CRIM

-RA10592 Good Conduct Allowance- Though not a penal law, may be given retro active
effect, since it amended several provisions of the RPC

-If penal laws are clear=strict construction, if unlcear=literally for the accused,
strictly against the gov.

-Doctrine of pro reo: Id doubt in interpretation> construed in favor of the

accused's presumption of innocence

-Agents of voluntariness: Fredom, intelligence and intent

-Motive is GR not essential. XPN(3) 1. Identity of the accused is in dispute, 2.

Ascertaining the truth of 2 antagonistic theories, 3. Evid of prosec is
cicumstantial

-In culpable felonies, intent is not req bec it is not punished

-Mistake of fact. 1. Honest and reasonable, 2. Relating to a fact, 3.Negate the

culpability req

-M. Prohibitum v. M. Se: 1. Intent not an elment in the first, 2. Good faith, Lack
of Crim intent/malice not a defense in the 1st

-Defense in M. Prohibitum: 1. Offender has no intention of perpetrating the act.

Accused has not freely and consciously performed the act. (contraband is just
planted)

-M. Se can be found in the SPL e.g., Plunder (even if a SPL, bec most of its
predicate crimes are M. Se) and certain provisions of Child Abuse Law

-M. Prohibitum can be found in the RPC e.g., Technical Malversation bec not
inherently wrong

-Alibi is a valid dfenese if theres proof of physical impossibility to be at the

crime scene

-In theft the stolen item is not the corpus delicti, hence conviction can be upheld
w/o recovery of the loot

-But in DDL the CD is the drug itself

-Direct proof of previous agreement is not essential to establish conspiracy due to

doctrine of implied conspiracy i.e., acts of the offenders before,
during or after the commission of the crime, showing that they are united in their
purpose..

-Conspiracy in delivering, importing, transporting or selling a dangerous drug is

punishable already

-Sedition v IC to Sedition: The first done in private second done publicly

-Conspiracy as a manner of incurring crim liability v Conspiracy as a crime

-A4. Can be applied to a SPL (RA7610 P v. Patulot) not just RPC

-If a person was killed due to the attempt to intimidate another with a gun, the
offender is guilty of homicide and not just reckless imprudence resulting
 in homicide. Even if prosec did not prove intent to kill

-However if a SPL is being violated and the same resulted n death of the victim,
then the offender can be guilty of reckless imprudence resulting> homicide.
A4, Par. 1. does not apply since the same applies to intentional felony

-No adultery if a wife had sex with another woman. Just file unjust vexation:) If
man to man no concubinage as well. Just file VAWC:)

-Snatching an item that turned out to be the same item previously stolen from you:
Guilty of impossible crime NOT theft or robbery

-Stealing an item with intimidation (pointing a gun) that turned out to be the same
item previously stolen from you: Guilty of grave threats, NOT theft or robbery
with intimidation (bec the item belonged to him) or impossible crime (bec he
violated another provision of the code)

-Non-infliction of mortal wound/injury=non-performance of all acts of execution.

Offender can be guilty of either homicide/murder?

-physical injuries are always at their consumated stage

-crimes with only 1 stage(always consumated):

a. libel
b. flight to enemy country
c. phtsical injuries
d. oral defamation
e. abuses against chastity

-3 stages: homicide, parricide

-2 stages:
a. theft, robbery (attempted or consumated) only req disturbance of proprietary
rights, no matter how fleeting the possesion of the offender. (Valenzuela)
b. rape. bec consumated upon slightest penetration with male and female genitalia
c. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention
d. Estafa/swindling (no damage yet or damage already exist)

-Generally in Estafa/Swindling: Damage is req (or intent) and the same quantifiable

-Defense of property rights need not be coupled with attack on the person defending
his rights. However theres still no ground for unlawful aggression to justify
self-defense. P v. Narvaez

-Defense of Honor in Libel can be upheld. Since in defense of property rights can
be invoked in libel despite lapse of several days. Bec once the aspersion is cast
its sting remains and the person ddefamed may avail of all remedies

-Minor offenders proper nomenclature is CICL

a. IF CICL is 15 or below=Absolutely exempted from crim liability (Minority is
exempting circumstance)
b. IF above 15 but less than 18 a CICL is exempt from crim liability if his act is
w/o discernment e.g., Manner of performance, utterances, weapons
If above not complied: Priveleged mititgating circ only + Suspension of
sentence
c. CICL with or w/o acting in discernment is exempt from crim liability IF
prostitution, mendicancy and rugby sniffing

-Even if mitigating circumstances are similar in nature they can be appreciated

separately and distinctly of each others if based on diff set of facts

-Deaf or dumb as a mitigating circumstance need not concur for it to be appreciated

-Even if the accused does not acknowledge guilt, but surrender may still be
considered voluntarily thus a valid MC if the intention for surrendering is to
save the gov of its time

-That accused surrendered before information is filed in court is appreciated on a

case to case basis. In P v. Devera an information has already nbeen filed a few
hours before surrender yest still considered as MC

-Circ analogous in MC. Sandiganbayan v Legrama. Municipal treausrer who returned

part of the amount malversed

-Restitution in robbery, theft, estafa or malversation is not a defense but is a

mitigating circumstance

-Special aggravating in SPL e.g., CDDA, Fire arms

a. CDDA: Commission of a crime under influence of drugs
b. Fire arms: Use/possession of unlicensed fire arm where the use of a firearm is
inherent e.g., discharge of firearm

-Mere allegation of the qualifying circumstances in the information would not make
that circumstance aggravating, the same must be proved in the same quantum of
proof PBRD

-Forms of repetition
a. recedivism: Generic aggravating, ex. homicide (convicted by FJ) 30 yrs later
convicted for serious physical injuries.
b. reiteracion: Generic aggravating, subsequent conviction carries a heavier
penalty, here accused must have served sentence, not always an aggravating
c. quasi-recidivism:
d. habitual delinquency:

-Evidence of evident premeditation need be proved if EXPRESS CONSPIRACY is proven.

EP not applicable if intended victim is not actual victim and vice-versa

-EP may be inherent in robery, theft, estafa, rape and acts of lasciviousness

-Craft and fraud are inherent in estafa, could be in qualified and simple seduction

-In abuse of superior strength must be deliberately chosen and not merely
incidental

-means to weaken the defense is subsumed in abuse of superior strength

-treachery applicable only in crimes against property (robbery and homice) and
person. Related to the characteristics of the attack i.e., sudden, unexpected
employed to avoid retribution (not a spur of the moment crime) thus cannot be
preceded by a heated argument or slight provocation since it necessarily involves
anticipation by the person provoked will making an attack.

-treachery can be made even if attack from front, corrolarily treachery is not
automatically considered if attack is from behind

-ignominy only considered in crimes against in chastity

-degree of instruction does not always mitigate liability since there are crimes
which are inherently wrong

-If a relative is of higher/lower degree than offended is not always

aggravating/mitigating ex. in crimes against chastity relationship is always
aggravating, in property relationship is always mitigating bec there is presumption
of co-ownership

-In crimes against person relationship serious PI, murder and homicide relationship
is always aggravating wether offender is lower/higher degree
in less serious/slight PI if the offender is higher than offended: mitigating. (If
lower: aggravating) in collateral relatives: aggravating always

-In intoxication the word "AND" is typo daw!