsifid- ,,. . ;, , ? ; tion? In the following cases: 1. When there is no law requiring the making of such statement or the disclosure of certain facts; 2. When there is colorable truth of the statements in a narration of facts. .,., 3. When the person making the narration of facts h&; no knowledge of the falsity of the facts narrated by him:.. 4 . When the perversion of truth in the narration of facts was not made with the wrongful intent of injuring-. a third person.
1

pliance with the requirement of the Manila Police Department, a policeman already appointed, qualified and . , actiig as such, filled in an information sheet called - ,. .. ..Persoma1 Data. On the blank space opposite question . ,., .. . No. 10 therein, which asked if the applicant had previous_ ly been convicted of a criminal offense, that policeman - placed None. In an investigation later conducted, it was discovered that, contrary to the defendants answer to que!qtion NQ. 10, he had a previous conviction of the crime of theft. The prosecution did not point to any law or ordinance imposing upon the policeman the obligation to reveal his previous conviction in filling in the ,personal data sheet. Is the policeman criminally liable? No. The elements of falsification bv making untruthful statements in a narration of facts are: @ there must ) ? be a &a1 obligation to disclose the truth in the narration of facts; and@) the a e . Since there i&&auoy ordinance requirinn the accused to reveal h & I S convictim,s-t n o legal obligation o n h e p a o f the accused to disclose t h a u t h .
Nota: The narration of facts must he absolutely %e. there i s a colorable trut.h in it, there is no crime ( U S . Bayot),.
I

.., . .. . ., 1034. A was arrested on June 5, 1957, without warrant o ar- :: f rest. He was detained for three days without the police!, filing any complaint with the proper court. The policeman
. I

who arrested A, taking advantage of the absence of the:. clerk in charge of making entry in the blotter, erased the, date of arrest of A in the police blotter .and t h 2 book .. of records of arrest and wrote thereon June 8;.1957, , t o + make it appear that there was no arbitrary detention. What act of falsification was committed by the policeman and what document w a s falsified? .Is it fdsification committed by a public officer with abuse of his official : position? Explain your answer.

Note: Is it a defense that there was no


i i

If
YS.

Under Art. 171,

Phe perversion of truth in the narration of facts must be made with the wrongfd intent of injuring a third peraon.

408

409

1
.
~,,~ ,$* .,

J
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER ntrnded to be protected undex Art. 171 js the, intere2t of,~,the ommunity which is' mainly intended to be' @arantezd hy 'the ' , strictest 'faithfulness of tlie dficials charged with ,the, preparation and preservation of acts in which they intervene. And if ha did not take, advantage. 'of' his 'Dfficial position, , who is ,t bq treated. as 5 private izdividual, ! ... i Art. , 1 1 2 : ; p ~ ' 1, of the'Revised Penal Code. . .. Und,ef-this pro&sion, damage 01. inteht to eausd damage is not .:,;.. .: ,: ,,,, ..nscessary either,, bearduse what. is punished .under that i y d vision is the violation of the Dublie faith and the nerversm of iha truth which the document ,solemnly proclaim. " , ?rhe'&g a-:'i;lust be m&b.l (People vs. 'Reodiea and ; ,: . ' Cbhlefo). r.Ei.en:'if ordinarily the d a h 'in 'imrnat8rie. 2 . . , , &r&n.of suchh-da was made to conceal a , ' O r i m e ~ ~ ~ e . tho, a c e u s e d A i t B crime, t h a e ;becomes, essential :<,,.. (TG'Belpiea, C.A.) . , 1. , , ; , : CKIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

.., .. . ,. .

..

.:

1035. A requested a stenographer in the office of the treasurer ' . tb pay his land tax and gave him P 0 0 ' 'The stenwjrapkei-, 44:

instekd of payins' the amount ' t o tlte trMsurer"for A, took %lieland tax receCp%"df >his.:father, :.,' erased the name of his father and .wrote,fn its.place the n . . 'name,,of A and gave it to him, representing that it was :~,P~''.'?%# official receipt. What crime was committed by the .> :. . stenographer? The stenographer committed two crimes, namely : (1) , estafa and (2) falsification_af-document, the ' . receipt of his father. The act of falsification committed a it s i S i g a genuine cbcumd which c i%. The falsification w a a m r y t o m i t M a . . The falsification was committed to conceal the crime sf .>, . estafa. x s l @ b e - < malversation, becauJe received the money, not as tax collectpr, but as a private individual.
:

,,-....spent 'the money;


~

1087. A, a private individual, prepared - a 'deed of sale wher6 he made a false-statement in t,he narr.ation of facts, makg i n g it appear that he'sold his prwerty to B, when iti truth arid in fact he never sold it. . The, purpose of A W q to put his property beyond. the reach of A's. creditorel The consideration mentioned in the deed of.,+onveym$E was fictitious. 'Later, he asked a notxriry.public to havf it n,otarized, which was done hy 'the notary :public, not ..knoiving the statements contained in ' the dowment . tQ be false. What crime or crimes were. committed ' $ a what document was falsified by A, considering that the .dqcument was prepared.'.by him., as a private,.individ$i and the ,act of falsification. had been conimitted by hlm 1- x :p before the document was notariized? +A&. . The docume$z A committed other form .o f .,? sur falsified by A is a 6 u E m T a . ' ,- ? A deed acknowledGd hefore a notarv nublic &a

sented t o the no

%-

very act constituting the crime 0: (See Art. 316, par. 4 , of the Revised Penal Code.)
Note: In the case of People VS. Tan Diang, the Supreme %o held that when the debtor made fictitious conveyance of hi3 various parcels of real property for the purpose of putth!$ the same beyond the reach of his creditors, and that th tion of the judgment issued realiaed only a small am certain qersonal ro erty of the debtor, the crime iseaudulent (Art. 314, R.P.C.). Under Art. 316. mar. 4, of the Revised Penal Code, i other form of swindlim, - w a r , shall execute any fictiti It would seem that the proper tion is other form of swindling, etitious and it R:P.C., because the deed of sale ecuted to 'the prejudice' of -mothe
,__

position? A private person who cooperates with a public officer in the-:falsification of a public document W s thesame <.:,. -' .;,:, ~~:,~.,~..~.t . >. , ., . i yand .penalty as the public officer. (Viada; US. m .. , ,,:. vs. Ponte). i, . . , . iA,. .
d

'1036. What i!s the crime committed by a private individual , .. . who.cooperates with a public officer in falsifying a document, the public officer taking advantage of his official : .. . ,

4JO

411

,,
' 1
.

i
i

. .

.,. . ,

,..,,: >.

B
i

CRIMINAL LAW HEVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

It is believed that notwithstanding the decision in the Casb of Feop'le vs. Tan Diong, the crime Committed is not fraudulent i n s o i v e n c p the reason that the deed of sale was fictitious,. whereas, n fraudulent insolvency, there must be A n actual a& % o n * the part of the *e& with his property, wh & presupmses that there is an dctunl transfer rf his nroperty
f d i m b l e Consideration.

't
.

'
'

authorities 0 to its owner found property) should 1 ' regarded. The two@&gmLes of & fication are present:.& intent Q genuine signature; and m e arc s m e b&mm the nenuine s i g u e
One.

insoIven& ? n d ( o n
;

...
i.

.,. ,.1 :
,I

..

e r d d .t -

The document falsified, being a c u k , is by a mercantile law. Hence, it is a

imws.

-.1038.What dociument was falsified when the signature of a . . judge was counterfeited on the order of arrest prepared .by a private individual and used the same to cause t h e
'~
_i I

arrest of the offended party? Why? F m : a t i o n of a 6ublic document) bv a urivate in. ' dividual under Art. 172, par. 1, of the Revised Penal Code, . .because the order of arrest is a public document, evenif it is simulated or fabricated, s e the signature of a U er& "' ' sLn in authorixy & counterfeit& on the paper w ____ m ... anrniIlU)lhL!.fAE@given the appearance of , ~. . .
'

,'

Thq'&&consists ---i e t& falsified check . m A t of the car of the offended party, t pretending to Dossess urouerty (money in the form of,,. c G k ) or defrauding the offer.ded party by means of other similar deceits. The falsification of the check ' w a s n e c e s s a r y m e a G for committing estafa.
cial document punished as falsification *by publie officer, ' employee or notary pnblic under Art. 171, and when is it falsification by a private individual under Art: 172, of . the Revised Penal Code? ' When the public officer, employee or notary public c m h d the falsiifica%n ef a document with abuse Qf r, his official osition, it is @%EifiEiion uub!i$ under Art. Eo? % e ??% %d Penal Code. When the public officer, F p l o y e e or pstary public-,:: -f a p b l i c , flicial o r m m e r c i a l document ' ; . w taking advantage of his official i,osition, *when thq'C o f is a private individual, the crime is punished :$ under Art. 172 and the name of the crime is falsification,; by a private individual. %

1040. When is the falsification of a public, official, or commer-

1039. A found on the street a booklet with one hlank check . .. ,.of the Philippine National Bank. He detached the hlank

_I

check and wrote the word ''cash'' an a blank space after ", the sum of P1,OOO in words the words "Pay to and figures, and signed the signature of the owner of the lost check with intention l o imitate it and with striking siqilarities with it. Then, A used the check in buying B's car. As the check was worthless, B was prejudiced. What act of falsification was committed, what kind of document was falsified, and what crime was committed? Explain your answers. The act of falsificatiw is qountevfeitina the signature OLthLKK0iAhE.dfY. Y. docuZG33 The djxument falsified is a 6 m m e r c i a l documenQ It is@tafa throunh falsificati ocumenq) (People &@Pined,a, @?'<,Pined,a,. C.A.). Theft ( f a d : * _ i ~: .., . I _ p:~'_ ..,~ &: , . ;eker to the loeaL

: : +.
??-

..A. , .>

: :

1041. A is a public officer whose duty, among others, was to.:; tour the province and to make a report of his observa-1% tion in the different places he would visit. He was y . titled to travellinrr allowance. The driver of the PU car413

412

..

"

CRIMINAL LAW IUWIEWER


h, .

CHIDIINAL LAW REVIEWER

which he used issued a receipt f o r F25. A erased the figure '$2'and wrote in its place the figure "4". Then A prepared a v d e r for the refund of the amount of p-15 be allegedly paid to the driver and attached thereto the altered receipt issued by the driver. He signed the voucher and submitted it to the provincial auditor for auditing and later to the provincial treasurer for Payment. A was paid the amount of 845. What crime was comniitted by A? Explain your answer. A committed estafa through falsification of . an official . document, because he-EXlBlX& 3 U S &a l1 caDacity :-thefalsification vas a necesc;lrdirneans to_ defraud t u v e r n m e n t . ' The receipt, which is a private docu' ' ment. Z e l y a supporting paper to the. voucher.
Note: The crime committed is tres,sury under Art. 213 of ==ision requires that the p-qfficer against the pub$ Code, because must enter into

Is there falsification of private document through rmHe$i imprudence if there is z actu:il damage caused? Sup-' pose that there is actual damage caused?. Explain your,: answers. .. .". . .,.. :: ,:* No, b a s e there must be
G e

ai

m m c e is e

if there is actual damage caused


-that becornsimportant. In such case. -ai; ofa falsification of private document t w h 'e r p n e e exists.

i ,'

1041. Is there any differeJlce between the use of falsified doci.,: meiit in judicial proceedings and the use of document in transactions or proceedings other 'th cial? Explain your answer. Yes, in the crime of

5-Z 26F -.

was paid t o him. Do not eonfuse this question with the case of U.S. vs. Nieto, where the municipal president in preparing the voucher to seek reimbursement of what he paid for the typewriter acted as a p,ri,uute pereon.

.: 1042. In what kind of falsification is damage to a third person -: . .


,

._ .:

,
',

or at least intent to cause such damage an essential element? .. ts, damage a at hfalwflcation of least intent t,o cause damage on the nart of the Offender is a_n indispensable &?LlL If there ism d a s e caused nt. to another or at least an intent to cause damage, a r e
.~~ ~.~~ _.~

carbon copy of the receipt, by,making it appear amount paid by that customer was only P300, the difference of P200 and turned over to the

of falsijiieatior, showing the intent to cause damage. Thus, if the person who falsified the receipt. showed 't t o other persons to prove his claim that he already paid hls i;daebt to X, the intent to e s u ~ edamage is present. .
__I

..
fication 'of private document, b m e

'
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

'I
CRlMINAb ,LAW REVIEWER,
.,

, , "'

3,

...

,.

...

,win
-be
~

the commission a ~ t a e- i fa & Q cautled by'the falsificativn of the private d w t .


~~

..,.* .

-.
I

..
.

....

..

In a complex crime, each of the crimes forming i t must be -complete in'itself, that is, it can stand alone as a distinct crime. They form a complex crime, because both or all the mimes are the result of one single act, o r that one a some af them . ere necessary means to commit the other or others. Th d d a m a g e or intent t o cause dam&! e, wh&is the crime 0 estafa and that of falsi 3 ment, cannot he considered aa-xeaeut a t the both &&B. Bgse, o m t e considered in Ialsifieati n i m . The falsification of a private docu. ment is &a crime umJ&%there is d a m s o r at l. & m e W* % to cause damage. Hence, it cannot stand +a 8 distinct criine, ' if there is d ae -m ag to consider. Such being the ease, i t cannot form a complex crime with estafa or he a crime separate and distinct from that of estafa.

. ,,It is consumma.ted felony,, because aLe is_ sufficient in ,falsification af Actual damage to the offended party
,>
, (

: ,

1048. ,A found a check for,.PSOO, payable?


took i t with him to the bankj cOnn of B on the dorsal side of the check, the1eby.m appear .that it was endorsed ' by- B, What crime was committed by A.? In a similar case, the Supreme Court.of :Spain held ' ' that the crime committed was theft, becaus'e. finding'the . check which is a lost i tproperty'\jithout returning' it its owner or turning over to the proper author ' ' theft: and the falsification aud.e&hing of' tlie:ch'ec ' ' bui the continuation of the crime of t k f t already c mitted. 'But t h e ' ' crime of estafa t m n t . This is the " of Appeals. T a k d m e
, .
/ .

s G
I

II
1

1046. A, an employee of a prLvate company, was in charge ,. of preparing the payroll and paying the wages of the inborers of that company. He put there names of laborers who did not work and placed opposite their names amounts conresponding to their supposed wages for the month. Then the payroll was presented to the cashier who gave ' A ithe necessary amount to cover all the wages of the . . laborers, including those who did not work. He pocketed the wages for the laborers who did not work. What crime was committed by A? Falsification of private document (People vs. Reyes).
When the offender has t u t the money or proporty crime committed is falsification When the offender had in

,.

~ , . .,.-;,,,..-,:

Note:

t o falsil7 a pri\.ate document from the offended party, the of B private document only. his possession the money or

1047. Suppose that when a private document was presented t o

.
.
. i

- ,
,

defraud another the falsification was discovered, is it attempted, frustrated or consummated feIony7

1049. A entrusted to B a Torr&&, ,title covering ? . pare i' land 'for' safekeeping: Later, B" falsificc 'a' deed "of covering the property described in the.'said 'ToFiens and counterfeited the signituse 6f the owner "Of " Torrens title. ,Then, he sold the liand .ani3 delivered ' Torrens title and deed of SaIe to the' purchker. deed of sale was notarized at the instance of B. ' . receiving the proceeds of sale, he s:pent the .&e for . 0wn benefit. What crime was 'comriiifted by,,?? Expl vour answer. ,> B committedL@afa through fald'u 'z x h t . . o f a uut& ' He committed e&fa yh a h u e of 'xmtldeue, :'yj & because the Torrens title was entrusted to him for safe- . i keeping and his subsequent act resulting i n the'misappropriation of the property covered by the Torrens title corn- ,i3 pleted the, commission. of the crime. He committed also:' . , , ~., the crime of 'falsification, because he counterfeited in t@e.; deed o f sale the signature :of the, owner of. the. Torrens'?
~

~~~~~

-t______

,;e,

2 4

,;:

416

417

CRIMINAL
'

LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW' REVIEWER

title. But the falsification was a necessary means for


'

p)the
ment.

u s 9 i a d the ca

of falsifying the docu-

committing the crime of estafa.

1050. A bookkeeper of a company, in connivance with its cnsf tomer B, while recording the account o the latter, did
not record some of the invoices of the said customer. Later, A sold the invoices to B for half their respective values. What crime was Committed by the bookkeeper? The bookkeeper committed the crime of falsificatio> ofarivate document by omission when he did not record some of the invoices in the record of the account of B. The falsification by omission in effect constitutes the making o f untruthful statements in a narration of facts. The selling of invoices to the customer for half their respective values does not constitute a separate and distinct offense, because it is merely evidence of damage to the company, which is an element of falsification of a private document. However, if the record of the account of B is a commercial document, defined and regulated by the Code of Commerce or other mercantile law, the bookkeeper is liable for two distinct and separate crimes, namely, (1) qualified theft 'of the invoices which he sold to B:'%nd (2) falsification of a commercial document which was committed t o conceal the crime of qualified theft. The falsification was not necessary to commit the qualified theft, because the bookkeeper had in his possession the invoices stolen. Note: The selling of the invoices is qualified theft, because the baokkemer toak the invoices with grave abuse of Confidenee. He & d only the m m a S e x % ' D of the invoices. H e td have the juridical oossession of the same, because his possession of the invoice is, in law, the poamrsion of the company.

Ilkzstvation: Thus, when the blank check was atolen 0before the falsified check, made on wid blank check, was p m sented for payment, and the person who presented it was BTL employee in the office where the blank cheek was stolen, the two requisites are present.

.,

1052. A, a private person and not enlp~loyedin any office, sent a telegram to B who was then in Mindanao, stating in the telegram that the latter's fat.her was dead and that he had to come home to Manila. B came home, incurring expenses for his trip, only t find out that his father was o very much alive and in good health. Is A liable,for falsifying telegraph message? Explain your answer. No, because he is nei$her a public officer or employee nor an officer or employee of a private corporation= gaged in the service of s e n d i n g s receiving wireless, telegraph or telephone message. The falsification of, or the uttering of fictitious w i r e ess, telegraph or telephone messages can be committed only by an officer or employee of the Government.or of any private corporation engaged in the service of sending or receiving wireless, telegraph or telephone messages (Art. 173, R.P.C.). But A is liable as a princiual bv inducement -e -. c&Ee of f a m o n nf telenrauh message.

,
,

. .

1053. In what cases may a private person commit

.,

.,

1051. When is the uger of falsified document deemed the author of the f m i c a t i o n i When the following two m a r e present: B q w h e n t u s e was so cbselv connected i n m e f alsification: and w&fihp

a crime: in connection with false wireless, I!able, telegraph or' telephane messages? When he knowingly u m such falsified dispatch prejudice of a third party, & atle;l& with intent o r te such prejudice (Art. 173, par. 2, B.P.C.).
The m required A to submit a certificate from his forme ployer regarding his length of service in his :fo ployment and efficiency as an employee. .A -eo

1064. A was applying f o r a job in a oompany.

418

419

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER


'.

CRlMINAL LAW REVIEWIm

present any, a s he was never employed, befare. 'To impress the manager of the company, A typewrote a. certificate .+ . , . purportedly issued by the administrative .officer of an . , ,,.., ,.,office .of the executive department of. the Government, 1 *-. .)..stating therein that A was .a former ,ehaploYee of that department ' and very efficient and t h a t 'he intended to resign to look for a n employmen( with a bigger salary. A ,coumterfeited ,$e signature of the administrative officer . on thi? certificate and later presented it t o the manager .,,. . of the: Company. What crime was committed by A? A committed the crime of f a l s i f i c a b of certificate pf ..,. ... . merit by a private indi.&W (Art. 174, R.P.C.), -.
ti....
I

.. &., : ,

.- . . ,. .

,.,-.:

Note: The last paragraphiof Art. 174 p n i s h e s a ptivate,person who falsifies a certificate of merit, .or. service. The of the sam-punished under Art. 175.

1055. Suppose that it was the 'administrative officer:.who issued .. , . it; what' crime was committed? Tlle,, administrative officer committed the crime of '. f - " ' f&&.tinn of esrtificate af-mer it bv a ollblicdfficer. - . ;. , ,
f.

1057.. What are .the crimes classified as ,&her falsities? . .. ' ' .They are: 1. Usurpation of authority or official functions. 2. Using fictitious name and concealing true 'name. 3. Illegal use of uniforms or 'insignia. 4. False testimony against a defendant. 5. False testimony favorable to the defendant. 6. false testimony in civil. cases. 7 . ' False testimony in other cam3 and .perjury. 8. Offering false testimony in evidence; ' , . , , ..,.. . , , . . 1058,.May a pnhlic officer commit usnrp:ttion of authority or official functions? Why? Yes, because the law (Art. 177, R.P.C.) applies,$%. "any,person". T W s no reason to restrict its OD=tL~T&iyafL%ilwh 1.
I ,

'

iO56.' A l i v i l complaint was filed by A'against 'B'for damages, -j,:oli account of the serious phpsical iniuries which the I , .., , latter infIicted upon the 'former. A induced C,,,l$s physician, t o sign a certificate to the effect that 'he treated *..:.' A, 'chiargeil and received Prom hlm the sum of P500 z e his fee, but. the fact is that C received 'only PZOO i full n payment of his fee. What crime was rommitted by the it *?* ohvsician? 1s.. falsification -of m e d i d tettificate"By , . . '. 'a 'physician? ' Why? , falsificlG b i f i c a t i o n of private documen3 'It .is *,i '. t&xn,,o w l e , b a s e the- Zertificate hi:.. ,to,the illness o r - injury nf -a':person. I n ' does mt
'
.,.)

1059. -The .mayor of the town, although tho .justice of the peace was in the municipality, :conducted 'preliminary 'examination .and ordered the arrest of the offender. Is the mayor liable for Usurpation of official functions, of the. justice of the' peace? Explain your answer. No, because the act is specifically covered by Art. 241 ~' of the 'Revised Pe&L&&e, ~v@h punishes any o f f i a o-xecutive bran Ch ,of t h P G n v e m r & who assume% , , , ,' judicial uowera, . . . , . .

..
-. ,

'

s'

, .,.,
,:

.., .

falsification of medical certificate, the false facCs certified must refer t d e illness or injury qf a m n (Art. 174, i I : . , ~, : ., -R.P.(S.). ' .I. 'Note: When person, '& 'a I;hys:kii?, -f?lsifi$d::'i. medical
emrtificate, the crime' is 'falsification : f -rned&LCW&& o
.,..
.

1060: An. employee in the Bureau of, Public Works exercised the powers of his Director wheu the latter was sick, without having been designated as Acting Director, and, without any right to do so. What crime was committedj; by that employee? -' That- employee committed usurpation of authority OG, official functions, because under pretense o f official posi-"' tion he performed acts pectaining t o . the Director without being lawfully entitled. to do, s o . (Art. 177, R.P.C.).
,

P:--, ,,:, ;:r: '

.-

ay

1061. .A, a . private individual, pretended to be a detectiw' of the M.P.D. and succeeded in secoring- the consent 'of

420

42 1

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CHIXINAL LAW REVIEWER

the owner of a house to enter the same, because of his false representation that he would make an investigation. Once inside, and taking advantaxe of the fact that tho owner went to his bedroom to changd clothes, A h l r from a table a purse containing money and left. In addition to whatever other crime he nommitted, did A commit usurpation of authority? No, because pretending the exercise of public authority was made by A to gain entrance into the house of the offended party to commit robbers with f o w unan_thingn in that house. Since it is a n e n t of the offense of robbery, the cfime of usoroation of authority is deemed a&rM

No, it is notpunishable(1) When used as a @nym

or
(2) When a fictitious name is nqtnsed (3) When the purpose is conceal a crim to evade the execution of a judg:ment, or not to damage to public interest, or (4) ,When the use of fictitious name is an -ent o a particular felony, as it is absorbed. Thus, in estafa or in robbery where fictitious name is used to commit the crime, 80 that it is an integral part of the commission of the offense, it is not t o be considered a separate and distinct offense. Also, when fictitious came is included in the false statement in the narration of facts, i t is considered pa of the crime of falsification.

& &

1062. In nsulrpation of authority or official function, is it neceszry for the offender to perform a public functicn
in the Government o r in any of its branches? If he already knowingly and falsely represented himself to be an officer, agent or representative of any department or agency of the Philippine Government or Of any foreign government, it is not necessary to perform any act pertaining to any person in authority or public officer. He is already guilty of usurpation of authority. But if, in addition to pretense of official position which he made, he also performed any act pertsining to any person in authority or public officer of the Philippine Government or foreign government, or any agency thereof, without being lawfully entitled to do so, he is guilty of usurpation of official functions.

Elemext8 of using fictitious E r n e : 1. The offender uses n name oLhor than his real n F e . 2 . He uses that fictitious name publicly. 3. For the purpace ofconcealing a crime; b. evading the execution of 2t judgment; or e . causing damage.

~'

=.

:,.

1065. A represented himself to

:. 1063. Republic Act No. 10 punishes any person who, with or . without pretense of official position, shall perform any act pertaining to the Government, or to any person in authority or public officer, without being lawfully entitled to (lo so. To whom is it applicable? Republic Act No. 1 0 is applicable only to members of , . seditious organization engaged in subversive activities.

~.'3064. t;- .I .., , .


, . ,

Is 1,he use of a name other than one's real name dways pundshable?

C that he was B and signed B's name. on a deed of sale of a ]piece of land belonging, : to B and, after receiving thc proceeds of the sale C, the vendee, A spent the same. Is A liable for fictitious name? Explain your answer. While it is true that A publicly used a name other t his real name when he represented himself as B on public document, with the purpose of causing &ma because the to B, A is*liable, the law (Art. 178) is said to be terest. Since the act of A re . private interest of B, the crime commit means of deceit. And having f & i e d a as a necessary niea,ns to commit
423

'!

:,

422
,,.

CIElMINAL- LAW. REVIEWER


1

CRIM~NKL'LAW REVIEWER
'

c& &e of estafa through falsification d f a public , document, by causing i t to appear that B'pahicipated in a n act or proceeding when in truth and in fact he did , . not so participate.

--

. ,

,:,, ~,

Note: The insignia or uniform must beluaod nublidy'and ikThe insignia o r uniform tahould not be that of an .P ,maginary office.
.,'.

,.
I .

" I

... 1066.
2,,
I,

. . Give an illustration of publicly using a fictitious name to conceal a crime; and an illustration, to evade the execution of a judgment. ,,.,,. , When A, who looks like B, a prisoner by final judg'

1070. What are the three forms of false testimony? They are : 1. False testimony in criminal cases. 2. False testimony in civil c a s e ! , ,, . 3'. False testimony in other cases.

~.,

.
,,
' '

ment, takes the place of the latter in the jail. A hae l o 'use the name of B, and B has to use the name of A ; other wise, the authorities will discover that one takes the place of the other. The purpose of A is to conceal the crime he has committed, that is, delivering a prisoner , ' . from jail. The purpose of B is to evade the execution ' ' bf the judgment against him, that is, to evade the service ' of the penalty imposed on him by the court. '
.I

1067:-A w : arrested for playing a gamb1ing:game. A gave ~ the name of B,for himself, stated he wag married, which was true; gave his real residence, real 'occupation, and correct age. Is A liable for concealing 'true name? No. He must &o 1-c his other aersonal circnms&,g. H must n a n l y conceal his true name, &l e : _. 5''. a i all his other personal circumstances.
. .

:What crime. is committed. by a lieutenant who used the 'insignia ,of the captain of the Philippine Army? W h y ?
2
.
'

:! -.

,
8

Illegal use of i-because the lieutenant u m n& i& which aertaiw to an office no$..&ld by him (Art. 179, R.P.C.).

1069. What crime is committed by a constabulary soldier who . used the uniform of the policeman of the Manila Police
Department? Why? because the constabulary soldier j,w&fihe is not m member (Art. ,170, R.P.0.).
494
'
;

1071. The evidence presented against A ;shows that.dur&g the .: preliminary investigation conducted by the fiscal, A tes-.":.' tified under oath that he saw B stab C who was k i l l e l as a result. n' % h e the' case was tried before the Court of First Instance, A changed his.' testimony by testifying ;'' then and there that he did not 3ee B at the.~piacewhere -'. C was killed, and that C was killed b y an unknown 'person.. : ! Can A be 'Convikted of false testimony on the basis of ,. the foregoing facts? ' ' No, the 1 must' determific"'~fY& wllich of the W contradictory testimonies If the testimony given by A before the fiscal is false, it being a testimony upon : a material matter, under oath before a competent artthorized l o receive and administer' oath, and the requiring the giving of that testimony, it-istestimony of A was upon a material matter;.-becaudg, death of C and the person who caused his death were' main facts which were the subject of"th& 'itiquiry; fiscal before whom 'A gave his testimony' wag a.,compe ( officer authorized to receive p,nd, administer oath; . waa a willful and deliberate assertion of falseho cause A knew. his testimony before therfiscal was false; and under the law, the person giving evidence-ortestimony-; relative to the subject of the inquiry -by the fiscal must . 4 , ' do so uiider oath (Art. 183, R.P.C.). If i t is the testimony of.A before.the .court which is .: .false, then the cri qf the defendant

.-

425

CRIMINAL L A W REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW HEVIE'WER

,1072. What are the two wvnvSof committingIllustrate each. y.' By testifvine falsely u u k . c d k in a proceeding o e r than judicial. (a) False testimony &re any committee of'conwess; (b) False testimoFy before a y adrninSrativ+-&&Y ...,. ,., , a- r -& a t a hearing. Example: B, C , D and E testified under oath before . . . the board of special inquiry in support of the applicair tion of three Chinese boys to enter the Philippines, declaring that said boys were the children of A: and that they were born in Manila. During the investiga' , 'tion, A testified that the three boys were not her children. B, C, D and E are guilty of perjury by testify- ' ~ " ing falsely under oath. By making an affidavit. (a) In a9liaction for marriage license. (b) In @lieation for civil service examination. ( c ) f p p w g s , re&ing that a f & h i t s be attached thereto. Ezantple: In his application for civil service examination, which is under oath, A stated that he wa8 not convicted of any crime, when in truth and in fact he was once convicted of theft.

,',:::

false testimony under oath or who executed the false afiidavit is I liable for perjury. & I Perjury m t be committed t l m u ' negligDFee, one of its elements is that there must he a willful and d assertion of falsehood.

' '

4::

1073. To hold a person liable for perjury, must there be a law requiring that a testimony under oath or an affidavit be made in certain cases? This is not a settled question. The meaning of the phrase (in Art. 183), which is, "in cases in which the'; law so requires" has been the subject of different interpretations by the Supreme Court (People vs; Tupasi, et' al.; and People vs. Angangco). In the Tupasi ease, it: was held that there must be a law requiring a statement ,: under oath or an affidavit upon a. material matter t be o made in a particular case. I n the Angangco case, it 'w" held that i t is sufficient that the siatement be made under oath or an affidavit be made to serve a legal purpose, such as to be assured of the veracity of the witness who testifies. It is submitted that there must be. a law reauirina it. This interpretation must Drevdl, hecause such s t m k p m i m ? m d .

oa h a affidavit w n x o a-material matter: 4. Before a competent officer, authorized U v e and administer oath; b x E - 4 W i l f u l n d deliberate assertion of a false& g M r ; and That the sworn statement containing the ralaity i u &ired by law. Note: The false testimony under oath or the affidavit must. ~ i k t a material matter; if it ildaes not refer to B material c matter. the false testimony under oath or the false affidavit cannot xive rise to perjury. , . , & & There must be a w v n d deliberate assertion @ % , ,, . If there is an bonest mistake, the person who BaVe a

@i of

k There must he state. -

P)BViUWi

4.

!& , .

1074. Under the old Penal Code, a person who would procure another t o testify falsely would be liable for subornation of perjury, if the latter would testify in a manner, making him liable for perjury. What does the Revised Penal Code provide for such act? Give an example of subornation of perjury. The Revised Penal Code treats and punishes such act as plain perjury, the person who procures the false witness as the principal by induction; and the false witness, the principal by direct participation. . Example; A induced B and C to testify falsely in a'preliminary investigation that A's servant who left his house without his knowledge took with him some clothes and, 427

,T

CRIMINAL. LAW REVIEWER

CKIMENAL LAW REVIEWBR


'
,

..

when. as a matter of fact the servant did not n take anything with him, except his o ~ personal property. B and C testified falsely under Uath before t h e 'fiscal that the servant stole^ some ,clothesbnd money belonging to A. A was guilty of the crime fonnerly . . known ,as ,subornation of perjury. Under,Jie, Revise$. Penal Code, A is liable for perjury as a' q$$pal ,,. by^ induction.
.P money,
, .

the crime'af offei*inc false testimony m


or official proceeding.

e (Art.

, ,,

184), a +the acts of execution are'.Derbollged. * u ~ h e ,.mere offer ,of a false witness 5,tes:timony . ' 'a1

1076. A procured
.:,,

I to testify in his favor, their agreement ) being that I3 would testify that he was present when A. " ' paid his debt to'C, which was not true. Dur&g the trial,. ,. ' . . when A presented B, a s his witness, the lader told t h e . . . t r u t h ' t h a t ' he had no' knowledge of any payment made ' by A t o C; and th& he waS requested by A to testify ".' blsely. Is A liable criminally for having presented B ; .I as a' witness? Has B any criminal liability for taking ., . the witness stand? Explain your answers. When A, presented B as' his witness, he knew that his said witness was false, because the latter agreed with him to testify :falsely. Under, the Revised Penal Code (Art. 184), t M m e offer of a witness knowins him t a -.false wit&-% i= consummated felolly. It ,would Seem that it is not necessary that the witness offerkd should testify in .a manner making him liable for false testi. . mony, because this is covered by Art.,l7, par, %,in rela,. tion to Art. 182. A s regards, B, i t is submitted that he is also liable, because B and A were in conspiracy. ' From the facts of ' w e , it will be noted that A and E had a previous . agreement and both af-them decided to carry G t th& : __ u &,, indicated by the f a t t u presented him a u ag :, . ' W M s s Lnd B took the witness stand pursuant to their ' agreement. Since there is conspiracy, the act 'of A is consi.dered the act Of'B. ' It is true that B told t k tr& k and did n e testify in the manner he was told to testify, ';a%but such'desistance on the part of B, having been made ' , 1 a the acts of ' hae..hen ppsfanned, w & not in. any way relieve him of criminal resuonsibility. In

.,

'

' '

'

Note: This ctime is also committed when.the offender offered in evidence a false witness o r .false teutimony in an official proceeding. This is not a crime formerly known. 8 s Subornation 09 perjury, because under Art. 184. it is not necessary that the witness offered should testify falsely !n B manmr making him liable for perjurv. "~ If the offender knowingly offered in evidencc false doeuest in a judicial or official proceedinz, the crime i not s ' covered by Art. 184, but should be^ punished under;the last .paragraph of Art. 112. , . The false teatimony may be offered without the witness by preienting his swposed deposition in court' or othkf official .. proceeding. ..

1076. A i s a retailer of certain goods imported from a foreign Colintfy by B. Tilting advantage of the Scarcity of that kind of imported goods, B and A agreed'to fix highep prices ,for the goods ,which A purcha.sed from him and A. .in turwwould resell the same goomds a t much .higher prices, ,thereby increasing the market price of such goods. Are A and B liable under the Revised Penal Code? If eo, what crime was committed by them?. . ... - ' . Yes. The Revised Penal,' Code punishes -any ,' person who, being an imuorter .of merchirnrWs wholesaler nr ie , , t s e r ' s h a l l a x r a in any manner w i - t t W . ' o t h e r . uersop f o r the uuruose of increasing the nprket price- of m -i ' & g (Art. 186, pa?. 3, R,P.C.). ' : ! ' ' . . .

The crime committed i s ~ o a o l v nd a G O i' trade :. 5 0 ~!.' , : .~ . , . ., ,.. , . , , j . . ,*. 1077. A, B and C executed a Ijnblic documknt wh;ch:embodiea their".ngreement .,to the. effect t h a i mrtain .merchandise would .be sold at certain price .and .no$+ one of ..them shall : , . sell &is merchandise at,--lesserprke:without thwprevioukl . ... ,,,consent of ,.the athexs, .The agreement.. xas.,not:::~carn$ .out, because they were..arrested, , @m,thep .be$ , .crim-3 held , '>f
F
I

+ :

429,

CRIMINAL L A W REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

:
.

. . 1078. A, a millionaire, invited all lumber concessioners and of-

i n d y liable under the Revised Penal Code on the basis OF ,,': : that agreement? Explain your answer. . '. , . ~, Yes. Under the Revised Penal Code, any person who . shall enter into any contract or agreement or shall take? part in any conspiracy or combination in the form of a " trust or otherwise in restraint of trade or commerce o r ' ' to 'prevent by artificial means free competition in the ' ' market is liable for monopolies and combination in restraint of trade (Art. 186, par. 1, R.P.C.).
' ,
"

and fanatical ideas that unless they lower the prices' of needful commodities they would be viziited by flood and other calamities. As a result, the people lowered the prices of their commodities and used inrjtruments of measure larger than the regular size.

fer& them certain price plus a share in the profits if dl of them wwld sell their lumber t him only. A's purpose o was t o conitrol the price of lumber sold locally or exported to foreign countries. The lumber concessioners refused , and,.rejected the offer. May A be held criminally liable under the Revised Penal Code for his attempt to mono':,.polize the sale and exportation of lumber? Explain your . . your answer. No, be,cause in monopolies and combinations in re' straint of trade, it is necessary that the offender & @ combine with any other person or persons to monoDo&e . , ' a particular merchandise or object of commerce, !y&& b_e an acren "-.' presupposq . -.i, two or m r e that there Should. aersons to accomalish $he uuraogO. The . . Re,. ' 'vised Penal Code-e & or CoDlbdWn. But in this case, since the proposal of A was rejected by the lumber concessioners, there was no meeting of the mind between him and the lumber concessioners and, there^'fore; there is not even a conspiracy.
' "
'

1080, When is the pussession, preparation, administration or otherwise using any prohibited drug punishable? When the possession, preparation, administration or the use of any prohibited drug is n e i s u l l y authorized. ,. , . : 1081. What requisites must he present in order that a persohi. may be convicted of illegal possession of opium? They are: tl?_eoccupancy or taking and:&&tent to possess the substance shown to be opiLm.

..

Note: The second reqiiisite is lacking .in. the case of . a wife who was told by her husband to got from beneath.-a pillow B can which contained opium and, after having tnken it-therefrom, attempted to throw it away when the policeman was searching for opium in their house. She was caught by.tha policeman wliilc in the act of throwing it away. I t was held that she had no intent to possess opium.

1082. A policeman found in the possesion of the accused a bottle containing opium in very slight quantity. The ,accused: claimed that he purchased them 6 months' prior ,t h :b i s arrest,' because the state lof ..his health. necessitated his frequent use of the same. Is the accused criminally liable? The law penalizes the mere possession of opium by unauthorized person without regard to the quantity. If the state of his health really required the pills there must be a prescription of a physician therefor.
Note: P-=ion of Datent medicine q , w the possessor k m that it contains wium, i s also punished by -cause the term "oDium" includes vrenarntians, b-&isb opium or morDhine e m ag an inzredieat.

Illustrate monopoly by spreading false rumors or making use of any other artifice. .. Spreading false rumors or making use of any other artifice to restrain free competition in the m a r h t is illusted in the case of U.S. vs. Fulgueras. i n that case, .'accused went about distributing papers and prochmas to .the people of a certain town, spreadink suhvewive

1083. Two ,policemen, armed with a search warrant t o 'search for opium in the house of X, found under his bed a can

. .

430

451

CRIMINAL L.4.W REYIEWER,


.:,

," /

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER.

: ..II ,

".,, which,.wa.s, empty;: but. there, .were ,traces . g f , . . ~ i j s ~ j ~ani n g ~ i opium .container. Can, X be .held-liable,for illeg&posses'

, 'i. ; , , sion ,sf ,opium?:. Why?,. 1 b ? s l s e the law r d a e s n o t . ~ ~ ' p ' a ~ ~ ~ i i ~ s s s e s s i o n , 1 but present ns% ai & ' (U.S. vs. Tang Seng Ki).

1087: The policemen also charge those found smoking opium h~'. that place with the crime of knowingly visiting an opium. dive. Do the policemen properly charge them? No. Only those "g&being included in the provisions of the next preceding article," which p& possessing
~

l.1
/ -

or u

prohibited d n g , can be chmred with'knnwingly visiting an opium dive o r resort (Art. 191, par. 2, R P C ) 1:'; ....

088. A w& in the house of B while the latter was smoking opium. A and B were then in the same room. Is A Liable criminally? Explain.
No, because it does-not aunear that the house o f B , w E a n opinm dive-rt. To be li&l,e for visitina a house where ra is smolcinir opium, the & e must be shown to be an opium dive or re@.

:
,,

....,

liable..for illegal possession of-opium?

,
,
'

sion. , . . A is the owner o f a- 'house 'where Chinese sinoke opium, and f u r smoking opium in that house each Chinese would pay 1'12.00 t o A fhroq$i B' who is in charge of the place. B ilways'remains a e,door. That huuse"is well known a e s t s were' ma8e before in the .F' ' '.'to the & x m e n , place of 9ersons for smoking opium. are A and,:B crim, ., ., . , . , .. . iually liable? , m f an onium dive. B is a m
,...
, .
'

per bf o m - r c c ,m r t : (Arts. 190, , 7 , R.P.C.)., , .. , , , \ ' ..~

"i

e found'-in that house by.'tlie 'policemen 'the place: X, Y and 2 are'. just sitting er 'Chinese' are smolcing opium. They fail
~

regencf there.

'

What crime .i committed ~. s

are !gdlty of the erirne of. knowinglp. ' v i m -'(Art. 191, par. 2, R.P.C.). . -

1089; A, who 'was a member o the crew o a foreign steamer which arrived in Manila from Kongkong, bfought with , , /' him several cans of opium. The opium was never landed from t h e vessel. He was arrested. R e confessed that the opium belonged to him but would nut state his purpose in having in his possession the opium. There was nu evidence to show that his intention was t u import illexally the opium into the Philippines. For what crime may A be prosecuted and ,punislied? If the steamer hadManila ar -t o of d estination, - t i s illegal imQortation of opium. The terms "import" and "bring" are synonymous. Importation -d 're - e the goods at the customhouse, b m e l y hr&$C~ t&m inta wort. K t would be absurd to think that A was merely carrying opium back and forth and a foreign country. No better exthe logical deduction is that A be brought into t h e Philippines. There illegal importation. But if the steamer was not makinx Manila a$ its n a t of destination, then there i s m r i m e Mere possession ' of opium in such case is He, because it does
433

432

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAI, LAW REVIEWER


.,
%

pot involve a breach of Dublic order and the steamer o n


which it is found is a foreign vessel. Art.. 193, par. 2, provides that "the illegal possession of an opium pipe or other paraphernalia for using arty athei prohibited drug shall be prima facie evidence that its possessor has used said drug." Does this provision authorize the prosecution of a person for smoking opium, if he is found in pos+ession of opium paraphernalia, even if no opium 'was found in his possession? No. That provision merely a presumption that the s or other psraphernalia found in the nuia?&m of the accused are for the use of, or have b e a o -, r any prohibited d r u q
Note: In fact, if he was actually smoking opium, it would be tho a w r i m e for which he can be prosecuted. The possession .of the pipe would n n t he a s m t L c r i m e . Even if together with t h e opium paraphernalia a quantity of opium was found in the same place at the same time and by the same detective or policeman, there should be w s i m c only.

No. I n the nature of things, B jxeiew list 'nat..rag& pertains to a game of iueteng and that the actus<$ %oil@ , , n o t keep it in his possession but for its connection .Wi@ game of jueteng. The burden of the evidence .is .$'$hzh .,, .* ' -,. >' shift2 to the accused to show that his possession.is lawI.,,...

ful or that the list is in no way connected with %e . . , jueteng game. u t if the ~uetenglist bears a date or is otherwise / shown to have been used a t a time different from that " . / / when the game of jzieteny was played, tberemustbe evidence of its connection with the game of jueteng that has taken place or is about to take place.
1095. A group of persons were surprised by several policemen

playing monte. Cards for playing monte, tallx-sl1eets and lead pencils were found on the table, but no money W a s used as bet in the game. Are those 'person3 criminally liabletifor gambling.? . ,

. ,:e

When may a physician or denList be held criniinalb liable for preseribing opium for his patient? When the physical condition of the uatient dls.ot require the use of opium (Art. 194, R.P.C.).

What -i s It is a 01' scheme the result of which wholly o r a l y upon chance .or. hazard.

(US.vs. Rafael):
.

. I . ,

*.

deDends
1096.
<

Why? No, becjuse a speetator does not take Dart directzw o r .%!&#*J:. . ' indzctly i n . gambling. T h e w punishes "any person y: .. .tvho, in any rnawr, s h a dIY or i n d i r e take uart "' .' y~.i w a m b l i n g game. ,,. .
L . . i " . ~

Are spectators liable for gambling?

4. .Must the Drosecution wove that the iuetenz list is conjueteng wW&has taken place or ectea wi& a game &ut I :take, place? to

ai

434

I
I ,

. / .

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CKIXINAL LAW REVIEWEll

1097. What are the provisions of the Revised Penal Code pun:' nishing the crimes pertaining to lottery? Art. 185, par. (a) punishinc lottgy as a gasle9f I. ; chance. ~. . ' , 'amgraph (c) of Art. 196 punishps D ~ S S ~ S Sbf-lnir '011 ~ a t w 'w Q J O . is in any , m a n n x u u the game of iueteng. Art. 196 importation, selling or distribution, k 9 . Q n * c e with the i m r , of lottery tick&; mere possession w m of lottery tickets; and selling or distributing the same without connivance with the importer.

.,

.+

1100. Suppose that the woman w a s m e a s old and the man was her teacher, what would be the crime? Why? The man would be liable f o r m l a s c l v ~ o u s n e ~ ~ the consent of the offended party, grave scandal, when the high& ' cause the latter crime is committed scandalous conduct is &expressly falling Within any other articl? of the Revised Penal Code. -----------

err

1098. May a person be held liable for betting in games the result of which does not depend wholly or chiefly upon chance or hazard? Yes. In betting in sports conkiib. &uy person Who shall bet -money or any objest elo o m e g2Qn t . u l t of boxing & other sport contest i&&$& fpr betting in mort contest.
'

1101. In a gathering where there were many people, A advocat-. ed the practice of birth control. Did A commit any crime punishable by the Revised Pena.1 Code? If so, what crime? Yes. A committed the crime -of <immoral doctrine9 by publicly expound& 9m i m i n c doctrine o d e m y to public morab. c 1102. What is the Lest to determine whether or not a picture of a naked woman is obscene? The proaer test is whether the n>ut.&e L t h d G h re, L as indi't, i m arimpure; O whether it is J naturally r&ul&d k e x w' e imqllrs ' .n

.1

1099. A policeman saw a man and a woman 27 below the wall facing the sea at t h e Luneta. below the wall is not visible to the publie. was pcrforniing acts of lasciviousness on the . the woman, with her consent. Are they liable

yea+s old
The place The man person of for WIXS

,/
1

N o t e : As regards immnral acts or shows exhibited in theaters by d a n c e t s - t h a t is the lustful .rei& d l h L U l %e.

'

'

&Qmkll? a s , because the act, a highly scandalous conduct w a h w d d od & ag2inst decency or good customs (Art. 200, R.P.C.),was committed in a public dace. It is not re& d that the act be committed also within the knowle e - IC & o blic, as m circumstances are

p h 3 . Is lack of visible means of s u u p s t an indispensable. element in vagrancy? No. Only in two cases is lack of visible means of sui5fGrt an indispensable element of vagrancy. ! 1. First caseL (a) The person has the physical ability t o o r k ; ( b ) He neglects t m himself to some lawful
CalliB;

(c) He b
2.
S ~ C

m aDarent meanSof subsistence.

stated by the Supreme Court in the alternative, being senarated . _ the word "or". bv N o t e : The.i,mportant n l e m et of the offense of @ve scandaD ~ ,.., :' . .. is, that the i c t & complained of be committed in a W
place or mithz the SiGnicso). ;

case: O ~

or view of the public (U.S.

78.

(a) The person is found about public or semi-public buildings or places or tramping or wandering about the country or the ,street& ., (b) Without visible means o f support.
437

I I

,i
. .
' '

CRUIINAL IAIV REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

1104, Suppose that B who has a pension or income from rents


of his property and has nothing to do, finds pleasure and spends his time in the house of 'prostitution, is he a vagrant? Yes, because any idle or dissolutn nerson who lodxes in houses of ill-fame is also a vagrant. This 'is true, e m if he has a visible means of support. office?
5

are the crimes classified. .under

The crimes which are classified under malfeasanc.nce,m office are: 1. Direct bribery, and
/'2.
.I

Jndjreci

hr-.

\
.:

loitering in the yard of the house of B, at late hour of the night. He could not explain his presence there. A is a man of moderate means with a good job. What crime, if any, did A commit? V. m ' A person is also a vagrant if he be.fyyd oitering i inhabited or u n i n h a h i t d & X 2 belonping a n o t l r w or iustifiab!c purpose. He is liable, e d f he has a good iab.
in having sexual intercourse wit11 a woman in consideration of t500 given by A. That was the first time ,she had sexual intercourse. Is she a prostitute? Explain your answer. No;because a rostitute is n $ ; mnnev 0. .or profit, & $ j e s C l intercourse.

,,l. ,WO

'I
.~

A justice of the peace, a lawyer for many years, hap-,.' pened to try his political enemy on a charge of less& serious physical injuries which under the Revised Penal Code is puriishable by arrest0 mayor. A s a revenge, t h e , justice of the peace convicted, and imposed two years hprkonment on, the accused. What crime was committe$.,. , ' . i . by the justice of the peace? nowingly rendering unjust j u d a The judgment is ntjust and he knows or he ought to know that his judgment is unjust. There is malicg 9 ill~will~ I this ease, ' J t&eAustice of the peace having acted in the spirit. &. -e (Art. 204, R.P.C.).
Note: An unjust jud-ent is one which i i i d supported bv the eYiddnce. ,- An unjust judgment m a y be iUe , ' because of bribery.

a,

a woman who is physically a virgin be a proktitute? B Y if-she, for money or orofit, ! u &v ta il indulges i n i o u s conduct only, w 2 sexual i n t e m u me. Note:are thQse ''women who, for money or grofit, /kabituallu i n d u l E in sexual intercourse iascivious condue:" (Art. 202, 1LP.C.).

' 1 .
!

Suppose, the justice of the *peace tries a man, malice or ill-will, for the same crime and upon eo imposed the same penalty, is' he criminally liable? Yes, f o K i - ' e gence' oi. ianorancg (Art. 205, R.P.C.).

I-

What are the crimes classified under G i s f e a s a n t in office? The crimes which are classified undcr misfeasance in office are: 1. Know&& rendering uniust iudemeqt. 2. Rendering judgment t l w h negligence. 3. Rendering umm t-t i interlociitorv order. 4. Malicious delay in the-da ' e.
+'

1112. The justice of the peace, knowing after examining the witnesses, that there was no groun? t o issue the w & ,' . ofst, nevertheless, issued it an'&by reason thereof A was arrested by the policeman who executed it. Is the justice of the peace criminally liable? Yes, because he rendered an G l s t interlocutory o r d e 3 1113. When is the detay in the adininistratim of justice punishable?
439

438

/
;m

CRIlIlINAL LAW REYIEWER

CRlMlFAL LAW REVIEWER

e n the delay in the hearing and disposition of the


is criminally liable and such (Art. 207, R.P.C.).
Y

of committing dereliction of duty in the prosecution of offenses? The two ways of committing dereliction of duty in the prosecution of ofenses are: BY ina~icious~y refraining from instituting prosecuin By maliciously tder&-g the e o ~ f f e es. . u ~

that A committed by arrest0 menor notwithstanding the complaint made to him by the offended party, took no action against X and even gave him money so that he could go to a far place outside of that municipality. What is,the eriniinal liability of the chief of Wlice? He is&oL sey, -lsy an i c because X committed only irrht W w g $ , a n accessorv i s x t liable for light felony; for @ e r e l i c t i o n m i u e prosecution of offense:, hy nm Pe nfa iar irfrom institprosecution against a violator of the law.

. ,

Ad -s r the f r, i & B, the policeman, committdd dereliction of dut@ & maliciously tolerating / . commissio-f the crime, k m g that a crima was abaut to be .-e He was ao guilty of &ect b r i b e r 3 & e s b he accepted a promise of .s?ift. and a n e e d to aer. . in connection with the form an act performance of his official duties. Relative to the se_ond question, s w chanped his the crime of robbbbury, it is siibm a a n d did &commit niitted t h a a , the policeman, c e t be held liable for dereliction of duty, because in dereliction of duty, in the prosecution of offenses, it is necessary to prove t k m m mission of the crime which was taler& d (U.S. VS. Menu the policeman ;loza).egaIly possible t li$e or frustr&ted dereliction o f t y in the prosecution of offenses, k w e such crime_ i s e n t i a l l y by omissjpn & in felonis by omission t h d s S p 3 5 ) t and it attemuted or frustrated stage of execution. B S having agreed to accept the $rift of Plod from A and havinr: agreed to tolwate the commission of the crime, w m a n a e t e o n s t i t u h g a - m e, t h e m ? i m t y m ofGreet b r i h e r a

c.

L__

of a town that he would The treasurer kept the matter to the opposite his office. treasurer liable criminal-

ly? /Why? . To be l i a b & ~ d e r e l i c t i o i lof duty in the prosecut i f m i e s xthe public officer m m e in dereliction f the duties e .c o It is-n& the duty of the kunieipal treasuEr to cause the prosecution of offenses I against person or public order s ; t o s t o p the commission 1 0 such crime which is about to be committed. 7

&8.

A tax collector told a taxpayer that the latter need not, pay his tax, but that he had to give him some chickens.:, .,

440

441

CRI>IINAL LAW REVIEWER

CKIXiNAL LAW KEVIEWER


,'>

< .,

, i

The taxpayer gave a dozen chickens to the tax collector and did not pay his tax. Is the tax Collector guilty of bribery? No. Thc m n s were given to him not t o r r u p t him, but b e m s e of the false aretense. It is m within t the power of the tax collector t o Yelieve a b w p r 3 m m p a y a i s tax. He, therefore, made a falsee and by means of such false pretense k d e f n u r k d the taxpayer of his chiclcens. (Estafa bv means of deceio was committed by A.
Noto: In Greet briber3 l i e public officer who reeeivep the gift o x present or a a a ixomisc, must a w e e to do eith&r =of -olloninp three acts: To perform an set eoastitutin_p a. e To execute an net ;at constituting a crime. 3.Tfrom doinrsomothing which it is his official d y t o do It f s w e e e s s a r y that the public officer performs the act constituting the crime, or refrains from doing something which it is his official duty to do. A mere promise by the public r 0 to perform the act a t o refrain from doing something is sufficient. which. it m f f i c i d -

-..
\

A is liable for (-J m hs O --& & W theftl i ' n. He : n u i a b l e for cprruption of public officer, because the .< .i ; : policceman is& Ii-for direct or indirect hriben. .. ,, i.@ ,/GI order that t,he vi&r of the-qift may be held liablei-$5 ._?$ %<'1 for c o r r u i & h of imblic officer, the k t t e r m u t mitted bribery, dkcu-t. . ~$ ._,,
(1

.
I .

1120. Suppose that in the preceding question, A gave the monef ', to the property custodian, also an employee of the City Government, who agreed to give the firearm to him, what.: ,.. would be the crime? This is W l x i b e r Q because the crime which the property custodian agreed to commit is connected with the performance of Jiis official duty; that is, Cmalversatio3 by permitting other a e u m t o 3 2 mblic Drouerty.
i.

--'

Note: In ease of conviction, a confiscated firearm i s forfeited'"; in favor of the Government and hecomes public iproperty. & !& : ! property custodian is a public officer accountable therefor. 1 l ~ heallows another o w to-it,Xekiiable foLkalversation3

policeman, 81,000 because the latter agreed to steal a certain firearm from the property custodian of the Police Department of the City, the said firearm having been confiscated from A for possessing the same without license. In consideration of 81,000, B stole the firearm and gave it to A. Do you believe that B is liable for direct bribery, considering that he was a public of, . . ficer and he agreed to perform an act cmstituting a crime? Explain your answer. If your answer is in the ' . . negative, what crime was committed by A? Why? N>becawe the act which B, the policeman, agreed a constituting the crime of theft, & to 'perform, h not connecLed with the performance of his official duty. If the act performed or which the public officer agreed to perform, in consideration of the gift, i s & c e d with or -r to the performance of his official duties, b-is Lot c m d .

1121. Suppose that the property custodian was not able to give ' the firearm to A, because he was relieved as property custodian after he had received the money, is the property custodian liable for direct bribery? Why?

1122. Suppose, the 'property custodian gave the firearm to A soou after he had received the money from A, how many crimes were committed b y the puhlie officer?- Why? Two crimes: (1) d i r e c t b a y and ( 2 ) malversatipn. The reason for this conclusion is that the law (Art. 210, par. I , R.P.C.) provides a penalty for direct bribery
"in addition to the penalty corresponding to the crime agreed upon, if the same shall have been committed."
_,

1123. A, petitioner for naturalization, gave the clerk of court 850 to set the case for hearing earlier. .There were many pending cases before that court which were filed.with it
443

442

I 1

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

much earlier. The clerk of court set the case for hearing, although the old cases should have been set for hearing instead. Is the clerk of court liable for direct bribery? being a public officer he is liable f z a e c t b r i b e d committed by executinK which d a e s = a ', ~ a constitute a crime in consideration o u t t , the act b e (Art. 210, par. 2, R.P.C.).

2,

1124,' Suppose t h a t when the clerk was not busy as he had


nothing to do, he was asked by the plaintiff in a civil case to prepare a writ of execution, the judgrrent in his favor having become final, but to expedite the preparation of the writ the clerk was offered P20, which he accepted and by reason thereof he prepared the writ immediately, what crime was committed by him? fi-bXi(Art. 211, R.P.C.), because the money y a s offered t o by reason Qf.hk3 hich he a d 1 &e. It is not direct bribery ef the second farm, bee w e t a g performed wi?a nSt xz.hst. NohQdv was M e d (11. uniustly affected by the act which he exe g h x l (People vs. Pamplona, C.A.).

c
A? , &. ' /

i its entirety. Is the judge liable criminally? How n about the plaintiff who gave the gift? Yes, the judge is liable for&&ct bribera In i n - , 2. din?& bribery, the art nPrfnrmPrl bv t h ~ &just and praper. T t? law t the a m c e by the public officer of offered to him bv reason ' of his office, because the object of the giver of the gifts is that they are given to h i p in anticiDation of f uture f w from him in connection with the performance of his duty or that he is rewarding him for having performed a duty, and if the public officer has acquired the habit of accepting gifts, he is ther&y e . x x to future corruvtion. t h e f t i&.hUe f o r c o m the gift to h -t (Art. , 212, R..P.C.). "

'

puxes

l'

What are the crimes under frauds and illegal exaction?

y?? and transactions?


at &
' i

the public treasury and s i m i l a r -

/ 3

1125. A sanitary inspector who inspected a store found it in

p Prohibited

a very unsainitary condition. He received from the owner of the store canned goods and several gantas of rice. The sanitary inspector did uot report the, condition of the store to his; superiors. What crime was eoninlilted by the sanitary inspector? -1- - . by refrkining from doing something . wh & iswag his official d u t y - t d o , t u , to reDort it to his ? m jor, in consideration of a gift (Art. 210, par. , L u 3, R.P.C.).

2,

Oiher frauds. transactions. Possession of prohibited i n a t by a public officer.

1126. Having decided a ease in favor of the plaintiff, the i u d e ..xw . was given a gift by said plaintiff. The decision was i. &#&, perfectly 1e::al and just and in fact when the defendant :,qj;y appealed the case to the Supreme Court il was affirmed ,b~.',,
,.p.Ir.. An,* I

.; .

1128. A sold office su'pplies to the Provincial Government. The Provincial Treasurer and A had secret agreement that the price of the supplies would be raised by P2.000 and that amouut would go to the Provincial Treasurer. When the supplies were delivered and the paymeut was about to be made, the anomaly was discovered by the Provincial Auditor who caused an investigation and as a result the transaction was caucelled. Did the Provincial Treasurer commit any crime? If so, in what stage of exeeution? What is the liability of A? Both A aiid the provincial treasurer are guilty of eonsuinmateJ fraud against the aublic -. t y This crime

~ . %' . ~ , ,i,,

. I .

444
i

CIII~JUIiiALLAW REVIEWER

CRII\.IINAL LAW REVIEWER

is consnmmatd by mere agreement, as long as the =Be


the government (Art. 213, R.P.C.). A is liable for the same offense, because he and the provincial treasurer were in conspiracy. When there & conspiracy, the act of u e is-the act of all, and t h i s r u l e a$ p & evpiAf the o f f e w is ordinarilv eammi t k d public n f f i u x who takes &antage of his official uositian (Viada: U.S. vs. Ponte).
-of

Ucl-2

,
''1131.

ed was turned over to the cashier. Did that employee oommit any crime? >,-because the Revised Penal Code expressly uroviks that2 i s f l m o 3 w h e n t.he tax toll- voluntarily fails to issue a receipt, as provided by law, for anv sum of money rollecied bv himy-0 (Art. 213, par. 2 ( b ) , R.P.C.). The r m i a t official receipt, b d I is provided hy law. , The tax collector accepted from X a gold bar worth P500 in payment of the tax in that amount which X should pay under the law. He turned over the gold bar to the treasurer. Is the tax collector liable criminally. Explain your answer. Yes. He received a thing o r o b j e e t of a nature different from that-orp r (Art. 213, par. Z ( c ) , R.P.C.). Under the law, taxes should be nGd ia l z l t& currency. Suppose, the tax collector intended to own the gold'bar and pay tke tax out of his own funds, would he stiU be held liable? n -b Yes, because l e g , directly o r,- i -== == ofpayment other wise, things a m f a natur_e law is punished by hi d i f f w r o m that rovided R m & s G ( A r t . 213, par. Z ( c ) ,

,
.

ageinat t~ae :>ublic t r c n s u q : 1 . That the offender be n public officer: 2. That he should have taken advanrage of his office, that is, h-e>itt,rvened in the transaeti3i in his official camcity.

the nlaking of contra&, or &j he adjustment or set&ment of accounts relating t o n ' ' y o, d -s o r k e u y other scheme. 4.. With B t to defraud tho Government. Note: What constitutes the offense is the mere enterinx into an agreement with any interested party or speculator, w w t-!fraud the Government.

.,

,i

/ 1132.

crime was committed by a tax collector who, hy means of &cxit, succeeded in receiving from the taxpayer than that fixed by law? means of deceq (U.S. vs. Lopez). Note: In ni ,M is employed by the public d r s c e j
officer in demanding an amoiinL larger than OP different from that authorized hy lam. A mere demand for a sumlarger than or different fmm that authorized by law is guficien$. The talrpayer need not pay the amount demanded. It is g m w y that the public officer of the difference or the whole amount collected f e , h w liable for another c r i m e G l % % & y
/

-.

,
be the crime if the same acts were committed by an officer or employee of the Buteau of Internal , Revenue or of the Bureau of Customs? It would be B violation of the National Internal Revenue Code o r of the Revised Administrative Code, as the case may be.
{134. What is the special provision of the Revised Penal Code for frauds or deceits committed by any !publie officer who takes advantage of his .official position?

1 - 0 An employee in the treasurer's office of a municipality .1 3 . , :,,.., issued to B who paid FZO as tax a temporary receipt in . ' ' a coupon bond paper, although he had official receipt . in blank form with him. The amount collected is the .. ' amount of th.e tax fixed, by law. All the amount collecti.
i ;
~ ~

~ i .

446

447

I /

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CKIUINAL LAW REVIEWER

_,

.,

In addition to the penalties prescribed for swindling and other deceits covered by Arts. 315 to 318 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty 'of temporary special disqualification in its maximum period to perpetua.1 special disqualification shall be imposed upon any public officer who, taking advantage of his official position, shall commit any of sa,% crimes (Art. 214, R.P.C.).
engage in agricultnre through his encargado in the prow ince where he is appointed? ig_nnta transaction of sYes because ae r / e c n.
Notes: Commcree involves transaction of exchange or specula%. n 1. The Mayor of Manila who e n g s a i n coxmerce in this City i s a t liable, because he is & a L w n ! u i L ' 've, but an electke, public officer. The provincial treasurer of Rizal who qngages in comt . t m ce in this City is &.Liable-his ju&&.&h. 3. .A Justice of the Court of Appeals who engages in commerce ill Rizal may be held liable, because h: is a N&& (See 1 . and any arovince is subieet to his iu:isdietipn. Art. 14 of the Code of Commerce, prohibiting justices and judges, among others, from encaging in the commercial profossion.)
~

___~

custodyf he did not have the 1-0 he was not axcountable therefor.
~~ ~

i I
I

Note: To be hahle forealversatmn oi P U ~ I C funds or vrope a t h e public officer&' must have the official custody of public funds o r propertb @ the authority to collect or receive Wv e the o&&im t o account fQxAhem t , m , and & m to tine government. M W L
prccedins question, the crime committed by the mayor wa?&heeaub.e he took oersonal moperty, belonging to the municlpallty, w u &t the consent of the t r s s e r , its custodian. H l h a d t h e intent to gain, as the sG;fnetion or eniovment he derived from riving the bt -o the persons building the chipel is sufficientgain. , -

1135. May the judge of the court of first instance IawfuUy '.

'/
,.~':*+,+;.
L..

of GovernA public officer having o ment property, vjthaut author&y to part with physical possession of it, unless upon order from his immediate superior, eannot be held liable for malversation (US.vs. Webster, 6 Phil. 394).
,/"

..

1136. The mayor of a town gave to certain persons then boildlug a chapel several beams of molam wood which were in the premises of the municipal building and destined to its use. When the treasurer, the custodian thereof. learned of what the mayor had done wit,h some of the beams, the former filed a complaint against the latter with the provincial fiscal. If you were the provincial fiscal, would you prosecute the mayor for malversation? Explain your answer. If I were the provincial fiscal, I w w prosecute : ? the mayor for ion, because although the mayor ,<.&& was a publie officer and the beams he gave away w e q
:

1.137. May the mayor or the justice of the peace be held liable for malversation? Illustrate and explain. Yes, when the mayor, for instance, received from the superintendent of schools a sum of money as rental for the use o f a building belonging to the municipality and, instead of deliverine the same to the treasurer, applied it to his own use. In this case, t a g e r t h w y as the representative of the municipality and he had the obli&on to account for it-to the government to which it was due. The justice of the peace may be held liable f o r malversation if t -h c h i s uersonal it t h e s , f & s a t paid in his court and received bv him. He thus became accountable for them, that is, he had kac!u.p t f o m to the governmat. Their misaunrooriatian iS.

G a -

--.--

h'ote: Ilencr, the name of the Dublieof&a-QLn&im. inim; m u 1 in the crime of malversation. It i s the *of the d of the public o f f s e held by the offender which dete&-

448

449

CRInlINAL LAW REVIEWER

incs whether or not he is liable for malversati

A? t

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

I ! (
/1138.

O D muyernment, then he is an accountablc m i i h l i ~ liable f o r &r v e x . in case he misn' or through ahandow m w t DL~M i . 5 st o to the $&n~&t$e r other person.
I

wived the funds - 0 by reason of the a&he has the o h l i z h to account f i r if @-the

During the preliminary investigation by the fiscal g f a theft case, the police investigators gave the evidence to him consisting of a wallet with several ZO-pem hills . inside. The Piseal kept the eviclence, but later spent the money. What crime was committed by the fiscal? Explain your nnswer. he received the money lrom the @?->because police investigators hy reason of his office and he had the obligation under the law to keeu the same to be usad as evidence. Although the money belonged to the offended party in the crime of theft committed by the accused, the same was seized from the accused hy pnhlic authority and deposited with the fiscal. Malversation is c d e d h y the deuositorv of funds o r property attached, seized O P dGosited by public authority, even if such p r o p e & h to a urivate individual (Art. 222, R.P.C.).
N o t e : It will be noted that as a general rule, government funds or promrty a-e Laken OP m;saaprwriated by the offender in ~. . . malvcmntion. The oveinment funds or ,,me& n d i&e ? m e funds and tmst f u k r - . The trust funds are the m c o u t s . ' f u n d s , Red Crass funds, Anti-Tuberculosis funds, funds held by the municipal treasurer, and other funds which, although not strlclly public funds, are impressed with the character of public funds when they are officially received by an accountable public officer.
~

When he is an a d l a or depository of funds .. or / property, attached. sei& o r d& e fl by public ~ J I __. 2.22, R.P.C.); .&? t% B F ri( When he @ & ? . e direct part or cooperates b . & ? of rnaiversatkn &.puhLicfunds ar Drouerty , b m b l e o f f i c e r ( U S . vs. Ponte, et al.; People vs. Calauan, et al.) : and When a private p e r s p public officer , r by necessary & s aids a p@&&&%r in c a or ~ ~7 & E h td a i n t 0 ermittinz~~n s f a . s#ex (People vs. Longara and Cinco, C.A.).
~~

-~
~

1140. The auditor examined t h e books and accounts of the municipal lreasurer or a municipality. The auditor found that the treasurer had shortage in the amount of W O O. The auditor required the treasurer t o make good the shortage witllin two hours, hut the treasurer could not; explain or make good the shortage. There being no evidence that the treasurer misappropriated the amount of P700 or through abandonment or negli~ence permitted or consented to the taking of the amount by other person, may the treasurer be prosecuted aind punished for malversation? Why? Yes, the w e of a public officer to have duly forthp u b l i c a d s or property with which he is upoii demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be ?)~.ii!za o i a evidence that he ha:; D u t such missing fo funds or property t o s o n a l uses (last par. of Art. 217, R.P.C.).

I 9. When may a private individual Bc heM li&le- for a & &


f '

v - n ?
,

In the following cases :


p

(People v4. Tolentino). But when there is no demand, tbere m u s t be affirmatiye ftoshow aeum-n (17,s.7s. Acebedo).

When he has charged, y -i i CapacitLwhatever, urovincial or municiual funds, revenue o r m (Art. 222, R.P.C.) ;.
460

1
th_e fault or negligence of the ~ u & tueh as, when it I % % t+n during the commission of theft of robbery by other
I

I
I

persons.

461

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

1141. What kEud of negligence may make an accountable public officer liable for malversation? To render negligence a basis for coiiviction of malversation, the negligence of the accountable public officer must be positively and clearlzi shown to be inezeusabb, approximating malice or fraud (People vs. Berms, C.A.).
c

In the case of People " 6 . Bernas, the accused, then a municipal treasurer and having in his custody B number of sacks of government rice to be sold to the people, sold the execs:$ rice on credit to the employees and laborers of the municipality, in violatlon of tho instruetion 02 his superior. It was held that mhiie violation of the rules and regulations of the office is evidence of ncgligenea, in this case, the negligence of the accused cannot Lo made the basis for conviction of malversation. The accused m n t e d to avoid the possible loss that the government may suffer in view of the approaching harvest season, which might bring down the price of the riee and HISO because there was a pending storm and he had no plnee to keep tho rice. Such baing the case,c- t e ?f the accused d u approximate malice or fraud. -1 esGle. But when a disbur8ing officer of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, whose duty wa8 to deduct from the salaries of enlisted men the premiums to be turned over to the GSIS. entrusted that work to his sergeant, and although he knew that his s,srgeant, who was receiving a meager salary, was sporting n nice ear and living with his queridas, he did not take any step to cheek whether or not the sergeant was turning over t o the GSIS the money deducted by him from the salaries of tho enlisted men, until it was discovered by another perfion that the sergeant had misappropriated the money. i t was & twm abandonment and ne~lipewe, agproximatinr malice or fraud on the Dart of th ishur . f i cr =Ad, therefore m x r malversation. A n % e n if h e m get a ccnt out of the mismropriated funds (People vs. Torres,
L

Note:

, ,

,*'%43.

agent was to sell sweepstakes tickets entrusted to him for salc, with tlie cihligation of turaiiig over the proceeds of the sale of said tickets to the treasurer of the Philippines Charity Sweepstakes Office not later than one week before tlie corresponding draw. Ne received a total of 171 booklets of sweepstakes tickets for the February 25, 1951, draw, valued at P5,377.95. He accounted ~ Q I and turned over only P1,417, thereby leaving a balance. ~i of 83,960.95 unaccounted for. In spite of repeated de-- ...:, mands made upon him to account for the snnie, X failed to pay the said balance. What crime w8s cornmitt,& .' by X? Explain your answer. The crime committed by X is malversation (People vs. Angco). X was an accountable uublic ofBcer and the - nrnc%e~d.? of the sales of the sweeustakes tickets were public fun& for which he was acl. ce His f a m to account for the amount of F3360.95, notwithstandingde*'m&s, is evidence of misanbrovriation on h.is part.

m.).

c o r n o r lack of criminal inteat, when there is no negligence, is also a defense in the e m of malversatjon. Thus,tiiere is no criminal lia'bility for making 'payment through honerit mistake as to the law or to the fact-. At most, the accountable public officer is civilly liabls for the damage caused.

was a travelling sales agent of the Philippine charity weepstakes Office. 13;s duty as such travelling sales 452

was committed by the collect,or of the MetroWhat. politan Water District (now NAWASA) who misappropriated il sun1 of money Collected by him from the cus: tomers of the adid corporation? Expliiin your answer. The collector of the Metropolitan Water District who misappropiiated the money collected from the customers of that corporation committed -1 The Netrouolitan Water District is a m n of the Philippi& Legislature. The law creating this entity classifies it as a public corporation, for the purpose of furnishing adequate water supply and sewerage service to the inhabitants of Manila and suburbs. It cannot be questioned tinat the Legislature may validly create special instrumenlalities or districts to aid the State in, o r t o take charge or, some public os state work for the general welfare. Such agencies are qaasi-corporations or public corporations ' for narrow or limited purposes. The officers and emulovees

'

453

CRliVIINAL LAW IIEYIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVlEWER

of the Metropolitan Water District -1 a


i a f u n d l r are public funds (People vs. Bustillo).
hmtn. .. .
I

a d

R n t ..~ in the ease of the Manils Railroad Corporation, .~~ although it is of a quasi-pubiic character, it was held that its.treasurer, who t m I - h i s personal use a sum of money from the funds entrusted to him for safe-keeping, was &$Y
~

__

1144. The provincial treasurer required a municipal trea,Rurer to render an accounting of the funds in his possession. Believing that since there was nothing wrong with the c,ondition of t h e funds in his charge and that he had no duty to render an accounting, the municipal treasurer did not render accounts far more than two months. Is the municipal treasurer liable for the fclonp of failore of accountable officer to render accounts? No, because that felony is committed by an accountable public oEicer who is required by law or regulations to render a.ccount to the Auditor General or t o the provincial auditor, not to the provincial treasurer, for a period of two months after such accounts should. he rendered (Art. 218, R.P.C.).

of such fund for election campaign. Is he liable for 2legal nse of public funds? Why? No, because in the felony of &gal ncp of , the public o f f i c e r , w g public fund or property under to a uublic use h.is administration, must an& e-t other than that for which such fund or pronerty w a s propriateLby law or ordinance (Art. 220, R.P.C.). He is liable f o r @ m n >

1145. Suppose that the provincial tre;lswer w a s dismissed from


office because of certain anomalies committed by him, and although he was not acting as the treasurer of the province, the provincial auditor required him to render account, hut the former provincial treasurer refused to do so, can he be held criminally liable for failure to render accounts? Why? Yes, if ere IS a law or regulations requiring him to The law (Art. 218) says, whether in the render m&t. service or separated therefrom by resignation or any other cause, if required by l w or regula,tions, h~e a has to render aecount:r within two months after such accounts should be rentleered.

1147. The municipal council uppropriated P10,OOO for the purchase of a garbage truck. Before the municipality could purchase m e , the Lions Club donated a garbage truck t o the municipality. The lreasnrer, knowing that there was no need to reserve the amount tor the puwose of a garbage trrrelc, spent the money for the repair of the municipal building without any authority from the municipal council. Considering that there was no damage caused, do you believe that the treasurer is criminally liable f,or@Iqal use of the public rnm@ Why? because the crime is Committed even if no dam= a or_embarrassment to the public service has resuked. The penalty is a fine from 5 to 50 per cent of the sum misapplied. T e S e must be an ordinance appropriating that amount, for the renair of the m>ieipal building before the treasurer could law&lIy u s the money therefor.

N d e : When the amount UppJied to a public use had not bee3 ;i appvipviated by @ or mdinan e, the public officer applying that amount i s liable f o r b u n d e r Art. 217, b u is m e e Art, propriating puTs ub-. bl8

1148. The contractor who constructed a building for the munieipal police presented his claim, with all the n e e w a r y

8% i

&.. ,,..

6 - elective public officer had discretionary fund under An his custody. When he ran for re-election, he spent part
454

,papers duly approved by the proper officials, to the treasurer for pzynient. The fund f o r the purpose was in the custody of the treasurer, but he delayed the pay. ment in the hope that the contractor would come across with a cut from the amount payable to him. Because for ~ W Q months the treasurer did not make the payment, the contractor filed a complaint with the provincial fiscal.

456

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIAIINAL LAW REVIEWER

..

Is the municipal treasurer liable for any felony? If so,


what felony? Explain your answer. Yes, he is liable for failure to make navmentfrom Gzvernment funds in his nosse.sian as a public officer under obligation to make such payment.> failure to .. & make payment must bunahmus. In this case, the d in the paym$nt we & to his malicious intentiw to cause the contractor ta come across with a cut from the amount due the contractor (Art. 221, par. 1, R.P.C.).

1149. A court stenographer, having a grudge against the ac-

cused who appealed from the decision of the court convicting him, kept the slenograpldc notes and their transcript in his house and when ordered by the judge ti, produce them the stenographer claimed that the stenographk notes and their transcript were lost, which was not true. For what crime may he be prosecuted and punishecl? Explain your answer. It is submitted that the stenographer is liable for & cious failure to make delivery of Dublic Drone& & . & .I custody. It is committed by a w c officer who refuses to make delivery of any property in his custody or under his administration, a t : the ordel; to do 80 by competent authority. The refusal of the stenographer to make delivery of the stenographic notes was malicious (Art. 221, par. 2, R.P.C.).

1150. A municipal policeman, having under his care and guard


..

a prisoner who was serving sentence in the municipal jail, permitted said prisoner to go and buy something in the store near the jail. The prisoner, taking advantage of the confusion in the crowd, fled and never returned to the jail. These facts are alleged in the information filed by the provincial fiscal against the accused jailer. If these facts are established by sufficient evidence, what crime was committed by the jailer? Explain your answer. .: The question involved was not squarely decided by the k?Suprerne Court in the case of U S . vs. Eandino. In that
i, .

case, the inormation filed by the Provincial Fiscal was dismissed by the trial court on motion of the defense and on appeal by the provincial fiscal the Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings. Some Justices were of the opinion that while it may be true that the acccsed had no knowledge that the prisoner would escape and that he did not permit him to do so, it was unquestionable that he did permit him to go out of the municipal jail, thus affording him an opportunity to get away with ease, and that the prisoners escape was effected through the tolerance of his custodian and was deemed also to have been by connivance with the latter. In the case of People vs. Bandino, the Supreme Court cited Escriches dictionary Legislacion y Jurisprudencia which defines the word connivance t o be dissimulation or tolerance. 0 1 the other hand, some Justices believed that proof 1 of the facts contained in the information will sustain merely %I coiivictioc of @3elitv in the c u & r J J r i m ners through Eegligenca But in the same case. it is stated that if there was .~. connivance or conseat on the part cif the policeman in the prisoners leaving the jail, it is unquestionable that he is responsible fnr the crime with which h e is charged on accouiit of the escape effected by the said prisoner who took advantage of the leave allowed by his custodian. The felony of conniving:.with or consenting to evasion is committed by any public officer who shall c o n s e n t 2 the escape of a prisoner in his custody or charge. It is submitted ?hat the guard is liable, a t least, for infidelity in the custody of prisoner through negligence.
~~ ~~~ ~ ~

1151. What crime, if any, was committed by the municipal mayor who permitted a prisoner detained in the municipal jail to eat in the market near the municipal building three times a day, but always under guard? The niayor did not commit any crime. Leniency or laxity on the part of the mayor i s t infidelity. It was held that leniency or laxity in the per-

__-

457

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

formame of duty of the municipal president as regards the custody of prisoner is not in excess of his duties.
Note that the municipal president was the person who was aceusied of infidelity in the custody of prisoners. The reason for this is that the l i i ~ n i e i p ~president, now the municipal l mqror, j, the head of the municipal jail. The m ~ is r guilty of infidelity in the custody of urisoner, i4 he utilized the prisoner? s a f o r domestic chores i n & house (People YS. Evangelista, C.A. 38 O.G. 1 5 0 .

--

traction of a guard leading to a prisoners taking advan-- L hge a the situation is negligence. Such mistake or dis-7;; traction of the guard may be dealt with administrative1y;j only. The negligence of the guard which shows positive care: lessness short of deliberate non-performance of duty is il- ( Iustrated in the case of a guard who fell asleep while.,: guarding the prisoner with the result that the prisoner escaped. 1154. l\ould the gunrd of the jnil be hcid linble Cor infidelity in the custody of yrisnnw if (he priwaaf rvho e * c W d is not pct rnukted 11.v fiwL JiidRnwnt? Yes, hccause the lam in dcfininp the crime of infidelity in the custody of p-isoiier provides t w o & D enalties to be imposed on the public officer guilty of the crime. The penalty of prision correccjonal in. .its medium and maximum periods is moe& i psd , heen sentenced by final i u d m e n t ; and the penalty of pr&ion COTreccional in its minimum p e r i o d , p s e the fupitive 2 only held as a detention p a y f o r any crime o tion of law or municipal ordinance.

1152. Is the chief of police liable for infidelity in the custody of prisoner if he permitted the prisoner to sleep in the latters house at night and the prisoner a1wy-s returned to jail early in the morning? Relaxation of the imprisonment of the prisoner is considered infidelity. Thus, it was opined t h r t there is a real and actual evasion of service of senlence when the custodian permits the prisoney to obtain b relaxation of his imprisonment and to escape the punishment of being deprived of his liberty, thus making the penrlty ineffectual, although the convict may not have fled. Under this rule, a prisoner who is permitted to sleep in 11;s house every night and would go back t o jail during the daytime obtains relaxation of his imprisonment, and thereby makes the custodian liable for infidelity in the custody of prisoner. Where the guard allowed the prisoner serving a 6-day sentence in the municipal jail to sleep in his house and eat there, he is gnilty of infidelity in the custody of prisoner committed with malice (People lis. Revilla, C.A., 37 O.G. 1896).

1153. What kind of negligenee is contemplated in infidelity in the custody of prisoner through negligenee? The public officer who is charged with the conveyance or custody of a prisoner is said to be negligent when his laxity in the cnstody of prisoner shows positive carelessness short of deliberate non-performance of his duties as guard. As was held by the Court of Appeals in the case of People vs. Nava, C.A., not every little mistake or dis458

1155. Map a @&e individual be held liable for infidelity in the custody of prisoner? Yes, because the Revised Penal Code p w s vate person to whom the conveyance or custody of a pris. oner or person under arrest shall have been confided, w h shall commit any offenses of infidelity in the custody 0: prisoner. Hence. as long as the private n i1 & c k m t i i e conveyance 0 - i of a orison% gpjzg sonunder arrest, if the escape o f the prisoner -2 under arrest is due to his connivance w t . t e u n e r g ] i l l h ps n pr e ariest or to his n-ace, sxih arivate in. diE&ual is criminally iiable (Art. 225, R.P.C.).

--

1156. Tlie nt.cnogrwher In Ibe Plnciiliu olllcu

romoved tho wrlf


~

ten confession of the accused from the record of

459

I t
CRIilfINAL LAW REVIEWER
"'
'

L
CRINIINAL LAW REVIEWER

..

'

criminal case kept by the fiscal but which came into his possession when he was typing the information. Then, he gave i t to the accused who in turn gave him F'lOU. What crime was committed by the stenographer? Does the givin:: of the confession to the accused and receiving BlOO from him constitute a separate offense? Explain your answer. The stenographer is guilty of (infidelity in the e x $ of document3be~use he_was a uublic officer; the w n confession of the-accused, w h u a d m u m enl, w m fe &d o r a k u s i e d tQhim by r e m m of his of%ce: that ' h j remoyed stlchdorumeat -f o e; and that t u s of the said docnment from the r w r d O f t h e c a s e w u u r a l l y result in the damage o r prejudice to& public i n m t . The m la of document i s n s t a c r i m e , u u k s i s f o r an illicit uuruose, a-t na to urofit by it is an illicit puI'uose. It would seem then that the receiving. of P 1 0 by the stenographer is Et a n in&pg&ent I0 and s z a rate crime of direct bribery, but as theconstitutive element of illicit purpose.

<

of infidelity in the custody of documents? Explain Y Q ~ ? answer. No, because the transfer cerrificate of titie &s@ yet-hned by -and, therefore, it- did not e w e & d m e n t within the meaning of' the 1a.w. In infidelity in the custody of document, the decYmept must Ke com& P th&s, it must be c a e of establishing a t or extinguishing an obligation. In this. case, before the t-raiisfer certificate of title is signed by the register of deeds, it cannot establish any right nor extinguish an obligation. wflJfl Ws nL '

9 clLdd/;

6158. Is the destrnction, concealment or removal for an illicit purpose of peri.gdieals, pamphlets or magazines by the postnmster who has the custody of the same by reason of his office constitute infidelity in the custody of document? Explain yonr answer. / No, because books, p e r i o s s , p a m m t s and m s a zincs are ~ ~ documents, for they cannot establish a right o t 0 extinguish an obligation. 2

1159. When is the taking of money hills used as evidence in the trial of a case by the clerlc of court infidelity in the
not bo f o r a good or-lawful ourpose. Hence, if the stenographer of the fiscal was given PlOD e & the \n4ttoii confession of the accused, would also he e o n u n i t t d

' ,

.,

1157. The Register of Deeds of a province told his clerk to


z

.
"

'

. .*~ !..

!,.

:'

'~

transfer certificate of title based on a deed The clerk prepared the transfer eertificate of title and presented the same to the Register of Deeds for his signatnre. When the Register of Deeds read the transfer certificate of title he foonil many erasures, insertion and intercalations which. made it appear very dirty. In the heat of anger, the .Register of Deeds tore to pieces the transfer certifieate of title. Did the Register of Deeds commit the crime prepare
B

of sale submitted by the parties.

case are trial of the case has terminated and the money b i i l s s e 1 3 t for the nuruose of returning the same to the owngr and the clerk of court misappropriated them, the crime committed is w o nYL s f pbecause these inonev bilk are trust funds ofhe government anrlthe clerk of court is accomtable therefor.

.-

custody of documerlt, and when is it malversation? When the money b i p are attached to the records as exhibits and removed therefrom by the clerk of court and misapFpriated by him, the crime committed i s m ;-2 documents2 b z c s those money bills.

460

462

1 1
..
116

. .

/.

CKIhIINAL LAW IU3Il:WER

. m a t c r h e is committed by tie pustw,a&e

who wd . a letter addressed by one person to another and after opening the letter and finding a 50.peso bill inside the letter he renioved the money and spent it for himself: Explain your answer.

In several cases decided by the Supreme Court, the crime was held to bcfaithlessness in the custody of 6 c u mentor p a s The word pauers inrludes pBWX?lQUyp d n a - = m m r h .

The law (Art. 277) pu&&es any public afficer c& h custodv @ m s property sealed by mrmz or a, = who shall b r u h e - s or permit them to & .b *

& the ,

--

1161. The stenographer of the court, for the purposc of helping a person accused of a crime, put the record of the ease among the records of decided cases, so that the CN of court might not set the case for hearing. As a lesult, i the case was not tried for more than one year until the. clerk of eourt, upon complaint of the offended partp, lceked for the record and found it. Is the stenographerof the court liable for infidelity in the custody of document? for infidelity The stenographer of the court is-liable in the custody of documcut, becalm he did LuLhave t h e custody of the record of the criminal case by reason o f his office. fhe stenographer is not the custodian of the record. Note: If the clerk of court was the one who did it, he would

1163. When may a public officer be held. criminally liable or opening closed papers, documents, (181 objects? When the public officer is &&ed with the custody of (not merely entrusted with) closed panem, dfmme&. os objects. Thus, the treasurer of a municipality who received from the PC corporal ciosed envelops containing election returns and addressed to the provincial treasurer, f o r the purpose of putting thereon sealing wax, and who opened them and read the contents thereof, was not held criminally liable f o r opening such closed documents, because he was not the custodian thereof [People vs. Lineses, C.A.).
1164. The Military Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines had a secret plan t o capture certain dissidents. An agent of the Military Int,elligence Service, who was one OF those who planned the raid l o be made, mentioned it to a friend who happened to be a relative of one of the dissidents. As a consequence, the dissidents were able to elude the soldiers who were seut to capture them, Is that agent criminally liable? Why? Yes, because having known a secret involving the general interest of public order by reason of his official capacity, he revealed it. The crime is called fivelation ot secret3 i 6 y an o f f i c e 9 A r t . 229, R.P.C.).

1162. A pub ic officer was charged With the custody of a sealed. docunrent. He permitted a private person to open it,. I causiig the breaking of the seal. What is the liability~ of the private individual, if any? The Revised Penal Code d m d h the a & &k wo h8 theseal, & u there is conspiracy betX6een him and the public officer.

7
/

have been liable for infidelity in the custody of document by concealing the same, being a public officer who had the record by reason of his office. important element of the crime of infidelity in the cusof document is that the offender is a public officer who.. has the custodv of t h e a n - by P t ce.
i

,<,

1165. The clerk of court who learned of the decision of the ,judge, coniiclinp the accused of murder and sentencing him t o deayn, revaled the same t o t k ~scesed@foe the promnlgation of the judgnlerrt. As a consequence, $;, the accused jumped bail and fled to the mountains. He !P was never captured. Is the clerk of court criminally liable? Why?

,~

462

463

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

_.. ;

>?'because having known a secret affecting the administration of justice which should not be u u b l i & d h @ the promulgation of the W o n , he .t1 Note: This is also the crime committed by an inferior officer who made a report to his superior, h u t o r e the latter could approv m e t w r t , the inferjor officer mhlished

, The felony of revelation of secrets by an officer is also 'committed by a puhlic officer who shall wrongfully aelive? to another person papers or copies of papers of which he may have charge and which should not be published (Art. 229, R.P.C.).
66., To hold a public officer liable for revealing the sew& of private individuals which he came to know by reason of his office, what secrets of the private individuals must he' reveal? The secrets contemplated are those that may @ &!a the good n a m o r fortune of the private individual. If the secrets are contrary t o public interest or to the administration of justice, the same may be revealed by the public officer without incurring any criminal liability.
Nota: The secret of the private individual muat he known by reason o d o f f i e e of the public officer, % i f m e
to know of the

judgment, decision or order of-anj s u u a i n r yde.'.y scow of the jurisdiction of the latter an&kmed . , with all th&gaLfmn&u . ' s (Art. 231, R.P.C.). .. It would seem that the o f f e - n b nkcommitted if there , '. js &y a refusal to obey the .iudgm&., decision or order of a superior a u m t y , which involves or a f f e c t s A e offices.

Note: The e ~ n m g i e s of open disobmzdience are: 1. S h & f who r e f u s d t o execute t m ori!i&ment . . of the court. ,. 2 . Mayor who refused to execute the order of the Governor.

'

1169. May the felony of open di member of the lawmaking body? KO,0 e9 x and t h w . 1170. The city engineer ordered his assistant to cause demolition of the houses built on a public street by syuakters. The assistant of the city engineer did execuse the order, giving his reasons for suspending execution of the order. The city engineer became. furio and insisted that the order he carried out. gineer gave the assistant 24 hours during which the order. But the assistant still continued to execute the order of the criminal liability of the assistant? Why? The assistant city engineer is liable for disobedience to the order of -superior officer, after the latter has disapproved the suspension of his order (Art. 232, R P C ) .... 1171. When is it not a crime to disobey the order of the superior? Disobeying the order of the order of the smer o f that order w g & b w I t Thus, if the cKief of police t o arrest X upon com
465

thmyzh somebody else the publie o f f h r

--

Art. 230 of the Revised Penal Code. slander or libel, as the case may he.

l167., Is damage to the offended party a necessary element of t h G i m e of revealing secrets of private indiddual? Why?

to reinstate a policet?ian
liabio fur the

No. This felony is committet by any judicial o r a ecutive officer who s N openly r e f u s to me@e A 2 h

464

.
%

,.
.

.. .,., ,..

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER


P

arrest X, because he knew that there was no legal {;he arrest, and the chief of police insisted but policeman is not the Revised Penal Code.
I
' . ~

2. When the public officer shall maltreat

hief of police of a. municipality received a letter m the provincial fiscal with a sibpoem to >e served X , to be present a t the preliminary investigation to condu&d by the fiscal. The chief of police forgot to $e the service,of the subpoena and because of his ure to do so .the fiscal was not able to continue with reliminary investigation. Is the chief of police crimliablc for refusal of assistance? Why? .. e chief of police is not criminally liable for the of refusal of assistance (Art. 233, R.P.C.). has been held that the failure t o lend cooperatioll the administration of justice o r other public service must be malicious. Since the chief of police only forgot t o serve the subpoena, he did not act with malice.

..

to extort a confessia_n.y to obtain some informa


1115. May the mayor commit the crime of maltre

/
1
/

j+wner? The mayor i m l i a b l e for maltreatm'ent o p g if the latter i&tkcustodv of t h g d i c e . The, law, 235) contemplates actual charge of the prisoner, which is so merely by legal fiction. . . 1176. A constabulary soldier went inside the provincl .,
with the consent of the warden arid then and:thqe< constabulary soldier tried to obtain information %om prisoner. When the prisaner refused to give any formation, the soldier gave him fist blows and kicked him several limes, inflicting physical injuries. What was committed by the constabulary soldier. Explain answer. The constabulary soldier committed & He _c&n&-be held liable for mal -~ *?.~*a onel-, b s u s e the prisoner was not under his chdr&'.He., cannot be held liable for coercion eAher, b&..the,'pn&i$ ones was not beiw c o a e d by him @ @ s!bbng$ against his will at the time he subjected t m e e . " The physical injuries irere inflicted as an act of revenee : 1' ,., against the prisoner for not giving the desired information. -'!:
r

1173., Why is the refusal of a person without legal motive to harge the duties of the office to crime under Art. 234 of the Red, the discharge of the duties O f a e . m&er of dutx of the person elected
i

.,(,A

o a p b l i e office is l u L d m h a I I Y legal motive t - u or f the office to which he was appointed.

,/

What are the ,two ways of committing the crime of maltreatment of prisoner? fficer shall

overdn. himself in the


or ( 2 ) b

, ', 4 , ! , 1177. The jailer, becoming angry with t.he prisoner under hls:.,si charge, boxed mtl kicked the latter. Is the jailer k b l e ". for maltreatment of prisoner? Why? & becanse -maltreatment must z a *,i
<i .
$' *

.'.

..

..,'*

of a prisoner or detentiun prjsowr r @ by the & ~ U of Q punish?&&.bnriized


by the &tion,

..,

prisoner b.v season o f personal grudge.

.' 5 %

.~ d ;

CRIMIX~L LAW REVIEWER

.~~
~

. .
, ,

- - - c p r e l i r n i n a r y investigation while t h T u peace is in the municipality.

..

filed for prrliminary investigation, for some reason or another, tried the case on the merits, announcing that he would render a decision after the trial. The l a m e r df the accused asked the justice of the peace to refrain , > from doing s.9, as he had no jurisdiction over the case. '. Nevertheless, the justice of the peace continued with the trial of the case. Is the justice of the peace liable .. .. ,for disobeying the request for disqualification? Why? . .. ' ' o n m b e i n s , No. bocause the .'.' c . e d b y m h Q l 3'ty. Besides, the one requiring him to refrain from continuing the proceeding i s . , not a superior authority, he being only a lawyer of the '., :. accused. To constitute a violation by a pnblic officer of Art. ' ' , ;2 of the Revised Penal Code, punishing the crime of dis4 obeying request for disqualification, the folIo~ving ,, . :that t h d s a w o n rexwlng innst be present : .- , ',,.. ', ,. his jurisdiction w m n t Q$ decided, M t h a t he has & .~.~-~., .. %*, *;, been la_wfullv required b y m L & u t h o r i t v 1 1 t ., . frorb continuing the proceeding, and . 4 that k e continues ..' . @ l.-..,-' :,,.sz@'z. the proceeding. .j,&&<:He is, however, liable for - % m a l funG ",.,,,'~' %:a&$*+ . %&'.!' tions under Art. 177 of the Revised Penal Code, because < ,."; he performed an act pertaining to a judge of the Court @* of First Instance, without beirlg lawfully entitled to do ..
,,'
., , . I
; I

1 8 . . A jiistice of the peace with whom a homicide case was 1 4," .

' /
/

by the justice of the peace court, stating further that in his opinion the accused was innocent. ' Is the mayor ',a,: criminally liable? Why? Yes, becanse the Revised Penal Code executive officer who shall a,ddress any order or sugges--. . & i t o any judicial a m t y t to any ease 01- b u c k s corning within the the courts o f x e (Art. 243. R.P.C.). '

< '

*'

11186. 1s a judge liable for suggesting to another judge to decide a case one way or another? . \ No, becaxe a n y an executive officer can be held liable for the crime of orders or requests to any judicial authority under Art. 243 oi" the Code.

187. How about a congressman who sent a note to a judce.~'

requesting the latter to decide the case in favor of his'. leader who ix a party in the case? . ,. , > ..~., ~.,.,.. * NO, because the person who sent the note is not:an"" /lcntive ofxicer.
I < /

1:
your answess.

!
h .

"6,

. The mxyoyor of

a nwnicipality wrote a letter to the juntice f the peace of the same municipality, requesting the r to expedite the trial of a criminal ease cognizable
470
. c

1.
1

N o t e : ?his felony is also cornmitt s h & & i c j t p z a k e immoral &nj

471

.. :

:. .

.,.

~,

, .
I

i I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

,.

\.,',..;. cI - .'$

.'

. .,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

interested i n s pe-ketbe such o>fieer f o m a n , o = y respect to which he i required to submit a report to, s .. or consult w i t h a superior officer. It i also committed by a d s n directly charged with the care and custody of woman nrisoner to whom he shall . .. , , ,,. ., , solicit or make immoral or indecent advances. It is also committed by a & who shall solicit or m e , , ~ ,: , i B a 1 o r indecent advances to the w t e r , s r & or . .., relative within the same dearee bi t y of the p m n $ ' thecustody of said warden. c There should not be s e m if the woman is under 18 years of age and a m , because i t .would _he t h e o w r being a p m m . . s age, thereis If the woman i under .. L ' t w .intercourse, the crime is- 12 wars of womanand married, , sexual If the is .. :. * i .. ,.,. ', i t = s r m if thexad.cn or public officex lmQ%!Lher .' ~. . . to b a d d . The public officer should ~1 perform acts of lewdnegs On

'

In what cases is the perialtv for p g a i a e , . '

'%

a,

',

elusion perpetua to death, not t o he impoqed crime Committed is parricide? In the following cases : 1 . When there is a @ & f $& in the tim (Art. R.P.C.). 2. When the s_se or d m , and living with her parents i .... circumstanc_es (Art. 247, R P C ) 3. When the offender m d any of his tioned in the definition of the crime of parriei nx&&eae w e conceived the idea of killing her hushand, a pistol furnished. of 4 B shot the husband of A tb . When C g a v e thhe pistol to B the former knew that , sister A had induced B to kill her hushand. What cri was committed hy B and C? 'Explain .your answer; B committed -because he k m the ds.e.as&$( of & e & promise of reward. =is am n the crime of murder, E in the crime df *,d t ~,' Lii$ ; w e . ;!#<&,~ i O s t h e wife is l a l e f o r f i a be e a@ = : i. ! i n g circumstances which arise f m private re la^^" of the.offend& with the offend& party and which auali@$ the crime shall a.ggravate the lia crime as against, the principals, ac to whom they are attendant. The being attendan to parricide as
a stranger, to kill him with

t if thewoman is a m i t u t e , the cdme i m o m m i t t e d ,


o @use agamst ehastita if t h 9 w n The public officer shvaM i e Oeslt with d&ninm.<

&

p:

When i!l the killing of one's child not parricide? When a person kills his c L who is h d l a d &d the crime is not parricide, hut infanticide. ,d . . ,.: .
.

i he

I?
('

..
.
I

. When is the killing of one's grandchild or grandparent not parricide?


Hence, the When the relationshipxis E I. & t e killing of an ille itiniete randson DI- an illegitimate grandfather is& or& as the ea%LZ?aL-he. er, adopted parent, or ister not parricide? Knd in the direct lice, tims in parricide.
ii

,*. , ,.
,

,.

1194. Suppose, in the same case,'D, a stranger, assisted in escape of A, who is guilt9 of parricide, what is the Iia ity of D? The Supreme Court of Spain, in its decision of No that the straager who participated nequent to the commission of parricide would be liable
473
1
,

Ii

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

ory to parricide, not to murder or nomicide, bepenalty has to be lowered by two degrees. submitted that the provision of the Revised Penal is point is clear that the aggravating circum",. ., . *'stance which arises from the privat,e relation of the offender '
with the offended party shall not aggravate the liability of, or qualify the crime against, the accessory to whom it is not attendant.

r s d e , if the o f f e n a r i m a ,-t d k a h the r In the bedyoom of his house, A surprised B, who was her paramour, hugging and inflicting slight physical i inally liable for slight ph

195. A woman lived with two different men, A and B, for a period of one month, until A decided to give up and leave the woman to B alone. A child was born to that
.1,

:,

woman .eight months later. When the child. was one keek old, E killed the child. What crime was committed h$ gdB

Code, in order that a person liable for inflicting slight or less se

. .
,,,"
'~

w of the child i-certqin ., '':cannot e the .paternitythe father 01the child, be considered

B is liable
J

. ,, .

u r m n o t parricide., It is mur&r because k ! k w of the,'child & t o his tender a s E eommitted tee hwithout risk to himself arid, : , . therefos:, the. killing of the child was attended b d e . , , ' mstance of treachery.

_...for

.' x n h e r e z e a k n e s s
L

. A had been married toA@ married. X.befor-e a in China the Philippines. Here, In

aidering th'at A did not surprise his daughter in of 5exUal intercourse in his own house, do you physical injuries, or must he be sentenced to des

came to quarrel,. A k i l l d R. 'What crime was committed by A?

for having inflicted physical injuries under excep


circumstances? It is submued that A should be sentenc he surprised them in of -0, intercourse and he

'

tion with a-woman. A child was born of that woman, which undoubtedly was the later, that child was alwoman and married. She birth illed p when the latter was tlYo2WUs rime was committed by A? , because E m a g r a n d c h i l a was illegitimate. .In par-

p_arent wiiwt..& is living. It is sufficient that the -ta was then livingwith her rn Ents.
1200. A surprised his wife in the act 0% sexual i n t e r c o 3 4 : another man, but the paramour succeeded in j.mpi"
-.A
, '.

. .
3,

475

,,

. .. ,.,. ,

_I

.
.,
, , .~ ; ,

, .

.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

the window. A took the door in going out to chase


aramour, but he lost sight of him for half an hour. when A was searching for him, he saw the parae, he !tilled him. In case A is prosecuted for killthe paramour and convicted after trial, must he be

( not mind it.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIFWSR


I . ! *

It is submitted that a w g h h f t & o U h far t half an hour, s w h e -may be considered continuous; m r ,i t w e


i~

One day, A surpdsed- them -.in having sexual intercourse. A killed the suitos'+n tined his said daughter. . Is A liable -.for :*hemic to the penalty prescribed by law. therefor? ..:: No; while heissllly'of m i c i d e , ~ h 'shoul ' 6 tenced to the penalty of the SL & X of hr i e He might have oromohd c~ b u t s the p says: "Any person who shall promote or wostitutim of his wife 01' daughter or a " . , have consented. to t+e infidelity uf the other.spoucie,; : not b e s t l e d to the benefits of this article."

-~

'

'

the act of sexual intercourse. Whatever time rom the's-g to the kilrillg was but necw

mour and overtook the wife in their house after the lapse of certain time. In this case, the Supreme Court applied .the provisions of Art. 247 of the Revised Penal Code in favor of t'he accused.

ty of the other spouse."

in your answer.

4T7

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW'ER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

w o l l l L k' l L c. I f 'e o E y d w s n $ g i u a a s an inducement e nrincipal by direct participation to commit the c g e , t h m s gh@Zhe commisskn of the c r i m e - w i t e vious promike, the pivinx of the numy-doesnat constitute the qualifying circJdmstance of 0rir-d W
~

- -~

b m e it -o d

that-

' d

A, whih driving a jeep, saw B, the man who almost '?;illed him before, waIking on the side of the road. A :;..dmve his jeep straight ahead to B who was run over and . ' , killed. What crime was committed by A? Why? @d & & because h m d B by means of a.-I Murder is committed by any person who shall kill another "by means of motor,vehicles" (Art. 248, pax. 3, R.P.C.).
I
A:.*'

. A put a, time bomb in an airpIane to kiU its pilot. When The pilat
. t h e airplane was flying the bomb explotkd. was killed. What crime was committed 5y A? Why? a or fall o f a n c o m m W by m e w s of exal ' if the pilot did not die of explosion bnt died due to the Fall of the plane.
"

the train passed over it, it expIoded derailing t h e and killing some persons inside. What crime was mitted by A?

e>,
w,

Note: When a person had the izl~e&LkdUL another and to


accomplish his purpose, he used as means (1)inundation, (2)(3) p o k n , or (4) e p o n x $& , tho cdme is murder

. .

I is also murder when B person killed another b y means t of (1) s h i m e k , (2) strivnding of a vessel, (3) derailment, or assault upon a streetcar or locomotive, o r (4) f&of an airship.

A set the house of B on fire, resulting in the death of a child who was burned. What crime was committed b y A ? Explain your answer. A committed a crm -i e nf a r m with hmu.ud e ' (U.S. vs, Burns, 41 Phil. 418), or plain arson and the humicide absorbed in the crime of arson (People vs. Pa-, terno, et al., 47 O.G. 4600). It cannat 48 articular person by means . t l L t z . e J W ' ' nnv 7)

No, because killing a person on the occasion of any of the calamities mentioned in par. 4 of Art. 248 of the ,Code requires that the offender must take advantage of it /in comiqidng the crime.
N o d Killing a person on the occasion of destructive cyclone, ,& &e and other public calamity is also murder.

'!:
i

',,

..

When is the k i l l e r n o t i a b l e for murder, even if he had premeditated hefore he coninlitted the crime?

e .
..
,

. , i r In the following cases: ,* 1. When t.he pe~sonkilled i s d i f f e s n t from the' ,in:.:. :, :+ : tended victim. . , ,.
'

,."

. 1 :.,.a
, '

, ; ,

480
$E

481
. .

ip

CRIMZNAL LAW REVIEWER

. When ihhe js his-, a s d n i . or eendant; because the crime W i c i d e . .

b-

'

'

When the v i e i s a child less than 8 A m L d d , . because the crime is infanticide.

/:;
jl
~

4 . When evident uremcdi&%tion dn is in the -information, but it is p-d-during the trial. : ; , 6 ; When the killing of the victim is by means of B0;Son, ' S, .because evident aremeditation is absorbed.
1

lZl8;:Is the killing of a person with ignominy murder? Why'! * . . No, because w n y is && one of the aualifvina

its gaximum period to death. What is the .proper penalt y for A in case of conviction? Why? ~. .The .penalty that should be imposed on A in case, a conviction is reelusion perpetuu, the medium of the penalty. o for murder, because only treachery qualifies the crime t . and abuse of superior strength, nighttime. purpose for, craft and fraud cannot lye eonsidered even w generic aggravating circumstances, because they a ~ so&&iLtwa *=Y-

. ;

. .

'.

a g g r a v a t i n ~circumstances of murder.
Note: But killinr
R

' s o n with-

i-. 8r

1223.' A killed his y i f e with evident premeditation and with crueIty. What crime was committed by -A.? .Why? . .; / ~ a ~ ~ i ~ E v i d e n ~ r e m e d i t a t i ocn m willbe ..;. and c $ i H g e s aggravatim circumstances, w e , , 2 .< ,.? once the crime is aualified, as p a r ~ d e b r the rplaibn- , . I , ship between P a - d r t y , &e pyewnce o t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i a g _ e i r c u m s tsuch cas'.treachery . f an e a n , cannot change the name and nature of the c r k a n d the qualifying circumstance shall bckea&$%z ': generic avrafor the deter;
~

--

> I

<

14 &.
the crime.

e. r pa edy. . ,. i^i a h twogou omore pqualifying circumstances are vresente hen

Is A liable for murder?

Why?

' 1

/.

Are the members of that band liable for murder? Why? By a band is not s&id a fc y mentioned in Art. 248 as ' a qualifying circumstance in murder; but it may be considered either Was-We of suoerior streng-th, smed men-as r e g y d s the leader of $he : or @ as- a '. in which case, they are liable for murder.
21. A was killed by a band.

'

bow may they be considered in the qualification of the crime and in determining the proper penalt Only o&them will qualify the crime shall be considered as generic aggravating which shall have the a c t o f r a i s i n g the nenalty to the,

killed B with treachery, abuse af superior st3kugth. at .nighttime purposely sought for, and with craft and fraud. The penalty for murder is reclusion, temporal in
A83

CRIMIWAL LAW REVIEWEX

/.
lit,

" ' - ~ ' p m t i Q i i the part of the person performing or ail-' on ing to perform such act. Hence, intent to ~kiJl -oxanalice . cannot exist when the physical injuries are n & &g i &bh & t u re-Wdence. . .. The crime is - m e s s serio_u,T p- i hi 3 Z gh Zeclrless i m u r u d w d e p e n d i n g . on the extent and/or effect of the injuries suffered 6y the .. ... offended party.
'

, '

'~'. 1
,

/
~

1226. What is corpus delicti in crimes against persons where ~, the death of the victim consummates the crime? Covpus delicti, in modern sense of the term, means the actual c,Dmmission of the aime charEd. Hence, if the crime charged is homicide, murder, parricide, or infanticide, . , . . in which the' death of the victim is an element of the of. . .. . ' fense, there must be satisfactorv e.vid.mce o f A h e j & b f & -f & o the victim and of his identity.

was only slight, which could not have caused the death of tkk decensed. If there is no evidence which wound was inflicted.: by oiie or the other of the two defendants, it i not easg,to .' s : determine their liability. In the case of US. v8. Ahiog, et a l 1 . ,. 27 Phil. 140, the Supreme Court stated: "One line of AmerieG decisions wou:d here simplify our task, if we were t o follow-. them strictly, by acquitting both defendants. Some of these . .,.. exculpatory doctrines fol!ow: -" ' 'If two o r mom are acting independently, and the actual perpetrator of the homicide canno1 be identified, all must-:%4 be acquitted, although i t is certain that one of them was'>@) *11.S& milty. , 'And where two persons strike another, there being nothing to indicate a conspiracy between them, and death resulta, if the jury have a reasonable doubt an to which struck:' the blow causing death, it should acquit- them both."' . ":::, , j .Ti Of eorure, when tlierp is conspiracy, both are liable for the :,,%* .~ death of the deceased. .

Note: The difficult question t o salve is when one of the w&& found in the body of the deceased was mortal and the oUl&

..'.. ,

:..

. g ~25;

:: : '*

'$

~~

? ; ,

,"*

:.:*

Note: When the death pf the victim results from the usa O f s violence by the offender the intent to kill i conclusidy p m surned, because in czimes against ~ e r s m athe. law considers
t u e a r a t h e r than the intention. Lack of intention to commit !so grave a wrong as that committed will only mitigate the liability of the offender.

1128.

X and Y were brothers-in-law and not altogether friendly,although they were in speaking and visiting terms. One day, Y visited the residcnee of X , was receked . n a i friendly manner, but after a whse an altercation arose, as a result of which %shot Y in the abdomen, inflicting a wound that was necessarily mortal. Soon afterward: but within a few minutes, when no other person W:a+ present, Y procured a knife and cut his throat, inflict;. ing a ghastly wound, from the effect of which Y must necessarily have died in five minutes. 1s"X liable f o r the death of Y? Explain your answer. Yes. In determining the liability of the defendant in when the deukh a case like this, the && is: "&&e?-, 00, inflicted bu the defendant, &Lm&the wound tribute t o thm_cueat. If it did, although other independent causes also contributed, the casual relation between the unlawful acts of the defendant and the death has been made out. Here, when the throat was cut, Y was not m e r a y ' languishing from a mortal wound. He was actually dying -and alter the'throat was cut he continued to languish; from both wounds. Drop b y drop the life current went

I ,'

227. Without. any conspiracy or spontaneous agreement, A and B 'dealt X blows with clubs which hit the latter on the;J!ead. These blows, or at least one of them, which '' . ' on&ouId not be determined, caused the intracranial ... h e r n o r h g e and crushing of the cerebellum of X, which caused his death. Discuss the liability of A and B, explaining: your answer. ,It i!3 submitted that A and E are guilty of the crime o?(GmJ It is a welllsettled ruk ]%this jurisdiction that w J m a vd i e as a result of oneof the wounds r e h d from two uersons, a a n g independently of each other a,nd the wounds inflicted hy them could have caused t the &:t.h, and I could not be shown yhich c a u d the ' . death of the victim, ressors are g m o f A e _c crime of homicide (People vs. Peregrino and Mangco, e C X 3 3 O.G. 4504).
1

:1

,,.

485

.&j:*, j , 2

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWEH


, _.. _. -. ..&$from both wounds, and at the very instant of d a t h . , . t)le gunshot wound was contributing to the event. . I f the . .! .,.:.,..a '' . throat cntting had been by a third person, unconnected ! '. . , _ .. . with the defendant, he might be guilty; for, although a *. .., mdn cannot be MZed tivice, two persons, uiting inde,, ' . , . . . . mndentlv, may contribute to his death and each be guiltY is stiil in life, a n d a y of a hoinicide. a wound $e vn ! i by anhe killed. but if . . ~ " ', ,, . ' other both may properly be said t o have contributed t o his death." (Cited in U.S. vs. Abiog,~etal., spcpra).

%. :+

x_.____...,

'

1229. When the evidence is not clear as t o which bullet or b d lets fired by the two defendants killed two persons, how many crimes 'are committed by the two defendants? i evidence showing that the two vicIf there is n tims died with more than one and different bullets and it is wifbin the scope of possibility that the two versons were ki1.led by one only and the same missile, there is I - only one crime of double murder, a complex crime (People vs. Bersamin Mirong, et al., G. R. No. L-3098,March 5, ", .. 1951).

person who killed her was unknown.. Two pointed to X as the person who pushed' ihe' old during the affray, resulting in her failing It appears, however, that the cawe .of the stab wound on the side of her body:and the perso who inflicted it could not be identified. Is X criminal1 liable for the death of the old woman? Y 2 because h t of the old woman ing a confusgl tumultuous a f f w , and ascertained who actually killed her, and the person or persons who h f m e d the*s -e b m d . In such case, the Derson liahb e i KhDcd v m u m n the victim.

'

".

., L 1232. Must the person killed in a tumultuous affray be one ':' of those engiged in the free-&aIl fight? Why? ~<Pr XO. The law does not require that the person killed.' is one of those engaged in the free-for-all fight, because the law (Art. 251) says, "and in the course of the a f f r a y . ',,', someone is killed."
I: ?

_r

Note: This ruling applies only whcn the positions of the %tims ~ ~ such te h u a cr 0 t by o n e x s a m e dug.

1230. In what crimes may the court impose wpon the person guilty of lheir f r 9 a t e d stage a penalty lower b x t w o degrees, instead of one degree, than that proyided by law for the consummated stage? In the crimes of parricide, murder or homicide.
Note: A s regards any of those crimes, the court may impose a penalty lower hy three degrees, instead of two degrees, upon the person guilty of an attempt to commit any of such crimes. It, is, however, discretionary t o the murt to lawer the penalty by siieh namber af degrees, as it has to take into consideration the :facts of the case.

Noto: I f the one who caused the death in a tumultuous affray is&wn, that person who caused the death will be liable for end will he sentenced to the penalty far the ordinary h&de crime of homicide, which is reclusion tempoval. If the person the gerson or who caused the death cannot be as-ined, persons who inflicted serious physical injuries shall be punished by prisioe magov, or one degree lower than the penalty for homicide.

'

'

1233. In physical injuries inflicted in a tumultuous affray, ',. who must be the injured party? The injured party must be participants in the affray. It seems that if the injured person is& T a participant, Art. 252 is not aDplieable.
Note: In physical injnries inflicted in a tum the person who inflicted the serious physical less serious physical injuries CannothLidsntif person responsihk therefor ca-entified, he for ordinary physical injuries. The @eraon or for physical injuries inflicted in a tumultuous af

6r

1231. X and nixteen other persons had a free-for-all fight in a market place, In the course of the tumultuous afild fray, a market vendor--an old woman-was k l e . The '
.i

486

487

&:
CRIMINAL L A W REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW- REVIEWER

.dl

..-', .. . ,> .,< > .


. i

who appeared to have used violence upon the pet'son of the


offendefiarty. It. would seem that there is no crime of slight physical injuries inflicted in a tumultuous affray, because the second paragraph of Art. 252 speaks af physical injuries of a less serious nature. The persons taking part in the atfray should not compose two distinct groups (US.YS. Tsndoc, 40 Phil. 954).

not produced it was by reason of a cause independent*of& ! .11.*' ,

. , .*" , 'k: that could cause the killing of A, but if the crime ' was!.'

. . ,. ...

his will, that is, the timely surgical operation made bp',;:;, , ,,., "L the doctor on the werson of A.

1234. A wanted to commit suicide and confided his intention to B his friend. B suggested to him how to commit suicide , withoul. suffering much pain, by telling him tu put the barrel of his pistol into his mouth and fire it upward so a s to destroy his brain. Then B left him done. A followed the suggestion of B and sh,ot himself in the ... . .,. . ,, manner indicated by B Is B liable for giving assistaice . +. . <. & t-kkle? Explain your answer. Yes, because giving suggestion d o t h e m ? of ccmmii,ting suiclae is_a positive and direct eoooeratiop amounting to giving assistance t o sukde.
,I

sd -. e d o -

( 1 ) BY assistine another to commit suicide which is c o h j


,.ii

(2) By

' .

his assistance t o a e r to the extent of'

--

1235. A, upon knowing that B would commit suicide, went to the place where B was going to commit suicide. A stood by and looked at the manner B would commit soicide. A saw the actual commission of suicide by B. Since A did not prevent B from committing suicide, is he criminallg liable? Why? No, because mere passive attitude of n o t p r e v e n.t i n g . the suicide d o z t c o a t e giving assistance t o de.

(3) By s s a another to commit suicide .which c=mp?ated. The third act punished, which is giving assistance to sGei which is not consummated, refers Lo the first act. The preceding question iuvolves the 2nd act of giving as ance'to suicide, because B went t o the extent of trying to A himself. But if B only gave his pistol to A who had told he would commit suicide, and A %sed that pistol to self, but he did not die, because of the timely int of the doctor, then the act of B is that one menti

more descrying of pity than of ~,enalty.

1237. Wlien is the discharge of firearm (1)

1236. A approached B and requested the latter to help him cornniit suicide. B agreed t o lend his. assistance to A .. .. ,, to the extent of doing the killing himself. In accordance with their agreement, B shot A in the chest perforating $ I , ,> ~., : , the right 3 w a A. n bwause ef tb.c t W y surzical . , .,. . operation given to A by a doctor, A survived. What 2 . :. , .,~ .,. crime was committed by B? Explain ).our answer. ', .. B is liable for (frustrated giving assktance to suicida He p e r f o r m e d m h e acts of execution nxessary to give . . . assistance to suicide to the extent o f doing the act himself ..
1 .

, w e a i m i n g the *firearm

'

,,,.;

488

CRIMINAL LAW IlEVIEWEK

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER


case of frustrated homieide in the sense that to consti rated homicide the offender has the lntent to firearm must have hit the victim and must mortal wound in his body $0 that the offen sidered ap having performed all the acts of sary to produce the crime of homicide.

cide, or attemated murder or at-

/
.,. .,

. .

/
'!'
i

--

N o t e : Take note, however, that it is not.inerely grave threats when the firearm is already discharged. It will I;s@ave threats if the firearm is on1 pointed a t a n , t $ x n m with d;?nth,* Ischargmg f t .

e>.

;i^
.,

238; A, withoirt intent to kill, fired his gun at 3 who was wounded, but only slight physical injuries were inflicted. : What crimes were committed? Illegal discharge of firearm and slight physical injuries. One of the crimes committed is illegal discharge of fire,.' arm, because there was no intent to kill. Although the two crimes were the result of one single act, a slight phy. i d injury, which is a light felony, cannot form a complex crime with illegal discharge of firearm.
I__

4 2 . When is it an i p o s s i b l e crime, and not illegal dheharge of firearm, if $person had the intention to discharge h?. firearm at or ..!binst another? It would b e ' h impossible crime if the offender aimed his firearm a t or against another person and pressed the trigger, but the bullet did not ezptode because it .was defective. This is an impossible crime, because the act performed wouid be an offense of an illegal discharge of firearm; a crime against persons, were it not for the' employment of ineffectual means.

''*

..

/
:.
, ., ,

1. 9: Suppose that in the preceding question A inflicted on B less serious physical injuries, what crime was committed? .. CompIex crime of illegal discharge of firearm with less serious physical injuries, both being less grave felonies.

240. ~Suppgsetlint i n .the question next preceaing B was kine& what crime w a s committed? .. Homicide, plain and simple, as the intent to kill is conclusively presumed when death resulted from the illegal

1243. If the' discharge of firearm wils directed at the house , where the offended party was, but without the offender .: actualiy seeing him, what is the crime? The crime would only be alarm, because i t produced alarm or danger in the place. It is not illegal discharge . , /of firearm, because the firearm could not be discharged at or against the offended party when the latter is not visible to the offender,
244. When is the killing of a child under seven years of age (1) murder, (2) parricide, or (3) infanticide?

illegal discharge of firearm? Yes, if the firearm was directed at or against a certain person without intent to Bill and the offender pressed the u t the firearm did not explode because the bullet
N o t e : This ease should be distinguished from the ease of nttempted homicide, i the sense that in the latter ease, the ofn fender has the intent to kill. It is to be distinguished from tho
,

The killing of a child under seven years of age is murder when the reiation of the offender with the child is not one of those mentioned in the definition of the crime of ' ' parricide and the child is at least 3 days old. There is a presumed treachery when the victinl is under seven years .( of age. ' It is parricide when the victim is the child, whether :" legitimate or illegitimate or the Iegitimate other descendant of .the offender and the age of the child is at least. 3 days . . Old.
'

490

491

1 1
CRIMINAL LAM' ILEVIICWEK CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

,..
; i.
,,
,.
' '
~

.
'

.
'

. It is infanticide when the child. killed is less than 3 days dd, whether .or nat the oeader is related i o ihe child.
Note: The name of the crime is always infanticide whoever is the killer, hut the penalty differs when the offender is relatcd ti) the child, as father or legitimate eandparent, in
which (case the penalty will be that far parricide. But if the relation 02 the offender with the child less than 8 days old is not one of those mentioned in the definitiod of the crime of parricide, the penalty is that far murder. The intention to conceal the dishonor of the mother is not an element of the offense, it being only a mitigating circumstance.

'was the result of .a negligent act on' the part of the offadex. T1.R vid.exe was ? intentiona1ly-d & by him:, w - k % . - 4 L . 1248. Is there an impossible crimeYes, if the woman is not pregnant, but the offender believes that she is pregnant because of her bulging abdomen, and he used violence to cause an abortion. This is an impossihl? crime where the act performed would have been abortio:,, which is a crime against persons, were i t not for the herent impossibility of accomplishing it. It is impossible.,:p cause an
I

, .

'i
-',
' ,

-:

womb which results in the death of the foetus.


'

Note: In abortion, the age of the footus is immaterial.

have been a-n n o inadequate means.

abortive means used was inadequate. crime, where the act performed would. were it not for the employment of

1246. What is the purpose of the law in punishing abortion? The purpose of the law in punishing abortion is not ' to, protect a person, as the foetus is not yet a person which
ubject to any rights, but principally to protect the of a human being, who is also subject to life, and the health of the mother who is placed in a grave danger abortive manipulations, and to protect as well public interest h y preventing the diminution of births.

249. Is them frustrated a h t i o n ? Yes, if the foetus that is expelled with the use of abortive means is viable and it survives. It is also frustrated abortion if the offender with the intention to cause abor-. tion employs e f i c i e n t or m e abortive means but abortion does not result. The crime of abortion is not :produced bFreason o? a cause independent of the will of the 'perpetrator.
Is there attempted abortion? Yes, if the offender has commenced the admini of abortive substance, but does not perform all the acts necessary to produce abortion, that is, the pregnant woman did not swallow the abortive, which is by reason of a cause other than his spontaneous desistance. there be an accomplice in the crime of abortion? Yes. 0-0 accompanies a pregnant woman to 'the clinic of a doctor or to the house of one to perform the act o abortion upon her, or one who pays the person t

Is there x crime of abortion through imprudence? There is a difference of opinion among Spanish commentator:1 as to whether or not there is a crime of abortion through imprudence. But it may be stated that abortion through imprudence may be committed, as for instance, when a dJ:iver of an automobile through reckless imprudence bumped a pregnant woman who suffered an abortion, the crime committed must be abortion through reckless im--"_ nrudence. It cannot be intentional abortion, because ahorI_

492

493

. ,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER


L

x
.r

perform the abortion, or one who looks for the physician who later causes abortion is liable as an accomplice.

1252. May a person be held liable for unintentional abortion if . at the time he exerted violence on her he did not know her to be pregnant and that as a result of the violence . . . exerted the woman suffered an abortion?
,

Yes,, because the lack of knowledge of the pregnancy of t h offended party is immaterial. What is considered .. e crime of abortion is the fact that a pregnant woman uffers an abortion because of the act of the offender. This is in accordance with the provision of Art. 4, par. 1, which says that a person committing a felony is criminally liable for the result although not intended by him.

,x""/

1254. Is the conseat of the pregnant woman in the abortioh an element ai the crime of abortion? Why? ' , No, because abortion may be committed without the consent of the pregnant woman. If the woman shall have. consented to the abortion committed on her, the penalty to be imposed on the offender is only lowered (from pri.yion n a y o r to prision correccional in its medium and":,,) maximum periods),
~

1255. 1s;Lhe woman who consented that another person should ' . ce an abortion upon herself liable criminally?

+.

She shall suffer the same penalty that would be ed had she practiced an abortion upon herself. ,

'

1253, A woman suffered abortion by natural'cause. The expelled foetus had already a human form and ahout six . months old. While the foetus was still alive, it was buried by the servant in the yard, as instrxeted by the mother. Are the mother and the servant liable crim. : inally? .. . . No, because the foetus, in view of its age, did not have 'its own life, independent of that of the motber. A foetus ,:. under these conditions had necessarily to suxumb a few ' , moments after its expulsion from the maternal womb. . The crime of infanticide was not committed, because in this crime the victim must be a child less than three days old, but one who can subsist outside of $be maternal womb. There is no abortion in this case, because the expulsion of the oetus was due t o natural cause.
I ,

1256. A quack doctor, who tried to cure a pregnant woman . ' suffering from stomach ache by giving her a certain kind of medicine, caused abortion. It appeared that the cause o f abortion was the medicine administered. What is the criminal liability, if any, of the quack-doctor? The quack doctor is liable only f o a e g a l practice .. He is not liable for aborn r Gon, whether intentional or unintentional. It is not intentional abortion, because he did not intend to cause abortion; and it cannot be unintentional abortion, because. he did not employ violence. l l a 'm is caused by violence only.
~~

4.

.. .

.,~.

N o t e : There are two kinds of abortion: (1) intentional abortion, (,hat is, whet%abortion is intonded; and (2) *mintentiom1 abortion, that is, when abortion is not intended, hut the abortion is caused by means of violence. The means used in inter.Lional ahortion i s *ither (1) vialenee, or (2) any other means, especially adrnlnistering abortive substance or surgical operation (Art. 256, R.P.C.). Unintentional abortion is causcd by violence only (Art. 257, R.P.C.).

1257. A, a stranger, ,poisoned a pregnant woman t o kill her. As a consequence, she died and the foetus 'in her womb also died. What crr'me was committed by A? w r , because A killed the woman by m mison. It canmi be a complex crime of murder with intentional abortion, because the abortion was not intended; and the crime uf murder cannot be complexed 'with unintentional abortion, because tliere was no violence used.
125s. A pregnant woman who tried to commit suicide drank poison. Because of the timely intervention of a doctor

,;.:: ..

' "

she did not die, but the poison taken by her caused-

~ . ,

.,.

494

495

<:

I .I

'

/abortion. Is this abortion practiced by the woman upon


'

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW

REVIEWER:

herself?

No, because in abortio ' +herself,ba


'

Explain your answer. Gticed by th? woman upon In this case, when she tried to commit suicide, she could not have f n t e n i JQ c_nuse an abortion an herself.
Nota: Abortion practiced by tho wornan herself is commitred by B woman who shall practice an abortion upon herself ur shall consent that another persoit should do so (Art. 268, par. 1, R.P.C.). Ths parents of the pregnant woman who Committed abortion on her with her consent to ~oneealh e r diskonor are also liable (Art. 258, par. 3, R.P.C.).

1261. A and B had a quarrel. A challenged B t o ' a Iight,: saying: '%et us see who is the better man." B refused

.:
.
,

" '

ts<+ .

..

_.

/'
126

7
.

259. What circumstance will qualify the crime of aburtion committed by a physician or midwife and what is the reason of the law for imposing the penalties in their .. maximum period? Abortion committed by a physician or midwife is aualified by abuse of his or her scientific knowledne o m s sional skill (Art. 259, R.P.C.). __They incur a heavier-guilt in making use of their kn w l a g e for the destruction of human life, where it should be used only for its preservation. What is duel? It i:s a formal or regular combat previously concerted between two parties in the presence of two or more seconds of lawful age on each side, who make the selection of arms and fix all the other conditions of the fight.
Note: An agreement to fight which is carried out without the presence of two or more seconds is not duel; and if one kills the other, i t is plain homicide. There i s no distinction as far as the punishment is concerned between killing B human being in the conrse of duelling and ' the crime of homicide, Both are punished with reelmion ternporv.1. Ihelling is punished with arresto mayor, although no physical injuries are inflicted (Art. 260, R.P.C.).

to zccept the challenge. C, who was present, scoffed '. at and decried B in the presence of other persons for .':$ *having refused to accept the challenge. Are A and C '+ , eriminafiy liable, A far challenging R to a duel and C ..,.:! for scoffing a t or decrying B publicly for having refused ! to accept a challenge to fight a duel? No, there was no challenge to a duel in the question. The act of A in challenging B to fight, saying: "Let US see who is the better man," is not challenge to a duel, because it lacked the formality that the challenge to a duel must have. C is not liabie either, because scoffing at or .decrying another publicly for having refused to accept, . a challenge to fight a duel presupposes the existence of a challenge t o a duel, which is not present in the question.
Note: Challenging to B duel includes (1) inciting another to give or accept a challenge t o a duel, or (2) scoffing at or decrying another publicly f o r having refused to accept a challenge to fight a duel ( A r t . 261, R.P.C.).

8262. Define mutilation and state the two ways of committing.

it.
The term "mutilation" means the lopping or the clipping off of some part of the body. The two ways of committing mutilation are: 1 . By mutilating another f - s s e of demiving him either totally or q Ay , of = s e esi&hhxa n f o r ~ l c i i Q P . 2. By niakirrg other mutilation, for the Eurnose of dgv,:?ij living E - the offended party of m a r t of his body; cdhgr than the essential organ f c x a ? w d & i o n . (Art. 262, R.P.C.)

,,
e

Note: If the part of the body of the injured party is cut d U P ing a fight, them is no mutilation, because the offender has no pun~ose af depriving him of that pnrticular . p a r t of his body. The crime would be seriousphysical iniuries. The law does ~ & . & k o n l y to the rruJt but a l s e t e t h a intention of the act (US.YS. Esparcia, 36 Phil. 840).
1

.,:
%..!

496

497

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

1263. A and 8 fought each other with sharp boloes, With intent to kill, A struck B in the lourer part of his body, cutting his private parts. B did not die due to the timely intervention of a doctor. What crime was committed b:y A? Why? F s r a t e d homicide, because A had .the intent to kill. d'It is n mutilation, because it \ v u not the intention of @ A to deprive B of his essential organ for reproduction.

Note: If there s i t t o kill on the part of the offender, and thore i s n t o hurposc of depriving the offended party of a particular part of his body, the cutting of his privnte parts or any other part of his body is anlv serious physical injuries under Art. 263 of the Revised Penal Code,

264. What crime was committed by a doctor who removed the ovary of a woman SO that she might not beceme pregnant again? 'Why? @util:itiod because the purpose of. the doctor in removing the ovary of the woman was to deurivc-her of the'essemtial organ for reproduction.

1297. If any of the serious physical injuries wzas inflicted because of the injurious substance given to the offended party, what was the crime committed? 1. Th.e crime was administerinr infurious substance Qg bve eiE the offender & a t the time he administered * K e same to the offended party that i t w m US, kill (Art. 264, R.P:W. & provided there .*" then it w a s & 2 . If there en murder because the injurious s u b s h s e having b of tl:e offended party, the ECM && Y .* p m d t e s u b i e d e u h a s of the+. k ' 3. It w a s ( S m m s h reel&% iznu e offender did not know of the injurious .' n a r e of the substance 01" beverQe, but h e J j d - w t t a & % the necessary ~ e . c & h i ~ to avoid iniurv to anothcr.
1268. May the court permit the presentation of evidence medical attendance in the case of serious 'physical jnries? Explain your answer. While the law (Art. 263) 'does not mention medical tendance in defining any of the serious physical of medical attendance m3y-b wxx&ed lish the 1ErmWh.si3, which 1s 0 &termining the seriousness of the physical injuries certain cases.

of : in- ' :
a&

1265. A caught E stealing in his house.

This being the third time that B w a s caught stealing in his house, A cut all the fingers of the hands of B. What crime was committed b:v.'A? Why? e t a b e c a u s e when A cut B's fingers, h a tion was to denrive him o f his fingers so that E could ! not steal again.

/Mmence

in

1266. What crime was committed when in inflicting any of the il serious physical injuries, the offender has intent t o k l ? If the wounds inflicted are mortal, that is, they are sufficient +to cause death, it is either frustrated homicide, frustrated murder or frustrated parricide, deyending upon . , , the circumstances under which they are inflicted. If the wounds inflicted are not mortal, then it is only :.:' attempted homicide, attempted murder or attempted pami&..,, ,,,,,: ,. cia% as the case m a y be. .>,?*$.> > .~i.t$:<r +??q?,F,:.;,. ,& :: ; ',, ;& 498 ..,c' , ~.. . ,

1269. In classifying serious physical injuries, what factors are 2 taken into consideration? '_, T'ney are: I . The IrsxLL.o~ror consequence of the physical. injurie inflicted (when victim becomes insane, "e.). 2 . The I= of a principal member of the body of th offended party (when he lost an arm, &leg, etc.). 3. The i s o f theof any principal member of body of the offended party (when he lost the use of hand, arm, foot or leg, ete.) 4. The loss of any of the non-&cipal.~mgber of body of the offended payty (when he lost the sense of h

499

' I
CRIMINAL LAW

i
CRIMINAL LAW RNIEWER
,
. i

REVIEWER

. . ing

of one ear or he lost one or two fingers, which map

also be deformity). 5. The loss of the , p & o f any of the non-principal membei: 6. The incaaacity or illness of the offended party. When are serious physical i n i w 3 e s - a When of the serious ph,ysical injuries i&hflkkd

from which the two molars were removed. He w a s nob- : &

...,

incapacitated for the performance of his work. What k i n v : of physical injuries was inflicted? Why? because although there i s .$: deformity, and the part of the body injured or the effect ..*. o m i n j u r y is not one of those specifically mention@ in the article defining the felony of serious physical injuries, there is loss oLa n o n - a r i n c i w r nf h-b..-J ' od under paragraph 3 of Art. 263.

& % z z w

was hit on the head by 6. There'was no break in the skin. Hence, no medicine w a s necessary. But as a consequence, A could not prepare or his lesson for two months, because he became dizzy whenever he read his assignment. How would you classify the p h y s i d injuries inflicted on him by B? The physical injuries inflicted on A are classified as serious, physical injuries. t o incapacity, includer; schoOt The term "&relative & < oTgreparation .for a arofession. Hence, a student, who is injured by another and rls a consequence of the physical injuries inflicted he could not attend his class or study his lessons, is incaaacitated for the performance of the work in which he was habitually e n g a d .
I

.'

1274. A boxed B in the back of his head. B did no need medicine as RO wound was caused on his head, but he was not able to work for one week. After one week he realized that one of his eyes could not distinguish one color from another. How would you classify the p h p s i 4 iniuries inflicted by A? physical i n j u r a because the offended Party b d the use of an evq./ 1s not necessary that there is comple&Jdidness of an eye, as t,he dirninuition of the "=offer of an a is sufficient. This is the opinion of Viada; Cue110 Calon believes that there must be total blindness.

-~

Wi.2. Classify the physical injuries inflicted by the uffendw on the offended party whose Ieg injury required hospitalization for more than thirty days. That leg injury is a serious physical injury covered by Art. 263, par. 4, of the Revised Penal Code. The hospitalization for more than thirty days may mean $i&eF. i&ss-.or..iKcs.acity forJab.or f o r more .thm-tYirty~ days. (See People vs. Mom AIi, et al., G.R. L-7431, May 30, 1958.)

1275. A inflicted a wound on B in a l'ight. The wound remained open for 27 days. B only cleaned it with warm water and did not apply any medicine. B's wound did not prevent him from performing his work. How would YOU classify the physical injllry inflicted by A on B? Why? The injury inflicted by A on E is6light Dhysical in> jury, because there y a s no medical attendance and the latter was not inmpacitated from h. k The physicat injury inflicted is not less serious or one of the serious physical injuries.

2276. In

2 3 A boxed B on the left cheek, causing the loss of'tW0 7. . . molars. Medicine was applied only once on B's gum
500

8 4 a a r r 4 A shoved the face of B until the latter fell on the f@r. B did not suffer any physical injuries. For what cJxFy i s A liable? . Why? ' bv ill-treating an' w A is liable fL:d. s othes.

, ;

601

I /

I
I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW

REVIEWER

1277. What are the crimes against Gersonal l i b e r t a


They are: /Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. ,Slight illegal detention. Unlawful arrest. .~ .* Kidnapping and failure to return a minor. . , f Inducing a minor to abandon his home. , $ Slavery. ! 4. Exploitation of child labor. 4. Services rendered under compulsion in payment of ' L e b t s .

V'

4
&

8.

The penalty shall h a w h e r e the kidnapping or detention is Committed for the PurDOSe of k t o r t i p raLlBQ?@e9enda nsotof the c - n e n t i o n e d &.nr%gnt in the commission of the offense.

/1278.

What is the essenthl &men t or act tl!at makes the offense of kidnapping and serious illegal detention? Is the period of detention of the victim important in the determination of the crime? The essential element or act that makes the offense of kidnapping and serious illegal detention is the dearivation of the offended party of his lib& under any of f o h instances enumerated in Art. 267, the illegal detention. of the victim for more than five days being one of such instances. The period of detention of the victim is imuortant, when n u of the other instances which a 'dy the crime i m n t . The period of d e h h o . & of the victim. nt, when any of the following is u r e m t : 1. If it shall have been d c simulating Dublie mityty; 2 . If any serious physical injuries shall have been i & fd = upon the person kidnapped 01- d e t n i n e d e i f -s t t o kill him shall have been made. 3. If the person kidnappgd or detained. .shall Ije a m a r , femaie,or public officer.

1278. A, 3 and C, pretending to be constabulary soldiers, told X to go with them to the barracks f o r investigation. A, E and C took X to a seclude,d place where the latter was detained for three days until he was rescued by the real constabulary soldiers. What crime was committed /"by A, 13 and C? Why? a d s G < n d serious illega-3 because & , committed the crime simulating public authority. In such iLimmaterial. case, the periohoL&&tion

, /

- -

1280. A policeman> together with several private individuals, kidnapped a person for the purpose of extorting ransom from the relatives of the victim. What crime was conlmitted by the policeman? Explain your answer. The p+%ep, like the pri&teindividuaIs with whom he was in cons i r g , committed&:dnauplns! a . il@T?I&iif&-because hgAid-x& in h: ? c m y w k n he took mrt in the commission of the crime. Having acted as a urivate i n d i y i i , he was not liable ,for arbitrary dete n b n . .

OE

1281. A boy, 1 4 years old, was forcibly taken from the sidewalk of a street and carried away in a jeep, but before the culprits could cover a distance of one kilometer, they, were overtaken by the peace officers who reseued the, boy. What crime was committed by the culprits? Explain your answer. To kidnap is to carry off by unlawfu!: force. The intention of the offenders was to carry away the boy by means of force. There are three ways of committing the c ime of kid-" napping and serious illegal detention: -k I (shall kidnap), &detaining another, or H i n a m d h c ~ $ m s e r deprivine him of his&&

G = & -

502

ri

503

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER


I ','

CRIMINAL LAW REITEWER

',

The forcible taking away of the xi&m w e s i l & a l d m m (People vs. Undiana, 50 Phil. 6 4 6 ) .

$0

1283. May a p r w individual, who Iddnwpped or detained or otherwise deprived another of his liberty, not be held
criminally liable? Explain your answer. Yes, w h a h e kidnapping, detention or deprivation of liberty is not ille@. One of the elemeats of kidnapping and serious illegal detention or slight illegal detention is, that the kidnaminc Q W I Q L Q&' iIiN F a private person arrested and detained another tJa u e? any of the instances where arrest without w authorized h y t h e R u l e s s f _ C o u the w l l e g a l . re, The detention is n 1 1 when the aceused a d e d without
criminal inhnt, as when he locked up hi, wife in 3 2 w l n fn .o. m .tide. Prevent her f r

1282. A and B, by means of violence, dragged and carried C, a Yyomm, to a distance of three meters from the place where she was grabbed. rlfter having carried her to a distancme of three meters, A and B dropped C, because of her struggles, and A and B did not persist in dragging her away. A and B left C. What crime was committed by A a d'B? Explain your answer. and B committed the crime of @insummated Brave oercioQ e b C-comoelled to d o ' a d t h e r w i l l by means of violence. The acts of A and B do not constitute the crime of frustrated illegal detention, but rather that of consummated grave coercion (People vs. Marasigan, et al., 55 O.G. 8297).

&
Nota:

The ruling in the case of People YS. Undiana, 50 Phil. 641, and that in the ease of People vs. Crisostomo, 46 Phil. 775, arc not amlicable. I n the Undiana case, the accused dragged the offended party to a distance of 40 meters from the house where she was taken

forcible abduction and there w a s - e n c e of lewd desiens. It would seem that had the information been for eonsummated foorcible abduction, the accused would have been found guilty of consummated illegal detention. I n the Crisostomo case, the accused were found guilty of consummated illegal detention, although they only dragged the offended party along and took her against her will to a rice field where she was rescued by other persons. I t will be noted that in those eases the victims w g . u s m e d by ather.persons