RECAP REVISED PENAL CODE

September 9, 2021
Brief history of  According to some Filipino Historians, the Penal System in
Criminal Law System the Philippines during the Pre-Spanish era can be traced
in the Philippines back in the Code of Kalantiaw which covers th

Definition Revised Penal Code defines Criminal Law is the branch of public
law which defines crime, treats of their nature and provides for
their punishment
Different Terms Crime
Felony
Offenses
Two Resulting Injuries 1. Social Injury
Resulting from the 2. Personal Injury
Commission of a crim
Objective of the Absolute Theory
Punishment is Two- Relative Theory
Fold  The basis of criminal liability is human free will and the
purpose of the penalty is retribution.
 That man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid
phenomenon which constrains him to do wrong, in spite of
or contrary to his volition.
Sources 1. The Revised Penal Code and its amendments
2. Special Penal Laws
3. Presidential Decrees, Letter of Instruction, Executive Orders
issued by then Pres. Marcos’
4. Various Ordinances passed by the Local Government Unit
Power to define and The state has the authority under its police power to
punish crimes define and punish as well as to lay down the rules of
criminal procedure
Limitations in 1. The Law must be general in its application
Enacting Penal Laws 2. It must not partake the nature of an ex post facto law
3. It must not partake the nature of bill of attainder
4. It must not impose cruel, excessive fines degrading or
inhuman punishment
5. It must observe substantive and procedural due process
Rights of the Accused Constitutional Rights and Statutory Rights
A right which maybe waived:

A right which may be waived is the right of the accused to

confrontation and cross-examination. A right which may not be
waived is the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him

The reason or principle underlying the difference between rights

which may be waived and rights which may not be waived is that
those rights which may be waived are personal, while those rights
which may not be waived involve public interest which may be
affected. (2 Moran, Rules of Court, 1952 Edition, 748)
Characteristics of 1. General
Penal Law 2. Territorial
3. Prospective
 I. PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
II. CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW
PROSPECTIVITY/IRRETROSPECTIVITY Decriminalization
 A penal law cannot make an act Decriminalization or decriminalization is
punishable in a manner in which it the reclassification in law relating to certain
was not punishable when acts or aspects of such to the effect that they
committed, as provided in the RPC are no longer considered a crime, including the
Article 366 crimes are not punished removal of criminal penalties in relation to
under the laws at the time of their them.
commission Express Provision
 EXCEPTION: Favorable Law
Whenever a new statute dealing with The fundamental principle in
crime establishes conditions more applying and interpreting criminal laws, ... adopt an
application or interpretation that is more favorable to
lenient or favorable to the accused, it the accused.
can be given 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 vs. Valdez, 1 Phil. 463,
470-471)

2. Where the offender is a habitual

criminal under Rule 5, Article 62,
Revised Penal Code. (Art. 22, RPC)
EFFECTS OF REPEAL

 Art. 7, New Civil Code. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their
violation or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse, or custom or practice to
the contrary.
 When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the constitution, the former
shall be void and the latter shall govern. Administrative or executive acts, orders
and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to laws or the
constitution
ABSOLUTE OR TOTAL REPEAL
A repeal is absolute when the crime punished under the repealed law
has been decriminalized by the subsequent law. If the new law totally repeals the existing
law so that the act which was penalized under the old law is no longer punishable, the
crime is obliterated. [Reyes]
 Pending cases are dismissed, regardless of whether the accused is a habitual
criminal.
 Unserved penalties imposed are remitted.
 The offender already serving sentence is entitled to be released unless the repealing
law is expressly made inapplicable to those who are serving sentence at the time of
repeal.
PARTIAL OR RELATIVE REPEAL
A repeal is partial when the crime punished under the repealed law continues to be a
crime despite the repeal. [Ortega]
 If the case is still pending in court and the repeal is favorable to the accused, the
repealing law must be applied, regardless of whether he is a habitual criminal or
not,
 EXCEPT when there is reservation in said law that it does not apply to pending
cases. For offenders already serving sentence, the repealing law, which is more
lenient must be applied,
EXCEPT when there is reservation to that effect or when he is a habitual criminal.
EFFECTS OF AMENDMENT OF PENAL LAW
 If the repeal makes the penalty lighter in the new law, the new law shall be applied,
EXCEPT when the offender is a habitual delinquent or when the new law is made
not applicable to pending action or existing causes of action.
 If the new law imposes a heavier penalty, the law in force at the time of the
commission of the offense shall be applied.
 If the fine is increased but the penalty of imprisonment is decreased, it is not ex
post facto law and the penalty is retroactively applied. [Cruz]
 Rule of prospectivity also applies to judicial decisions ,administrative rulings and
circulars. [Art. 8, Civil Code]
Rationale for the prospectivity rule: the punishability of an act must be reasonably
known for the guidance of society. [People v. Jabinal, G.R. No. L-30061 (1974)]
Albino Co vs. Court of Appeals, Oct. 28, 199

DIFFERENT PHILOSOPHIES UNDERLYING THE CRIMINAL LAW SYSTEM

CLASSICAL OR JURISTIC PHILOSOPHY
 The basis of criminal liability is human free will and the purpose of the penalty is
retribution.
 That man is essentially a moral creature with an absolutely free will to choose
between good and evil, thereby placing more stress upon the effect or result of the
felonious act than upon the man, the criminal himself.
POSITIVIST OR REALISTIC PHILOSOPHY
 That man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon which
constrains him to do wrong, in spite of or contrary to his volition.
 That crime is essentially a social and natural phenomenon, and as such, it cannot be
treated and checked by the application of abstract principles of law and
jurisprudence nor by the imposition of a punishment, fixed and determined a priori;
but rather through the enforcement of individual measures in each particular case
after a thorough, personal and individual investigation conducted by a competent
body of psychiatrists and social scientists.
ECLECTIC OR MIXED PHILOSOPHY
 A combination of the good features of positivist and classical philosophy
The classical theory should be applied to grievous or heinous crimes, whereas, the
positivist is made to apply on economic and social crimes
UTILITARIAN/PROTECTIVE THEORY
 The Primary function of punishment is to protect society from potential and actual
wrongdoers (Vergara v People)
CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS
INTERPRETATION OF PENAL LAWS
Equipoise Doctrine
 When the evidence of the prosecution and the defense are equally balanced, the
scale should be tilted in favor of the accused, according to the constitutional
presumption of innocence. [Tin v. People, G.R. No. 126480 (2001)]

Spanish Text of the RPC Prevails over its English Translation.

 In the construction or interpretation of the provision of the RPC, the Spanish text is
controlling, because it was approved by the Philippine Legislature in its Spanish
text. [People v. Manaba, G.R. No. L-38725 (1933)]
 RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF PENAL LAWS
 Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect in so far as they favor the person guilty of
a felony or misdemeanor, although at the time of the publication of such laws a
final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving same. People V Parel
 Retroactive Application if favorable to the Accused
 General Rule: No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law
prior to its commission. [Art. 21, RPC].
 Exception: Insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony although at the time of
the publication of such laws, a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is
serving the same. [Art. 22, RPC]
Exceptions to the Exception:
1. The new law is expressly made in applicableto pending actions or existing cause of
actions
2. The offender is a habitual criminal.
Rationale: The punishability of an act must be reasonably known for the guidance of
society. [People v. Jabinal, G.R. No. L-30061 (1974)]
People vs. Armando De Lara (September 5, 1994)
In the matter of petition for the declaration of the petitioner’s rights and duties under
Section 8 of R.A. 6132, Kay Villegas Kami, Inc., (October 22, 1970)

People of the Philippine Island vs. Lol-lo and Saraw, (February 27, 1922)

Ernesto De Guzman vs. Hon. Abelardo Subido, (January 31, 1983)

THEORIES, DOCTRINES OR RULES CONCERNING CRIMINAL LAW

DOCTRINE OF PRO REO
 Penal statutes should be strictly construed against the State only when the law is
ambiguous and there is doubt regarding its interpretation.
 Where the law is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for the rule to apply. [People
v. Gatchalian, G.R. No. L- 12011-14 (1958)] In dubio pro reo.
LENITY RULE
 Between two potential interpretations of a penal law, one prejudicial and another
favorable, the more lenient one must be adopted. [Ient v. Tullett, G.R. No. 189158
 Basis: All doubts shall be construed in favor of the accused and on the presumption
of his innocence [Art. III, Sec. 14(2), 1987 Constitution]
UTILITARIAN/PROTECTIVE THEORY
 The Primary function of punishment is to protect society from potential and actual
wrongdoers (Vergara v People)
 Example:
Batas Pambasan Blg. 22 or the Bouncing Check Law was devised to safeguard the
interest of the banking system and legitimate public checking account user
Legal Maxims
There is no crime when there is no law that
nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege punishes it

The act cannot be criminal unless the mind is

actus reus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea criminal

An act done by me against my will is not my

Actus me invito factus non est meus actus act

He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of

El que es causa de la causa ex causa es the evil caused
causa del mar
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL
LAWS

The Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution imposes the following limitations:
1. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. (Art. Ill, Sec. 22)

 Sec. 22, Art. III, Constitution. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.
 The first limitation prohibits the passage of retroactive laws which are prejudicial to
the accused.

An ex post facto law is one which:

 makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent
when done, and punishes such an act;
  aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed;

  changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to
the crime when committed;

 alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or different
testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense;

  assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or
deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful; and

 deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection to which he has

become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a
proclamation of amnesty. (In re: Kay Villegas Kami, Inc., 35 SCRA 429, 431)

2. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process
of law. (Art. Ill, Sec. 14[1]
 Congress is also prohibited from passing an act which would inflict punishment
without judicial trial, for that would constitute a bill of attainder.

 A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial. Its
essence is the substitution of a legislative act for a judicial determination of guilt.
(People vs. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382, 395)

 Example: Congress passes a law which authorizes the arrest and imprisonment of
communists without the benefit of a judicial trial.
Due Process Clause
 Sec. 14 (1), Art. III, Constitution. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal
offense without due process of law.
Equal Protection Clause
 Sec. 1, Art. III, Constitution. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property
without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of
the laws.
Bill of Attainder

 legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial. Its essence is the substitution
of a legislative act for a judicial determination of guilt.
Non imposition of cruel and unusual penalty or excessive fine - Republic Act 9346
 Sec. 19, Art. III, Constitution. Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel,
degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed,
unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter
provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion
perpetua.
  Under RA 9364, An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the
Philippines, RA 8177 (Act Designating Death by LethalInjection), RA 7659 (Death
Penalty Law), and other acts imposing the death penalty were repealed or amended
accordingly. In lieu thereof,
 Reclusion perpetua shall be imposed when the law violated makes use of the
nomenclature of the penalties of the RPC.
 Life imprisonment shall be imposed when the law violated does not make use of the
nomenclature of the penalties of the RPC.
 The death penalty is still in the statutes but the law prohibits its imposition. Persons
convicted of crimes punished by reclusion perpetua shall not be eligible for parole
under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Case: People vs. Robert Quiachon (Aug. 31, 2006)
ARTICLE 2 OF THE RPC
Diplomatic Immunity
Jeffrey Liang vs. People, (January 28,
2000)
Khosrow Minucher vs. CA, (February 11,
2003)
Recognized Rules on Jurisdiction over English Rule/Territoriality Rule
Merchant Vessels
French Rule/Nationality Rule
U.S. vs. Look Chow, 18 Phil 573

U.S. vs. Ah Sing, 36 Phil 978

U.S vs. William Fowler et al, Dec. 31, 1902

U.S. vs. Bull, 15 Phil 7

People vs. Wong Cheng, 46 Phil 729

CRIMINAL LIABILITIES
Elements and Classification of felonies
Motive vs. Criminal Intent
Intent vs. Discernment
John Philip Guevarra vs. Hon. Ignacio
Almodovar (January 26, 1989)
U.S. vs. Rafael Catolico, (March 2, 1911)
People vs. Gonzales et al, (March 19, 1990)
People vs. Ballesteros et. al., (January 29,
1998)