REVIEW NOTES! IN CRIMINAL LAW 12014 ATENEO LAW REVIEW CENTER By: Judge Rowena Apao-Adlawan FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES: Criminal Law - A branch of municipal Jaw which 1) defines crimes, 2) treats of their_nature_and_3) provides for thelr punishment Crime defined ~ it is an act committed or omitied in violation of a public law forbidding or commanding it. ): How is Criminal Law distinguished from Criminal Procedure? Ans: Criminal Law is substantive and defines crimes, treats of their nature and provides for their punishay viminal Procedure is remedial. 1 regulates the judicial steps for the ‘arrest, prosecution, trial and conviction Of violators of criminal law. Q: What are the sources of Philippine Criminal Law: Ans: aJRPC = Act No. amendments 3815 and its bySpecial Penal laws passed by our Congress €) Penal Presiden during Martial Law Decrees insued Q: What about SC decisions? Ans: No. They merely explain the meaning of, and apply the law as enacted by Congress * Notes token rom The Revised Pend! Code Book 1 by 18. Reyer: China tow Book | of Ihe Reviod Pant Code by Aboienda Eirae 2008 ston Poca LUtinate Gininat Law Study Gulde and Reviewer Ve. | 2007 Edhar, Notes and Cones by BeesS 2002 Elen: Criminal aw took 1 by Judge Ruperto Kapono. rcanie Cina Law Rowe oh ‘Nolan of Dean Higlegaraa F Ingo of fhe Supreme Cour PRINCIPLE: — NULLUM NULLA POENA SINE LEGE, ‘There is no crime when there is no law punishing the same. This is true to civil law countries, but not to common law countries, Because of this maxim, there is no common law crime in the Philippines. No matter how wrongful, evil or bad the act is, if there is no law defining the act, the sume ie not considered a crime. Common —Inw are wrongful acts the community/society condemns as contemptible, even though there is no Jaw declaring the act criminal, Not any law punishing an act or omission may be valid as a criminal law. If the law punishing an act is ambiguous, it is null and void, In our jurisdiction, ne act constitutes a crime unless itis made #0 by law or by statute. Unless there be a particular provision in the RPC or ‘special penal law that punishes the act, even if it be socially or morally wrong, no criminal liability is incurred by its commission, Common law US and England which are the body of principles, usages and rules of action which do not rest for their authority any express or positive jon of the will of the legislature, ognized. CONCEPTS OF MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA Violations of the Revised Penal Code are referred to as malum in se, which Wierally means, thai the sct ts inherently evil or bad or per se wrongful, On the other — hand, violations of special laws are generally referred 19 ay malim. prohibitum, * Note, however, that not all violations of special laws are mala prohibita. While intentional felonies are always mala in se, it does not follow that prohibited acts done in violation of special laws are always mala prohibita, Even if the ertme is punished under a special law, if the act punished is onewhich is inherently wrong, the sane is malum in se, and, therefore, good faith and the lack of criminal intent is a valid defense; unless it is the product of criminal negligence or culpa, Mata in se vs, Mata prohibit Mala in se 1:Those so serious in their effects on society as to call for almost unanimous condemnation of its members. 2. Criminal intent necessary, 9. Refers generally to felonies defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code ‘Mala Prohibita 1. Those violations of mere rules of convenience designed to secure a more orderly regulation of the alfairs of society, 2. Criminal inten! is not necessary. 3. Refers generally to acts made criminal by special laws, Distinction between crimes punishes Penal Code and punished under special laws: |, As to moral trait of the offender In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, the moral trait of the offender is considered, This is why liability would only arise when there is dolo or culpa in the commission of the panishable act In crimes punished under special laws, the moral trait of the offender is not considered; it is enough that the prohibited act was voluntarily done. 2. As to use of good faith as defense In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, good faith or lack of criminal intent is a valid defense; unless the crime is the result of eulpa in crimes punished under special laws, good faith is not a defense 3. As to degree of accomplishment of the erie. In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, the degree of accomplishment of the crime is taken into account in punishing the offender; thus, there are attempted, frustrated, id consummated stages in the ‘commission of the crime, In crimes punished under special laws, the act gives rise to a crime only when it is consummated; there are no attempted or frustrated stages, unless the special law expressly penalizes the mere attempt or frustration of the 4. As to mitigating and aggravating circumstances. In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are taken into eccount in imposing the penalty since the moral trait of the offender is considered In crimes punished under special laws, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are not taken into account in imposing the penalty. 5. As to degree of participation, In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, when there ix more than one offender. the degtee of participation of each in the commission of the crime is taken into account in imposing the penalty, thus, the offenders are classified as principals, accomplices and accessories. In crimes punished under special laws, the degree of participation of the offenders is not considered. All wha perpetrated the prohibited act are penalized to the same extent. There is no principal or accomplice or accessory. to consider unless specifically provided in the law, Q: What is the test to determine if violation of spectal law is malum prohibitum or malum in se? Ans; Analyze the violation: Is it wrong because there ¥s a law prohibiting it orpunishing it as such? If you remove the law, will the aet still be wrong? If the wording of the law punishing the crime uses the word willfully”, then malice must be proven. Where malice is a factor, good faith is @ defense, In violation of special law, the act constituting the crime is @ prohibited act. Therefore culpa is not a basis of fiability, unless the special law Punishes an omission CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS O: What. te, the, general rule, with Porat lawee Construction Ans: Criminal laws are w be strictly construed against the Government and liberally construed in favor of the accused. (People ws. Yu Hai, 99 Phil 725) Penal statutes, substantive and remedial or procedural, are, by the consecrated rile, construed liberally in favor of the accused. (People vs Elkanish, 90 Phil. 53) Q@: Why are Criminal Laws strictly construed against the Goverament and liberally construed in favor of an accused? Ans: Because a man's right to liberty is Primordial and a penal law operates to the contrary by restraining such human liberty. ts the rule of strict construction of penal laws against the Government applied all the tme? When can the rule of strict construction be invoked? ‘Ans: Strict construction is invoked only when the criminal law in question is ambiguous. It cannot apply if the law is clear. ‘The rule that penal statutes should be strictly construed against the State may be invoked only where the law is ambiguous and there is doubt as to their interpretation. Where the law is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for the application of the mule. (People va. Gatchalian, 104 Phil. 664) CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW: (G.7.P) 1, GENERAL ~ the law is binding to all [Persons who reside in the Philippines. Generatity of criminal law means that the criminal law of the country governs all persons within the country regardtiess of their race, belief, sex, or creed. It applies to every person within the territory of the Philippines. @ Would it matter if the person does not live or reside in the Philippines but is a mere transient? Ana: No, Q: Would it matter if the person Is a Soreigner? Ans: No, What are exceptions to the rule of “Generality” i the Philippines? ‘Ans: There are three (3) exceptions: oy calics_ot_treaty_stpulauons s1_Persons_covered_by_tucatics (1 sentence of Art. 2) ~ Bases Agreement, RP-US VPA, certain WHO officials b) laws _of ___preferential (1 sentence of Art. 2) Ex RA‘75-diplomatic representative ©} peincipies __of _, public ~ ex. Sovereigns and other chief of staic, ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary. minister residents and charges d'affaires The key word in “generality” i person”. It refers to the word "wis", Exemptions are based and dependent =e . aes Ambassadors, chiefs of states and other diplomatic officials are immune from the application of penal laws when they are in the country where they arc assigned. * Note that consuls are not diplomatic officers. This includes consul-general, vice-consuil or any consul in a foreigncouniry, who are therefore, not immune \o the operation or application of the Penal law of the country where they are assigned. Consuls are subject to the penal laws of the country where they assigned. What is the counterpart Civit Code provision pertaining to “generality”? Ans: Article 14 of the NCC provides “Penal laws and those of public security & safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in Philippine territory, subject to the principles of Public International Law and treaty stipulations, 2. TERRITORIAL ~ he law is binding to all crimes committed within the National Territory of the Philippines. Meaning. penal laws only have effect “within” or ‘inside’ the Philippine territorial jurisdiction. It cannot penalize crimes committed outside the same. The extent of the enforcement or elfect of a penal law is only within the Philippine territory. Beyond such, the law has no effect to the person or his act. Otherwise, it would result to territorial encroachment. ‘This is subject to certain exceptions brought about by international agreements and practice. ‘The territory of the country is not limited to the land where its sovereignty resides but includes also its maritime and interior waters as well as its atmosphere. This is what we call the Archipelagic Rule. Q: What comprises the Philippine Archipelago? What is the Archipelagic Rule? Ans: The national territory comprises the Philippine Archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and ail other temitories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or Jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, ‘and other submarine areas The waters Around, Between, and Connecting the islands of the archipelago regardless of their Breadth and Dimensions, form part of the internat waters of the Philippines (ABCBD = ARCHIPELAGIC DOCTRINE; Article 1, 1987 Constitution) Terrestrial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over land, Fluvial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over muritime and interior Aerial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over the atmosphere, Note: The key word in “territoriality” is “location”. It refers to the word “where”. Exemptions are based & dependent on “where was the crime committed” @ What is the principle of territoriality? Ans: General Rule — penal laws can only be enloreed within the Phil territory. They cannot be enforced outside, Exceptions: those enumerated under pars 1 to Sof Art. 2-—EXTRA- TERRITORIAL EFFECT, 1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship; 2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands; . 3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into th islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number; 4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; or (Some of these crimes are bribery, fraud against national treasury, malversation of public funds or property, and illegal use of public funds; €9., A judge who accepts @ bribe while in the US)5. Should commit any crimes against the national security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code. (These crimes include treason, espionage, piracy, mutiny, inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals, correspondence with hostile country, flight to enemy's country and violation of neutrality) 6. In addition, we have Republic Act No. 9372-Human Security Act of 2007 more popularly known as the ANTL-TERRORISM LAW. “SEC. 58 Extra-Territorial Application of this Act. Subject to the provision of an existing treaty of which the Philippines is a signatory and to any contrary provision of any law of preferential application, the provisions of this Act shall apply (2) to individual persona who commit ‘any of the crimes defined and punished in this Act within the terrestrial domain, interior waters, maritime zone, and airspace of the Philippines; (2) to individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits Of the Philippines, commit, conspire or plot to commit any of the crimes defined and punished in this Act inside the territorial limits of the Philippines, (3) to individual persona who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit any of the said crimes on board Philippine ship or Philippine airship; (4) to individual persons who commit any of said crimes within any embassy, consulate, oF diplomatic premises belonging to or ‘occupied by the Philippine government in an official capacity; (5) to individual Persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit said crimes ogainst Philippine | citizens or persons of Philippine descent, where their citizenship or ethnicity was a factor in the commission of the crime: and (6) to individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit said crimes directly against the Philippine government. Q: What Determines Jurisdiction in @ Criminal Case? Ans: (1) Place where the crime was comunitted: (2) The nature of the crime committed: and (3) The person committing the crime. 3. PROSPECTIVE (Prospectivity) ~ penal laws do not have any retroactive effect. Q When we say penal laws cannot have any retroactive effect, what does this mean? Ans: What is meant is whether or not a law can apply: (1) which makes an action done before the passing of the law and which was innocent when done, criminal, and punishes such action: (2) which aggravates a crime or makes it greater than when it was committed; (3) which changes the Punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime wher it was committed. Q: What Articles in the RPC that deal on the characteristics of “prospectivity”? Ans: Arts. 21 & 22 Art. 21 states: “No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its Ast. 22 states: “Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony, etc.” *Acts or omissions will only be subject to @ penal law if they are committed after a penal law had already taken effect. Viee-versa, this act or omission which has been committed before the effectivity of @ penal law could not be penalized by such penal law because penal laws operate only prospectively. Exception to Prospective Application: when the new law is favorable to the accused This is also. called irretrospectivity. Case: Palilla ys CA and People, GR. No. 121917, March 12, 1997 Exce to, the prospective Eppitaion of ettminal ine Whenever a new statute dealing with crime establishes conditions. morelenient or favorable to the accused, it can be given a a retroactive effect, But this exception has no application: 1. Where the new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of action, (Tavera 1 Phil. 463, 470-471) 2. Where the offender is a habitual criminal under Rule 5, Article 62, Revised Penal Code. (Art. 22, RPC) Repeal of penal laws are covered in more depth in wubject of "Statutory Construction.” Our discussion on this matter will briefly touch on its surface the topics of both “modes” and "effects" of repeals. Modes of repeal Q: When we talk of repeal, how many taws are invowed? Ans; There are at least 2 laws involved — the ew repealing law and the old repealed law. Express repeal Q When is there an ‘express’ repeal? ‘A: There is an express repeal when the new law expressly states or declares the old law to be repealed Express repeal tskes place when « subsequent law contains a provision that such law repeals an earlier enactment. For example, in Republic Act No. 0425 (The Dangerous Drugs of 1972), there is an express provision of repeal of Title V of the Revised Penal Code A repeal is absolute or total when the crime punished under the repealed law has been decrimmalized by the repeal. Because of the repeal, the act of comission which used to be a crime ia no longer a crime. An example is Republic Act No. 7363, which decriminalized subversion. A repeal is partial or relative when the crime punished under the repealed law continues to be a crime inspite of the repeal. This means that the repeal merely modified the conditions affecting the crime under the repeated law. The modification may be prejudicial or beneficial to the offender. Consequences if repeal of penal law is total or absolute (1) If @ case ts pending in court invelelng the violation of the repealed law, the same shall be dismissed, even though the accused may be @ habitual delinquent, This 80 because all persons accused of a crime are presumed innocent until they are convicied by final judgment, ‘Therefore, the accused ‘shall be acquitted. (2) If @ case is already decided and the accused is already serving sentence by final judgment, i! the convict is not a habitual delinquent, then he will be entitled to a release unless there is a reservation clause in the penal law that it will not apply to those serving sentence at the time of the repeal. But if there is no reservation, those who are not habitual delinquents even if they are already serving their sentence will receive the benefit of the repealing law. They are entitled to release. This does not mean that if they are not released, they are free to escape. If they escape, they commit the crime of evasion of sentence, even if there is no more legal basis to hold them in the penitentiary This is so because prisoners are accountabilities of the government; they are not supposed to step out simply because their sentence has already been, or that the law under which they are sentenced has been declared null and void If they are not discharged from confinement, a petition for habeas corpus should be filed to test the legality of their continued confinement in jail. Impited repeats arc noi favored. tt requires a competent court to declare an implied repeal. An implied repeal will take place when there is a law on a particular subject’ matter and asubsequent law is passed also on the same subject matter but is inconsistent with the first law, such that the two jaws cannot stand together, one of the two laws must give way, ICs the earlier that will give way to the later law because the later law expresses. the recent legislative sentiment. So you can have an implied repeal when there are two inconsistent laws. When the earlier Taw does not expressly provide that itis repealing an earlier law, what has taken place here is implied repeal. IF the two laws can be reconciled, the court shall always try to avoid an implied repeal LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL LAWS @ What is the legal basis of Punishment? Ans: The power to punish violators of criminal law comes within the police power of the state. I is the wyury inflicted to the public which @ criminal action seeks ( redress, and not the injury to the individual. Q: What are the limitations on the power of Congress to enact penal Taws? ‘Ans: (1) Must be general in application; (2) Must not partake of the nature of an ‘ex post facto law; (3) Must not partake of the nature of a bill of attainder; (4) Must not impose cruel and unusual punishment or excessive fines; (5) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. Republic Act No. 9346 \June 24, 2008) — AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN ‘THE PHILIPPINES. this law declares that the imposition of Death Penalty ix hereby prohibited (Section 1). This law repeals Republic Act No. 8177 - an Act Designating Death by Lethal Injection. Likewise, Republic Act No, 7659, otherwise known as the Death Penalty Law, and all other laws, executive orders and decrees, insofar as they impose the death penalty were repealed or amended accordingly. Q: What is an ex post facto law?—Can be found in Article I, Sec. 1, par. 12 of the Constitution A: An ex post facto law has been defined fas one: (1) which makes an action done before the passing of the law and which was innocent when done, criminal, ancl punishes such action; (2) which ‘aggravates a crime or makes it greater than when it was committed; (3) which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the (a annexed to the crime when it was committed. Q: Is the prohibition against an ex post facto law applicable only to laws which are penal in nature? Ans: Yes. (Geronimo vs COMELEC, 107 SCRA 419. The prohibition of an ex post fact Jaw has been unquestionably known as applicable only to laws or staiutes which are penal in nature. (Santos vs COMELEC, 103 SCRA 628), As defined, an ex post facto law is limited in its scope only fo maiters criminal in nature. Q: What ts @ Bill of Attainder? Ans: It is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial, Is essence is the substitution of a legislative act for a Judicial determination of guilt. Q: What is the DOCTRINE OF PRO REO? Ans: Whenever a penal law is to be construed or applied and the law admits of two interpretations ~ one lenient to the offender andl one strict to the offender ~ that interpretation which is lenient or favorabie {0 the offender will be ‘adopted. “This isin consonance with the fundamental rule that all doubts shall be construed in favor of the accused and consistent with presumption of innocence of the uccused, ‘This is peculiar only to criminal law. @: What do you mean by the doctrine of ACTUS NON FACIT REUM, ‘ISI MENS SIT REA? Ans: The act cannot be eriminal where the mind ts not criminal.This is true to a felony characterized by dolo, but not a felony resulting from culpa. This maxim is not an absolute ‘one because it is not applied to culpable felonies or those that result from negligence. FELONIES Q: What are felonies? Ans: Felonies (delitos) are acts or ‘omissions punishable under the Revised Penal Code. Crimes involving special laws are properly calied offenses while those acts violating municipal or city ordinances are called felonies. Q: How are felonies committed? A: Felonies (delitos) are committed either by means of deceit (dolo) or by means of fault (culpa). There is deceit when the ‘act is performed with deliberate intent. There is fault when the wronafuul act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skills. Q: What are the elements of a felony? Ans: The 3 elements of a felony are: 1. There is an act or omission; 2. Ir must be punishable by law 3. musi be voluntary; and FIRST ELEMENT: act or omission ‘Act: — an overt or external act — a physical movement or physical activity of a human body which tends to influence the outside world, Example: How do you kill a man? By shooting or stabbing him. There should be some movements of the muscles. Q: How about the crime of oral defamation? A: Here there is still this movements of your tongue, the muscles of your throat that are working when you utter defamatory word: An act refers to any kind of body movement that produces change in the outside world. To be considered as a felony there must be an act or omission; a mere imagination no matter how wrong does not amount to a felony. Example: a passenger in front of a lady started putting out his tongue suggesting lewdness—this is already an act within the contemplation of the law which would make him liable for unjust vexation. Omission ~ failure to perform a duty required by law; inaction. In a felony by act, you commit an act which the law says you should not commit, In felony by omission, it is the failure to do a positive duty which the Jaw commands to be done To say that there is no crime when there is no movement is totally wrong. You may be prosecuted not by doing an act but by failing to do an act. Majority of the felonies are felonies done thru actions, In felony by omission however, there must be a law requiring the doing or the performance of an act Example: Art, 116 - Misprision of ‘Treason and Art. 275 — Abandonment of Person in Danger. Based on the first element Felonies are classified to as (1) Felonies by act and (2) Felonies by omission. SECOND ELEMENT: punishable by law. No matter how bad, no matter how condemnable or immoral an act or omission is if there is no law penalizing the crime, then there is no crime. Q: Are these illegal possession of firearms etc. considered as felonies? Ans: No, because they are not punishable by the RPC. They are Punishable under special laws. In other words, what Art. 3 contemplates is that it refers to those crimes punishable by the RPC. Felonies are acts or omission punishable by the RPC.Felonies - acts _and__ omissions punishable by the Revised Penal Code Offense. crimes punished under special law Grime - acts and omissions punishabic by any law Q: Is there a difference between a crime and a felony? ‘Ans: The word crime is generic, because it refers to all acts or omissions punishable by any law. The acts or omissions punished by the RPC are called felonies. Those punished by special laws are called crimes or offenses. THIRD ELEMENT: There is deceit {dolo} or fault (culpa) ‘The word “deceit” means that you were fooled by someone. Example: You go to @ hardware and ordered for a piyess. You told the owner that you will just issue a check in payment of the piyesa. But you know very well that you have no funds, When the check was presented for payment, it bounced. ---there is deceit But there are felonies where there is no deceit Example: Give me your money or else I will Kill you. A felony is committed heve—robbery or hold-up, but take note that th no deceit. There is ineidetion & intent to gui. No deel Q: If there are many crimes where there is no deceit, how come the law says that felonies are committed by means of deceit or fault? ‘Ana: Because “deceit” is a wrong transiation of the word “dolo” Deceit is @ form of dolo but rot every dob constitutes deced. The better translation for the Spanish word “dole” is INTENT. ‘So there must be intent, instead of deceit. What about “culpa? Culpa_means fault--when there is negligence or imprudence. There is no intent but it is substituted by lack of foresight or lack of skill. Under the 3 element, we can say that there are 2 types of felonies: (a) INTENTIONAL FELONIES and (bj (CULPABLE FELONIES. Where do you find intent? —- it is found in the mind. How do you prove intent? Example: If you kill somebody, how am 1 going to prove that you have intent to kill? Ans) No more—criminal intent is presumed from the commission of a ‘criminal act. Mayroong intent to kill— there is a presumption just like in the robbery or thet Note: Intent is judged by your action. @: Why is there such a presumption? Ans: Under the Classica Theory of Criminal Law, that man is a rational being, so that when he commits a criminal act, it is presumed that he did it knowingly and therefore, his. criminal intent is presumed from his commission of @ criminal act. Without such presumption, it would be very difficult jor the prosecution to be required to prove criminal intent. However, the Presumption could be rebutted In criminal law, intent is categorized into two: U1) General criminal intent; and 2) Specific criminal intent. GENERAL CRIMINAL INTENT presumed from the mere doing of a wrong act. This does not require proof. ‘The burden is upon the wrong doer to prove that he acted without such criminal intent. SPECIFIC CRIMINAL INTENT ‘sno! presumed because it is an ingredient or element of a crime, like intent to kill in the crimes of attempted or fnistrated homicide/parricide /murder The prosecution has the burden of proving the same. Q: What is motive? Is it determinant of criminal liability? Ans: Motive is the moving power or force which impels a person to a desired result. Generally, motive is immaterial inthe commission of a felony it is intent which is material. Motive may be illustrated in this manner: in a case of homicide, the intent to kill is demonstrated by the use of a lethal weapon against the victim by the offender; whereas, the motive may bbe vengeance or the desire to vindicate a wrong committed against the accused. Motive >in the mind > moving power that impels a person to >Not an element of a felony Intent >in the mind > the purpose to use a particular means to achieve a particular result > an element of a felony A: Motive becomes material when: a) The act brings about variant crimes (People v4, Puno, February 1993); b) There is doubt whether the accused committed the crime, or the identity of the accused is doubtful (People vs. Salamat, August 1993); ¢) The evidence on the commission of the crime is purely circumstantial; Motive alone will not bring about criminal liability because under the Code, there must be an overt act or an omission. No matter how evil the intemal act is, as long as there are no overt acts, “there is no crime committed. The rule is that proof of motive is unnecessary to impute @ cctime (0 the accused if the evidence concerning his identification is. con: vineing. A converse, if the evidence of identification is unclear, then the jurispradential doctrine is that proof of 10 motive is a paramount necessity. (People vs. Bautista, May 1998) “It has been held that where the identity of the assailant is in dispute, ‘motive becomes relevant, and when i is supported with sufficient evidence, for @ conclusion of guilt, conviction is sustainable.” (People vs. Macoy, July 1997, 84 SCAD) Issue: Is motive an essential ingredient for conviction in a felony? Held: Speaking thru CJ Narvasa said: “Motive is immaterial when the evidence otherwise persuasively demonstrates who is the killer and the acts by which he has carried out his nefarious intent. For purposes of conviction, it is completely immaterial for as long as there is evidence to prove that the crime was committed and it was the accused who committed "(People vs Mosende, 228 SCRA 341) Q: Can a person be held criminally lable under the RPC even if he has no criminal intent? Ans: Yes, if it is committed by mean of fault of culpa. A good example would be Art. 365 — QUASI-OFFENSES. There is no criminal intent but it is substituted by fault, Fault can either be: 1) imprudence deficiency of action or lack of skill) or 2) negligence - (deficiency of perception or lack of foresight) Q: Why does the iaw penalize people who commit culpable felonies, when actually there was no criminal intent on the part of the offender? Ans: SC seid it is very dangerous if a person can get away with a criminal act simply because he did not have the intent. Society will be at great risk if people can be careless al anytime. Here, he is penalized for hs lack of foresight lack of ski In the commission of an intentional or culpable felony - it means that the act must be committed VOLUNTARILY. Elements of voluntariness in intentional felonies: (a) freedom (b) Intelligence (c}Elements of voluntariness in culpable felonies: (a) freedom (b) intelligence {c} Fault or Negligence What do you mean by “voluntary act in a felony"? ~ it is an act which is free, there is intelligence and it’ is intentional. Example: Par. 5 & 6 of Art. 12. -one who acts under compulsion of an irresistible force or one who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury-—- here the offender acts with intelligence and intent, but there is no freedom of action, as he is only forced, or intimidated to commit the crime. So, he is exempt from criminal liability because the ceases to be voluntary. Actus me invite, factus non est meus ‘actus” ~ an act done by me against my will is not my act. If there is freedom, there is intent but no intelligence — the act ceases to be voluntary ~ it has the same effect Example: An insane person or a minor. What happen if there is freedom, there fs intelligence but no intent —the person is free fom any criminal liability, @ Is there an exception to the general rule that criminal intent can be presumed? Ayes. Example: US vs Ah Chong, 15 Phil 488 MISTAKE OF FACT - is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused injury to another. He is not criminally liable. Requisites: 1. that the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be; 2. intention of the accused is lawful; 3. mistake must be without fault of carelessness. + Mistake of fact would be relevant only when the felony would have been intentional or through dolo, but not sohen the felony is a result of culpa. When the felony is a product of culpa, do not discuss mistake of fact. " + It exists when a person who in the ‘cxercise of due diligence, acts under the influence of aa erroneous appreciation of facts, which if true would relieve him from criminal responsibility. Let us analyze the requisite according to the Ah Chong Case: Q: What is the reason why Ah Chong killed the intruder? A: He believed that the intruder was inside his room in the dark to kill him ‘and therefore, he had to kill him first. Q: What if what Ah Chong believed turned out to be true? An intruder in the middle of the night enters his room to kill him, but he kills him first. is Ah Chong liable? A; No. Because of _ self-defense, meaning, if he believed it to be true he is not liable. So the first element here is present, Q: What was the intention of Ah Chong in killing the man? ‘A: The intention is lawful ~ to act in self-defense, to protect his life & limb : Was Ah Chong carciess? Did he just immediately stab the person when the latter entered the room? A: No, in fact Ah Chong asked who he ‘was and even gave him warnings not to enter the room or else Ah Chong would kill him. And it was dark, so how can he determine whether the intruder was his roommate or not. --- the element of intent and culpa are not present here. Q: Can a person be held criminally Uavie even if there ts no criminat intent? Ans: Yes in 2 instances: (1) when the felony is classified as culpable felony (2) crimes malum prohibitum Q: What do you understand by the so called “extra-ordinary manner” of incurring criminal tiabitity? Ans: This is covered under Article 4, RPC. “Art. 4. Criminal ability. — (Criminal liability shall be incurred:1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. 2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of th: employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. Problem: A kills B. A aims his gun at B and shoots B. A’s intent is to kill B and B is killed. Does A incur criminal liability? Ans: Yes.—but this is not what is contemplated under par. 1 because the Jaw says “although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended”. Here, it was really the intention of A to kill B. Q: What is the relevance of this problem to Art. 4? Ans: This section covers only the EXTRA-ORDINARY MEANS of committing a crime or incurring criminal liability. Ordinarily: you commit a felony & the wrongful act done was precisely what you intended. In par. I: the wrongful act done is different from you have intended- unsual--not normal. NOTE: Article 4 refers only to the EXTRA-ORDINARY manner of incurring criminal liability What is the ordinary manner of incurring criminal liability? —- the ordinary manner is to commit a felony & the wrongful act done was precisely what the accused intended...But here in Art. 4, the wrongful act done is different from that which the accused intended..-- this is unusual. This is the reason why they are called “extra-ordinary” fone incurs criminal liability even if his intention is different from what actually happened. 12 Q: How many clauses are there in paragraph 1? Ans: There are two clauses in this paragraph: 1) "Bu any _ person committing a felony (delito),” and 2) “Although the wrongful act’ done be different from that which he in- tended.” Q: Does the first clause refer only to intentional felony? Ans: No, because the provision specified “delito” and under Article 3, delitos are commitied either by dolo or by culpa. Therefore, even if the wrongful act done be different from what should have been the result of the culpable or negii- gent act committed, a felony is still ‘committed. Thus, the first clause refers {0 both dolo and culpa. Q: How can a person commit a felony and the wrongful done is different from that which he intended? A: There are 3 situations contemplated under Art. 4 (1). They are: 1. Error in personae (error in identity) 2. Aberratio Ietus (mistake in the blow) 3. Praeter Intentionem {the result exceeded the intention) Enror in personae (error in identity) — there is only one offended party but the offender committed a mistake in ascertaining the identity of the victim, ‘The classic example is: A wanted to kil B. A waited B in the dark one night. When he thought he saw B coming, A attacked B and killed him But it tured out that it is X whom he killed and not B. He made a mistake. A will be prosecuted for the death of Mr. x Defense of A: I should not be made liable because I have no intention of killing Mr. X. It was B. Is that defense valid?Ans: No. A is still liable because although there wax a mistake in the identity of the victim, he still had the intention to kill Another example: “A’ laid in ambush of “B” but due to the darkness of the alley, he instead hit and killed his father whom he thought was "2" ABERRATIO ICTUS Q: What is aberratio ictus? How does it affect the offender's criminal Habitity? Ans: In aberratio ictus, there is no mistake in the identity of the vietim but mistake in the blow. The offender intends the injury on one person but the harm fell on another. ‘There are three persons present: the offender, the intended victim and the actual victim. Consequently, the act ‘may result in a complex crime (Article 48} or in two felonies, but there is only: fone intent that characterized the Sai A Wat to tL BAe Bp a at Band fired at him. But the Bullet did not hit B inetead it hit C kalling C. Prosecuted, A’s defense is that C was not the intended person to be hit, it was B, Q: Is A lable for the death of C although he did not intend to kill C but B? Ans: Yes. A is liable for the death of C although he was not the one intended to be killed. In error in personae, there is a correct, aim but the actual victim med out to bbe a person different from the intended victim, In aberratio ictus, on the other hand, because of faulty aim, the intended vietim is not the person hit, @: May treachery be appreciated in aberratio ictus? ‘Ans: Yes, When the offender fired at his adversary but missed, the victims were helpless to deferd themselves. Their deaths were murders not simply B homicide since the acts were qualified bby treachery. (People vs. Flora, June 2000) PRAETER INTENTIONEM (the result ‘exceeded the intention} In procter intentionem, the injury is on the intended victim but the resulting consequence is so grave @ wrong than what was intended. There should be a great disparity between the intended felony and the actual felony committed, US vs Cagoco, 58 Phil. 524 Facts: A had the intention of inflicting physical injuries upon the person of B. A approached B and hit him with his fist. Because of A’s fist blows, B fell down and B's head hit the pavement. It fractured his skull and thus caused his death, Here, A had no intention of ailing B. His intention was merely to inflict physical injuries upon. But 5 died. Issue: Is A lable for the death of B when his intention was only to inflict physical injuries? Held: Yes. A is lable for homicide, although his intention was merely to inflict upon B physical injuries, though under Ar. 13, A is entitled to the mitigating circumstance that the offender did not intend to commit so grave a ‘wrong as that committed. US vs Valdez, 41 Phil 497 The deceased is a member of the crew of a vessel. Accused is in charge of the crew members engaged in the loading of cargo in a vessel. Because the offended party was slow in his work, the accused ‘shouted at him. The victim replied that they would be better sf he would not insult them. The accused resented this, and rising in rage, hi the victim with @ big Ienife in hand threatening to kill him. The victim believing to be in immediate peril threw himself to the water. The victim died of drowning. The accused was prosecuted for homicide. His contention is that his liability should only for grave threats since he did not even stab the victim, that the victim died of drowning and this can be considered as a supervening cause,SC: The deceased in throwing himself to the water, acted solely in obedience to the basic, instinct of self preservation & was in no sense legally responsible for his own death. The accused must therefore, be considered as the author of the death of the vietim. Note: This case illustrates that proximate cause does not require that the offender needs to actually touch the body of the offended party. It is enough that the offender generated in the mind of the offended party the belief that made him risk himselt PP vs Quiamson, 62 Phil. 162 The accused inflicted wounds upon B because the accused stabbed B. So, B was brought to the hospital so he wax saved. In the hospital, there were many instruments attached to him, B was restless while in bed. B removed the bandages on his wounds, Eventually, B died. The accused was prosecuted for the death of B. He said that B’s death was not due to his fault but it was the fault of B. Held: No, the accused ix liable—the wrong dene was the direct, natural & Iogical consequence of the felony committed, US vs Marasigan, 27 Phil. 504 A stabbed B. Because of B's refusal to submit to medical treatment, the wound infected and the injury became worse. So, slight physical injuries lang nagging serious physical injuries na. A was charged for Serious Physical Injuries. A claimed that he should be liable only for slight physical injurice because B's serious physicial injuries arose from B's refusal to see a doctor Issue: Is A liable for Serious Physical Injuries? Held: Yes. The accused is still liable for Serious Physical Injuries although it was not intended. The victim was not obliged to submit to. medical treatment to relieve the accused from the natural and ordinary result of his crime People vs Martin, 98 Phil 18 The husband strangled his wife who has a heart disease. While being strangled, the wife suffered heart attack and died. So, the cause of wife's death was not suffocation but heart attack SC: Husband is lable for the death of his wife. PRINCIPLE: A person committing a felony is lable for the DIRECT, LOGICAL AND NATURAL CONSEQUENCE OF HIS CRIMINAL ACT. DOCTRINE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE: The cause which in the natural and continuous sequence of event, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, results in a particular felony and without which the result would not have occured. Requisites: a. the direct, natural, and logical cause D. produces the injury or damage ©. unbroken by any sufficient intervening cause d. without which the result would not have occurred Let's take the Cagoco Case: — the victim did not die because of the punch but because his head hit the pavement. Q: Does the hitting of the head on the pavement which caused his death was something absolutely foreign which broke the relation between the cause and effect between the punching and death? ‘A: SC said: No, The immediate cause of death was the fractured skull, but the punching was the proximate cause — without the punching ~-there is no falling down-—- without the falling down, there is no head hitting the pavement that resulted to death, ‘The principle here is: he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused. Garcia vs. People. G.R.# 171951, August 28, 2009, 597 SCRA 392Facts: Amado Garcia and his friends were having a drinking spree adjacent to the house of Manuel Chy. Chy appealed to the group to quiet down as the noise was blaring This irritated Amado who made remarks of killing Chy. The incident happened a couple of times, One time, the group summoned — Chy. When Chy approached Amado, Amado suddenly punched him on the face and continuously assaulted him. When Chy found an opportunity to escape, he ran home. He told his wife about the mauling and complained of difficulty in breathing. The wife went to the police. When the police and the wife arrived, they found Chy lying unconscious on the kitchen floor. salivating. He was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital. The autopsy report disclosed that Chy had contusions on the lower portion of the eft car, lower hp and left hand: lacerated wound on the right side of the upper lip, with no fractures noted. The cause of death was: myocardial infarction. During tial, the doctor testified that the immediate cause of Chy's myocardial infarction was the occlusion of the blood vessels. Coronary occlusion is the complete obstruction of an artery of the heart brought about by the sudden emotion in a person with existing arteriosclerosis. Chy has a mild fibrosis of the myocardium (the middle and thickest layer of the heart wall composed of cardiac muscle) caused by @ previous heart attack Said fibrosis caused Chy's heart vulnerable to coronary occlusion from sudden emotion. In short, because of the emotional crisis brought about by the mauling, Chy’s heart palpitated so fast such that there was less oxygen being pumped by the heart, Convicted of Homicide, Amado appealed, contending that he could be held liable only for slight physical injuries because none of the blows he inflicted on Chy was fatal. Issue: Is Amado criminally liable for the death of Chy? 1s Held: YES. It can be reasonably inferred from the foregoing statements. that the emotional strain from the beating aggravated Chy's delicate constitution and led to his death. The inevitable conclusion then surfaces that the myocardial infarction sulfered by the victim was the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony that petitioner had intended-to commit. In this case, petitioner was committing a felony when he boxed the victim and hit him with a bottle. Hence, the fact that Chy was afflicted with a heart ailment does not alter petitioner's liability for his death. In this jurisdiction, a person committing a felony is responsible for all the natural and logical consequences resulting from it although the unlawful act performed is different from the one intended; “el que es causa de la causa es causa det mal causado ~ {he who is the ‘cause of the cauise is the cause of the evil caused). Thus, the circumstance that the petitioner did not intend so grave an evil as the death of the victim does not exempt him from criminal liability. Since he deliberately committed an act prohibited by law, said condition simply mitigates his guilt in accordance with Article 13(3) of the Revised Penal Code. Nevertheless, we must appreciate as mitigating circumstance in favor of petitione: the fact that the physical injuries he inflicted on the vietim could not have resulted, naturally and logically, the actual death of the victim, if the latter's heart was in good condition. Hence, petitioner has in his favor the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. Read also: Bringan vs People, 125 ‘SCRA 687; PP vs Tligan, 191 SCRA 643 Another example: A stabbed B. B's ‘wound got infected because of the infection B died or the wound has worsened.Q Is the infection ~invasion of the bacteria considered an efficient cause which would break the relation of cause and effect between his death and the initial injury? Ans: No. Q What do you mean by “efficient intervening cause”? Ans: An “efficient intervening cause” is something absolutely foreign and totally unexpected which intervened ‘and which broke the relation of cause and effect, between the original {felonious act and the result. Generally, infections. areal considered as continuations or natural effects of what happened to the victim. They are not efficient intervening cause. ‘The rule is: you are not liable if there is an cfficent intervening cause Meaning, there is something which happened in between which absolutely foreign between the victim's death and the original act. ‘There is a break in the relation of cause and effect , then one is liable only up to that point. Beyond that, there is no liability. Rule: You are lable for all the DIRECT, LOGICAL and NATURAL CONSEQUENCES of the criminal act. Note: The SC decisions do not tell us that you are liable for all the possible & probable consequences of his act. Q: What is an impossible crime? Ans: An impossible crime is one where the acts performed would have been a ‘crime against persons or property but which ts not accomplished because of its inherent impossibility or because of the ‘employment of inadequate or ineffectual There is intent (subjective) to commit a crime but actually no crime is committed (objective). Q Why is it that in Art. 4 (2), it States: “performing an act”, 16 whereas Art. 41), it says, “committing a fetony”? ‘Ans: Because in Art. 4 (2), there is no known felony. Unlike in Art 4 (1) where there is a known felony which he committed. In par 2, the offender did not actually commit a felony as defined in the RPC, but he performed an act which would be an offense against person or property In_other words: There is_no_such thing _as_impossibie crime _by ‘omission Under Article 4(2), the act performed by the offender cannot produce an offense against persons or property because: (2) the commission of the offense is inherently impossible of accomplishment; or (2) the means employed is either (a) inadequate or (b) ineffectual. ntod vs. CA, October 1992) Q: Are all impossible attempts to commit a crime punishable? (BQ) Ans: No, To be considered an impossible crime, it would have been fan offense against person or property. Example: A wanted to kill B. A plans to ‘stab him in his room at 12:00 midnite while B would be sleeping — A saw B lying on bed, then A started stabbing B without him knowing that B is already dead 1 hour ago. Q Is A liable for crime of murder? A: No. Impossible. You cannot kill somebody who is already dead. There is a physical impossibility. But had B been alive, then it would have been murder. So, what crime did A commit? Ans: Impossible crime Another example: A wants to steal B's sunglasses. A stole it. It turned out it was his. Did A commit the crime of theft? Ans: No-in theft, the personal property taken belongs to another but here the sunglasses was his. There is a legal impossibility. Is there @ crime committed? Ans: Yes, impossible crime of theft What are the two kinds of Inherent impossibility?(1) Legal impossibility, which occurs where the intended acts, even if completed would not amount to a crime. It would apply to those circumstances where: (1) the motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in violation of the law; (2) there is intention to perform the physical act; (3) there is a performance of the intended physical act; and (4) the consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a (2) Factual or physical impossibility of accomplishing the intended act. This ‘occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime Requisites of impossible crime: {a} That the act performed would be an offense against persons or property {b) That the act was done with evil intent (c) That its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that the means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual. (q) That the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the RPC. PRINCIPLE: There is no frustrated or attempted felony in impossible crime. It is always consummated, PRINCIPLE: There must be criminal intent on the part of the offender.-—the offender believes that he was committing a crime at that very moment. PRINCIPLE: A person could be liable {or an impossible crime only if the act performed does not constitute a Violation of another provision of the RPC. --- crime of last resort. Impossible crime is @ provision of last resort, if there is no other provision under which a certain set of facts may be prosecuted. Example: A wants to rob B.A knows that B is carrying a money. When A saw 7 B, A declared @ hold up. But it turned out that B did not carry the moncy at that time. So A told B, “alright since you did not bring the money. you can go home now’ Q:Is A lable for an impossible crime because tt was impossible for him to take something which 's not there? A: That is not an impossible crime- that is attempted robbery—the facts. fit the definition of an attempted robbery — so it falls under a specific provision of the RPC — it should not be treated as impossible crime. Read: People as. Domasian, 219 SCHA 243, March 1, 1993 Case: Inted vs CA, 215 SCRA 52, October 21, 1992 Facts: Due to a land dispute, intod and several companions, all armed with firearms, went {o Palangpangan's house at 10 PM and fired at the latter's room. It tured out, however, that Palangpengan was in another ciiy and her home was then occupied by her son-in-law and his family. No one was in the room when the accused fired the shots. No one was hit by the gun fire. intod and this companions were Positively identified by witnesses. After tial, Intod was convicted by I ho RTC of attempted murder. The decision was affirmed by the CA. Before the SC, Intod seeks a modifieation of the judgment by claiming liability only for an impossible crime, citing Art. 4(2) of the RPC. He | contends’ that Palangpangan’s absence from her room fon the night le and his compenions riddled it with bullets made the crime inherently impossible. The People, on the other hand, argues that I he crime was not impossible. Instead, the facts were sufficient to constitute an altempt and to convict Intod for attempted murder. It pointed out that the crime of murder was not consummated, not because of the inherent impossibility of xts accomplishment, but due to a cause or accident other than Intod's and his coraccused’s own spontaneous desistance. Palangpangan did not sleep at her house at that time, Had it ot been for this fact, the crime is possible, not impossible. In upholding. Intod’scontention that what was committed ‘was an impossible crime, the SC ruled: Held: The factual situation in the case at bar presents a physical impossibility which rendered the intended crime impossible of accomplishment. Under Ar 4, por. 2 of the RPC, such is sulficient’ to make the act an impossible erime To uphold the contention of respondent that the offense was Auempted Murder because the absence of Palangpangan was a supervening cause independent of the actor's will, will render useless the provision in Art 4, which makes a person criminally able for an act “which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of ts accomplishonent xxx. Q: If there is no crime committed, why is impossible crime punished? Ans: Impossible crime is resorted to only If the acts committed will not fall under paragraph 1 of Article 4. The purpose is to suppress lawlessness. Subjectively, the offender is a criminal although objectively no crime has been committed. The Revised Penal Code inspired by the Positivists School, recognizes in the offender his formidabiity and now penalizes an act which were i not ‘aimed at something quite impossible or carried out with means which proved inadequate, would constitute a felony against person or property The rationale of Article 4(2) is to punish such criminal tendencies. (Intod vs CA, October 1992) Q: Is there an impossible crime of Pape? Ans: Yes, because rape is now a crime against person. Hence, if a person would rape a corpse, there is an impossible crime of rape because of the ‘amendment brought about by the Anti Rape Law which reclassified Rape under Crimes Against Persons. Q: What is the penalty for an Impossible Crime? Ans: Art. 59 — itia only a light felony. is @ What are the stages in the ‘execution of a felony? Ans: Consummated, frustrated, and atiempted felonies (Article 6, RPO). Q: What is a consummated felony? ‘Ans: A Jelony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution ‘and accomplishment are present. Q: What is a frustrated felony? Ans: When the offender performs alt the facts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. Q: What is an attempted felony? Ans: There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which sheuld produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. Kinds of felonies: & Astocommission — Art. 3 b. Asto stage of execution Art. 6 (also, material and formal felonies) As to gravity — Art.9 As to nature — mala in se and mala prohibita © Asto count — composite, compound, complex, continued pp HOW A FELONY DEVELOPS: |. Mental Process/Internal Acts —- Not punishable-something that is found only in the mind-—decision/planning are mind processes. After the decision, it is followed by 2. External/Physical Acts a) Preparatory Acts >General Rule: Not punishable >Exception: If the RPC penalizes it b) Acts of Execution Attempted >Frustrated >Consummated FIRST STAGE: Preparatory actsPreparatory Acts: Example: You want to kill your wife ~ you buy a Batangas ‘knife or you want to shoot your enemy ‘end you started practicing shooting the rab! these are acts of preparation : Are preparatory acts punishable? Ans: Generally, No, because the act of buying a knife is not the act of killing your wife or the act of practicing Shooting is not preparatory to the act of shooting your enemy. PRINCIPLE: Preparatory external for a penalty for euch preparatory acts. Example: Art. 304 — possession of picklocks ~ these are gadgets used to ‘open doors, robbers possessed this Kind of instrument. But the possession Of a false Key or pick lock i not the actual act of robbery. It is only in Preparation of robbery. Preparatory acts to commit robbery is not punishable but Art. 304 states that mere possession of these objects which are preparatory to the crime of robbery with force upon things is also punishable. SECOND STAGE: ACTS OF EXECUTION: —this isthe implementation of the plan. The offender now executes the commission of the act and there are 3 possibilities: It could either be ATTEMPTED, FRUSTRATED & CONSUMMATED. Attempted Stage ~ There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts ------ overt acts: therefore, there is no attempted stage in felony by omission. Take note: the attempted ssiage refers only to “felony by act™ “Overt acts” or external acts — those which if allowed to continue will logically result in a felony; it is the start of criminal liability. “Directly” — The attempted felony is that directly linked to the overt act no matier what the intention is. PRINCIPLE: in order to convict a Person for an attempted felony, the overt act must have a direct relation to the felony for which he is charged. Example: One night a group of policemen while patrolling saw a figure in the dark. They stopped and observed what the guy was doing. The guy did not know that he was being watched by the policemen. What the guy did was he was trying to create an opening to enter the house. When he was able to create fan opening and the accused was ‘already in the act of entering the house, that was the time when the policemen caught him. The guy was charged for the crime of Attempted Robbery because according to the prosecution, the guy commenced the commission of robbery directly by overt acts by trying to enter the house in the middle of the night. SC: No aitempted robbery ~ there is no connection on what he was doing and the elements of robbery. How do you commit the crime of robbery? - it is committed by taking personal property belonging to. another by violence against or intimidation of person. In this case, he has not yet commenced the act of taking anything. They caught him in the act of entering but robbery is, not committed by entering but by taking. There is no connection between the act & the crime for which he is charged. (Pp vs Lamahong, 61 Phil 707) REMEMBER: One must commence the felony by overt act and the overt act must be related to the crime for which he is charged. In attempted ~ you started to commit a felony but you failed to finish - halfway or less than halfway but failed to finish because you failed to perform all the acts of execution which should have produced the felony. Why? Because of « CAUSE or because of an ACCIDENT other than his own spontaneous Gesistance. Example of a CAUSE: theft-pickpocket the owner held the hands of the thief ~ the thief failed to take the wallet-—- there was an act of taking but he failedfo complete the possession of wallet. Why? Because he failed to perform all the acts of execution was because the ‘owner prevented him, That is a cause other “than his own spontaneous desistance --- attempted theft. Example of ACCIDENT: A wants to kill B. A aims his gun but the gun jammed. A failed to kill B. When A pointed the gun at B, A already commenced the act of trying to kill. The jamming of the gun was an accident which prevented the performance of all the acts of execution, ‘What do you mean by “other than your ‘own spontaneous desistance”? >if a person wants to kill A but did not complete it because of his own spontaneous desistance ---- there is no criminal liability, -—-- He cannot even be prosecuted for attempted felony —- a person on the verge of committing a crime but desista or decides not to pursue --- cannot be penalized — he listens to his conscience. POINT TO CONSIDER: The desistance must come before the commission of the crime. The desistance must not come after you have executed all the acts of execution on the theory that you cannot desist something that you have already accomplished. Kinds of desistance: * Legal desistance — the desistance referred to. in law which would obviate criminal lability unless the overt or preparatory acts already committed im themselves, constitute a felony other than what the actor intended, Factual desistance = actual desisiance of the actor which if made afier | the attempted stage would not amount to legal desistance. Read: PP vs Pareja, December 1996 20 Desistance on the part of the offender negates criminal liability in the attempted stage. Desistance is true only in the attempted Stage of the felony. If under the definition of the felony, the act done is already in the frustrated stage, no amount of desistance will negate criminal liability. The spontaneous desistance of the offender negates only the attempted stage but not necessarily all criminal liability. Even though there was desistance on the part of the offender, if the desistance was made when acts done by him already resulted to a felony, that offender will still be criminally liable for the felony brought about his act. What is negated is only the aitempted stage, but there may be other felony constituting his act. FRUSTRATED STAGE: when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reayon of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. At this stage, the offender is already at the objective phase because he can no longer desist from the commission of the crime as he has performed all the acts necessary for its accomplishment. tween the and frustrated felonies, a) As to acts of execution, in attempted, not all acts of execution’ had been done whereas in frustrated, all acts of execution had been performed. b) As to causes of —_non- accomplishment, in attempted, the felony was not produced by reason of cause or accident other than the offenders own Spontaneous desistance; in frustrated the reason for the frustration is some cause independent of the will of the Perpetrator.c) In attempted stage, the offender is still in the subjective phase as he still has control of his acts; whereas in the frustrated stage, he is already in the objective phase because all the acts of execution are already there and the cause of its non-ae- complichment ie other than the offender's own will. Hence, if the felony was not produced by the will of the offender, such as his giving the antidote for the poison he administered on the victim, there is no frustrated homicide, but some other crime, eg, physical injuries. Example: In attempted homicide, the wound is not mortal, hence,” the offender should still need to” deal another blow on the victim which he was not able to do because of some cause or accident like his being apprehended. In frustrated homicide, the wound is mortal, already suificient to bring about death, hence, there is no more need of another blow from the offender. But death nevertheless did not supervene because of timely medical attendance. Note: The similarity of these stages is that the felony is not accomplished, it is not produced or consummated but the reason for the non-accomplishment of the crime is different TRINCIPLE: In Crimes Against Persons which involve intent to kill, before a person can be convicted of frustrated murder, the prosecution must establish that the victim sustained an injury which would normally dll a person.( Pp vs Borinaga, 95 Phil. 433) > there must be a fatel wound inflicted upon the vieti if the wound is not fatel -~ the erime committed is only attempted, Example: A shot B but the gun jammed --- is that attempted or frustrated? ~ Attempted only --- the jamming of the gun is an accident other than A’s own spontaneous desistance. Example: A shot 8 --- poor aim—B was not hit --- What is now the crime? Attempted - you cannot die unless you hit him --- ‘the poor aim is a cause other than AS own spontaneous desistance. Example: A shot B - B was hit at the Jeg = not fatal -- B did not die —- is it attempted or frustrated -—- Ans: Attempted. A has performed all the acts of execution --- how can B die without & fatal wound, It is necessary that the offender inflicts a fatal wound which could normally kill a person. Example: A shot B in his head, chest blasting his heart. B was rushed to the hospital -modern apparatus --- B survived --- the modern apparatus is the cause independent from the will of the perpetrator. 1994 Bar Question ABC planned to kill Y, @ resident of Laure, Batangas. ABC asked the assistance of X who is familiar with the place. On April 3, 1902, at about 10 pm, ABC, all armed with automatic weapons went to Laurel, Batangas. X being the guide directed ABC to the room of ¥. Whereupon, ABC fired their guns towards the room, Fortunately, ¥ was not around as she atiended a prayer meeting that evening in another barangay. ABC were charged and convicted of attempted murder by the RTC. On appeal to the CA, all ABC ascribed to the RTC its error in. finding them guilty of attempted murder. How would you decide the appeal? Ans: I will reverse the RTC ruling and convict ABC of impossible crime under the doctrine of Intod vs CA, Q: What crimes do not admit of Jrustrated stage? ‘They are those which, by the definition of @ frustrated felony, the offender ‘cannot possibly perform all the acts of execution to bring the desired result without consummating the offense. Examples: 1) Rape, since the gravamen of the offense is camal knowledge,hence, no matter how slight is the penetration, the felony is consummated. If the male organ failed to touch the pudenda, by some causes or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance, the felony is merely attempted. If he — desisted spontaneously, he is not liable for attempted rape, following Article 6, but he: is liable for some other crime such as acts of lasciviousness. (PP vs Orande. 11-12-2003) 2) Arson, because this is punished as to its result, hence, the moment burning of the property ‘occurs, even if slight, the offense is consummated. 3) Corruption of public officers, because the offense requires the concurrence of the will of both parties, such that when the offer is accepted, the offense is consummated. But when the offer is rejected, the offense is merely attempted. 4) Adultery because the essence of the crime is sexual congress 5) Physical injury since it cannot be determined whether the injury will be slight, less serious, or unless and until consummated. Read: Arancta, Jr. vs CA, 187 SCRA 123 and Pp vs Revalo, 202 SCRA 655, October 15, 1001;' Valenzuela ve People, June 21, 2007, 525 SCRA 306 CONSUMMATED STAGE: when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present. Example: A with intent to kill stab B. B died —~ consummated homicide or murder. >To convict a person of @ particular crime, you have to prove all the dlements to establi the elements of a crime are present, then the felony is consummated >But suppose some elements are present & some elements are absent. ‘Suppose a crime is composed of several elements, then the prosecution has established only some of the elements but not the others. What will now happen? Principle No. 1: The accused can be found guilty only of frustrated or ‘attempted felony: Example: A with intent to kill shot B fatally wounding B. But B did not die. What crime is committed? - Frustrated homicide Principle No. 2: The accused cannot be convicted of the felony charged in its ‘consummated stage but he can be found guilty of another felony in its consummated stage. Example: A ie charged for robbery. Note that robbery is committed when, with intent to gain. one takes personal property belonging to another with violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. —— A is Proven to have taken the personal Property with intent to gain —- but there was no force upon things or violence or intimidation against person. What crime was proven? ——- SIMPLE THEFT only Example: A — charged for murder because with intent to kill and alleged the qualifying circumstance of treachery. During during the trial, the Prosecution proved that A shot the Victim, with intent to kill but there was no treachery. The crime charged is consummated murder but the crime Proven is consummated homicide. Principle No. 3: If the crime consists of 2 or more elements, some elements are proven, some are not — what was established is purely a civil obligation — the accused should he acquitted Example: A charged X for the crime of Estafa. The elements of Estafa are (a) misappropriation (b) deceit or abuse of confidence (c) pecuniary damage suffered by the plaintiff. —During trial, it was proven that X was able to get the money from A. X did not return the money -—- there is pecuniary damage--- but there is no deceit nor abuse of confidence. What was proven was a simple loan -—- there is no estafa -- civil obligation ma dismiss ang kaso. Is there an instance that there is a difficulty in determining the stage of execution? YES, in the following a) when there is _no_ distinction between Attempted and Frustrated Felony — crimes. — where you attempt to do it, but your attempt constitutes the consummation of the crime. Example: Crimes _ against National Security ~Art. 121. Flight to Enemy's Country. The penalty of arresio mayor shall be inflicted upon any person who, owing allegiance to the government, attempts to flee or to go an enemy country when prohibited by competent authority, Example: Philippines is in a war against China, where all citizens are banned from’ going to China. You decided to go to China - when you come back from China, the Government may file a case against you because you visited a country with which we are at war & there is a prohibition, But suppose you really wanted to go to China. You are about to board a plane bound for China but you are caught and 90 you were not able to go to China. You attempted to go-- this time you are liable-—your mere attempt already consummates the crime. a) Felony by omission —- you failed to perform an act which the law commands you to do as a duty. If you do the act -~ you don't commit the crime. But if you do not do it ---- there is a crime, So it is either you do or you do not do. b) alee testimony in court @) Slander or Oral Defamation -- ~ example: A said to B: “You are a thief”. A said that in the presence of so many people -- = public. ~The crime committed is slander/oral defamation -- A orally defamed @ person and put him ia dishonor. What if A said: “You....! But did not continue... is A liable for Attempted Slander? -— No. There is no Attempted or frustrated siage in slander because either you said it or you don’t ) Arson --- A bums the house of B. Out of 5 rooms only 1 room was bumed. How much portion of the house or building has to be burned before it becomes consummated, frustrated or attempted? Ans: It does not matter on how many rooms were bumed. No matier how big or small the portion is burned consummated. But can there be a frustrated stage in Arson? —-No. Arson can either be committed in Attempted or ‘Consummated. No frustrated stage. Note: In deciding whether a felony is attempted or frustrated or consummated, there are three criteria involved: (1) The manner of committing the (2) The elements of the crime: and (3) The nature of the crime itself. Questions & Answers Q. Is there an attempted slight physical injuries? Ans: If there is no result, you do not know the degree of the injury. Criminal law cannot stand on any speculation or ambiguity; otherwise, the presumption of innocence would be sacrificed. Problem: A threw muriatic acid on the face of B. The injuries would have resulted in deformity were it not for timely plastic surgery. Afier thesurgery, B became more handsome. What crime is committed? Is it attempted, frustrated or consummated? Ans: The crime committed here is serious physical injuries because of the deformity. When there is deformity, you disregard the healing duration of the wound or the medical treatment required by the wound. In order that in law, a deformity can be said to exist, three factors must concur: (1) The injury should bring about the ugliness: (2) The ugliness must be visible: (3) The ugliness would not disappear through natural healing process Along this concept of deformity in law, the plastic surgery applied to B is beside the point. In law, what is considered 1s not the artificial or the scientific treatment but the natural healing of the injury. So the fact that there was plastic surgery applied to B does not relieve the offender from the liability for the physical injuries inflicted. The crime committed is serious physical injuries. 's consummated. In determining whether @ felony ts attempted, frustrated or consummated, you have to consider the manner of committing the felony, the element of the felony and the nature of the felony itself Case in point: Valenzuela vs People, June 21, 2007 (en banc) Q: When is there proposal to commit a felony? ‘4: There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some over (person or persons. @: When is there conspiracy to commit a felony? ‘A: A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement eonceming the commission of @ felony land decide to commit it. this article presupposes that there are at least 2 persons involved — the Person proposing the felony and the Person to whom the proposal was made. 2 Example: A said to B, “I will pay you P10,000, assassinate C"--- from this exemple, there is a proposal to commit a felony. What if B did not agree there still @ proposal? Ans: Yes. It is immaterial whether B accepts it or not. FB accepts the proposal, there is now an agreement, hence the proposal becomes a conspiracy. How do we define conspiracy? Ans: when (wo or more persons come to ar agreement concerning the commission of felony and decide to commit it Q: Is conspiracy a felony? A: As a general rule, a conspiracy does not constitute a felony; it is merely a Preparatory act in the execution of a Jelony. And as we already learned from ‘Art, 6, @ preparatory act is generally not punishable. @: When is a conspiracy punishable as a felony? ‘A: A conspiracy, as expressly stated in par. 1, is punishable only in cases where’ the law specially provides a Penalty therefore. In other words, a conspiracy is not @ felony. Conspiracy only becomes a felony if i i made so by specific provision of law. Propose-——-Agree -—- and both decide to commit the felony Note: Once the proposal is accepted — it now reaches the stage of conspiracy. Problem: A propose to B to kill C. B accepts the proposal — so there is now conspiracy —- they were caught and arrested -- are they liable for ‘attempted murder or conspiracy to ‘commit the crime of murder? Ans: No. Why? First: in murder, the offender should commence "the commission of an overt act. Second: According to Art. 8 --- “mere proposal to commit a felony or mere conspiracy to commit a felony is not punishable — there is no commencement yet —- only Preparatory. So the conspiracy or proposal are mere Preparatory acts to the crime of murder,GEN, RULE: Proposal or conspiracy to ‘commit a felony is not puntshable. Example: In robbery, ABC agreed to commit robbery, before the robbery is to be executed, they were all caught there is no such crime as conspiracy to commit robbery. EXCEPT: when the law specifically provides a penalty therefore. PRINCIPLE: Proposal or conspiracy to commit a felony is not punishable unless the law makes the proposal or conspiracy punishable. ‘Two kinds of conspiracy: (2) Conspiracy as a crime; and (2) Conspiracy ‘criminal Liability @ manner of incurring (1) AS A CRIME BY ITSELF: the crime subject of conspiracy is not yet committed by the mere act of conspiring but is defined and punished as a crime. (2) AS_A BASIS OF INCURRING LIABILITY: conspiracy is carried out already. I ix necessary to determine: a) whether there was prior agreement on how to commit the crime, in which case, a conspirator is liable as long as he went to the crime scene unless he is the mastermind bj whenever the offenders acted in concert during the commission of the crime. Here, it is essential that the conspirator participated in the commission of the erime to be liable. His mere presence or approval of the crime without more will not make him liable because there would be no basis for deducing conspiracy as to him as criminis participes is absent @: Are there instances when mere conspiracy or mere proposal becomes a crime? A: Yes, when the law specifically provides a penalty therefore. There are many crimes in the RPC which can be consummated by mere proposal or conspiracy: a) machinations in public auctions b) monepoly or combination in restraint of trade ©) when a public officer or a warden makes unchaste proposal to a woman prisoner who is under his custody — abuse against chastity d) conspiracy to commit treason An. 11S e) conspiracy to commit rebellion or insurrection ~ Art. 136 D conspiracy to commit coup a? etat ~ Art. 136 as amended by RA 6968 9) conspiracy to commit sedition Art 147 How about Proposals? 2) Proposal to commit treason — Ar. 115, b) Proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection ~Art 136 © Proposal to commit coup a etat - Art. 136-4 @ Why is it that in treason, rebellion, insurrection, coup d’ etat, the law penalizes even the mere proposal or mere conspiracy? ‘Ans: Because in these crimes ~ these crimes are directed against the State. The State is the victim, hence, the State has the absolute power to prosecute you even if you are only ing ~ the State does not have to wait for the commencement of the crime. Under Conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal ability, there are two ways for conspiracy to exist: (0) There is an agreement, 2) The participants acted in concert or simultaneously which is indicative of a meeting of the minds towards a common enminal goal or criminal objective. Whenseveral offenders act in a synchronized. coordinated manner, the fact that their acts complimented each other indicative of the meeting of the minds. There is an implied agreement. When conspiracy ttse¥f ts a crime, no overt act is necessary to bring about the criminal liability. The mere conspiracy is the crime itself. This is only true when the law expressly punishes the mere conspiracy: otherwise, the conspiracy does not bring about the commission of the crime because conspiracy is not an overt act but a mere preparatory act. Treason, rebellion, sedition, and coup Wetat are the only crimes where the conspiracy and proposal to commit 10 them are punishable. When the conspiracy is only a basis of incurring criminal liability, there must be an overt act done before the co-conspirators become criminally liable. When the conspiracy itself is a crime, this cannot be inferred or deduced because there is no overt act All that there is, is the agceement. On the other hand, if the co-conspirator or any of them would execute an overt act, the crime would no longer be the conspiracy but the overt act itself. If the conspiracy is only a basis of criminal tabtitty, none of the co- conspirators would be liable, unless there is an overt act, So, for as long as anyone shall desist before an overt act jin furtherance of the crime was committed, such a desistance would negate criminal liability. For as long as none of the conspirators has committed an overt act, there is no crime yet. But when one of them commits any overt act, all of them shall be held liable, unless 1a co-conspirator was absent from the scene of the crime or 2) he showed up, but he tried to prevent the commission of the crime When the conspiracy is just a basis of incurring criminal liability, however, the same may be deduced or inferred from the acts of several offenders in carrying out the commission of the crime. The existence of a conspiracy may be reasonably inferred from the acts of the offenders when such acts disclose or % show a common pursuit of the criminal objective * Conspiracy is @ matter of substance which must be alleged in the information, otherwise, the court will not consider the same. Read: People v. Laurio, 200 SCRA 489 , Taer ¥. CA, 186 SCRA $98, Pp vs Magallanes etal, January 16, 1997, Pp vs Dinglasa ctal,, GR No 101312, January 28, 1997, People ve Nando, etal, GR. No. 100197, April 4, 1997 Q: What is the effect of a conspiracy? Ans: A conspiracy merely creates co- responsibility between or among the accused. Once a conspiracy has been established, then each and everyone accused of being a conspirator, who Joined in the conspiracy, becomes lable as a principal for the crime committed. As the saying goes, the act of one becomes the act of all. (Pp vs Gallo, 318 SCRA 157; Pp us Recones, 310 SCRA 809 CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY There are five _ciroumstance: affecting criminal liability: L. Justifying circumstances under Article 11; 2. Exempting circumstances provided for under Article 12; 3. Mitigating circumstances Prescribed in Article 13; 4. Aggravating circumstances, enumerated in Article 14; 5. Alternative circumstances classified under Article 15 as either mitigating or aggravating Offenders falling under either Article 11 or 12 are without criminal liability; those benefited by the circumstances in Article 13° have reduced criminal liability: those proved to be more perverse by committing the felony with any of the circumstances in Article 14 have increased criminal liability; and those who act while under’ the circumstances stated in Article 15 will have their liability either incteased or reduced depending upon the situation obtaining in the commission of the felony,‘There are two others which are found elsewhere in the provisions of the Revised Penal Code: i. Absolutory circumstances which refer to exempting circumstances outside Article 12 such as certain rela tives who acted as accessories to the offenders as stated in Article 20 in relation to Article 19, and those covered by Article 332 for crimes and relatives enumerated therein, among others. 2. Extenuating circumstances which are mitigating circumstances not found im Article 13, such as paragraph 3 of Article 333 and the mother in the crime of infanticide in Article 255. The effect Of this is to mitigate the criminal liability of the offender In other words, this has the same effect as mitigating circumstances, only you do not call it mitigating because this is not found in Article 13. *The concealment of honor by mother in the crime of infanticide isan extenuating circumstance but not in the case of parricide when the age of the victim is three days old and above. * In the crime of adultery on the part of a married woman abandoned by her husband. Abandonment by the husband does not justify the act of the woman. It only extenuates or reduces criminal liability. When the effect of the circumstance is to lower the penalty there is an extenuating circumstance. ‘The following are exempting/absolutory circumstances: 1. Instigation by reason of public policy: 2 Art. 6(3) — spontaneous desistance in the altempted stage unless the overt act committed already constitutes another crime than that intended: 3. Art. 7 — atlempted/frustrated light felonies except those bala ere + PREV 5. Art. 20 — certain accessories; 6 Art. 247 — physical injuries ‘except serious physical in- n juries inflicted under exceptional circumstances; 7. Art. 332 — certain persons in theft, estafa, and malicious mischief; 8 Somnambulism; 9. Mistake of fact; and 10. Absolute repeal of a penal law JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE The act of the person is said to be im accordance with law — he is considered not to have transgressed the law thus, be incurs no criminal liability. Note: Art. 11 is a matter of defense. The defense of self-defense should be proved by clear & convincing evidence which is approximately proof beyond reasonable doubt — the burden of roof resi on the accused. Why? -- because when one invokes self-defense the accused automatically admits that he killed the victim. What is the reason why the law allows Self-Defense: because it would be impossible for the State to protect all its citizens. But the State cannot protect ils citizen 24/7 - impossible to assign fone policeman for every individual, So if somebody attacks you and there is no policeman, you defend yourself and if on the process of defending yourself it is inevitable to kill your attacker - you are not liable because you are only doing what the State should be doing for you. The equation is “life was taken to save life.” This is the doctrine of self: preservation. Rights included in self-defense: 1. Defense of person 2. Defense of rights protected by law 3. Defense of property The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has a right to exclude any person from the enjoyment or disposal thereof.For this purpose, he may use such force as maybe reasonably necessary to repel o prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion —_ or usurpation of his property. (Art. 429, New Civit Code} Q: Can there be self-defense when what is involved is property? : If what is to be saved is property ONLY, killing is not justified. To Justify killing, it must be necessary to do it in order to save another life. If the aggression is on the property, even if there was no attack on the defender or owner or possessor, defense is proper but not to the extent of taking Ife. Killing the aggressor will not be justified because the means used to repel or Prevent the aggression will not then be reasonable. REASON: The value of property can never be equated to human life which is supposed to be priceless. DOCTRINE OF SELF-HELP — under Art. 429, the law justifies the act of the ‘owner of lawful possessor of a thing in using such force as necessary to protect his proprietary or posseasory Fights, but not to the extent of taking the offender's life UNLESS there is danger posed on the person defending himself Read: People vs Annibong, 403 SCRA 92; Pp vs Geneblazo, 361 SCRA 572: Pp vs Gallego, 406 SCRA 6 Q: What do you mean by “reasonable means”? Ans: a) the course of action taken is reasonable and b) the weapon used to defend must also be reasonable. @: What do you mean by “course of action taken is reasonable”? Ans: The offender’s conduct and response to the occasion. Q: When is there reasonable necessity of the means employed? Ans: It depends upon the circumstances surrounding the agaression, the state of mind of the aggressor and the available weapon oy at the defender’s disposal. IT CANNOT BE MEASURED BY MATHEMATICAL EQUATION — Pp vs Gutual, 254 SCRA * Reasonableness of the means depends on the nature and the quality of the weapon used, physical condition, character, ‘size and —other circumstances, “Whether or not the means employed is reasonable will depend upon the place, eceasion and other circumstances More often, it is the nature and quali of weapon used by the ageressor. It also dictated by the physical condition, size and sex of the person defending himself, Supposing A is walking along a dark alley. All of a sudden A’is attacked by B. A responded. A hit B killing B. Do you think the reaction of A is reasonable? Ans: YES. Based on the circumstance of time & place. A is sitting in a school bench in the ‘moming ~ B is behind A. B touched A and A turned around and gave B a punch on his face ---- not justified, the reaction is not reasonable. *Reasonableness of the weapon used” ~ the law docs not require perfect of weapon. What the law ‘reasonable equality” Rule: When a person is attacked ~ person will instinctively use the frst available means et his disposal to defend himself — ‘when a person is under attack --- he is not expected to thinle coolly and choose what kind of weapon he is going to stse In Pp vs Gutual, 254 SCRA 37: “Reasonable necessity of the means employed does not imply material commensurability between the means of attack & defense. What the law requires is “rational equivalence”, Note: you have to consider the 1) size or power of the weapon, 2) the character of the parties & 3) their relative standing.Size: A attacks B with a knife. B repels the attack with a knife. Power: A used gun to defend himself against B who is using a knife —- you cannot say that it’s unreasonable because a knife can also kill a person. Character of the Parties & their relative standing A fist against a knife — unreasonable; A knife against 10 people with their fist --- reasonable (you have to consider also the number of ogercasor. Remember _of _ Guide: Reasonable ‘equality and not Perfect Equality. THIRD ELEMENT: Lack of sufficient Provocation on the part of the person defending himself. >If you were the one who caused the aggression — no self defense because you gave the provocation. You cannot say that you are totally faultless — you are partly to be blamed. Ex: A provokes B, by reason of the provocation, B attacks A, A defends himself with reasonable’ means. A cannot claim self-defense. PRINCIPLES TO REMEMBER: 1)There was no provocation at all on the part of the person defending himself. 2)The person defending himself might have given the some provocation but it is insufficient. - ~allowed to claim self-defense —-even if there was provocation because the provocation is not commensurate with the reaction of the attacker. ‘The attention is called to the word “provocation”. It will be noted that the word is qualified by the term “sufficient”. In other words, @ person may have given some provocation, but is not sufficient enough to cause the offender to take a drastic action. ‘Thus, a man surprised a young girl and her boyfriend conversing under the flag 29 pole at the Luneta. Pointing his forefinger repeatedly at the face of the young man, A told him, “Don't you know that it is prohibited by law for young people to sit under the flag pole?” C just took out @ knife and stabbed A on the stomach. A died as a result. Prosecuted for homicide, C claimed self-defense. The court, however, denied him the full benefit of the circumstance by saying that the act Of the deceased in repeatedly pointing his finger at the face of C was irksome, ‘but not sufficient for C to stab him. * When even if provocation was given by the person defending himself, such was not sufficient to cause violent aggression on the part of the attacker, i.e. the amount of provocation was not sufficient to stir the aggressor into the acts which led the accused to defend himself. Q: How do you determine whether or not the provocation is sufficient? 4: The provocation that was given in such that it is normal and natural Jor a person to react by becoming an unlawful aggressor. For provocation to be considered serious by the court, the degree must be sufficient and must at all times be immediate to the unlawful aggression. (Castanares vs. Court of Appeals, 92 SCRA 567) 3) When even if provocation was given by the person defending himself, the attack was not proximate or immediate to the act of provocation. Example: A provokes B today. B did not react. 2 months after A met B. B started attacking A. A defends himself, Can A claim selfdefense? Ans: Yes, because the provocation was not proximate or immediate to the act of aggression, 4) When even if the provocation were sufficient, it was not given by the person defending himself. Circumstances belying self-defense: >The nature and number of wounds found on the victim; and >The flight of the accused.Q: May se¥fdefense be belied and negated by the nature and number of wounds found on the victim? A: Yes. People vs, Gallego, 406 SCRA 6 (2003) — the nature and number of wounds on the victim belie the claim of self-defense Q: May the justifying circumstance Of self-defense be invoked at the same time with the exempting circumstance of accident? A: No. Selfdefense is defense is inconsistent with the exempting of accident , in which there is no intent to kill. On the other hand, self-defense necessarily contemplates a premeditated intent to kill in order to defend oneself from imminent danger. (Pomoy vs People, September 29, 2004) The_Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 — RA 2 Battered Woman Syndrome People vs. _Marivic Genosa, reported 341 SCRA 493 (2000) and 419 SCRA 537 (2004). > “Battery” — refers to an act of inflicting physical harm upon the woman or her child resulting to the physical and psychological or emotional distress, > “Battered Woman Syndrome” — refers to @ scientifically defined pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a result of cumulative abuse. @ How is a battered woman defined? A: A battered woman has been defined as a woman “who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do something he wants her to do without concern Jor her rights.” Q: Must the battered woman be married to the man? 30 A: No. Battered women include wives or women in any form of intimate relationship with men. Q: How many times must the woman be “battered”? A: In order to be classified as a battered woman, the couple must go through the battering cycle at least twice. Q: What are the 4 characteristics of the battered woman syndrome? A: The 4 characteristics of the battered woman syndrome are: Ist — The woman believes that the violence was her fault 2nd — She has an inability to place the responsibility for the violence elsewhere; Sd — She fears for her life and/or her children’s lives; and 4th — She has an irrational belief that the abuser is omnipresent and omniscient, Q: What are the common personality traits of a battered woman? A: Battered women exhibit common personality traits, such as tow self: esteem, traditional beliefs about the home, the family and the female sex role; emotional dependence upon the dominant male; the tendency to accept responsibility for the batterer's actions; and false hopes that the relationship will improve. Q: Is the battered woman syndrome characterized by the ‘cycle of violence? A: Yes. The battered woman syndrome is characterized by the so- called “cycle of violence.” : What is the effect of battery on a woman? A: Because of the recurring cycles of violence experienced by the abused woman, her state of — mind metamorphoses. Thus, just as the battered woman believes that she is somehow responsible for the violent behavior of her partner, she also believes that he ts capable of killing her, and that there ts no escape. Battered women feet unsafe, suffer from pervasive anxiety, and weually Jail to leave the relationship. Unless ‘@ shelter is available, she stays withher husband, not only because she typically lacks @ means of self support, but also because she fears that if she leaves she would be found and hurt even more. >As a general rule, under Section 26 of the Act, the Battered Woman Syndrome isa valid defense. ait reads “victim-survivors. who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the RPC. In the determination of the state of mind of the woman who was suffering from a battered woman syndrome at the time of the commission of the crime, the courts shall be assisted by expert psychiatrists/ psychologists.” In other words, the Battered Woman Syndrome is a valid justifying circumstance. ‘As an exception to the general rule, under Section 27 of the Act, the Battered Woman Syndrome shall not be f@ valid defense when the woman is under the influence of elcohol, any illicit drug, or any other mind-altering, substance EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES (Article 12) Q What are the circumstances? Ans: a) imbecility/insanity; b) minority; @ accident; d) compulsion of an irresistible force; e) Impulse of an uncontrollable fear; f) Insuperable exempting Distinetions between Justifying & Exempting: Justifying >the act is within the bound of the law aihere is no crime, hence no criminal >since there is no crime, there is no criminal liability & no civil lability except par. 4 >the emphasis of the law is on the act 3 Exempting - >the act is criminal >there is a crime & a criminal >since there is a crime, there is a criminal (but exempted) & there is a civil liability >the emphasis is on the actor. Imbecility/Insanity Basis: Complete absence of intelligence Q: What is embecility? Ans: It is a condition of the mind where the offender might be advance in age but the mental development is comparable fo that of a child between two to seven years old, Insanity ~ exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, that is, the accused is deprived of reason, he ‘acts without the least discerninent because there is ‘a complete absence of power to discern, or there is @ total deprivation of freedom of the will. Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability (Pp vs Danao, November 199) Note: The burden rests on the accused to establish that faci, for the law presumes every man to be sane. Hence, in the absence of sulficient evidence 10 prove insanity, the legal presumption of one’s sanity stands, (Zosa vs CA, March 1994) Note: Art. 800 NCC ~ presumes every person to be of sound mind, in the absence of proof to the contrary. Cases: Pp vs Dungo, July 1991 and Pp vs Rafanan, November 1991 Under our jurisdiction, there has been no case that lays down a definite test or criterion for insanity ‘Two Test: 1. Cognition test or complete deprivation in committing the act2 Volition test or a total deprivation of the freedom of the will Q: What is the nature of insanity as a defense? Ans: Insanity is a defense in the nature of confession and avoidance and as such must be adequately proved. The law presumes that all persons are of sound mind, and that acts are done consciously. “worx In the eyes of the law, insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act. Proof of the existence of some abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability, if it can be shown that the offender was not completely deprived of freedom and intelligence.” (People vs Belonio, May 27, 2004) Note: Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Art, 12 of the Revised Penal Code have been amended by RA 9344 (a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 1402 and House Bill No, 5065) which was finally passed by the Senate and House of Representatives on March 22, 2006. RA 9344 took effect on May 21, 2008. JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE, ACT OF 2006 - RA 9344 Child in conflict with the law — refers to a child who is alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as, having committed an offense under Philippine laws. Minimum = Age of Criminal Responsibility (Sec. 6) 1) A child 15 years of age or under at the time of commission of offense shall be exempted from criminal liability. The child shall be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Sec. 20 of the Act. 4) The child referred herein shall be released to the custody of his/her parents or guardian, or in the absence thereof, the chile’ nearest relative. b) If the parents, guardians or nearest relative cannot be located, oF if they refuse to take custody, the child shall be released to a duly Registered nongovernmental or religious organization, a barangay official or a member of the Barangay Council for the Protection of Children (BCPC), or when appropriate, the DSWD. 2) A child above 15 years but below 18 years of age shall likewise be exempted from criminal liability and be subjected to intervention Program pursuant to Section 20, unless he/she has acted with discernment. If the child referred herein acted with discemment, he/she shall undergo diversion programs without undergoing court proceedings subject to the following conditions. (Section 23) a] Where the imposable penalty is not more than 6 years of imprisonment, the Puniong Barangay or taw enforcement officer shall conduct mediation, family conferencing and conciliation, bj Where the imposable penalty exceeds 6 years imprisonment, diversion measures may be resorted to only by court Note: Age of criminal responsibility is the age when a child, fifteen (15) years and one (1) day old or above bat below cighteen (18) years of age, commits an offense with discernment (Revised Rules on Children in Conflict with the Law -A.M. No, 02-1-18-SC) Exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil liability. The child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the presumption of minority until he/she is proven to be 18 years old or older. (Section 7, par. 1)‘The prosecutor shall conduct a preliminary investigation and file an information upon determination of probable cause in the following instances (Section 33); 1 When the child conflict with the law does not qualify for diversion. 2 When the child, _ his/her parents or guardian does not agree to diversion. 3 Upon determination by the prosecutor that the diversion is not appropriate for the child in conflict with the law. Q: What is Discernment? A: It “is that mental capacity of a minor to fully appreciaie the consequences of ‘his unlawful act. Such capacity may be known and should be determined by taking into consideration all the facts end circumstances afforded by the records in each case.” Q: How do you establish that the minor acted with discernment? A: The manner of committing the crime ‘and the conduct of the offender bejore, during and after. ‘A minor who acts without discernment acts by impulse ~ no plans. But if it appears that everything is well coordinated and premeditated, then there is discernment In one case where the minor after hitting the victim with a stone shouted: Putang ina mo. Mabuli sa" yo mamalay ka", SC -- that kind of remark is not the remark of a person who is doing an innocent act --it shows that there is discernment. 0: How is age of a child determined? 4: SEC. 7. Determination of Age. — The child in conflict with the law shail enjoy the presumption of minority. He/She shall enjoy ail the rights of a child in conflict with the law until he/she is proven to be eighteen (18) years of age Gr older. The age of a child may be determined from. the child's birth cenifiate, baptismal certificate or any cther pertinent documents. inthe 3 absence of these documents, age may be based on infarmation from the child himsel{/herself, testimonies of other persons, the physical appearance of the child and other relevant evidence In case of doubt as to the aye of the child, it shall be resolved in his/her favor. In Sierra v. People, the SC clarified that testimonial evidence of the accused who claimed the privilege of the mitigating circumstance of minority may be considered sufficient provided the following conditions concur, namely: “() the absence of any other satisfactory evidence such as the birth certificate, baptismal certificate, or similar documents that would prove the date of birth of the accused: (2) the presence of testimony from accused and/or a relative on the age and minority of the accused at the time of the complained incident without any objection on the part of the prosecution; and (3) leck of any contrary evidence showing that the accused and/or his relatives’ testimonies are untrue.” (People vs Henry Arpon, December 14, 2011) ‘Status Offenses — Any conduct not considered an offense or not penalized if commited by an adult shall not be considered an offense and shall not be punished if committed by a child. (Sec. 57, RA 9344) MITIGATING __ CIRCUMSTANCES (Article 13) @ What — are mitigating circumstances? A: The are those which if present in the commission of a crime, do not entirely free the actor from criminal lability but Serve only to reduce the penalty Mitigating circumstances serve to reduce the penalty in terms of degree or ‘Period. Effect — Reduces the penalty of the crime but does not erase criminal liability nor change the nature of the Basis: Diminution of freedom of action, intelligence, or intent or on the lesser perversity of the offender.