Distinctions

Mala in Se vs. Mala Prohibita

In mala in se, an act is by nature wrong, evil or bad, and so generally condemned.
The moral trait of the offender is involved; thus good faith or lack of criminal intent
on the part of the offender is a defense, unless the crime is the result of criminal
negligence. Correspondingly, modifying circumstances are considered in punishing
the offender
In mala prohibita, an act is not by nature wrong, evil or bad. Yet, it is punished
because there is a law prohibiting them for public good and thus good faith or lack
of criminal intent in doing the prohibited act is not a defense.

Motive vs. Intent

Motive is the moving power which impels a person to do an act for a definite result;
while intent is the purpose for using a particular means to bring about a desired
result. Motive is not an element of a crime but intent is an element of intentional
crimes. Motive, if attending a crime, always precede the intent.
Recidivism vs. Quasi- Recidivism (1998) Aggravating
In recidivism1. The convictions of the offender are for crimes embraced in the same title of
the RPC; and
2. The circumstance is generic aggravating and therefore can be effect by an
ordinary mitigating circumstance
Whereas in Quasi-recidivism1. The conviction are not for crimes embraced in the same title of the RPC,
provided that it is a felony that was committed by the offender before serving
sentence by final judgment for another crime or while serving sentence for
another crime; and
2. This circumstance is a special aggravating circumstance which cannot be
offset by any mitigating circumstance.
SPECIFIC INTENT VS. GENERAL INTENT
General intent is presumed but specific intent must be proved as it is an element of
felony, for example, intent to kill in frustrated homicide.
DOCTRINE OF SELF HELP VS. SELF-DEFENSE (WHEN CAN WE INVOKE) ?
The lawful exercise of a right exists if the owner or possessor of a thing employs
reasonable force to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical
invasion of his property. Said article of the Civil Code which lays down what is known
in juridical science as the doctrine of self-help can be applied in relation to Article
11, para 5 and under these provisions, the law justifies the act of the owner as
lawful possessor of a thing in using such force as is reasonably necessary for the
protection of his proprietary or possessory right.
When to exercise self-help: at the very moment that he is being deprived of his
property.
Self-defense: when there is unlawful aggression

Can there be conspiracy in silence and inaction?

TREACHERY (CHARACTERISTICS/ELEMENTS)
2 ELEMENTS:
1.)The employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no
opportunity to defend himself or retaliate;
2.)The means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.
Rivera vs. People
480 SCRA 188
GR No. 166326, Jan 25, 2006
Elements of Intent to Kill:
1.)The means used by the malefactors;
2.)The nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim;
3.)The conduct of the malefactors before, at the time, or immediately
after the killing of the victim; and
4.)The circumstances under which the crime was committed and the
motive of the accused.

KINDS OF INSANE PERSONS UNDER TEST

PEOPLE VS. MADARANG GR NO132319, May 12, 2000

Question: If the accused was convicted of a crime punishable by more than

6 years, is convicted by the RTC and an appeal in the CA, the CA only
convicted him of a crime punishable by less than 6 years, is he qualified
for probation?
Answer:
An application for probation is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the trial court
that renders the judgment. For the offender to apply in such court, he should not
appeal such judgment.
If the offender would appeal the conviction of the trial court and the appellate court
reduced the penalty to say, less than six years, that convict can still file an
application for probation, because the earliest opportunity for him to avail of
probation came only after judgment by the appellate court."

Can conspiracy be committed by SILENCE & INACTION?

Yes, for conspiracy by silence and inaction to exist, it is essential that there must be
patent and conscious criminal design, not merely inadvertence under circumstances
that would have pricked curiosity and prompted inquiries into the transaction
because of obvious and definite defects in its execution and substance

Estafa and crimes of property, the value of property is relative to the penalty.

DE CASTRO VS Pp.

Q:Can the court modify the penalty on the ground that it is excessive?

G.R. No. 180016

April 29, 2014

LITO CORPUZ, Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

There seems to be a perceived injustice brought about by the range of penalties

that the courts continue to impose on crimes against property committed today,
based on the amount of damage measured by the value of money eighty years ago

However, this Court cannot modify the

said range of penalties because that would
constitute judicial legislation. What the legislature's
in 1932.

perceived failure in amending the penalties provided for in the said crimes cannot
be remedied through this Court's decisions, as that would be encroaching upon the
power of another branch of the government. This, however, does not render the
whole situation without any remedy. It can be appropriately presumed that the
framers of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) had anticipated this matter by including
Article 5, which reads:
ART. 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed but
which are not covered by the law, and in cases of excessive penalties. - Whenever a
court has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to repress and which is
not punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall report to the
Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons which induce the
court to believe that said act should be made the subject of penal legislation.
In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the
Department of Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper, without
suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the
provisions of this Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty,
taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the
offense.1

Q: What is the effect of Aggravating Circumstance proven in the trial

but not allege in the information.

A: Under the Revised Rules on Crim Pro, information must now

specify the QUALIFYING AND AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE.
( Sec. 8, Rule 110 of Rules of Court)

NOTE: PRIOR to the amendment by the Revised Rules on Criminal

Procedure (RRCP), a qualifying circumstance not alleged in the
information, but proved, may be appreciated as a Generic
Aggravating Circum. For not being an element of the crime.

Q: What happen if the accused dies?

A: The death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his
civil liability because tire liability is based solely on the criminal act committed.
Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of the
accused, if the same may also be predicted as one source of obligation other than
delict. Moreover, when a defendant dies before judgment becomes executory,
there cannot be any determination by final judgment whether or not the felony
upon which the civil action might arise exists, for the simple reason that there is no
party defendant. The Rules of Court state that a judgment in a criminal case
becomes final after the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal or when the
sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served, or the defendant has
expressly waived in writing his right to appeal. In addition, where the civil liability
does not exist independently of the criminal responsibility, the extinction of the
latter by death, ipso facto extinguishes the former, provided, of course, that death
supervenes before final judgment. The right to institute a separate civil action is not
reserved, the decision to be rendered must, of necessity, cover both the criminal
and the civil aspects of the case. The accused died before final judgment was
rendered, thus, he is absolved of both his criminal and civil liabilities based solely on
delict or the crime committed. Appeal dismissed.(PP vs Bayotas)
Q:

* Can there be conspiracy in Violence against Women? (VAWC)

A: Go-Tan vs Sps Tan - the principle of conspiracy under Article 8 of

the RPC may be applied suppletorily to R.A. No. 9262 because of the
express provision of Section 47 that the RPC shall be supplementary
to said law. Thus, general provisions of the RPC, which by their
nature, are necessarily applicable, may be applied suppletorily.

Thus, the principle of conspiracy may be applied to R.A. No.

9262. For once conspiracy or action in concert to achieve a criminal
design is shown, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators, and
the precise extent or modality of participation of each of them
becomes secondary, since all the conspirators are principals.[23]

It must be further noted that Section 5 of R.A. No. 9262 expressly

recognizes that the acts of violence against women and their
children may be committed by an offender through another.

Q: * Can there be conspiracy in BP 22?

A: in Ladonga v. People,[22] the Court applied suppletorily the principle
of conspiracy under Article 8 of the RPC to B.P. Blg. 22 in the absence
of a contrary provision therein.