You are on page 1of 14

II. APPLICATION OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE 1.

RPC is applied to Philippine vessels if the crime is


committed while the ship is treading:
A. Date of Effectiveness Art. 1, 366 RPC
a. Phil waters (Intraterritorial application)
Art. 1. Time when Act takes effect. This Code shall take
effect on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and b. The high seas i.e Waters not under the jurisdiction of any
thirty-two. state (extraterritorial application)

Art. 366. Application of laws enacted prior to this Code. 2. Two rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard
Without prejudice to the provisions contained in Article 22 merchant while the territorial waters of another country (i.e a
of this Code, felonies and misdemeanors, committed prior to foreign vessel treading the Philippine waters or Philippine
the date of effectiveness of this Code shall be punished in vessels treading waters under the jurisdiction of another
accordance with the Code or Acts in force at the time of their state):
commission.
a. FRENCH RULE: It is the flag/nationality of the vessel
B. SCOPE OF APPLICATION Art. 2, Sec. 15 (d), Rule which determines jurisdiction UNLESS the crime violates
110, Rules on Criminal Procedure) peace and order of the host country.

Art. 2. Application of its provisions. Except as provided b. ENGLISH RULE: the location or situs of the crime
in the treaties and laws of preferential application, the determines jurisdiction UNLESS the crime merely relates
provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within the to internal management of the vessel.
Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior
waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, *PHILIPPINES adhere to ENGLISH RULE.
against those who:
NOTE: This rules not applicable if the vessel is on high seas
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or when the crime was committed, the laws of the nationality
airship (registered) of the ship will always apply.

2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of 3. When crime was committed in a war vessel of a foreign
the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by country, the NATIONALITY of the vessel will always
the Government of the Philippine Islands; determine jurisdiction because war vessels are part of the
sovereignty of the country to whose naval force they
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction
belong.
into these islands of the obligations and securities mentioned
in the presiding number;
D. APPLICATION OF RPC TO SPECIAL PENAL
LAWS Art. 10 RPC
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit
an offense in the exercise of their functions; or
*RPC shall be supplementary to special laws, unless the
latter should specially provide the contrary.
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security
and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of
this Code. *Article 10 is the consequence of the legal requirement
that one must distinguish those punished under special laws
and those under RPC.
15 (d) Crimes committed outside the Philippines but
punishable under Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code
shall be cognizable by the court where the criminal * When applied? supplement to special law, correlate the
action is first filed. (15a) violated special law to avoid injustice.

C. RULES ON JURISDICTION OVER MERCHANT *IF NO JUSTICE WOULD RESULT, do not give
VESSELS suppletory application of RPC to special laws.

Par. 1: Crime committed aboard merchant vessels Art. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code.
Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable
under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this 3. When the principal penalty imposed is higher than prision
Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless correccional no subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed
the latter should specially provide the contrary. upon the culprit.

Yu v. People G.R No. 134172, September 20, 2004 4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be executed by
confinement in a penal institution, but such penalty is of
Facts: Petitioner Miriam Jao Yu was charged with 19 counts fixed duration, the convict, during the period of time
of violation. Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks established in the preceding rules, shall continue to suffer the
Law), before RTC-QC. same deprivation as those of which the principal penalty
consists.
After hearing, trial court rendered a decision finding her
guilty of the charges and imposing upon her fine and to 5. The subsidiary personal liability which the convict may
indemnify or compensate Susan Andaya. If in case she fails have suffered by reason of his insolvency shall not relieve
to pay, she will have to suffer subsidiary imprisonment. him from the fine in case his financial circumstances should
improve."
Petitioner appealed to CA, denied. MR, denied.
Court held that the above provisions on subsidiary
Petitioner contends that BP Blg. 22, provides only the imprisonment can be applied SUPPLETORILY to BP Blg.
imprisonment of fine, or both, in cases of violation of the 22 pursuant to Art. 10 of the RPC.
said law. Thus, she should not suffer subsidiary
imprisonment upon non-payment of fines imposed by lower Indeed the absence of an express provision on subsidiary
court. imprisonment in Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 does not and
cannot preclude its imposition in cases involving its
Issue: WON petitioner's contention is correct? violations.

Ruling: No. Imposition of subsidiary imprisonment is Petition denied.


expressly provided under Articles 38 & 39 of RPC, thus:
Ladonga v. People, G.R. No. 141066, February 17, 2005
Art 38. Pecuniary liabilities - Order of payment. - In case
the property of the offender should be sufficient for the Facts: Petitioner Evangeline Ladonga was charged violating
payment of all his pecuniary liabilities, the same shall be met BP Blg. 22, (Bouncing Checks Law), for conspiring,
in the ff: order: (a) The preparation of the damage caused, confederating with her husband, knowing fully well that they
(b) Indemnification of consequential damages, (c) The fine, did not have sufficient funds deposited in UCPB but still
and (d) The costs of the proceedings. draw and issue a check payable to one Alfredo Oculam, and
so upon presentation of the check to the bank for
encashment, it was dishonored and account had been closed.
Art. 39 - Subsidiary penalty - If the convict has no property
with which to meet the fine mentioned in paragraph 3 of the
The two accused pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged.
next preceding article, he shall be subject to a subsidiary The prosecution presented its witness, the complainant
personal liability at the rate of one day for each eight pesos, Alfredo Oculam. According to him, spouses Adronico and E
subject to the following rules: Ladonga became his regular customer in his pawnshop
business in Tagbilaran. Ladonga obtained 3 loans from him
1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision correccional or but all the three checks that were issued by them bounced
arresto and fine, he shall remain under confinement until his upon presentment for reason of "account closed". When
fine referred in the preceding paragraph is satisfied, but his Ladonga spouses failed to redeem checks, despite repeated
subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one-third of the demands, he filed criminal case against them.
term of the sentence, and in no case shall it continue for
more than one year, and no fraction or part of a day shall be Petitioner admit that the checks issued by Adronico bounced
counted against the prisoner. for there was no sufficient deposit or account was closed,
and that checks were issued only to guarantee obligation,
2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine, the with an agreement that Oculam should not encash the
subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed six months, if the checks, petitioner is not a signatory and had no participation
culprit shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave in the issuance thereof.
felony, and shall not exceed fifteen days, if for a light felony.
RTC rendered decision finding Ladonga spouses guilty of
violating B.P Blg. 22 and they are sentenced of In case at bar, applying Art 8 of RPC, which states that
imprisonment and fine. conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
Adronico applied for probation which was granted. decide to commit it. The accused must be shown to have
performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the
Petitioner brought the case to CA, arguing RTC erred in complicity, to be held guilty as co-principal by reason of
finding her criminally liable for conspiring with her husband conspiracy.
for the principle of conspiracy is inapplicable to BP Blg. 22
which is a special law, claimed that she has no participation However, prosecution failed to prove that petitioner
in the issuance of the checks. performed any overt act in furtherance of the alleged
conspiracy. The only aspect of overt act that may be
CA affirmed conviction of petitioner. CA held that attributed to petitioner is that she was present when the first
provisions of penal code were made applicable to special check was issued. However, this inference cannot be
penal laws, pursuant to Article 10 of RPC which provides strongly determine concurrence with the criminal design.
that its provisions shall be supplementary to special laws
unless the latter provide the contrary. Instant petition granted.

CA stressed that since B.P. Blg. 22 does not prohibit the III. FELONIES
applicability in a suppletory character in provisions of
the Revised Penal Code (RPC), the principle of A. INTENT vs. MOTIVE
conspiracy may be applied to cases involving violations of
B.P. Blg. 22. INTENT determination to do certain thing, an aim or
purpose of the mind
Lastly, it ruled even if petitioner did not make and issue or Establish nature and extent of culpability
sign the checks it did not excuse her from criminal liability MOTIVE moving power which impels one to do an act.
as it is not necessary that a co-conspirator takes a direct part (e.g vengeance)
in every act and knows the part which everyone performed. Important only in certain cases (see below)

CA underscored that in conspiracy the act of one conspirator WHEN MOTIVE BECOMES MATERIAL IN CRIM
could be held to be the act of the other. LIABILITY:

Petitioner, MR denied. 1. Act brings about variant crimes e.g kidnapping v. robbery
2. Identity of accused doubtful
Issue: Whether the conviction of petitioner as conspirator 3. Evidence on commission purely circumstantial
applying the suppletory character of the RPC (Art. 10) to 4. Lack of motive can aid in showing the innocence of the
special law like BP Blg. 22 is applicable? accused.

Ruling: Yes. Article 10 of the RPC is composed of two People vs. Bautista, G.R Nos. 120898-99, May 14, 1998
clauses. The first provides that offenses in future are made (Intent v. Motive)
punishable under special laws are not subject to the
provisions of RPC, while second makes RPC supplementary Facts: Alfonso was charged guilty in RTC- Pangasinan of
to such laws. illegal possession of firearm and ammunition, complex
crime of murder, frustrated and attempted murder alleging he
This which would mean that special penal laws are feloniously attack and shoot Eduardo Datario, barangay
controlling with regard to offenses therein specifically captain of Dilan in Pangasinan hitting the latters face with
punished, only defines that special legal provisions prevail the bullet exiting through neck, and Bernabe Bayona and
over general ones. Cinderella Estrella both also gained injury of the said
incident. Appellant, a farm helper and resident at Manaoag,
The main idea and purpose of the article is embodied in the Pangasinan, denied any involvement in the shooting
provision that the "code shall be supplementary" to special incident. He asserted that neither he know the victims
laws, unless latter should specially provide the contrary. personally, nor had any previous association or dealings with
them.
BP Blg. 22 does not expressly proscribe the suppletory
application of the provisions of the RPC. Thus, in the Trial court found appellant him guilty and imposed penalty
absence of contrary provision in the said law, general of life imprisonment, with costs.
provisions of the RPC which, by their nature, are necessarily
applicable, may be applied suppletorily.
Appellant faults the trial court for its unwarranted - shown by overt acts - act which if allowed to
acceptance of version of prosecution, particularly the continue in its natural course will definitely result into a
(Ferdinand Datario and Rolando Nagsagaray) witness' felony.
testimonies. He argued that the very long delay, 16 months, - presupposes the existence of the two subsequent
on the part of witness' in reporting to authorities what they elements
allegedly saw gives now doubt and incredibility. Also, there ii. Freedom of Action
are inherent improbabilities and inconsistencies in - Lack of freedom makes one merely a tool
declaration in court. iii. Intelligence
- Lack of intelligence makes one unable to
Issue: WON appellant resorted to alibi when denied being at determine
the crime scene, and said that he do not have any motive to Morality of his acts
kill the deceased and shoot other victims? Effect of his actions

Ruling: Strictly speaking, when viewed from another angle, Elements/Requisites of Culpa
it does not appear that appellant really resorted to alibi. i. Criminal negligence on the part of the offender,
- Crime was the result of negligence, imprudence, lack of
In the case, the distinct is that appellant without any foresight, lack of skill
hesitations denied being at the scene of crime, but he ii. Freedom of Action on the part of the offender, that is, he
honestly admitted he could not recall or know whether at the was not acting under duress;
time of the killing he was in tobacco field in San Jacinto, - Negligence presuppose the ability to be vigilant; and
since he did not even know about the crime in question. vigilance depends on whether the person chose to be or not.
iii. Intelligence on part of the offender in performance of the
It is very common that in rural areas farmers, with their negligent act.
routine of every day, cannot be expected to keep diaries or -absence of intelligence means person unable to assess the
records that would enable to state where there were on danger of the situation.
particular dates, unless important reasons. -cannot be charged for lack of foresight and/or prudence
because the person cannot discern and predict the
Thus, it appeals more to realistic truth that the innocent consequence of his course of action.
answer of appellant reflects more honesty than that of one
who could easily fix his definite whereabouts just to C. Classification of Felonies (Art. 3, RPC)
subserve his defense of alibi.
Art. 3. Definitions. Acts and omissions punishable by
It is also very notable that no motive as to be attributed to law are felonies (delitos).
appellant why he should kill the deceased or shoot other Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit (dolo)
victims since evidence shows that he did not even know any but also by means of fault (culpa).
of them personally or had any previous association or There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate
dealings with them. intent and there is fault when the wrongful act results from
imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
The rule is that proof of motive is unnecessary to impose a
crime to the accused if evidence concerning his i. Intentional Felony (proximate cause; aberratio
identification is convincing. ictus; error in personae; praeter intentionem; mistake of fact,
Art. 3, RPC, par. 1, Art 4 RPC; Art. 48, RPC; Art. 49, RPC;
A converso, if the evidence of identification is unclear, then par. 3, Art. 13, RPC.)
the jurisprudential doctrine is that proof of motive is a
paramount necessity. PROXIMATE CAUSE that cause which sets into motion
other causes and which unbroken by any efficient
B. ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY (elements supervening clause, produces a felony and without which
of felony; requisites of dolo; requisites of culpa) such felony could not have resulted.

Elements of Felony *GENERAL RULE: offender is criminally liable for all the
a. there must be an act or omission consequences of his felonious act, although not intended, if
b. a or o must be punishable by RPC the felonious act is the proximate cause of the felony or
c. act is performed or the omission incurred by means of resulting felony.
dolo or culpa
ABERRATIO ICTUS intended victim as well as the
Elements/ Requisites of Dolo actual victim are both at the scene of the crime.
i. Criminal Intent
Person directed the blow at an intended victim, but because The perceived delay in giving medical treatment to the the
of the poor aim, that blow landed on someone else. victim does not break at all the connection between the
wrongful act of the appellant and the injuries sustained by
ERROR IN PERSONAE - a mistake in identity. It was the the victim. It does not constitute efficient intervening cause.
actual victim upon whom the blow is directed, but he was
not intended victim. And so, it is firm that anyone inflicting injuries is
*victim actually received the blow but he was mistaken for responsible for all the consequences of his criminal act such
another who was not at the crime scene. as death that interrupts in consequence of the injuries.

NOTE: Legal effects between AI and EIP are not the The fact that the injured did not receive proper medical
same. attendance would not affect appellant's criminal
responsibility.
PRAETER INTENTIONEM The result is greater than
what was intended. The rule is founded on the practical policy of closing to the
wrongdoer a convenient avenue of escape from the just
MISTAKE OF FACT when an offender acted out of a consequences of his wrongful act.
misapprehension of fact. If the rule were otherwise, many criminals could avoid just
- Offender acted out of a mistake of fact, criminal accounting for their acts by merely establishing a doubt as to
intent is negated, so do not presume that the act the immediate cause of death.
done with criminal intent
- Offender had no alternative but to take the facts US v. Ah Chong 15 Phil 488
as they then appeared to him.
- Had the facts believed by the offender are the Facts: Defendant Ah Chong, cook and victim Pascual
real facts, he would not have been liable. Gualberto, house boy, were roommates.

People v. Acuram, G.R No. 117954, April 27, 2000 One night, Ah Chong suddenly awakened by someone trying
to force open the door of the room. There had been several
Facts: Orlando Acuram was charged guilty of prosecution of robberies in Mc Kinley and so, because of this, defendant
murder for killing one Rolando Manabat by shooting the kept a knife under his pillow for personal protection. He
latter while inside the jeepney which cause his death. He was called out twice, "Who is there?" He heard no answer. The
a policeman assigned at Misamis Oriental, and was among room was dark and fearing that the intruder was a robber or
the passengers of the jeepney. He was seating at the front, thief, and so he called out for the third time and said, "If you
right-side of the jeepney and was the only one among its enter the room, I'll kill you." After that, he supposed that a
passengers carrying a firearm. chair was merely thrown into room by sudden opening of the
door. With confusion and darkness, Ah Chong struck out
Trial court affirmed the decision of prosecution and found wildly the intruder who, appeared to be his roommate
version of evidence submitted by the defense as weak, self- Pascual. He immediately recognized Pascual in the
serving and unrealiable. moonlight. And so, he ran back to his room to secure
bandages to bind up Pascual's wounds.
One of the contention of the appellant is that the death of the
victim was due on the lack of prompt and proper medical Defendant was placed under arrest, and Pascual was
attention given. He insists that the delay in giving medical conveyed to the military hospital, where he died.
attendance to the victim constitutes an efficient intervening
cause which is the proximate cause of the death of the Defendant was charged with crime of assassination, found
victim. guilty by the trial court of simple homicide.
Defendant admitted that he had stabbed his roommate, but
Issue: Whether appellant's contention is correct that the said that he did it under the impression that Pascual was a
delay in giving medical attendance to the victim constitutes ladron because he forced open the door, despite his
an efficient intervening cause which is the proximate cause warnings. He insisted that he struck the fatal blow without
of the death of the latter? any intent to do a wrongful act, in the exercise of his lawful
right of self-defense.
Ruling: No. It is incorrect for the proximate cause of the
death of the deceased is the shooting by the appellant. Issue: WON defendant's mistake of fact is a valid excuse to
acquit him from criminal liability?
More-over, Court cannot hold the attending doctors liable for
the death of the victim. Ruling: Yes, defendant's mistake of fact can acquit him from
criminal liability as stabbing the victim whom he believed to
be an intruder showed a mistake of fact on his part which led
him to take the facts as they appear to him and was pressed themselves, and could even effect a bloodless opportunity to
to take immediate action. arrest as the victim was unarmed according to Irene. Even
though, assuming arguendo, that Balagtas is the victim, they
Court carefully examined the facts and observed that should have followed the instruction not to kill Balagtas, but
defendant at the time to arrest him, and to get him dead or alive if there would be
- acted in good faith, without malice, or criminal intent, in resistance or aggression.
the belief that he was doing no more than exercising his
legitimate right of self-defense Court also held that a peace officer cannot claim exemption
- that had the facts been as he believed them to be he would from criminal liability if he uses unnecessary force or
have been wholly exempt from criminal liability on account violence in making an arrest. Balagtas was a notorious
of his act criminal and a fugitive from justice, however this does not
- and that he cannot be said to have been guilty of justify the killing when he in effect of arrest, offers no
negligence, recklessness or even carelessness in falling into resistance or aggression.
his mistake as to the facts, or in the means adopted by him to
defend himself from the imminent danger which he believe The crime committed by appellants is not merely criminal
threatened his person and his property and property under his negligence, but being intentional and not accidental. And as
charge. held by Court in different cases, a deliberate intent to do an
unlawful act is essentially inconsistent with the idea of
Trial court's decision reversed. Defendant acquitted from reckless imprudence.
crime and bail bond absolved.
And so, appellants are declared guilty of murder and charged
People v. Oanis 74 Phil 257 to pay heirs of Tecson for damages.

Facts: Antonio Z. Oanis and Alberto Galanta, Chief of Police 2. Culpable Felony (Art. 3, RPC; Art. 365, RPC)
in Cabanatuan and Corporal of Philippine Constabulary were
tasked to find escaped convict Anselmo Balagtas and Art. 365. Imprudence and negligence. Any person who,
bailarina "Irene" in Cabanatuan. They were given a picture by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it
of Balagtas and instructed by Provincial Inspector to arrest been intentional, would constitute a grave felony, shall suffer
the escaped convict and, if overpowered, to follow the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to
instruction in telegram. prision correccional in its medium period;

When Oanis and Gallanta arrived at Irene's house, Oanis if it would have constituted a less grave felony, the penalty
approached Brigida Mallare, and asked her where Irene's of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods shall
room was. The lady indicated the place and upon further be imposed; if it would have constituted a light felony, the
inquiry, she also said that Irene was sleeping with her penalty of arresto menor in its maximum period shall be
paramour. imposed.

Upon knowing this, Oanis and Gallanta immediately went to Any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall
room of Irene, and they saw a man sleeping with his back commit an act which would otherwise constitute a grave
towards the door. Without further inquiry and believing that felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its
said person was Balagtas, they simultaneously fired at him. medium and maximum periods; if it would have constituted
However, it turned out that the person was innocent citizen a less serious felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its
named Serapio Tecson. minimum period shall be imposed.

Among other defenses, appellants contend that they acted in When the execution of the act covered by this article shall
innocent mistake of fact in the honest performance of their have only resulted in damage to the property of another, the
official duties. Thus, they incur no criminal liability. Trial offender shall be punished by a fine ranging from an amount
sustained this theory in part and declared them guilty of equal to the value of said damages to three times such value,
homicide through reckless imprudence. but which shall in no case be less than twenty-five pesos.

Issue: A fine not exceeding two hundred pesos and censure shall be
WON defendant's claim of innocent mistake of fact in their imposed upon any person who, by simple imprudence or
performance of official duties is valid as an excuse for them negligence, shall cause some wrong which, if done
to be exempt from criminal liability? maliciously, would have constituted a light felony.

Ruling: In the imposition of these penalties, the court shall exercise


No, for in this case, appellants had ample time and their sound discretion, without regard to the rules prescribed
opportunity to ascertain the identity without hazard to in Article sixty-four.
The provisions contained in this article shall not be Art. 7 When light felonies are punishable. Light
applicable: felonies are punishable only when they have been
consummated, with the exception of those committed
1. When the penalty provided for the offense is equal to or against persons or property.
lower than those provided in the first two paragraphs of this
article, in which case the court shall impose the penalty next Art. 48 Penalty for complex crimes. When a single act
lower in degree than that which should be imposed in the constitutes two or more crimes, or when an offense is a
period which they may deem proper to apply. necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the
most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied
2. When, by imprudence or negligence and with violation of in its maximum period.
the Automobile Law, to death of a person shall be caused, in
which case the defendant shall be punished by prision E. MALA IN SE vs. MALA PROHIBITA
correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
Mala in se violation of RPC, Mala Prohibita violation
Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without of Special Penal Laws
malice, doing or falling to do an act from which material
damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution Differences:
on the part of the person performing of failing to perform a. As to moral trait of the offender
such act, taking into consideration his employment or MIS- the MT of the O is considered, liability would only
occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and arise when there is dolo or culpa in the commission of the
other circumstances regarding persons, time and place. punishable act.

Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution MP not considered; enough that the prohibited act was
displayed in those cases in which the damage impending to voluntarily done.
be caused is not immediate nor the danger clearly manifest. b. As to use of good faith as defense
MIS- GF or lack of crim intent is a valid defense; unless
The penalty next higher in degree to those provided for in crime is the result of culpa.
this article shall be imposed upon the offender who fails to MP GF is not a defense
lend on the spot to the injured parties such help as may be in c. As to degree of accomplishment of crime
this hand to give. (As amended by R.A. 1790, approved June MIS taken into account in punishing the offender; there are
21, 1957). Attempted, Frustrated and Consummated stages.
MP gives rise to crime when it is consummated; no
D. CLASSIFICATION BASED ON GRAVITY (Art. 9,7, attempted or frustrated stages, unless special law expressly
48, RPC) penalizes a mere attempt of frustration of crime.

Under Article 9, felonies are classified as: d. As to mitigating and aggravating circumstances
MIS- M and A C are taken into account, moral trait of
a. Grave felonies or those to which attaches offender is considered
- the capital punishment MP M and A C not taken into account in imposing
- penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive; penalty.

b. Less grave felonies or Exception:


- those to which the law punishes with penalties which in
their maximum period is correctional; RA 6425 Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 amended
-Adopted scale of penalties in the RPC
c. Light felonies or those infractions of law for the -M and A C are now be considered in imposing penalties.
commission of which - stages of commission of felonies will also apply since
- penalty is arresto menor. suppletory application now allowed.

Why is it necessary to determine whether the crime is grave, e. As to degree of participation


less grave or light? MIS when theres more than one offender, D of P of each
To determine: in commission of crime taken into account;
- Whether these felonies can be Principal, Accomplice, Accessory.
complexed or not; MP D of P not considered; perpetrated the prohibited act
- The prescription of the crime and be penalized same extent, no principal or accessory
- The prescription of the penalty. to be considered.

Loney v. People, G.R No. 152644, Feb. 10,2006


adequate protection, negligence, recklessness and
Facts: Petitioner Loney et.al are officers, of Marcopper imprudence is common among them
Mining Corporation, engaged in mining in the
province of Marinduque. Issue: Whether filing of multiple charges for a single act is
proper?
Marcopper, due to an incident in which the tailings that they
stored in Mt. Tapian fell that it had discharged Ruling: Yes. Court ruled that a single act or incident may
millions of tons of tailings into Boac and Makalupnit offend against two or more entirely distinct and
rivers gave rise to this case. unrelated provisions of law thus justifying th
prosecution of the accused for more than one
Because of the said incident, DOJ charged petitioners in offense.
MTC of Marinduque, with violation of PD 1067
(Water Code of Philippines), PD 1976 (National The additional element that must be established with
Pollution Control Decree of 1976), RA 7942 different charges imposed upon petitioners is distinct
(Philippine Mining Act of 1995) and Article 36510 and separate of each other.
of RPC for reckless imprudence resulting in damage
to property. The additional element that must be established in Art. 365
of RPC is the lack of necessary or adequate
Petitioners moved to quash informations, MTC quash 2 of precaution, negligence, recklessness and imprudence
the following charges, (PD 1067 and PD 1976), for on the part of accused to prevent damage to property.
the lower court cited that only information for This element not required on other laws charged.
violation of Phil Mining Act should be maintained Moreover, the offenses punished by special law are
since the two PD's elements are absorbed by same mala prohibita in contrast with those punished by
elements which constitute violation of Phil Mining RPC which are mala in se.
Act.
The filing of the multiple charges against petitioners,
Branch 94 of RTC set aside the order of MTC, so far as it although based on the same incident is consistent
quashed the informations for violation of two PD's with settled doctrine.
and ordered those charges be reinstated for the court
held that: On petitioners claim that charge for violation of Art. 365 of
RPC "absorbs" charges for violation of other penal
There can be no absorption by one offense of the three, as laws cannot be true, for the latter, a mala in se
the acts penalized by these laws are separate and felony, cannot absorb mala prohibita crimes. What
distinct from each other. Well-established is the rule makes the former a felony is criminal intent or
in this jurisdiction that: negligence; what makes latter crimes are the special
- A single act may offend two or more distinct and unrelated laws enacting them.
provisions of law
- and if one provision requires proof of an additional fact or
element which the other does not, an acquittal or
conviction or a dismissal of the information under F. IMPOSSIBLE CRIME (par. 2, Art.4, Art. 59, Title 8,
one does not bar prosecution under the other. Title 10, RPC)

Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of An impossible crime is an act which would be an offense
Appeals, CA affirmed the decision of RTC. only against person or property.
- were it not for the inherent
Hence, this petition. impossibility of its accomplishment or
- on account of the employment of
Among other issues that were raised by petitioners, is that inadequate or ineffectual means.
they should be charged with one offense only - Liability under this paragraph is incurred only if:
Reckless Imprudence resulting in Damage to - the offender has actually performed the
Property act against the person or property of
the intended victim and
- because all the charges filed against them proceed from and - such act does not constitute another
are based on a single act or incident and felony

- the charge for violation of Art 365 of RPC "absorbs" other Example: The dead victim was shot to make it appear that
charges since the element of lack of necessary or he was trying to escape, the accused is not a principal to an
impossible crime but an accessory to the killing committed NBI filed criminal case for qualified theft against the two,
by the principal. and on Jacqueline Capistle.

Art. 59. Penalty to be imposed in case of failure to Trial of three accused went its usual course and they were all
commit the crime because the means employed or the guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified theft.
aims sought are impossible.
The three appealed to the CA and decision was promulgated
-When the person intending to commit an offense has in which the sentence of Jacinto stands, while the two
already performed the acts for the execution of the same reduced and acquitted.
-but nevertheless the crime was not produced by reason of
the fact that the act intended was by its nature one of Jacinto filed petition assailing decision and resolution of CA.
impossible accomplishment Issue:
-or because the means employed by such person are WON a postdated check without value can be object of
essentially inadequate to produce the result desired by him, qualified theft?
the court,
-having in mind the social danger and the degree of Ruling:
criminality shown by the offender, shall impose upon him
the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from 200 to No. The Court held that under Art. 308 - Elements of the
500 pesos. crime of qualified theft, among other elements is that the
property subject of the theft must have some value, as the
REQUSITIES: intention of the accussed is to gain from the thing stolen. As
also stated in Art. 309, law provides that the penalty to be
1) Act performed would be an offense against persons or imposed on accused dependent on the value of the thing
property; stolen.
(2) Act was done with evil intent; and
(3) Its accomplishment was inherently impossible, or the In case at bar, petitioner unlawfully took postdated check
means employed was either inadequate or ineffectual. belonging to Mega Foam, but same was apparently without
values, dishonored.
Title Eight - CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS (Parricide,
murder, homicide, Infanticide and abortion, duel, physical Under Art. 4(2), the act performed by the offender cannot
injuries) produce an offense against persons or property because: (1)
the commission of the offense is inherently impossible of
Title Ten CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY (Robbery, accomplishment; or (2) the means employed is either (a)
Brigandage, Theft, Usurpation, Culpable Insolvency, inadequate or (b) ineffectual.
Swindling (estafa and other deceits)
That the offense cannot be produced because the commission
Jacinto vs. People G.R No. 162540, July 13, 2009 of the offense is inherently impossible of accomplishment is
the focus of this petition.
Facts: Petitioner Gemma Jacinto, worked as a collector of
Mega Form. Baby Aquino, a customer of said company Petitioner's case can be an example of factual impossibility.
handed petitioner check payment for purchases amounting to This occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to the
10,000.00. The check was deposited in the account of actor or beyong his control prevent the consummation of the
Generoso Capitle which was the husband of Jacqueline; intended crime.
sister of Jacinto which also works at Mega form as a
merchandising and inventory clerk. Applying the case, petitioner performed all the acts to
consummate crime of qualified theft, which is a crime
Ricablanca, another employee at Mega Foam received a call against property. Petitioner's evil intent cannot be denied, as
from employee of Land Bank, and was looking for Generoso the mere act of unlawfully taking the check meant for Mega
Capitle regarding a BDO check that was deposited in latter's Foam showed her intent to gain.
account but was dishonored. And so, she informed Capitle
about phone call from Land Bank regarding the bounced Were it not for the fact that the check bounced, she would
check which is actually the payment of Aquino. have received the face value thereof, which was not
rightfully hers.
Dyhengco which is the owner found out of the said incident
through Ricablanca and Aquino's information. An Therefore, it was only due to the extraneous circumstance of
entrapment operation together with NBI was set. And so, the the check being unfunded, a fact unknown to petitioner at the
petitioner and Valencia were arrested. time, that prevented the crime from being produced.
The thing unlawfully taken by petitioner turned out to be The unlawful taking is most material element in this respect.
absolutely worthless, because the check was eventually It is defined as the deprivation of ones personal property,
dishonored, and Mega Foam had received the cash to replace and the element which produces felony in its consummated
the value of said dishonored check. stage.

Petition granted. Petitioner Gemma Jacinto is found guilty of If the facts establish the non-completion of the taking due to
an impossible crime. these peculiar circumstances, the effect could be to
downgrade the crime to the attempted stage, as not all of the
G. STAGES OF EXECUTION (Art. 6; RPC) acts of execution have been performed. Without lawful
taking as an act of execution, the offense could only be
Under Article 6, felonies are classified as: attempted theft, if at all.

a. attempted felony Since in this case, all these acts have been executed, the
b. frustrated taking has been completed, causing the unlawful deprivation
c. consummated of property, that act is ultimately consummation of the theft.
And so, there can only be neither consummated nor
-The classification of stages of a felony in Art. 6 are true attempted theft.
only to crimes under the RPC.
- does not apply to crimes punished under special laws. That it has taken all these years for us to recognize that there
Certain crimes which are punished under RPC do not admit can be no frustrated theft under the Revised Penal Code does
of these stages. not detract from the correctness of this conclusion.

Valenzuela v. People G.R No. 160188, July 13, 2009 It will take considerable amendments to our Revised Penal
Code in order that frustrated theft may be recognized.
Petitioner Aristotel Valenzuela and Jovy Calderon were
charged with the crime of theft for taking Tide Ultramatic Thus, his petition must be denied.
boxes in Super Sight Club, a supermarket within SM North
Edsa. Lorenzo Lago, a security guard who in his post at the People v. Lizada G.R No. 143468-72, January 24, 2003
open parking area saw the petitioner and Calderon acts, and
he proceeded to stop the taxi as it was leaving. Petitioner and Facts: Freddie Lizada was the common-law husband of Rosa
Calderon were apprehended at the scene, and the stolen Orillosa. Rosa had three children from her first husband
merchandise was recovered. namely; Analia, Jepsy and Rossel. Analia was raped by his
stepfather several times from 1996-1998. Analia, after
RTC convicted both petitioner and Calderon of crime of keeping this to herself, told her mother about Lizada
consummated theft. touching her sensitive parts and had been on top of her when
she was asked by her mother what she meant in her words
The trial court found credible testimonies of the prosecution "Ayoko na,ayoko na."
witnesses and established convictions on the positive
identification of the accused as perpetrators of the crime. Lizada was charged by the trial court guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of four counts of rape and meted on him
Both accused file their notice of appeal, however Calderon's the death penalty for each count based from all the evidence
appeal was dismissed. Petitioner argued that he should be submitted by the prosecution.
convicted of frustrated theft since at the time he was
apprehended, he was never placed in a position to freely Accussed-appellant assailed the decision of trial court
dispose of the articles stolen. contending that the court merely summarized the testimonies
of witnesses, even failed to state in said decision the factual
CA, rejected the contention and affirmed petitioners and legal basis for the imposition of the supreme penalty of
conviction. death on him.

Hence, petition for review. Contention of appellant's was taken. Trial court failed to
comply with the requirements under the Constitution and
Issue: Whether the crime that should be charge to the Rules on Criminal Procedure.
petitioner is frustrated, and not consummated?
They also failed to specifically state facts proven by the
Ruling: No. Under the RPC, there is no crime of frustrated prosecution based on their evidence, the issues raised by the
theft. parties and its resolution of the factual and legal issues, and
bases for convicting accussed appellant of each of the crimes
charged.
They also failed to specifically state facts proven by the
Court normally remand the case to lower court, but to avert prosecution based on their evidence, the issues raised by the
further delay in disposition of cases, court decided to resolve parties and its resolution of the factual and legal issues, and
the cases on their merits considering all the records, bases for convicting accussed appellant of each of the crimes
evidence during trial had been elevated into. charged.

Among other issues raised by the petitioner is his criminal Court normally remand the case to lower court, but to avert
liability to one of the Criminal case docketed as no. 99- further delay in disposition of cases, court decided to resolve
171391, wherein he avers that he is not criminally liable of the cases on their merits considering all the records,
rape for after he saw Rossel, peeping through the door, he evidence during trial had been elevated into.
left the room of Analia of the private complaint afterwards.
Among other issues raised by the petitioner is his criminal
The prosecution proved through the testimony of private liability to one of the Criminal case docketed as no. 99-
complainant that accused-appellant raped her two times a 171391, wherein he avers that he is not criminally liable of
week in 1998. As in Criminal Cases Nos. 99-171392 and 99- rape for after he saw Rossel, peeping through the door, he
171393, accused-appellant is guilty only of simple rape. left the room of Analia of the private complaint afterwards.

Issue: (1) WON Petitioner's contention that he is not The prosecution proved through the testimony of private
criminally liable for consummated rape to one of the complainant that accused-appellant raped her two times a
criminal case charged to him? week in 1998. As in Criminal Cases Nos. 99-171392 and 99-
171393, accused-appellant is guilty only of simple rape.
(2)Assuming he's not criminally liable for consummated
rape, whether he is guilty of consummated acts of Issue: (1)WON Petitioner's contention that he is not
lasciviousness under Art. 366 or attempted rape? criminally liable for consummated rape to one of the
criminal case charged to him?
Ruling: Yes. In light of the evidence of the prosecution, there
was no introduction of the penis of accused-appellant into (2)Assuming he's not criminally liable for consummated
the aperture or within the pudendum of the vagina of private rape, whether he is guilty of consummated acts of
complainant. Hence, accused-appellant is not criminally lasciviousness under Art. 366 or attempted rape?
liable for consummated rape.
Ruling: Yes. In light of the evidence of the prosecution, there
People v. Lizada was no introduction of the penis of accused-appellant into
the aperture or within the pudendum of the vagina of private
Facts: Freddie Lizada was the common-law husband of Rosa complainant. Hence, accused-appellant is not criminally
Orillosa. Rosa had three children from her first husband liable for consummated rape.
namely; Analia, Jepsy and Rossel. Analia was raped by his
stepfather several times from 1996-1998. Analia, after In light of the evidence on record, court believe that accused-
keeping this to herself, told her mother about Lizada appellant is guilty of attempted rape and not acts of
touching her sensitive parts and had been on top of her when lasciviousness. Last paragraph of Article 6 of RPC reads:
she was asked by her mother what she meant in her words
"Ayoko na,ayoko na." There is an attempt when the offender commences the
commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not
Lizada was charged by the trial court guilty beyond perform all the acts of execution which should produce the
reasonable doubt of four counts of rape and meted on him felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his
the death penalty for each count based from all the evidence own spontaneous desistance.
submitted by the prosecution.
The essential elements of an attempted felony are as follows:
Accussed-appellant assailed the decision of trial court 1. The offender commences the commission of the felony
contending that the court merely summarized the testimonies directly by overt acts;
of witnesses, even failed to state in said decision the factual 2. He does not perform all the acts of execution which
and legal basis for the imposition of the supreme penalty of should produce the felony;
death on him. 3. The offenders act be not stopped by his own spontaneous
desistance;
Contention of appellant's was taken. Trial court failed to 4. The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to
comply with the requirements under the Constitution and cause or accident other than his spontaneous desistance.
Rules on Criminal Procedure.
The first requisite of an attempted felony consists of two
elements, namely:
(1) That there be external acts; The fact that the evident intention of the accused was to
(2) Such external acts have direct connection with the crime enter by means of force said store against will of owner, does
intended to be committed. not constitute attempted robbery but attempted trespass to
dwelling.
Court believe that, based on the facts established in
prosecution, accused-appellant intended to have carnal Sentence appealed revoked and accused is hereby guilty of
knowledge of private complainant. attempted trespass to dwelling.

The overt acts of accused-appellant proven by the H. CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL (ART. 8; 115; 136;
prosecution were not mere preparatory acts. 141; PARS. 1 & 3, 186 RPC)

By the series of his overt acts, accused-appellant had Art. 8 -


commenced the execution of rape which, if not for his
spontaneous desistance, will ripen into the crime of rape. Art. 115 - Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason;
Penalty. The conspiracy or proposal to commit the crime
Although accused-appellant desisted from performing all the of treason shall be punished respectively, by prision mayor
acts of execution however his desistance was not and a fine not exceeding P10,000 pesos, and prision
spontaneous as he was impelled to do so only because of the correccional and a fine not exceeding P5,000 pesos.
sudden and unexpected arrival of Rossel.
Art. 136 - Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup
Hence, accused-appellant is guilty only of attempted rape for d'etat, rebellion or insurrection. The conspiracy and
he commenced the commission of rape by removing clothes, proposal to commit coup d'etat shall be punished by prision
kissing and lying on top of her, but he failed to perform all mayor in minimum period and a fine which shall not exceed
the acts of execution which should produce the crime of rape eight thousand pesos (P8,000.00).
by reason of a cause other than his own spontaneous
desistance i.e, timely arrival of victim's brother. Art. 141 - Conspiracy to commit sedition. Persons
conspiring to commit the crime of sedition shall be punished
People v. Lamahang 61 Phil 703 by prision correccional in its medium period and a fine not
exceeding 2,000 pesos. (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187).
Facts: Aurelio Lamahang was charged guilty by the lower
court of attempted robbery for being caught in the act of Art. 186 Pars. 1 & 3 - Monopolies and combinations in
making an opening with an iron bar on the wall of Tan Yu's restraint of trade. The penalty of prision correccional in
store located in Iloilo. its minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000
Upon hearing the noise, policeman Jose Tomambing, pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon:
caught and arrested the accused and place him under
custody. (1) Any person who shall enter into any contract or
agreement or shall take part in any conspiracy or
Accused had only succeeded in breaking one board, and combination in the form of a trust or otherwise, in restraint
unfastening another from the wall, which was declared of trade or commerce or to prevent by artificial means free
unanimously by provincial fiscal, trial judge and Solicitor- competition in the market;
General as constituting attempted robbery.
(3) Any person who, being a manufacturer, producer, or
Defendant filed an appeal before CA, hence this petition. processor of any merchandise or object of commerce or an
importer of any merchandise or object of commerce from
Issue: WON attempted robbery should be the crime imposed any foreign country, either as principal or agent, wholesaler
to the defendant? or retailer, shall combine, conspire or agree in any manner
with any person likewise engaged in the manufacture,
Ruling: No. Court believes the crime charged to him is production, processing, assembling or importation of such
erroneous, for in order that a simple act of entering by means merchandise.
of force or violence another person's dwelling may be
considered as attempted robbery, it must be shown that the People v. Esoy G.R No. 185849, April 7, 2010
oender clearly intended to take possession, for the purpose
of gain, of some personal property belonging to another. Facts: Jonjie Esoy, Rolando Ciano and Roger Bolalacao
were charged crime of robberry with homicide. While
In the present case, there is no evidence in the record from pretending to be paying passengers in a jeepney, they
which such purpose of the accused may reasonably be suddenly pulled out a bladed weapon and grabbed the
inferred. cellphone of the victim named Lorenzo Coro and stabbed his
chest which resulted to the death of latter.
Rule 110, Section 13. Duplicity of the offense. A
Appellants denied any involvement in the robbery-homicide complaint or information must charge but one offense,
incident. They claimed that they were at their workplace except when the law prescribes a single punishment for
when the incident occurred. various offenses.

Trial court rendered the three guilty of the crime of robbery Art. 123. Qualified piracy. The penalty of reclusion
with homicide. temporal to death shall be imposed upon those who commit
any of the crimes referred to in the preceding article, under
CA affirmed the decision on the crime. any of the following circumstances:
1. Whenever they have seized a vessel by boarding or firing
Petitioner appeal the decision to SC. Among other issues upon the same;
raised, is that the trial court erred in holding that conspiracy 2. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims
existed between them. They contend that the mere fact that without means of saving themselves; or
they boarded the jeepney at same time does not necessarily 3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide,
mean that they acted in conspiracy. physical injuries or rape.

Issue: WON appellant's contention can be held as tenable? Art. 266. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment.
The crime of slight physical injuries shall be punished:
Ruling: No, it is unconvincing.
1. By arresto menor when the offender has inflicted physical
Conspiracy may be deduced from the acts of the appellants injuries which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor
before, during, and after the commission of the crime which from one to nine days, or shall require medical attendance
are indicative of a joint purpose, concerted action, and during the same period.
concurrence of sentiments. 2. By arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 20 pesos and
censure when the offender has caused physical injuries
All three (3) appellants boarded the jeepney at the same which do not prevent the offended party from engaging in
time. his habitual work nor require medical assistance.
3. By arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not
Two (2) strategically sat in front of the victim and Pabalan exceeding 50 pesos when the offender shall ill-treat another
while the other sat beside the victim. by deed without causing any injury.
A few moments later, two (2) of the appellants (Esoy and
Ciano) suddenly drew out their balisongs and swung the Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention.
same at Pabalan and the victim. Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or
in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer
In the ensuing commotion, the victim's cellular phone was the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death:
snatched and he was stabbed in the process. 1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than
five days.
The appellants then hurriedly alighted from the jeepney at 2. If it shall have been committed simulating public
the same time. authority.
3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted
Their original and principal intention was undoubtedly to upon the person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill
stage a robbery with the use of violence. As conspiracy had him shall have been made.
been established among appellants, all of them are liable as 4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor,
co-principals regardless of the manner and extent of their female or a public officer.
participation since, in point of law, the act of one (1) is the The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention
act of all. was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the
victim or any other person, even if none of the circumstances
I. COMPLEX CRIMES VS. SPECIAL COMPLEX above-mentioned were present in the commission of the
CRIMES (ART. 48 Sec. 13; Rule 110, R Crim Procedure; offense.
123; 266-B; 267; 294 RPC)
Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation
Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. When a single act of persons; Penalties. Any person guilty of robbery with
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when the use of violence against or intimidation of any person
an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the shall suffer:
penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the 1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by
same to be applied in its maximum period. reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide
shall have been committed.
2. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to 4. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to
reclusion perpetua when the robbery shall have been reclusion temporal in its medium period, if the violence or
accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation, or if by intimidation employed in the commission of the robbery
reason or on occasion of such robbery, any of the physical shall have been carried to a degree clearly unnecessary for
injuries penalized in subdivision 1 of Article 263 shall have the commission of the crime, or when the course of its
been inflicted; Provided, however, that when the robbery execution, the offender shall have inflicted upon any person
accompanied with rape is committed with a use of a deadly not responsible for its commission any of the physical
weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be injuries covered by sub-divisions 3 and 4 of said Article 23.
reclusion perpetua to death (As amended by PD No. 767). 5. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period
3. The penalty of reclusion temporal, when by reason or on to prision mayor in its medium period in other cases. (As
occasion of the robbery, any of the physical injuries amended by R. A. 18).
penalized in subdivision 2 of the article mentioned in the
next preceding paragraph, shall have been inflicted.