CAGAYAN STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW
SUBJECT: CRIMINAL LAW
PROFESSOR: ATTY. HONORATO CARAG
ARTICLE 5 – “BALAKAJAN, JUDGE”
“In connection with acts which should be repressed, but which are not covered by
law.” ART. 5(1)
 The act committed by the accused appears not punishable by any law.
 The court deems it proper to repress such act
 In that case, the court must render the proper decision by dismissing the
case and acquitting the accused.
 The judge must then make a report to the Chief Executive, through the
Secretary of Justice, stating the reasons which induce him to believe that the
said act should be made the subject of penal legislation.
BASIS: Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege. (There is no crime, when there is no
law that punishes it.)
“In case of excessive penalties.” ART. 5(2)
 The court after trial finds the accused guilty.
 The penalty provided by the law and which the court imposes for the crime
committed appears to be clearly excessive: 1) The accused acted with lesser
degree of malice, and/or; 2) There is no injury or the injury caused is of lesser
gravity.
 The court should not suspend the execution of the sentence.
 The judge should submit a statement to the Chief Executive, through the
Secretary of Justice, recommending EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY.
No part of this reviewer shall be reproduced, published, and copied without a written consent from the owner. If this is in your possession without permission from the original owner, thou shall not pass this
sem nor become a lawyer. Understand simple instructions.
EXAMPLES:
1) Lesser degree of malice. People v. Monleon (1976): The accused who was in
an inebriated state maltreated his wife when the latter prevented him from
whipping their son. The wife died due to maltreatment (proximate cause).
The Court applied Art. 5 of the RPC since the accused had no intent to kill his
wife, and her death might have been hastened by the lack of medical
assistance or her weak constitution. Hence, reclusion perpetua prescribed by
law was excessive.
2) Lesser gravity. People v. Acbangin (2000): A four-year old child was brought
by the accused to a house of a certain Juanita Niu, and denied the location of
the kid when asked. Next morning, he told the grandmother of the child the
truth, and accompanied the victim’s father and police officers to the house of
Niu, and found the child well-dressed and smiling. The accused was convicted
of kidnapping and serious illegal detention and sentenced to reclusion
perpetua. The Court held that the application of Art. 267 of the RPC was
harsh, taking into consideration the minimal injury. Further, the SC agreed
that the accused be recommended for possible pardoning power pursuant to
Art. 5 of RPC.
3) Absence of injury. People v. Cabagsan and Montano: The COP falsified the
police blotter to show that the person was arrested and gave bond on
September 13, 1930. Before falsification, the said records stated that the
person was arrested and released on September 6. The falsifications were
 committed to show that there was no delay in the preliminary investigations The judge may state his opinion, but must apply the law as interpreted by the
for qualified seduction. In this case, there is a total lack of malice and injury. highest court. (People v. Amigo)

EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY:
ARTICLE 6 – “PWEDE NA BANG UMUWI?” PRINCIPLE
 People v. Canja: (J. Montemayor, concurring): The husband, a habitual
drunkard and who has a mistress, went home and stroke the stomach
NOTE: MEMORIZE THE PROVISION. NO EXCUSES. (DI KO NA ILALAGAY DEFINITION.
of his wife until she fainted. When the latter regained consciousness,
BAHALA KA NA. PAG IKAW BOKYA, MAG-DROP KA NA. LOL)
she asked as the reason of the unprovoked attack, but the former
threatened to box her again. During the supper, the deceased threw
DEVELOPMENT: 1) Internal – ideas in the mind ONLY. 2) External – a) Preparatory.
the rice from his plate to the wife. He left the house and boxed the
Not punishable, otherwise stated in a law. b) Acts of Execution. A – F – C.
wife when he returned home. The violence of the wife when she
killed her husband revealed the anger and rebellion against years of
Attempted – Preparatory v. Overt (Remember the poison bought in the drug store.
abuse, insult, and tyranny. The wife must be granted the executive
Snow White feels)
clemency, not of full pardon but a substantial, if not a radical
reduction or commutation of life sentence.
People v. Tabago: Drawing or trying to draw a pistol is not an overt act. To
constitute attempted homicide, the person using a firearm must fire the
 People v. Manlapaz: The crime committed is simple rape. Before the
same, with the intent to kill, without inflicting a mortal wound. (Reyes, page
amendment of Art. 355 of RPC, the penalty was reclusion temporal or
99)
12 years to one day. However, due to rampancy of sexual assaults, RA
4111 raised the penalty from reclusion temporal and made it a capital
US v. Simeon: The accused only raised his bolo as if to strike or stab the
offense. The accused shall have served a term of imprisonment
offended party. The latter ran and shouted for help. No threats to kill or
consistent with retributive justice. Therefore, executive clemency may
bodily harm.
be extended to him.
NOTE: Proposal to offer money to a public officer for purposes of corrupting
NOTE: The only function of the judiciary is to interpret the laws and, if not in him is an overt act. (Overt act may not be by physical activity)
disharmony with the Constitution, to apply them. (People v. Limaco)(Apply the
penalty provided by law) EXTERNAL ACTS ----- CRIME INTENDED TO COMMIT

No part of this reviewer shall be reproduced, published, and copied without a written consent from the owner. If this is in your possession without permission from the original owner, thou shall not pass this
sem nor become a lawyer. Understand simple instructions.
 People v. Lamahang: The first requisite of robbery is present. However, A
only succeeded in breaking one board and in unfastening another from the
wall. The action had no direct connection with robbery. There was something
yet for him to do, that is, commence entering the dwelling through that
opening in order to perform all the acts of execution. Therefore, the crime is
attempted trespass to dwelling.
INDETERMINATE OFFENSE: People v. Lamahang: The act of the offender is not
certain. It might be to rob, cause physical injury, or commit any other offense.
NOTE: READ PAGE 101-102 of Reyes.
 Directly by overt acts.
 Does not perform all acts of execution.
 By reason of some cause or accident.
 Other than his own spontaneous desistance. (Before acts are performed)
SEE: People v. Lizada (2003): The spontaneous desistance of a malefactor exempts
him from criminal liability for the intended crime, but it does not exempt him from
the crime committed by him before his desistance.
Araneta v. CA (1990): The slight wound did not cause the death of the victim nor
materially contributed to it. His liability should be limited to the slight injury he
caused. Therefore, he is not liable for the crime of attempted homicide.
NOTE: In attempted felony, the offender never passes the subjective phase of the
offense. (Snow White, season 2)
Frustrated – performed all but failed (sad)
No part of this reviewer shall be reproduced, published, and copied without a written consent from the owner. If this is in your possession without permission from the original owner, thou shall not pass this
sem nor become a lawyer. Understand simple instructions.
 People v. Honrada: Where the accused stabbed the offended party in the
abdomen, penetrating the liver, and in the chest. It was only the prompt and
skillful medical treatment which the offended party received that saved his
life.
 People v. Mercado: Where the accused wounded the victim in the left
abdomen with a sharp-edged weapon, causing a wound in the peritonial
cavity, serious enough to have produced death.
 People v. David: Where the accused in firing his revolver at the offended
party hit him in the upper side of the body, piercing it from side to side and
perforating the lungs. The victim was saved due to adequate and timely
intervention of medical science.
READ: US v. Bien/ People v. Kalalo/ People v. Domingo/ People v. Somera (Pages
108-109, Reyes)
NOTE: In frustrated felony, the offender has reached the objective phase; in
attempted felony, the offender has not passed the subjective phase.
People v. Orita (1990): The essential element which distinguishes attempted from
frustrated felony is that, in the latter, there is no intervention of a foreign or
extraneous cause or agency between the beginning of the consummation of the
crime and the moment when all of the acts have been performed which should
result in the consummated crime; while in the former there is such intervention and
the offender does not arrive at the point of performing all of the acts which should
produce the crime. He is stopped short of that point by some cause apart from his
own voluntary desistance.
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME: The evil intent cannot be accomplished because it is inherently
impossible of accomplishment.
FRUSTRATED/ATTEMPTED: Is not accomplished, but possible of accomplishment.

Consummated – execution and accomplishment are present.
 Homicide: if the victim did not die, not consummated.
 Theft: if the intent to gain is lacking, not committed. (US v. Adiao, leather belt
at Customs House).
 Estafa: if the element of deceit or abuse of confidence is not proved, there is
no crime. Only CIVIL LIABILITY. However, if the element of damage is not
proved, the accused may be found guilty of attempted or frustrated estafa.
(US v. Dominguez, books, misappropriation of accounts)
 Robbery with violence against Persons: if the element of intent to gain is not
proved, the accused can be found guilty of grave coercion (Art. 286).
 Forcible Abduction: if the element of lewd designs is not proved, the accused
may be held liable for kidnapping and serious illegal detention (Art. 267).
 Arson: committed even if only a portion of the wall or any other part of the
house is burnt.
CONSUMMATED THEFT: Ruling of Adiao v. Dominguez Case
 Adiao: The mere removal of the personal property belonging to another with
the intent to gain.
 Dominguez: The offended party is not prejudiced or damaged.
DIFFERENCE: ELEMENTS
FRUSTRATED THEFT: Ruling of Espiritu v. Dino Case
 Espiritu: The crime of theft was consummated because the thieves were able
to take or get hold of the hospital linen and that the only thing that was
No part of this reviewer shall be reproduced, published, and copied without a written consent from the owner. If this is in your possession without permission from the original owner, thou shall not pass this
sem nor become a lawyer. Understand simple instructions.
frustrated, which does not constitute any element of theft, is the use of
benefit that the thieves expected to derive from the commission of the
offense.
 Dino: It was held that the crime committed is that of frustrated theft,
because the fact determinative of consummation of the crime of theft is the
ability of the offender to dispose freely of the articles stolen, even if it were
more or less momentarily.
NOTE: NO FRUSTRATED THEFT. (Valenzuela v. People et. al., page 117)
READ: Reyes, pages 118-119
ATTEMPTED THEFT: People v. Dela Cruz
FRUSTRATED ESTAFA BY MEANS OF DECEIT: People v. Gutierrez
MERE REMOVAL OF PERSONAL PROPERTY: People v. Del Rosario
INTENT TO KILL PRESENT IN INFLICTING PHYSICAL INJURIES:
- Articles 263, 264, 265, 266: Physical injuries. If inflicted with intent to kill as
mentioned in Art. 248, the crime would be either attempted or frustrated
parricide or murder.
READ: US v. Joven/US v. Maghirang/Mondragon v. People (Reyes, 119)
MANNER OF COMMITTING THE CRIME
Formal Crimes – consummated in one instant, no attempt.
 Slander and False Testimony
  People v. Marcos: In the sale of marijuana and other prohibited drugs, the
mere act of selling or even acting as broker consummates the crime. EXCEPTION: Light felonies committed against persons or property, are punishable
even if attempted or frustrated. (The commission of felonies against persons or
poverty presupposes in the offender moral depravity.
Attempt of Proposal
 Flight to enemy’s country (Art. 121) LIGHT FELONIES PUNISHED BY THE RPC
 Corruption of Minors (Art. 340)
 Slight Physical Injuries (Art. 266)
By omission  Theft (Art. 309)
 Alteration of Boundary Marks (Art. 313)
 Killing a child by starving him.  Malicious Mischief (Art. 328(3), Art. 329(3))
 Intriguing against honor (Art. 364)
Mere agreement

 Betting in sports contes and corruption of public officer (Art. 197, Art. 212) LIGHT FELONIES AGAINST PERSON
(Us v. Basa)
 No frustrate bribery except on the case of People v. Diego Quin  Art. 266 – Slight Physical Injuries and maltreatment
 Us v. Te Tong: The accused who delivered the money was also guilty of
robbery.
 Material Crimes – homicide ( A- C- F), rape (A – C) LIGHT FELONIES AGAINST PROPERTY

NOTE: THERE IS NO ATTEMPTED NOR FRUSTRATED IMPOSSIBLE CRIME.  Art. 309 no. 7
 Art. 309 no. 8
 Art. 313 – Alteration of boundary marks
_____________________________________________________________________  Art. 328 no. 3; Art. 329 no. 3

ARTICLE 7 – “CONSUMMATED ONLY PLEASE”

_____________________________________________________________________
GENERAL: Light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated. (If
they are not consummated, the wrong done is so slight that there is no need of ARTICLE 8 – “ONE FOR ALL, ALL FOR ONE”
providing a penalty at all.
No part of this reviewer shall be reproduced, published, and copied without a written consent from the owner. If this is in your possession without permission from the original owner, thou shall not pass this
sem nor become a lawyer. Understand simple instructions.
GENERAL: Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are not punishable. Perpetual or Temporary Absolute Disqualification
EXCEPTION: They are punishable only in the case in which the law specially provides Perpetual of Temporary Special Disqualification
a penalty therefor. Prision Mayor

 Max period are correctional

MERE CONSPIRACY, PUNISHABLE UNDER RPC (should not be actually committed) The higher between Penalty 1 , Penalty 2 must be correctional.
 Art. 115 – Conspiracy to commit treason
 Art. 136 - Conspiracy to commit coup d’etat, rebellion, or insurrection CP:
 Art. 141 – Conspiracy to commit sedition Prision Correctional
Arresto Mayor
Suspension
SEE EXAMPLES ON PAGE 128-130, REYES Destierro

NOTE: CONSPIRACY IS PUNISHABLE UNDER ART. 186 // DIRECT PROOF IS NOT

ESSENTIAL TO ESTABLISH CONSPIRACY (People v. Buntag) // QUANTUM OF PROOF NOTE: MEMORIZE AGAIN THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX. JAMES POTTER. LILY
REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH CONSPIRACY (People v. Comadre) POTTER. SIRIUS BLACK. ALBUS SEVERUS WULFRIC BRIAN DUMBLEDORE. LOL.
ORDER OF THE PENALTIES. SHALL I START?

_____________________________________________________________________

ARTICLE 9 – “GF v. LGF v. LF” ARTICLE 10 – “SEE YOU ON THE OTHER SIDE, RAY”

FORMULA: FIRST CLAUSE: Offenses under special laws are not subject to the provisions of the
 Capital Punishment = Death Penalty Code.
 2P of Afflictive Penalties or 2P of different Afflictive Penalties = GF SECOND CLAUSE: The Code is supplementary to such laws.

AP in accordance with Art. 25:

TWO CLAUSES RECONCILED. Special penal laws are controlling only with regard to
Reclusion Perpetua offenses specifically punished. Special legal provisions prevail over general ones –
Reclusion Temporal Lex specialis derogant generali.
No part of this reviewer shall be reproduced, published, and copied without a written consent from the owner. If this is in your possession without permission from the original owner, thou shall not pass this
sem nor become a lawyer. Understand simple instructions.

REMEMBER THIS MY BELOVED FRIEND
 SPECIAL LAWS is defined in US v. Serapio, as a penal law which punishes acts
not defined and penalized by the RPC. // Not an amendment // Follows
American Penal Law.
 RPC is not suppletory when the penalties under the SPECIAL LAWS are
different from those under RPC.
 ART. 10 is not applicable to punish an accomplice under the special law.
 The SPECIAL LAW has to fix penalties for attempted and frustrated crime.
 When a SPECIAL LAW covers the mere attempt to commit the crime defined
by it, the attempted stage is punishable by the penalty provided by the law.
 MITIGATING and AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES, not applied to offenses
punishable under SPECIAL LAWS.
 No accessory penalty, under the SPECIAL LAWS provided therefor.
 Where the special law adopted penalties from RPC, the rules for graduating
penalties by degrees or determining the proper period should be applied.
 Indemnity and subsidiary imprisonment in the RPC applied to Motor Vehicle
Law.
 Subsidiary Imprisonment for Violation of BP 22.
 DEFINITION ON PRINCIPALS/ACCOMPLICES/ACCESSORIES – ART. 17-19 of
RPC to define P – A - A under RA 8042 or Migrant Workers and Overseas
Filipino Act of 1995, because they are not defined therein. (People v.
Chowdury)
 PRINCIPLE OF CONSPIRACY – ART. 8 to BP 22. (Ladonga v. People)
LAST NOTE FOR THE DAY:
ART. 12(3) of RPC applied to minor over nine but less than 15 who violated a
special law (People v. Navarro, REMEMBER YOUR FAVORITE COCOA)
SPECIAL LAWS AMENDING RPC ARE SUBJECT TO ITS PROVISIONS, UNLESS THE
LATTER SHOULD SPECIALLY PROVIDE THE CONTRARY. (Ladonga v. People) / (People
v. Po Giok To)
MARK 11:24
MA. FLORENCE P. TARCINA

SUPPLETORY APPLICATION OF RPC:

 SUBSIDIARY PENALTY – ART. 39 of RPC to cases of violations of Act. No. 3992

or Revised Motor Vehicle Law, noting that the special law did not contain any
provision that the defendant could be sentenced with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency. (People v. Moreno)
 CIVIL LIABILITY – ART. 100 to Act. No. 3992 (Copiaco v. Luzon Brokerage)
 RULES ON SERVICE OF SENTENCE – ART. 70 of RPC in favor of the accused
who was found guilty of multiple violations of RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs
Act). (People v. Li Wai Cheung)
No part of this reviewer shall be reproduced, published, and copied without a written consent from the owner. If this is in your possession without permission from the original owner, thou shall not pass this
sem nor become a lawyer. Understand simple instructions.