ARTICLE 1. Time when Act takes effect.

– This code shall take effect on the first day of January

1932
 RPC Is based on the principle of the old or classical
school

Two theories in Criminal Law

- Classical theory
- Positivist Theory

Theories in Criminal Law

1. Classical or Juristic Theory
a. human as moral creature with absolute
free will

b. Human rational and calculating beings who

act according to their liking

They do not commit criminal acts if threatened

with punishment

c. guilty or wrongful purpose or criminal

intent is the main consideration

2. Positivist or Realistic Theory

a. basis for criminal liability: sum total of the
social and economic phenomena to which
the offense is expressed
 b. Man is subdued occasionally by a strange
and morbid phenomena which constrains
him to do wrong

c. Crime is social and natural phenomena it

cannot be treated and checked by applying
law and jurisprudence nor by punishment

d. Purpose of penalty is to secure justice.

3. Eclectic or mixed theory

a. Combination of the good features of both
the classical and the positivist theories

b. Classical Theory - grievous or heinous

crimes
Positivist Theory - economic and social
crimes

4. Utilitarian or Protective Theory - function of

punishment is to protect society from potential
and actual wrongdoers

Characteristic of the Classical Theory

1. Criminal Liability – human free will
Purpose of the penalty – retribution
2. More stress upon the effect or result of the
felonious act than upon the man
3. Establish a mechanical and direct
proportion between crime and penalty
 4. Scant regard to the human element

Characteristic of Positivist Theory

1. Subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid
phenomenon which constrains him to do
wrong
2. Social phenomenon; CANNOT be treated and
checked by the application of abstract
principles of law
But rather personal and individual
investigation conducted by a competent body
of psychiatrists and social scientist

Exception in Principle of Territoriality

These are the ones who are also liable even outside the
Philippines

1. Should commit an offence while on a Philippine

ship or airship;

2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency

note of the Philippine islands or obligations and
securities issued by the Government of the
Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the
introduction into these Islands of the obligations
and securities mentioned in the preceding
number;
 4. While being public officer or employees should
commit an offense in the exercise of their
functions; or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national
security and the law of the nations

Scope of the application of the provisions of the

Revised Penal Code
Sovereignty of the Philippines extends, beyond its land
territory and internal waters and its archipelagic waters
to an extent two and adjacent belt of C described as
territorial sea

Cases is applicable even if the felony is committed

outside the Philippines:
1. Crimes committed while on Philippine ship or
airship

Philippine vessel 12 nautical miles from

archipelagic baseline - part of national territory

Territorial sea – 12 nautical miles

Contiguous zone – 24 nautical miles
EEZ – 200 nautical miles
Continental shelves

Philippine vessel in the territory of a foreign

country is subjected to the laws of the foreign
country.
 Merchant vessel - within Philippines; subject to
Philippine laws

Foreign vessel/ Warship - territory of the country

where they belong; country of registry not
ownership

2. Offender should forge for counterfeit and a coin

or guarantee note of the Philippines
3. introduction of forge or counterfeit currency note
is liable into the Philippines
4. While public officer or employee commit an
offense in the exercise of his function
5. Crimes against national security and law of nation

FELONIES

Article 3. Definitions. - Acts and omissions

punishable by law are felonies (delitos).

Felonies are committed not only be means

of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault
(culpa).

There is deceit when the act is performed

with deliberate intent and there is fault
when the wrongful act results from
imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight,
or lack of skill.
FELONIES - acts and omission punished by RPC

Elements of Felonies
 1. Act or omission

2. Acts or omission must be punishable by the RPC

3. Act or omission performed by means of “Dolo” or

“Culpa”

DOLO (deceit) - express intention of defrauding

CULPA (fault) - negligence or fault

Intentional felonies vs. Culpable Felonies

intentional felonies (dolo) - offender is malicious

- has the intention to cause an injury to another

culpable felonies (culpa)- not malicious

- unintentional; incident my list

- imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill

A person who caused an injury without intention to

cause an evil may be held liable for culpable felony.

Example: Render medical assistance in good faith, no

intention to cause an evil. However causes harm
therefore liable for physical injuries through
imprudence.

Reasons for punishing acts of negligence (Culpa)

A man must use common sense and exercise true

reflection in all of his act
Acts executed negligently or voluntary.

Three reasons why the act or omission in felonies must

be voluntarily:

1. based on classical duty the basis of criminal

liability is human free will

2. acts or omission punished by law are always

voluntary since man is a rational being

3. Dolo - deliberate intent; voluntary

Culpa - voluntarily but without malice

Requisites of DOLO or MALICE

1. Must have FREEDOM while doing an act or
meeting to do an act

- Uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury is

exempt from criminal liability

2. INTELLIGENCE while doing the act or omitting to

do the act

- necessary to morality of human acts

3. have INTENT while doing the act or omitting to do

the act

- proof of the commission of an unlawful act

Intent proposes the exercise of freedom and the use of

intelligence

Without freedom - no intent to do any injury to another

without intelligence - no such intent

the existence of intent is shown by the overt acts of a

person

Intent - mental aspects behind an act

Criminal intent is presumed from the Commission of

unlawful act

Criminal intent and the will to commit a crime are

always presume to access on the part of the person who
execute an act which the law punishes

But the presumption of criminal intent does not arise

from the proof of the Commission of an act which is
not unlawful

General rule - accused committed the criminal act

charge it will be presumed that the act was done with
criminal intention

- that is for the accused to rebut this

presumption

MAXIM: “a crime is not committed if the mind of the

person performing to act complained be innocent”

there is no felony DOLO if there is no intent

 not voluntary, for having acted in a dream; he had

no criminal intent

Mistake of Fact
 - Mistake of fact relieves the accused from
criminal liability

- “mali pagkakaintindi nila kaya may liability”

- Not criminally liable, he did not act with

criminal intent

REQUISITES OF MISTAKE OF FACT AS DEFENSE:

1. act done would have been lawful had the facts
been as their accused believed them to be

- act done would not constitute a felony had the

facts been as the accused believed them to be.

Example:

when a woman contracted marriage at a minor

age and in her defense she was informed that
she is at legal age by the time of their
marriage.

since the accused acted in good faith; without

intent their acts were involuntary

2. intention of the accused should be lawful

Example:

Peter have gun and wanted to kill Andrew. it

was dark at night, instead of killing Andrew.
Peter killed a boy.

The act and intention of Peter in firing his gun

are unlawful. Peter cannot properly invoke the
principle of mistake of fact in his defense.
 3. mistake must be without fault or carelessness on
the part of the accused

criminal intent is necessary in felonies committed by

means of Dolo.

Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, “the act itself
does not make a man guilty unless his intention were
so”

Actus me invito factus non est meus actus, “an act done
by me against my will is not my act”

General vs. Specific Intent

General criminal intent

- intention to do something wrong

- presume from the mere doing of a wrong act

- burden of proof: the wrongdoer to prove that

he acted without such criminal intent

Specific Intent

- intention to commit a definite act

- existence is not presumed

- burden of proof: upon the prosecution to

establish its existence

Examples:
 1. Robbery - intent to gain

2. Theft - intent to gain

3. homicide - intent to kill

4. forcible abduction - intent of lewd designs

Criminal intent is replaced by negligence and

imprudence in felonies committed by means of Culpa

Requisites of a fault or culpa to be considered

voluntary:

1. FREEDOM while doing the act

2. INTELLIGENCE while doing the act

3. IMPRUDENT, NEGLIGENT, OR LACKS FORESIGHT

OR SKILLS While doing the act

In Culpable Felonies, injury should be unintentional

and without malice

Mistaken identity of the intended victim is not reckless

imprudence

A person causing damage or injury without malice or

fault is not criminally liable under RPC

the act performed must be lawful

discharging gun in a public is unlawful

The third class of crimes are those punished by special

laws

(1) Intentional felonies

(2) culpable felonies

(3) crimes punished by municipal or city ordinances

Dolo it is not required in crimes punished by special

laws

INTENT vs. MOTIVE

Intent - use a particular means to affect such result

Motive - moving power which impels one to action for a

definite result

- motive is NOT essential element of a crime

- a good motive does not prevent an act from

being a crime

motive, when relevant and when not

(1) IDENTITY OF ACCUSED

a) group of motive is not necessary; if the

Commission of the crime has been proven and
the evidence of identification is convincing
 b) identity of a person accused is in dispute

c) when there is doubt as to the identity of the

assailant

d) defendant admits the killing

e) no longer any doubt that the defendant was

the culprit

(2) ANTAGONISTIC THEORIES

Article 4. Criminal liability. - Criminal liability shall

be incurred:

1. By any person committing a felony (delito)

although the wrongful act done be different
from that which he intended.

2. By any person performing an act which

would be an offense against persons or
property, were it not for the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment or an
 account of the employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means.

Article 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts

which should be repressed but which are not
covered by the law, and in cases of excessive
penalties. - Whenever a court has knowledge of any
act which it may deem proper to repress and which
is not punishable by law, it shall render the proper
decision, and shall report to the Chief Executive,
through the Department of Justice, the reasons
which induce the court to believe that said act
should be made the subject of legislation.

In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief

Executive, through the Department of Justice, such
statement as may be deemed proper, without
suspending the execution of the sentence, when a
strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code
would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive
penalty, taking into consideration the degree of
malice and the injury caused by the offense.