Criminal Law Basics - Classical vs Positivist Schools of Thought

INTRO – MODULE 18 (WEEK 16) 1
Criminal Law
MODULE 18
CRIMINAL LAW
WEEK 16
 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND. – Our Revised

Penal Code was based on the Spanish Penal Code of 1870.
It is based on the classical school of thought, as
distinguished from the positivist school of thought.
 Classical School of Thought – The basis of

criminal liability is human free will and the purpose of the
penalty is retribution. This school of thought assumes that
men have free will – that they know what is right and what
is wrong; and, as rational beings, they are guided by the
thought that a crime carries with it a corresponding
penalty. There is, therefore, a scant regard to the human
element.
 Positivist School of Thought – This school of

thought views a criminal merely as a sick man who needs
reformation and cure instead of punishment. It proceeds
from the theory that man is subdued occasionally by a
Criminal Law
strange and morbid phenomenon which constrains him to

do wrong, in spite of or contrary to his volition. As such,
crime 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.
 CRIMINAL LAW DEFINED. – It is that branch of

public law which defines crimes, treats of their nature and
provides for their punishment.
 SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW. – The primary

source of criminal law is the Revised Penal Code of the
Philippines (Act No. 3815, enacted on 8 December 1930),
which took effect on 01 January 1932, as well as other
penal provisions contained in special penal laws.
 Scope – The Revised Penal Code is divided

into three (3) parts, namely:
Criminal Law
(a) Basic principles affecting criminal liability (Arts. 1-20,

RPC);
(b) The provisions on penalties which include civil and

criminal liability (Arts. 21-113, RPC); and
(c) Felonies with the corresponding penalties classified

and grouped under 14 different titles (Arts. 114-367,
RPC).
 THREE BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL

LAW. –
(A) Generality. – This means that the Philippine

criminal laws are binding on all persons who live or
sojourn in the Philippines (Art. 14, Civil Code). Whoever
you are, whatever your creed, religion, sex or nationality,
as long as you reside in the Philippine territory, penal laws
of the Philippines shall apply to you. Even aliens are
bound by our penal laws because while they are within the
Philippine territory, such laws protect them.
 Illustrative Example – Under the state laws of Texas,

U.S.A., any person may purchase and possess a firearm for
Criminal Law
his own protection without securing a license therefor

from the government. George, a U.S. citizen and resident
of Houston, Texas, came to the Philippines on vacation.
He brought with him a Smith and Wesson handgun, which
was confiscated from him upon his arrival at the Ninoy
Aquino International Airport. As a consequence, a criminal
case for illegal possession of firearms was filed against
George before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City.
George alleges in his defense that he cannot be
prosecuted nor convicted of illegal possession of firearms
because the laws of Texas, U.S.A., of which he is a citizen
and resident, does not require a government license for its
possession.
Question: Is the contention of George correct?
Answer: NO. The contention of George is untenable.

George is sojourning in Philippine territory. Under the
laws of the Philippines, no person shall be allowed to
possess and carry any firearm unless it is previously
registered and a license obtained therefor before the
Firearms and Explosives Office (FEO) of the Philippine
National Police. Consistent with the principle of
generality, George can be charged and prosecuted for
Criminal Law
illegal possession of firearms committed within Philippine

territory.
 Exceptions to generality – Exceptions to the

principle of generality are as follows:
(1) Treaty stipulations (Art. 2, RPC)
 An example of a treaty or treaty stipulation

as an exception to the general application of our criminal
law is the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the
Philippines and the U.S.A., which was signed on 10
February 1998. Hence, under this agreement, U.S. military
authorities shall have the primary right to exercise
jurisdiction over U.S. personnel subject to the military law
of the U.S. in relation to: (1) offenses solely against the
property or security of the U.S. or against the property or
person of U.S. personnel; and (2) offenses arising out of
any act or omission done in performance of official duty.
(2) Laws of Preferential Application
 An example of a law of preferential

application is R.A. No. 75. It is a law which penalizes acts
which would impair the proper observance by the Republic
and inhabitants of the Philippines of the immunities,
Criminal Law
rights, and privileges of duly accredited foreign diplomatic

representatives in the Philippines. Its pertinent provision
reads:
“SEC. 4. Any writ or process issued out or

prosecuted by any person in any court of the Republic of
the Philippines, or by any judge or justice, whereby the
person of any ambassador or public minister of any
foreign State, authorized and received as such by the
President, or any domestic or domestic servant of any
such ambassador or minister is arrested or imprisoned, or
his goods or chattels are distrained, seized or attached,
shall be deemed void, and every person by whom the
same is obtained or prosecuted, whether as party or as
attorney, and every officer concerned in executing it,
shall, upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment for
not more than three years and a fine of not exceeding
two hundred pesos in the discretion of the court.”
(3) Principles of Public International Law
 The following are exempt from the operation

of our criminal laws by virtue of the principles of public
international law:
(a) Sovereigns and other chiefs of state.

(b) Diplomatic representatives, such as ambassadors
or public ministers and their official retinue.
Criminal Law
(B) Territoriality. – This means that penal laws are only

effective within the territorial confines of one’s jurisdiction
– be it land, maritime, interior waters, and atmosphere.
Hence, criminal acts committed outside the territory of the
Philippines are not within the jurisdiction of Philippine
authorities to prosecute.
 Generality and territoriality distinguished. –

The generality principle refers to persons who may be
made liable under penal laws; on the other hand, the
principle of territoriality refers to where penal laws take
effect.
 Illustrative Examples –
 While working in Japan, Millie killed a Japanese

businessman. Millie was able to go back to the Philippines
before charges were filed against her in Japan.
Question: On the basis of the testimony of her Filipino co-

workers who were eyewitnesses to the crime, can a charge
for homicide be filed against Millie in our Philippine court
now that she is in the Philippines?
Answer: NO. As our penal laws are territorial in nature, it

will penalize only those acts defined as criminal acts
committed within the Philippine territory. Crimes
Criminal Law
committed even by Filipinos outside of the Philippines do

not come within the ambit of our criminal laws. In this
case, since Millie committed the crime in Japan, our
Philippine courts do not have jurisdiction to try the case.
 Lorie is married to Lito. After six years of marriage,
they separated due to irreconcilable differences. Lito then
went to Australia to work as a nurse. Two years after Lito
left, Lorie came to know that Lito married Dolor, a Filipina
nurse, in Australia. Three years thereafter, Lito and Dolor
came back to the Philippines. Lorie then filed an action for
bigamy against Lito and Dolor.
Question: Under the facts, will the action for bigamy

prosper?
Answer: NO. Under Article 349 of the Revised Penal

Code, bigamy is defined as the act of contracting a second
or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has
been legally dissolved or before the absent spouse has
been declared presumptively dead by means of a
judgment rendered in the proper proceedings. In this
case, since the second marriage was contracted by Lito in
Australia, the crime of bigamy is considered to have been
committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the
Criminal Law
Philippines; hence, an action to prosecute Lito for bigamy

in the Philippines will not prosper.
NOTE: When Lito and Dolor come back to the Philippines

and live together as husband and wife, they can be
prosecuted for concubinage (Art. 334, RPC) since their
illegal cohabitation is committed within our country’s
territory. Lorie can likewise file a civil case for legal
separation on the ground of Lito’s having contracted a
subsequent marriage abroad (Art. 55, No 7, Family Code).
 Exceptions to territoriality – However, the

provisions of the Revised Penal Code shall be applicable in
the following cases even if the felony is committed outside
of the Philippines (Art. 2, RPC):
(1) When the offender should commit an offense while

on a Philippine ship or airship.
 A Philippine vessel, although beyond 3 miles

from the seashore, is considered part of the national
territory. Hence, any person who commits a crime on
board a Philippine ship or airship while the same is outside
of the Philippine territory can be tried before our courts
for violation of the Revised Penal Code.
INTRO – MODULE 18 (WEEK 16)
10
Criminal Law
 It is the registration of the vessel or aircraft in

accordance with the laws of the Philippines, not the
citizenship of its owner, which makes it a Philippine ship or
airship. Thus, the Philippine court has no jurisdiction over
the crime of theft committed on the high seas on board a
vessel not registered or licensed in the Philippines.
(2) When the offender should forge or counterfeit any

coin or currency note of the Philippines, or obligations and
securities issued by the Philippine government;
 Thus, any person who makes false or

counterfeit coins (Art. 163) or forges treasury or bank
notes or other obligations and securities (Art. 166) in a
foreign country may be prosecuted before our courts for
violation of Art. 163 or Art. 166 of the RPC.
(3) When the offender should be liable for acts

connected with the introduction into the Philippines of the
obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding
number.
 The reason for this provision is that the

introduction of forged or counterfeit obligations and
securities into the Philippines is as dangerous as the
11
Criminal Law
forging or counterfeiting of the same, to the economical

interest of the country.
(4) When the offender, being a public officer or

employee, should commit an offense in the exercise of his
functions
 The crimes that may be committed in the

exercise of public functions are:
(a) direct bribery (Art. 210)
(b) indirect bribery (Art. 211)
(c) frauds against the public treasury (Art.
213)
(d) possession of prohibited interest (Art. 216)
(e) malversation of public funds or property
(Art. 217)
(f) failure of accountable officer to render
accounts (Art. 218)
(g) illegal use of public funds or property
(Art. 220)
(h) Failure to make delivery of public funds or
property (Art. 221)
(i) Falsification by a public officer or
employee committed with abuse of his
official position (Art. 171)
12
Criminal Law
(5) When the offender should commit any of the

crimes against the national security and the law of nations.
 The crimes against the national security and the

law of nations are:
(a) treason (Art. 114)
(b) conspiracy and proposal to commit
treason (Art. 115)
(c) espionage (Art. 117)
(d) inciting to war and giving motives for
reprisals (Art. 118)
(e) violation of neutrality (Art. 119)
(f) Correspondence with hostile county. (Art.
120)
(g) flight to enemy’s country (Art. 121)
(h) piracy and mutiny in the high seas (Art.
122 )
(C) Prospectivity/Irretrospectivity. – This means that

penal laws only take effect after their effectivity date. In
other words, penal laws look forward and not backward.
It cannot punish acts committed before the effectivity of
the penal law violated (Art. 366).
 Exceptions – However, penal laws may be

given retroactive effect, provided that:
13
Criminal Law
 It is favorable to the accused or convict; and

 The accused or convict is not a habitual delinquent.
 Who is a habitual delinquent? (Art 62, par.
5) – A person is a habitual delinquent if within a period of
ten years from the date of his last release or last
conviction of the crimes of (1) serious or less serious
physical injuries (Arts. 263 & 265), (2) robbery (Arts. 293-
303), (3) theft (Arts. 308-311), (4) estafa (Arts. 315-318),
and (5) falsification (Arts. 170-174), he is found guilty of
any of said crimes a third time or oftener.
 IMPORTANT LEGAL MAXIMS IN CRIMINAL

LAW. –
(A) Pro Reo – The doctrine of pro reo simply refers to

the construction or application of penal laws. In the event
the law admits of two interpretations – one lenient and
the other harsh as far as the offender is concerned, that
interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the offender
will be considered.
 Rationale – This is in line with the

fundamental rule that all doubts, only in criminal cases,
14
Criminal Law
shall be resolved in favor of the accused in harmony with

the constitutional exhortation that an accused in
presumed innocent until proven guilty.
(B) Nullum crimen nulla poena

sine lege – This doctrine is simply
translated as “there is no crime when
there is no law punishing it.”
A person cannot or should not face criminal prosecution

except for an act that was criminalized by law before they
performed the act.
(C) Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea – This
doctrine refers to the criminal intent. “The act itself does
not make a man guilty unless his intention were so.”
Therefore, a crime is not committed if the mind of the
person performing the act complained of is innocent. To
convict the accused, it must be proven that the criminal
act was carried out with a criminal intent.
NOTE: This doctrine applies only to cases involving dolo

and not culpa (i.e., reckless imprudence resulting in
serious physical injuries).
15
Criminal Law
 THREE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON

THE POWER OF THE LEGISLATURE TO ENACT PENAL
LAWS. –
(A) No person shall be made to answer for a criminal

offense without due process of law. (Section 14 (1), Bill of
Rights, 1987 Constitution)
(B) No ex post facto law

or bill of attainder shall be
enacted. (Section 22, Bill of
Rights, 1987 Constitution)
 Ex post facto law – Ex

post facto literally means “after
the fact”. Putting it simply, it is a
law passed after someone has
committed some legal act until
said law was passed making it illegal. A person cannot be
retroactively prosecuted for the act that was committed
while it was legal. An example of an ex post facto law is a
16
Criminal Law
law passed in 2021 that applies to and punishes acts that

were committed in 2020.
 Bill of attainder – It is a legislative act which

inflicts punishment without a trial. The Bill of Attainder
clause in the constitution protects citizens against the
legislature carrying out the functions of the judicial branch.
It protects the people from being found guilty by
legislative act as opposed to a court.
 Example: Brianne is a member of the

Communist Party. Brianne applies for a job as a teacher at
her local elementary school and is refused, based on this
statute: “Members of any subversive group, including the
Communist party, cannot hold public office nor teach for a
public institution.” Brianne can attack this statute as a bill
of attainder. Its provisions, targeting members of the
Communist party or any other subversive group, punish by
eliminating career opportunities. The members targeted
are punished without a trial or any adjudication of their
rights. Thus, this statute allows the legislature to impose a
sanction without a trial in violation of the Constitution’s
prohibited powers.
17
Criminal Law
(C) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel,

degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. (Sections 19,
Bill of Rights, 1987 Constitution.)
 ‘FELONY’, ‘CRIME’ AND ‘OFFENSE’

DISTINGUISHED. –
 Felony – An act or omission punishable by

the Revised Penal Code, and not by any special penal law.
(Art. 3)
 Offense – An act or omission punishable

under special penal laws.
 Crime – It generally refers to a violation of

the law; hence, includes both felony and offense.
 TYPES OF FELONIES ACCORDING TO THE

MEANS BY WHICH THEY ARE COMMITTED. –
(A) Intentional felonies – These are felonies committed

by dolo or deceit. There is deceit when the act is
18
Criminal Law
performed with deliberate malice or intent to cause injury

to another.
People vs. Roger Racal, G.R. No. 224886, 4

September 2017
(B) Culpable felonies – These are felonies committed

by culpa or fault. There is fault when the wrongful act
results from imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill.
Though the act is performed without malice, it is
punishable, though in a lesser degree.
U.S. vs. Ignacio Reodique

(G.R. No. L-10956, 7 December 1915)
FACTS: Reodique picked up an airgun and asked the owner if it

was loaded. The owner answered in the negative. After
receiving instructions as to the handling and loading of the
airgun, Reodique discharged it. However, the gun was loaded
and, at the time it was discharged, was pointed directly at the
victim, causing a wound in the left breast which later caused her
death.
HELD: Reodique was convicted of the crime of causing death by

gross or reckless imprudence. He deliberately pulled the trigger
of the airgun, thereby voluntarily and intentionally causing its
discharge, with the result that injury was produced. His act
being voluntary and performed without investigation or real
19
Criminal Law
effort to prevent injury, he cannot now be heard to say that its

consequences were different from those which he anticipated.
 HOW CRIMINAL LIABILITY IS INCURRED. –

Under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability
shall be incurred:
(A) By any person committing a felony (delito),

although the wrongful act done be different from that
which he intended (Art. 4, par. 1).
 Rationale – “El que es causa de la causa es

causa del mal causado” (He who is the cause of the cause
is the cause of the evil caused). A person who commits an
intentional felony is responsible for all the consequences
which may naturally and logically result therefrom,
whether foreseen or intended or not.
 Illustrative Examples:
 Where the accused, without intent to
kill, struck the victim with his fist on the back part of the
head from behind, causing the victim to fall down with his
head hitting the asphalt pavement and resulting in the
fracture of his head, it was held that the accused was
20
Criminal Law
liable for the death of the victim, although he had no

intent to kill said victim. (People vs. Cagoco, G.R. No. L-
38511, 6 October 1933.)
 Alvin fired his gun at Ben with intent to

kill him. Alvin, however, missed and hit Cathy instead. In
this case, Alvin will be held liable for the injury caused to
Cathy although he had no intention to injure her.
 There is no question that the death of

the victim was brought about by the rape committed by
the accused. Her death was due to profuse hemorrhage
brought about by the laceration of the vagina caused by a
stiffened male organ or by the insertion of a hard blunt
object. That the accused did not intend to kill her was of
no moment. A person who performs a criminal act is
responsible for all the consequences of said act regardless
of his intention. (People vs. Mariano, G.R. L-45966, 10
November 1978.)
 When no felony committed. – When a person

has not committed a felony, he is not criminally liable for
the result which is not intended.
21
Criminal Law
 Liza, in attempting a suicide, jumped out

of the window to kill herself. When she dropped to the
ground, she fell on an old woman who died as a
consequence. Liza is not criminally liable for intentional
homicide because she was not committing a felony when
she attempted a suicide.
 Fe, who was being fired at with a gun by

Leo to kill her, fired her revolver at Leo in self-defense.
She, however, missed him and instead hit and killed Mario,
a bystander. Fe is not criminally liable for the death of
Mario. One acting in self-defense is not committing a
felony.
People vs. Bindoy

(G.R. No. L-34665, 28 August 1931)
FACTS: In a tuba wineshop in the barrio market, the accused

offered tuba to Pacas’ wife. As she refused to drink, having
already done so, the accused threatened to injure her if she
would not accept. There ensued an interchange of words
between her and the accused, and Pacas stepped in to defend
his wife, attempting to take away from the accused the bolo he
carried. This occasioned a disturbance which attracted the
attention of Emigdio Omamdam who lived near the market.
Emigdio left his house to see what was happening, while the
accused and Pacas were struggling for the bolo. In the course of
this struggle, the acused succeeded in disengaging himself from
22
Criminal Law
Pacas, wrenching the bolo from the latter’s hand towards the
left behind the accused, with such violence that the point of the
bolo reached Emigdio Omamdam’s chest, who was then behind
the accused. The accused was not aware of Omamdam’s
presence in the place.
HELD: There is no evidence to show that the accused injured

the deceased deliberately and with the intention of committing
a crime. He was only defending his possession of the bolo,
which Pacas was trying to wrench away from him, and his
conduct was perfectly legal. The accused should be acquitted.
NOTE: Had the accused attempted to wound Pacas during the

struggle, but instead of doing so, he wounded Omamdam, he
would have been liable for the death of Omamdam, because in
attempting to would another, the accused would be committing
a felony, which is attempted homicide, if there is intent to kill.
(B) 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 on
account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual
means (Art. 4, par. 2, RPC).
 Rationale for penalizing impossible crimes. –

The commission of an impossible crime is indicative of
criminal propensity or criminal tendency on the part of the
actor. Such person is a potential criminal. The community
23
Criminal Law
must be protected from anti-social activities, whether

actual or potential, of the morbid type of man called
“socially dangerous person.”
 Ador fired at Benny, who was lying in
bed, not knowing that Benny was dead hours before. In a
crime against persons, as would have been in this case, it
is necessary that the victim would be injured or killed. A
dead person cannot be injured or killed. Had Benny been
alive when he was shot, and as a consequence he died, the
crime committed by Ador would have been murder, a
crime against persons. In this case, Ador will be
prosecuted for the commission of an impossible crime and
should be punished for it in accordance with Article 4,
paragraph 2, in relation to Article 59.1
 Domingo, with intent to gain, took a

watch from the pocket of Dolores. When Domingo had
1
Art. 59. Penalty to be imposed in case of failure to commit the
crime because the means employed or the aims sought are impossible. –
When the person intending to commit an offense has already performed the
acts for the execution of the same but nevertheless the crime was not
produced by reason of the fact that the act intended was by its nature one of
impossible accomplishment or because the means employed by such person
are essentially inadequate to produce the result desired by him, the court,
having in mind the social danger and the degree of criminality shown by the
offender, shall impose upon him the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging
from 200 to 500 pesos.
24
Criminal Law
the watch in his possession, he found out that it was the

watch which he had lost a week before. In other words,
the watch belonged to him. Is this an impossible crime? It
is believed that it may be an impossible crime. The act
performed would have been theft had the watch been the
property of Domingo. But there is a legal impossibility of
accomplishing it because in theft the personal property
taken must belong to another.
 Jerson tried to kill Jenny by putting in

her soup a substance which he thought was arsenic when
in fact it was sugar. Jenny could not have been killed,
because the means employed was ineffectual. But Jerson
showed criminal tendency and, hence, he should be
punished for it in accordance with Article 4, paragraph 2,
in relation to Article 59.
 Lani, with intent to kill Larry, aimed her

revolver at his back. She was not aware that the revolver
was empty. When she pressed the trigger, it did not fire.
In this case, had the revolver been loaded, Lani would
have committed the crime of murder. However, since
Larry did not die because the means employed by Lani was
ineffectual, she will nonetheless be held criminally liable
for an impossible crime.
25
Criminal Law
 DEGREE OF CONSUMMATION OF
FELONIES/STAGES OF EXECUTION. –
 Development of crime. – From the moment

the culprit conceives the idea of committing a crime up to
the realization of the same, his act passes through certain
stages: (1) internal acts, and (2) external acts.
(1) Internal acts, such as mere ideas in the mind of a

person, are NOT punishable even if, had they been
carried out, they would constitute a crime. Thus, a wife
who thinks every night about shooting and killing the
mistress of her husband does not commit a crime.
Mere intention producing no effect is no more a crime
than a mere effect without the intention is a crime.
(2) External acts, cover (a) preparatory acts, and (b) acts
of execution.
(a) Preparatory acts – As a general rule, preparatory

acts are not punishable. Thus, buying poison or carrying a
weapon with which to kill the intended victim, as well as
the carrying of inflammable materials to the place where a
house is intended to be burned by the malefactor, are not
26
Criminal Law
punishable acts. For merely doing any of these acts, a

person is not liable for attempted homicide or attempted
arson, because they do not constitute even the first stage
of the acts of execution of those crimes.
(b) Acts of execution – The stages of acts of execution

– (b.1) attempted, (b.2) frustrated, and (b.3)
consummated – are punishable under the Revised Penal
Code.
(b.1) Attempted – There is an attempted felony

when the offender commences the commission of a felony
directly by overt acts, but does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the felony by reason of
some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance.
 Dante picked the pocket of Penelope,
inside of which was a wallet containing P10,000.00.
Before Dante could remove it from Penelope’s pocket, she
grabbed his hand and prevented him from taking it. In this
case, Dante failed to perform all the acts of execution (that
is, taking the wallet) because of a cause (that is, the timely
27
Criminal Law
discovery by Penelope of the overt act of Dante) other

than his own spontaneous desistance.
 If Angel bought poison from a drugstore,

in preparation for the killing of Lucky by means of poison,
such act is only a preparatory act, because it has no direct
connection with the crime of murder which Angel
intended to commit. The poison purchased may be used
by Angel to kill rats or insects. Hence, the act of buying
poison by itself does not disclose necessarily an intention
to kill a person with it. But if Angel mixed the poison with
the food intended for Lucky, and the latter, not knowing
that it contained poison, put into his mouth a spoonful
thereof, the act of Angel will be more than a mere
planning or preparation for the commission of murder.
The buying of poison and mixing it with the food of Lucky
who later put into his mouth part thereof to eat it, taken
together, constitute the overt acts of murder. The nature
of the external act thus performed by Angel clearly
indicate that she intended to commit the crime of murder.
If for some reason or another Lucky threw away the food
with poison from his mouth, Angel will be held liable for
attempted murder.
28
Criminal Law
 Nonoy aimed his pistol at Lolong to kill

the latter. But when Nonoy pressed the trigger, it jammed
and no bullet was fired from the pistol. Hence, Lolong was
able to run and escape Nonoy’s plan to kill him. In this
case, Nonoy had already commenced the performance of
overt acts which would necessarily bring about the crime
of murder. However, he is not able to perform all the acts
of execution to commit murder due to an accident (the
trigger being jammed and refusing to fire), and not due to
his own spontaneous desistance.
 One evening, Perry stole a chicken

under the house of Nanette. Realizing that what he did
was wrong, Perry returned the chicken to the place under
the house of Nanette. Can Perry still be prosecuted for
theft? YES. If the malefactor does not perform all the acts
of execution by reason of his own spontaneous desistance,
there is no attempted felony. The law does not punish
him. In this case, however, since the crime of theft was
already consummated, the return of the stolen property
does not relieve Perry of criminal responsibility. Perry had
already performed all the acts of execution which would
produce the crime of theft before he returned the chicken.
29
Criminal Law
(b.1) Frustrated – There is a frustrated felony

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 reason of causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator.
 Distinguished from attempted felony. – In

frustrated felony, the offender must perform all the acts of
execution. Nothing more is left to be done by the
offender, because he has performed the last act necessary
to produce the crime. This element distinguishes
frustrated felony from attempted felony.
 In attempted felony, the offender does not

perform all the acts of execution. He does not perform the
last act necessary to produce the crime. He merely
commences the commission of a felony directly by overt
acts.
 Illustrative Example: If Jett, with intent to kill, fires his

gun at Rory, the discharge of the gun is only an overt act.
If the slug fired from the gun misses Rory, or the wound
inflicted on her is not mortal, the last act necessary to
produce the crime of homicide is not yet performed by
Jett. But if the wound inflicted is mortal – that is, sufficient
30
Criminal Law
to case death, Jett performs the last act. If no medical

attendance is given, Rory would surely die. In homicide or
murder, the crime is consummated if the victim dies. If
the victim survives, the crime is frustrated.
 “Independent of the will of the

perpetrator. – If the crime is not produced because of the
timely intervention of a third person, it is a frustrated
felony. However, if the crime is not produced because the
offender himself prevented its consummation, there is no
frustrated felony.
 Illustrative Example: A doctor conceived the idea of

killing his wife. To carry out his plan, he mixed arsenic
with the soup of his victim. Immediately after the victim
took the poisonous food, the offender suddenly felt such a
twinge of conscience that he himself washed out the
stomach of the victim and administered to her the
adequate antidote. Would this be a frustrated parricide?
Certainly not, because the most important requisite of a
frustrated crime, i.e., that the cause which prevented the
consummation of the offense be independent of the will of
the perpetrator, was lacking.
 The crime cannot be considered attempted
parricide, because the doctor had already performed all
31
Criminal Law
the acts of execution. At most, the crime committed

would be physical injuries, as the poison thus
administered, being an injurious substance, could cause
the same. The intent to kill which the doctor entertained
in the beginning disappeared when he prevented the
poison from producing the death of his wife.
 There is no crime of frustrated theft. – In

Valenzuela vs. People (G.R. No. 160188, 21 June 2007), the
Supreme Court once and for all settled the issue as to
whether frustrated theft can be committed. As held by the
Court in an en banc decision:
“For the purpose of ascertaining whether theft is

susceptible of commission in the frustrated stage, the
question is again, when is the crime of theft produced?
There would be all but certain unanimity in the position
that theft is produced when there is deprivation of
personal property due to its taking by one with intent to
gain. Viewed from that perspective, it is immaterial to the
product of the felony that the offender, once having
committed all the acts of execution for theft, is able or
unable to freely dispose of the property stolen since the
deprivation from the owner alone has already ensued
from such acts of execution. This conclusion is reflected in
Chief Justice Aquino’s commentaries, as earlier cited, that
"[i]n theft or robbery the crime is consummated after the
accused had material possession of the thing with intent
32
Criminal Law
to appropriate the same, although his act of making use

of the thing was frustrated."
It might be argued, that the ability of the offender to

freely dispose of the property stolen delves into the
concept of "taking" itself, in that there could be no true
taking until the actor obtains such degree of control over
the stolen item. But even if this were correct, the effect
would be to downgrade the crime to its attempted, and
not frustrated stage, for it would mean that not all the
acts of execution have not been completed, the "taking
not having been accomplished." Perhaps this point could
serve as fertile ground for future discussion, but our
concern now is whether there is indeed a crime of
frustrated theft, and such consideration proves ultimately
immaterial to that question. Moreover, such issue will not
apply to the facts of this particular case. We are satisfied
beyond reasonable doubt that the taking by the
petitioner was completed in this case. With intent to gain,
he acquired physical possession of the stolen cases of
detergent for a considerable period of time that he was
able to drop these off at a spot in the parking lot, and
long enough to load these onto a taxicab.”
 There is no crime of frustrated rape. – In

People vs. Ceilito Orita (G.R. No. 88724, 3 April 1990), the
Supreme Court held that:
33
Criminal Law
“Clearly, in the crime of rape, from the moment the

offender has carnal knowledge of his victim, he actually
attains his purpose and, from that moment also all the
essential elements of the offense have been
accomplished. Nothing more is left to be done by the
offender, because he has performed the last act
necessary to produce the crime. Thus, the felony is
consummated. In a long line of cases (People v. Oscar, 48
Phil. 527; People v. Hernandez, 49 Phil. 980; People v.
Royeras, G.R. No. L-31886, April 29, 1974, 56 SCRA 666;
People v. Amores, G.R. No. L-32996, August 21, 1974, 58
SCRA 505), We have set the uniform rule that for the
consummation of rape, perfect penetration is not
essential. Any penetration of the female organ by the
male organ is sufficient. Entry of the labia or lips of the
female organ, without rupture of the hymen or laceration
of the vagina is sufficient to warrant conviction.
Necessarily, rape is attempted if there is no penetration
of the female organ (People v. Tayaba, 62 Phil. 559;
People v. Rabadan, Et Al., 53 Phil. 694; United States v.
Garcia, 9 Phil. 434) because not all acts of execution was
performed. The offender merely commenced the
commission of a felony directly by overt acts. Taking into
account the nature, elements and manner of execution of
the crime of rape and jurisprudence on the matter, it is
hardly conceivable how the frustrated stage in rape can
ever be committed.
34
Criminal Law
 There is no attempted or impossible crime.

– In impossible crime , the person intending to commit an
offense has already performed the acts for the execution
of the same, but nevertheless the crime is not produced by
reason of the fact that the act intended is by its nature one
of impossible accomplishment or because the means
employed by such person are essentially inadequate or
ineffectual to produce the result desired by him. (Art. 59)
 Therefore, since the offender in impossible crime

has already performed the acts for the execution of the
same, there could be no attempted impossible crime. In
attempted felony, the offender has not performed all the
acts of execution which would produce the felony as a
consequence.
 There is no frustrated impossible crime, because

the acts performed by the offender are considered as
constituting a consummated offense.
(b.3) Consummated – There is a consummated

felony when all the elements necessary for its execution
and accomplishment are present.
35
Criminal Law
 When not all the elements of a felony are

proved. – All the elements of the felony for which the
accused is prosecuted must be present in order to hold
him liable therefor in its consummated stage. When a
felony has two or more elements and one of them is not
proved by the prosecution during the trial, EITHER:
 The felony is not shown to have been

consummated.
 Illustrative Example: In the prosecution for homicide,

where the death of the victim is an element of the offense,
if that element is absent, because the victim did not die,
the crime is not consummated. It is either attempted or
frustrated.
 The felony is not shown to have been

committed.
 Illustrative Example: In taking of personal property

from another, when the element of intent to gain is
lacking on the part of the person taking it, the crime of
theft is not committed.
 Another felony is shown to have been

committed.
36
Criminal Law
 Illustrative Examples: In the prosecution for robbery

with violence against persons (Art. 294), if the element of
intent to gain is not proved, the accused an be found guilty
of grave coercion (Art. 286), another felony.
In the prosecution for forcible abduction (Art. 342),

if the element of lewd designs is not proved, the accused
may be held liable for kidnapping and serious illegal
detention (Art. 267), another felony.
CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL

LIABILITY. –
(A) Justifying circumstances (Art. 11) – These refer to

those where the act of a person is said to be in accordance
with law, so that such person is deemed not to have
transgressed the law and therefore do not incur criminal
or civil liability.
 There is no civil liability, except in paragraph 4 of

Article 11, where the civil liability is borne by the persons
benefited by the act.
 Example 1: Acting in self-defense under Article 11, par.

1 of the Revised Penal Code.
37
Criminal Law
FACTS: The accused, a woman, was walking home with a

party including the deceased, Francisco Rivera. It was
already dark and they were passing a narrow path. When
the other people were far ahead, the deceased who was
following the accused suddenly threw his arms around her
from behind, caught hold of her breasts, kissed her, and
touched her private parts. He started to throw her down.
When the accused felt she could not do anything more
against the strength of her aggressor, she got a knife from
her pocket and stabbed him.
HELD: She was justified in making use of the knife in

repelling what she believed to be an attack upon her
honor since she had no other means of defending herself.
(People vs. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 41487, 2 May 1935, 61
Phil. 422)
 Example 2: Avoidance of greater evil or injury under

Article 11, par. 4 of the Revised Penal Code.
 A person was driving his car on a narrow road

with due diligence and care when suddenly he saw a “six
by six” truck in front of his car. If he would swerve his car
to the left he would fall into a precipice, or if he would
swerve his car to the right he would kill a passerby. He
38
Criminal Law
was forced to choose between losing his life in the

precipice or sacrificing the life of the innocent bystander.
He chose the latter, swerved his car to the right, ran over
and killed the passerby. The person here has no criminal
liability.
 The killing of the fetus to save the life of the

mother is justifiable and will exonerate the parties from
prosecution for intentional abortion.
 During the storm, the ship which was heavily

loaded with goods was in danger of sinking. The captain of
the vessel ordered part of the goods thrown overboard. In
this case, the captain is not criminally liable for causing
part of the goods to be thrown overboard.
(B) Exempting circumstances (Art. 12) – The presence

of exempting circumstances in the commission of a crime
will exempt the perpetrator from criminal liability, but not
from civil liability. Technically, one who acts by virtue of
any of the exempting circumstances commits a crime,
although by the complete absence of any of the conditions
which constitute free will or voluntariness of the act, no
criminal liability arise.
39
Criminal Law
 Example 1: When a crime is committed by an insane

under Article 12, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code.
 When a person is suffering from a form of

psychosis, a type of dementia praecox, homicidal attack is
common, because of delusions that he is being interfered
with sexually, or that his property is being taken. During
the period of excitement, such person has no control
whatever of his acts. The unlawful act of the accused may
be due to his mental disease or a mental defect, producing
an “irresistible impulse,” as when the accused has been
deprived or has lost the power of his will which would
enable him to prevent himself from doing the act. This
irresistible homicidal impulse was considered by the Court
embraced in the term “insanity.” (People vs. Celestino
Bonoan, G.R. No. 45130, 17 February 1937)
 Example 2: Under Article 12, paragraph 4, any person

who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes
an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of
causing it, is exempted from criminal liability, but not from
civil liability.
FACTS: The accused, while hunting, saw wild chickens and

fired a shot. The slug, after hitting a wild chicken, recoiled
40
Criminal Law
and struck the tenant who was a relative of the accused.

The man who was injured died.
HELD: If life is taken by misfortune or accident while the

actor is in the performance of a lawful act executed with
due care and without intention of doing harm, there is no
criminal liability.
There is no question that the accused was engaged in

the lawful performance of a lawful act when the accident
occurred. He was not negligent or at fault, because the
deceased was not in the direction at which the accused
fired his gun. It was not foreseeable that the slug would
recoil after hitting the wild chicken. (U.S. vs. Tañedo, G.R.
No. L-5418, 12 February 1920, 15 Phil. 196.)

who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force is
exempt from criminal liability.
FACTS: Baculi, one of the accused who was not a member

of the band which murdered some American school
teachers, was in a plantation gathering bananas. Upon
hearing the shooting, he ran. However, Baculi was seen by
the leaders of the band who called him. Striking him with
41
Criminal Law
the butts of their guns, they compelled him to bury the

bodies of their victims.
HELD: Baculi was not criminally liable as accessory for

concealing the body of the crime (Art. 19) of murder
committed by the band, because Baculi acted under the
compulsion of an irresistible force.

who fails to perform an act required by law, when
prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause, shall be
exempt from criminal responsibility.
 Bonifacio confessed to a Filipino priest that he

and several other persons were in conspiracy against the
Government. Under Art. 116, a Filipino citizen who knows
of such conspiracy must report the same to the governor
or fiscal of the province, or the mayor or fiscal of the city
where he resides. If the priest does not disclose and make
known the same to the proper authority, he is exempt
from criminal liability. Under the law, the priest cannot be
compelled to reveal any information which he came to
know by reason of the confession made to him in his
professional capacity. (Sec. 24[d], Rule 130, Revised Rules
of Court)
42
Criminal Law
 Paragraph 3, Article 12 of the RPC impliedly

repealed by R.A. No. 9344. – Paragraph 3, Article 12 of the
RPC is deemed repealed by the provision of R.A. No. 9344
(Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006). Under this law,
a minor under 18 but above 15 must have acted with
discernment to incur criminal liability. Thus, it is
incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that a minor
who is over 15 but under 18 years of age has acted with
discernment, in order for the minor not to be entitled to
this exempting circumstance.
 Periods of criminal responsibility. – Under

the Code, as amended by RA 9344, the life of a human
being is thus divided into four periods:
 The age of absolute irresponsibility – 15 years and

below (infancy).
 The age of conditional responsibility – 15 years and 1

day to 18 years.
 The age of full responsibility – 18 years or over

(adolescence) to 70 (maturity).
 The age of mitigated responsibility – 15 years and 1

day to 18 years, the offender acting with discernment;
over 70 years of age. Hence, senility which is the age over
43
Criminal Law
70 years, although said to be the second childhood, is only

a mitigated responsibility. It cannot be considered as
similar to infancy which is exempting.
 “Child in Conflict with the Law (CICL)”

defined. – A CICL is a person who at the time of the
commission of the offense is below 18 years old but not
less than 15 years and one day old. (Section 4J, A.M. No.
01-1-18-SC, Revised Rule on Children in Conflict with the
Law)
 Meaning of “discernment.” – Discernment

means the capacity of the child at the time of the
commission of the offense to understand the difference
between right and wrong and the consequences of the
wrongful act. (Section 4J, A.M. No. 01-1-18-SC, Revised
Rule on Children in Conflict with the Law)
(C) Mitigating circumstances (Art. 13) – The presence

of one or more mitigating circumstances, when a crime is
committed, can serve to reduce the penalty imposed.
 Example 1: When all the requisites necessary to

exempt from criminal liability are not attendant (Art. 13,
par. 1).
44
Criminal Law
 With respect to the exempting circumstance of

minority over 15 and under 18 years of age, to be exempt
from criminal liability under RA 9344, two conditions must
be present: (a) that the offender is over 15 and under 18
years old; and (b) that he does not act with discernment.
Therefore, if the CICL acted with discernment, he is
entitled only to a mitigating circumstance, because not all
the requisites necessary to exempt from criminal liability
are present.
 Example 2: That sufficient provocation or threat on the

part of the offended party immediately preceded the act.
(Art. 13, par. 4).
 “Thrusting his bolo at petitioner, threatening to

kill him, and hacking the bamboo walls of his house are, in
our view, sufficient provocation to enrage any man, or stir
his rage and obfuscate his thinking, more so when the lives
of his wife and children are in danger. Petitioner stabbed
the victim as a result of those provocations, and while
petitioner was still in a fit of rage. In our view, there was
sufficient provocation and the circumstance of passion and
obfuscation attended the commission of the offense.”
45
Criminal Law
(Arturo Romera vs. People, G.R. No. 151978, 14 July

2004).
 Example 3: That the offender had voluntarily

surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents.
(Art. 13, par. 7)
 The accused, after plunging a bolo into the

victim’s chest, ran toward the municipal building. Upon
seeing a patrolman, he immediately threw away his bolo,
raised his two hands, offered no resistance and said to the
patrolman, “Here is my bolo, I stabbed the victim.” There
was intent or desire to surrender voluntarily to the
authorities. (People vs. Tenorio, G.R. No. L-15478, 30
March 1962, 4 SCRA 700). In this case, the court
considered voluntary surrender as a mitigating
circumstance in imposing the penalty on the accused.
(D) Aggravating circumstances – The presence of

aggravating circumstances will increase the penalty
imposed under the crime upon conviction without,
however, exceeding the maximum of the penalty provided
by law for the offense.
46
Criminal Law
 Example 1: That the crime is committed in the

nighttime to facilitate its commission. (Art. 14, par. 6)
 Nighttime was appreciated against the accused

who was living only 150 meters away from the victim’s
house and evidently waited for nightfall to hide his identity
and facilitate his escape, knowing that most barrio folks
are already asleep, or getting ready to sleep, at 9:00 p.m.
(People vs. Baring, G.R. No. 87017, 20 July 1990.)
 Example 2: That the crime is committed on the

occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, ear thquake,
epidemic or other calamity or misfortune. (Art. 14, par. 7)
 This aggravating circumstance can be taken into

consideration in the case of a fireman who commits
robbery in a burned house, or that of a thief who
immediately after a destructive typhoon steals personal
property from the demolished houses.
 Example 3: That the crime is committed with the aid of

persons under fifteen years of age. (Art. 14, par. 20)
 Tony caused Totoy, a 14-year-old boy, to climb

the wall of the house of Tet, to enter the same through its
window, and once inside, to take, as in fact Totoy took,
47
Criminal Law
clothes and other personal property in the house of Tet.

Then Totoy threw them to the ground were Tony picked
them up. The aggravating circumstance that the crime
was committed with the aid of a person under 15 years of
age should be taken into account against Tony.
TABLE SHOWING THE DURATION OF

DIVISIBLE PENALTIES AND THE TIME
INCLUDED IN EACH OF THEIR PERIODS. –
TIME
TIME TIME TIME
INCLUDED
INCLUDED INCLUDED INCLUDED
IN THE
PENALTIES IN ITS IN ITS IN ITS
PENALTY IN
MINIMUM MEDIUM MAXIMUM
ITS
PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD
ENTIRETY
Under R.A. No. 7659, the duration of reclusion perpetua is
now from 20 years and one day to 40 years. Although Sec.
Reclusion 17 of RA 7659 has fixed its duration, it remains an indivisible
perpetua penalty.
(People vs. Conrado Lucas, G.R. No. 108172, 9 January
1995)
Reclusion From 12 From 12 From 14 From 17
temporal years and 1 years and 1 years, 8 years, 4
day to 20 day to 14 months and months and
years years and 8 1 day to 17 1 day to 20
48
Criminal Law
years and 4
months years
months
Prision
mayor,
absolute From 10
From 6 years From 6 years From 8 years
disqualificatio years and 1
and 1 day to and 1 day to and 1 day to
n and special day to 12
12 years 8 years 10 years
temporary years
disqualificatio
n
From 2
From 6 From 4
Prision From 6 years, 4
months and years, 2
correccional, months and months and
1 day to 2 months and
suspension 1 day to 6 1 day to 4
years and 4 1 day to 6
and destierro years years and 2
months years
months
From 1 From 2 From 4
month and 1 From 1 to 2 months and months and
Arresto mayor
day to 6 months 1 day to 4 1 day to 6
months months months
From 1 to 30 From 1 to 10 From 11 to From 21 to

Arresto menor
days days 20 days 30 days
* * * END * * *
HAPPY READING & LEARNING!

49
Criminal Law
SOURCES of NOTES:
The discussions outlined in

this module have been
collectively lifted from the
cases cited and
commentaries made by the
authors in the references
cited below:
1. Dascil, Rodelio T. Introduction to Law. Manila: Rex

Book Store, 2013.
2. Lizaso, Marcelino T. Introduction to Law. Quezon

City: Central Lawbook Publishing Co., Inc., 1991.
3. Reyes, Luis B. The Revised Penal Code, Book I.

Manila: Rex Book Store, 2017.
4. Suarez, Rolando A. Introduction to Law. Manila:

Rex Book Store, 2017.
50
Criminal Law
FOOD FOR
THOUGHT

Criminal Law Basics - Classical vs Positivist Schools of Thought

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law Basics - Classical vs Positivist Schools of Thought

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTRO – MODULE 18 (WEEK 16) 1

 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND. – Our Revised

 Classical School of Thought – The basis of

 Positivist School of Thought – This school of

strange and morbid phenomenon which constrains him to

 CRIMINAL LAW DEFINED. – It is that branch of

 SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW. – The primary

 Scope – The Revised Penal Code is divided

(a) Basic principles affecting criminal liability (Arts. 1-20,

(b) The provisions on penalties which include civil and

(c) Felonies with the corresponding penalties classified

 THREE BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL

(A) Generality. – This means that the Philippine

 Illustrative Example – Under the state laws of Texas,

his own protection without securing a license therefor

Question: Is the contention of George correct?

Answer: NO. The contention of George is untenable.

illegal possession of firearms committed within Philippine

 Exceptions to generality – Exceptions to the

(1) Treaty stipulations (Art. 2, RPC)

 An example of a treaty or treaty stipulation

(2) Laws of Preferential Application

 An example of a law of preferential

rights, and privileges of duly accredited foreign diplomatic

“SEC. 4. Any writ or process issued out or

(3) Principles of Public International Law

 The following are exempt from the operation

(a) Sovereigns and other chiefs of state.

(B) Territoriality. – This means that penal laws are only

 Generality and territoriality distinguished. –

 While working in Japan, Millie killed a Japanese

Question: On the basis of the testimony of her Filipino co-

Answer: NO. As our penal laws are territorial in nature, it

committed even by Filipinos outside of the Philippines do

Question: Under the facts, will the action for bigamy

Answer: NO. Under Article 349 of the Revised Penal

Philippines; hence, an action to prosecute Lito for bigamy

NOTE: When Lito and Dolor come back to the Philippines

 Exceptions to territoriality – However, the

(1) When the offender should commit an offense while

 A Philippine vessel, although beyond 3 miles

 It is the registration of the vessel or aircraft in

(2) When the offender should forge or counterfeit any

 Thus, any person who makes false or

(3) When the offender should be liable for acts

 The reason for this provision is that the

forging or counterfeiting of the same, to the economical

(4) When the offender, being a public officer or

 The crimes that may be committed in the

(5) When the offender should commit any of the

 The crimes against the national security and the

(C) Prospectivity/Irretrospectivity. – This means that

 Exceptions – However, penal laws may be

 It is favorable to the accused or convict; and

 IMPORTANT LEGAL MAXIMS IN CRIMINAL

(A) Pro Reo – The doctrine of pro reo simply refers to

 Rationale – This is in line with the

shall be resolved in favor of the accused in harmony with

(B) Nullum crimen nulla poena

A person cannot or should not face criminal prosecution

NOTE: This doctrine applies only to cases involving dolo

 THREE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON

(A) No person shall be made to answer for a criminal