You are on page 1of 15

Art 8.

CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL


Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to n agreement concerning
the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
- preparatory acts are not punishable
- there is no crime of conspiracy to commit murder or etc which is not
specified by law
There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony
proposes its execution to some other person or persons.
- the acceptance or rejection is immaterial in proposal

No criminal liability
are punishable only in the case in which the law specifically provides a penalty
therefor.(art 8, par. 1)
Art. 115. Conspiracy to commit treason.
Art 136. Conspiracy to commit coup detat, rebellion or insurrection
Art. 141. Conspiracy to commit sedition.

Crime vs. Manner of incurring liability


Treason, coup detat, sedition is actually committed - conspiracy is NOT a crime
but a manner of incurring criminal liability

CONSPIRACY
- Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of felony and decide to commit it. The essence of
conspiracy is unity of action and purpose. Its elements, like the physical acts
constitution the crime itself, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Indications of conspiracy
- When two or more persons aim their acts towards the accomplishment of
the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their acts, though
apparently independent were in fact connected and cooperative indicating
closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment, conspiracy
may be inferred, and where there is conspiracy, the act of one is deemed the
act of all. ( Pp vs Aleta)
One and the same purpose
- However, in determining whether conspiracy exists, it is not sufficient that
the attack be joint and simultaneous for simultaneousness does not of itself
demonstrate the concurrence of will or unity of action and purpose which
are the bases if the responsibility of the assailants. What is determinative is
proof establishing that the accused were animated by one and the same
purpose.

Direct proof not required


- Direct proof of conspiracy is rarely found; circumstantial evidence is often
resorted in order to prove its existence.
Amodia
- An accused participates as a conspirator if he or she performed some overt
act as a direct or indirect contribution in the execution of the crime planned
to be committed.
- Active participation
- Moral assistance by being present
- Exercising moral ascendancy
Pp vs Muit
- Conspiracy is a unity of purpose and intention in the commission of a crime.
Where conspiracy is established, the precise modality or extent of
participation of each individual conspirator becomes secondary since the act
of one is the act of all. The degree of actual participation in the commission
of the crime is immaterial.
Even if not all the parties committed the same act
- A conspiracy exists even if not all the parties committed the same act, but
the participants performed specific acts that indicated unity of purpose in
accomplishing the criminal design. Direct proof of previous agreement to
commit an offense is not necessary to prove conspiracy-conspiracy may be
proven by circumstantial evidence
Pp v Evangelio
- To be conspirator, one need not participate in every detail of the execution;
he need not even take part in every act or need not even know the exact part
to be performed by the other in the execution of the conspiracy.
All conspirators would be equally liable
once conspiracy is established between several accused in the commission of
the crime of robbery, they would all be equally culpable for the rape committed by
anyone of them on the occasion of the robbery, unless anyone of them proves that he
endeavored to prevent the other from committing rape.

NO CONSPIRACY SEPARATE AND INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY


- in the ansence of conspiracy, the liability of the defendants is separate and
individual;, each liable for his own acts, the damage caused thereby, and the
consequences thereof.
Two different crimes
- Their acts did not reveal a unity of purpose that is to kill Pasion. Bokingco had
already killed Pasion even before he sought Col. Their moves were not
coordinated because while Bokincgo was killing Pasion because of his pent-
up anger, Col was to rob.
Proposal
Requisites :
- a person has decided to commit a felony
- he proposes its execution to some other person or persons
Art 115. Proposal to commit treason
Art 136. Proposal to commit coup detat, rebellion or insurrection
The crime must not be committed
If the crime is actually committed proposal becomes a manner or incurring
liability. i.e., principal by inducement
Acceptance of proposal is not necessary

Art. 9. GRAVITY OF FELONIES


Grave
Less grave
Light
Grave Felonies
Capital punishment (death)
Penalties which in any of its period is afflictive
(maximum, medium, minimum)
At least on of its period
Afflictive (Art 25.)
Reclusion perpetua
Reclusion temporal
Permanent/temporary absolute disqualificaition
Permanent/temporary special disqualification
Prision mayor
Less Grave
Punishment which in their maximum is correctional
Prision correccional
Arresto mayor
Suspension
Destierro
Light felonies
Arresto menor
Fine not exceeding P200 or obthe
Felony fine of P200.00 is a light felony
Art. 26 classifies fines as a penalty.
(Fine is a light penalty if it is less than P200.00, meaning if not less than 200 it is
correccional)

ART. 10
1st clause. The RPC is not intended to supersede Special Penal Laws.
2nd clause. The RPC is supplementary to special laws, unless the special law
provides otherwise.

Go-Tan v Spouses Tan


Hence, legal principles developed from the Pena Code may be applied in a
supplementary capacity to crimes punished under special law, such as R.A.
No. 9262 in which the special law is silent on a particular matter.
Provision of RPC not applicable.
- Art 71 of the RPC scale of penalties.
- Special laws
Punishes only consummated acts.
No definition of accessories or accomplices
No formula for graduation of penalties
Terms, i.e., penalties are not the same.
Mitigating/aggravating circumstances cannot be considered, no
graduation of penalties.
CIRCUMSTANCE THAT AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Justifying (Art. 11)
Exempting (Art. 12)
Mitigating (Art. 13)
Aggravating (Art. 14)
Alternative (Art. 15)
Absolutory causes (minority.Art 280 last par., violent insanity Art 332,Art.
344)
Imputability vs. Responsibility
Imputability quality by which an act may be ascribed to a person as the
author.
Responsibility obligation of suffering the consequence of crime.
While an act may be imputable to a person, it may not necessarily mean that
he would be responsible for the same.

Art. 11. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES


The act in accordance with the law
The actor is not considered to have violated the law.
No criminal or civil liability
No crime committed
Burden of proving justifying circumstances
In justifying circumstances, the actor admits to the commission of the
act but interposes a justifying circumstance. He, therefore, has the
burden of proving the existence of such circumstances.
Justifying Circumstances
Self-defense
Defense of relatives
Defense of strangers
Avoidance of a greater evil or injury
Fulfillment of duty/lawfully exercise of rights or office
Obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose
SELF- DEFENSE
In defense of his person or rights.
Basis:
State cannot prevail all of its citizens all of the time
It is a natural reaction to resist any invasion of a person or his rights.
Defense of person or rights
Person includes danger to ones:
life or limb
Rights includes:
right to property
Requisites:
Unlawful aggression (indispensable);
Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
himself.

1st Requisite: Unlawful aggression


- This is a condition sine qua non. An essential and indispensable requisite.
- No unlawful aggression, no self-defense whether complete or
incomplete.
- The aggression must be unlawful and actual.

Pp vs. Concillado
- The most important among all the elements is xxx unlawful aggression.
Unlawful aggression must be proved first in order for self-defense to be
successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete. There can be
no self-defense unless there was unlawful aggression from the person
injured or killed by the accused; for otherwise, there is nothing to
prevent or repel.
Aggression must be unlawful
- It cannot be said that there was a previous unlawful aggression...
- taking into consideration the fact that the purpose of the deceased in so
doing was to succeed in capturing and arresting the appellant
Pp vs. Merced
- ...that assault was natural and lawful, for the reason that it was made by a
deceived and offended husband in order to defend his honor and rights by
punishing the offender of his honor, and if he had killed his wife and the
other defendant, he would have exercised a lawful right (Art. 247)
Aggression must be actual
- An actual assault, or
- Threat of an assault.

2nd Requisite: Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
Perfect equality is not enough.
Rational Equivalence
- Nature and quality of the weapon used;
- Physical condition, character, and size;
- Other circumstances of both aggressor and person defending himself.
- Place and occasion of assault.
Rational Equivalence, Raitonale.
- Because this justifying circumstances is borne by necessity and is resorted
only in extreme situations or emergencies, the person defending himself is
not expected to think coolly and clearly. The person defending is, therefore,
not expect to control his blow or draw a distinction as to the injury that
would result after a blow.
US v. Mendoza
- The character of this weapon is such that in opinion the defendant could not
then have reasonably believed that it was necessary to kill his assailant in
order to repel the attack.
- It is an instrument shaped like a small chisel (escoplo) with no point or
cutting edge on either side, and is used for the purpose of taking out the
contents of betel nuts or the like.

Us v. Mack
- Court not reasonably be excepted to take the chance that mere ordinary
force would be used in striking or that the blow would be given upon some
protected part of his body, or that the cutting edge of the blade was not keen
enough to give him his death blow.
- The reasonable and natural thing for him to do under the circumstances was
to fire at the body of his opponent, and thus make sure of his own life.
- Not every wound which proves fatal is sufficient to stop an enemys attack,
and the accused and his assailant were so close at hand that until the
assailant fell to the ground it can be said that the accused was out of danger.
Even a wounded man with a drawn bolo in his right hand might prove to be
no mean antagonist at close quarters.
Physical condition, character and size of the opposing parties.
- One is not required, when hard pressed, to draw fine distinctions as to the
extent of the injury which a reckless and infuriated assailant might probably
inflict upon him.
Private individual vs. law enforcement officer
- Private individual prevent or repel aggression.
- Law enforcement officer overcome his opponent

3rd Requisite: Lack of sufficient provocation


the person defending must not have by his unjust conduct provoked the
aggression sought to be repelled or prevented.
There are 4 situations where the 3rd requisite is considered present:
no provocation
provocation was not sufficient
was not given by the person defending himself
was not immediate or proximate.
Alconga
There is sufficient provocation when it is proportionate to the act of
aggression and adequate to stir the aggressor to its commission.
Need not be an act of violence
Challenging one to come out of the house to fight. (US v McCray)
Hurling insults or imputing the utterance of vulgar language.
Forcibly trying to kiss the sister of the deceased.

Pp v Genosa
First, each of the phases of the cycle of violence must be proven to have
characterized at least two battering episodes between the appellant and
her intimate partner.
Second, the final acute battering episode preceding the killing of the
batterer must have produced in the battered persons mind an actual
fear of an imminent harm from her batterer and an honest belief that she
needed to use force in order to save her life.
Third, at the time of the killing, the batterer must have posed probable
not necessary immediate and actual - grave harm to the accused based
on the history of the violence.

DEFENSE OF RELATIVES
spouse
ascendant
descendant
legitimate, natural, or adopted bro or sis
relatives by affinity in the same degrees
relatives by consanguinity within 4th civil degree
Requisites:
unlawful aggression
reasonable necessity
in case there is sufficient provocation, the person defensing had no part

Us vs. Esmedia
inasmuch as it has been shown that they inflicted these wounds upon him in
defense of their father who was fatally wounded at the time. They honestly
believed, ad had good grounds upon which to found their belief, that
Santiago would continue his attack upon his father.
Pp v Toring
It cannot be said, therefore, that in attacking Samuel, Toring was impelled by
pure compassion or beneficence or the lawful desire to avenge the
immediate wrong inflicted on his cousin, Rather, he was motivated by
revenge.

DEFENSE OF STRANGERS
unlawful aggression
reasonable necessity
the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil
motive
Cabuslay v Pp
It bears repeating that the nature and number of wounds inflicted by the
accused are constantly and unremittingly considered as important indicia
which disprove a plea for self-defense or defense of stranger because
they demonstrate a determinate effort to kill the victim and not just
defend oneself. In the instant case, Paquitos wounds serve to tell us that
petitioner was induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive and
that he was set on killing the victim.

AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL OR INJURY


Requisites:
The evil sought to be avoided actually exists.
The injury feared is greater
Refer to book
Cannot be invoked
negligence
no evil to be avoided
violate of law by the actor

Pp v. Ricohermoso
was designed to insure the killing of Gemaniano de Leon without any
risk to his assailants.
Tan v. Standard Vacuum
The damage caused to the plaintiff was brought about mainly because
the desire of driver Julito Domingo to avoid greater evil or harm.
Ty vs pp
the evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or anticipated. If the evil
sought to be avoided is merely expected or may happen in the future this
defense is not applicable.

FULFILLMENT OF DUTY
The prevailing jurisprudence is in favor of policemen and guard who
shoot prisoners who attempt to escape.

Self-defense v Fulfillment of duty


Self-defense and fulfillment of duty operate on different principles. Self-
defense is based on the principle of self-preservation from mortal harm,
while fulfillment of duty is premised on the due performance of duty.

Cabanlig
a policeman in the performance of duty is justified in using such force as
is reasonably necessary to secure and detain the offender.
OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED FOR SOME LAWFUL PURPOSE
Requisites:
An order has been issued by superior
The order must be some lawful purpose
The means used to carry out the order must be lawful.

Illegal orders, the subordinate is liable, except when:


He is not aware that the order is illegal; and
He is not negligent
Pp vs Beronilla
If appearing that the charge is the heinous crime of murder, and that the
accused-appellant acted upon orders, of a superior officers that they, as
military subordinates could not question, and obeyed in good faith,
without being aware of their illegality, without any fault or negligence on
their part, we can not say that criminal intent has been established.

ART. 12 EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES

IMBECILE or INSANE PERSON

Pp vs. Ambal
A imbecile is a person marked by mental deficiency while an insane
person is one who has an unsound mind or suffers from mental disorder.
An insane person may have lucid interval but an imbecile does not

Rule on imbeciles and insane persons


Imbecile he must be deprived completely of reason or discernment and
freedom of the will at the time of committing crime
Insane complete deprivation of intelligence in the commission of the act or
that the accused acted without the least discernment.

Crazy vs. insane


there is a vast difference between an insane person and one who has
worked himself up into such frenzy of anger that he fails to use reason or
good judgment in what he does.
The fact that a person acts crazy is not conclusive that he is insane. The
popular meaning of the word crazy is not synonymous with the legal term
insane, non compos mentis
Presumption is in favor of sanity
The law presumes that every person is of sound mind. In the absence of
proof to the contrary. The law always presumes all acts to be voluntary. It
is improper to presume that acts were executed unconsciously.
Burden of evidence
In the instant case, the alleged insanity of Ambal was not substantiated
by any sufficient evidence. The presumption of sanity was not
overthrown.
Presumption in favor of sanity
That when a defendant in a criminal case interposes the defense of
mental incapacity. The burned of establishing that fact rests upon him,
has been adopted in a series of decision by this court.
Bascos case
Circumstantial evidence
Witnesses say that the accused has been insane many years
The doctor who examined the accused testified that the accused was a
violent maniac and that he may have been insane when he killed the
victim and
Lack of motive on the part of the accused to kill the victim.
Bonoan
Accused confined at of san lazaro hospital twice
Dementia praecox is an exempting circumstance (authorities)
Insomnia for 4 days before the crime, symptom of or lead to dementia
praecox;
A day after his arrest he was sent to the psychopathic hospital
Alienist reported that the accused has a form of psychosis manic
depressive psychosis.
Commission v trial
Insanity at that time of the commission of the offense is different from
insanity at the time of the trial. In the first instance, it is an exempting
circumstance, in the second the accused is not exempt are suspended
until the accused is fit to stand trial.
Pp v. Legaspi
Mere prior confinement does not prove that accused-appellant was
deprived of reason at the time of the incident.
No evidence that he was adjudged insane
Discharge is proof of being cured
Mental depravity which results not form why disease of the mind, but
from a perverted condition of the moral system, where the person is
mentally sane, does not exempted one from responsibility for crimes
committed under it influence.
Pp vs. Madarang
The courts have established a mere stringent criterion for insanity to be
exempting as it is required that there must be a complete deprivation of
intelligence in committing the act. The accused is deprived of reason; he
acted without the least discernment because there is a complete absence
of the power to discern.
Establishing insanity is a question of fact and may be established by:
A witness who is intimately acquainted with the accused
A witness who has rational basis to conclude that the accused was insane
based on the witness own perception of the accused
Expert testimony
Madarang
The testimony or proof of the accuseds insanity must relate to the time
preceding insanity must relate to the time preceding or coetaneous with
the commission of the offense with which he is charged.
Proof of abnormal behavior immediately before or simultaneous to the
commission of the crime. Evidence on the alleged insanity must refer to
the time preceding the act under prosecution or to the very moment of
its execution.
Pp vs Opuran
A mans act is presumed voluntary. It is improper to assume the contrary,
i.e. that acts were done unconsciously, for the moral and legal
presumption is that every person is presumed sane.
Stringent standard
requires that there be a complete deprivation of intelligence in
committing the act.
Facts in Opuran
Such unusual behavior may be considered as mere abnormality of the
mental faculties which will not exclude imputability.
Medicine was not shown to be for any mental illness
Was never confined in a mental institution
Failed to invoke insanity at the earliest opportunity.

MINORITY
RA 9344, Juvenile and Justice Welfare Act (May 20, 2006)
Material ages for criminal responsibility: 15 years old

New concepts:
Age of criminal responsibility
Effects
Presumptions
Age of criminal responsibility
A child 15 years of age and under at the time of the commission of the
offense is exempt from criminal liability.
A child is deemed to be fifteen (15) years of age on the day of the
fifteenth anniversary of his/her birthdate. ( Sec. 3, RA 10630)
Child is subject to intervention. Intervention refers to a series of
activities, which are designed to address issues that caused the child to
commit an offense.
15 years and one day is considered above 15.
Sec 3 (1) RA 9344
Intervention refers to a series of activities which are designed to address
issues that caused the child to commit an offense. It may take the form of
an individualized treatment program which may include counseling skills
training, education, and other activities that will enhance his
psychological, emotional and psycho-social well-being.
Child 15 or below, initial contact which child must:
Release parents, guardian or nearest relative.
Notify LSWDO, determine the appropriate programs
O/W: NGO, Barangay, Local SWD off or DSWD.
Above 15 but below 18
Without discernment child is exempt but subject to intervention
With discernment subject to appropriate proceedings i.e. diversion
Note: No exemption form civil liability.

Discernment
Discernment is the mental capacity to understand the difference between
right and wrong.
It may be shown by:
Manner of committing a crime
Conduct of offender
Appearance of the minor
Attitude
Comportment
Behavior, before, during and after the trial.

Determination of age
- Birth certificate
- Baptismal certificate
- Other pertinent document
*In the absence of the documents mentioned:
- Testimony of the child or other persons
- Physical appearance
- Other relevant evidence

Imposable penalty
Not more than 6 years
- Mediation, family conferencing and conciliation if appropriate ( where there
is a private offended party
- In victimless crimes, diversion or rehabilitation
More than 6 years
- Diversion by the court

Kinds of Diversion Barangay Level


Restitution
Reparation
Indemnification
Written or oral apology
Care, guidance and supervision orders
Counseling
Trainings, seminars and lectures
- Anger management
- Problem solving
- Value formation
- Other skills to aid the child
- Participation in community based programs
- Participation in education, vocation and life skills programs

Kinds of Diversion, Law Enforcement Level


All programs at the barangay level
Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds
Kinds of diversion in the Court
Court
All programs at barangay and law enforcement
Written or oral reprimand
Fine
Payment of the cost of proceedings
Institutional care and custody

Sec. 58. Offenses not applicable to children.


Vagrancy and Prostitution (Art. 202)
Mendicancy (PD 1563)
Sniffing of Rugby (PD 1619)
(Shall undergo appropriate counseling and treatment.)

Violations of Local Ordinances; no criminal liability

Sec 57-A. Violations of Local Ordinances - ordinances enacted by local governments


concerning juvenile status offense --------

Sec 20-a Serious crimes committed by children who are exempt from criminal
responsibility
- above 12 up to 15 who commits parricide, murder. Infanticide, kidnapping, and
serious illegal detention where the victim is killed or raped, robbery, with homicide or
rape, destructive arson rape, or carnapping where the driver or occupant is killed or
raped or offenses under RA 9165 punishable by more than 12 years of imprisonment
neglected child under PD 603 mandatorily placed in a special facility within the youth
care faculty of Bahay pag-asa called the intensive juvenile intervention and support
center.
ACCIDENT
- An accident is something that happens outside the swat of our will, and
although it comes about through some act of our will, lies beyond the bounds of
humanly foreseeable consequence. (Pp v. Agliday)

Elements:
- Performance of a lawful act
- With due care
- Injury is caused to another by mere accident
- There is no fault or intention of causing the injury

Pp vs Genita
- He must show with clear and convincing proofs that: 1) he was performing a
lawful act with due care; 2) the injury caused was by a mere accident and 3)
he had no fault or intention of causing the injury.

Intent is a mental state


- It connotes the absence of criminal intent.
- Intent is a mental state, the existence of which is shown by a person by overt
acts.
Dual standard test
- In determining whether an accident attended the incident, courts must take
into account the dual standards of lac of intent to kill and absence of fault or
negligence. (Pomoy v Pp)
Accident inconsistent with self-defense
- self-defense is inconsistent with the exempting circumstance of accident, in
which there is no intent to kill. On the other hand, self-denfense necessarily
contemplates a premeditated intent to kill in order to defend oneself.

COMPULSION OF AN IRRESISTIBLE FORCE

Elements:
- Compulsion is by physical force
- The physical force is irresistible
- The physical force must come from the third person.
Why exempted?
- Because he does not act with freedom
- Reduce him to a mere instrument who acts not only without will but against
his will
- Must be present, imminent and impending and of such a nature as to induce
a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act is
not done.
- A threat of future injury is not enough
- The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity
IMPULSE OF AN UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR OF AN EQUAL OR GREATER INJURY

Elements:

PREVENTED BY INSUPERABLE CAUSE


Elements:
Refer to book

Insuperable cause
- Distance and available means of transportation
- Sever dizziness and extreme debility

ABSOLUTORY CAUSE
- Instances where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy
and sentiment there is no penalty imposed.
Instigation is an absolutory cause.
- Human nature is frail enough at best and requires no encouragement in
wrongdoing. If we cannot assist another, and prevent him from committing
crime, we should at least abstain from leading him into temptation.
Pp vs. Valencia
- Instigation or inducement, wherein the police or its agent lures the accused
into committing the offense in order to prosecute him.
- Instigation is deemed contrary to public policy and considered an absolutory
cause.
- The policeman must induce someone for the purpose of catching that him.
Applicable only to public officers and their agents
- in instigation it is necessary that the instigator is a public office or one is
performing a public function.
Entrapment v Instigation
- Entrapment is sanctioned by the law as a legitimate method of apprehending
criminals. Its purpose is to trap and capture lawbreakers in the execution of
their criminal plan. Instigation, on the other hand involves the inducement of
the would-be-accused into the commission of the offense.
Buy-bust operation
- form of entrapment
- has been accepted as valid means of arresting