CRIMINAL LAW AND PRACTICAL EXERCISES The general rule is that acts punished under a special law are
that acts punished under a special law are malum
I. PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW (Revised Penal
Code – Book 1)
A. General principles
1. Mala in se and mala prohibita
Criminal law has long divided crimes into acts wrong in themselves
called acts mala in se; and acts which would not be wrong but for the
fact that positive law forbids them, called acts mala prohibita. This
distinction is important with reference to the intent with which a
wrongful act is done. The rule on the subject is that in acts mala in se,
the intent governs; but in acts mala prohibita, the only inquiry is, has
the law been violated? When an act is illegal, the intent of the offender
is immaterial. When the doing of an act is prohibited by law, it is
considered injurious to public welfare, and the doing of the prohibited
act is the crime itself.
A common misconception is that all mala in se crimes are found in the
Revised Penal Code (RPC), while all mala prohibita crimes are
provided by special penal laws. In reality, however, there may be mala
in se crimes under special laws, such as plunder under R.A. No.
7080, as amended. Similarly, there may be mala prohibita crimes
defined in the RPC, such as technical malversation.
The better approach to distinguish between mala in se and mala
prohibita crimes is the determination of the inherent immorality or
vileness of the penalized act. If the punishable act or omission is
immoral in itself, then it is a crime mala in se, - on the contrary, if it is
not immoral in itself, but there is a statute prohibiting its commission
by reasons of public policy, then it is mala prohibita. In the final
analysis, whether or not a crime involves moral turpitude is ultimately
a question of fact and frequently depends on all the circumstances
surrounding the violation of the statute. (Dungo vs. People, 761 SCRA
375)
When the acts complained of are inherently immoral, they are deemed
mala in se, even if they are punished by a special law. Accordingly, criminal
intent must be clearly established with the other elements of the crime;
otherwise, no crime is committed. (Mabunot vs. People, 803 SCRA 349)
prohibitum. "An act which is declared malum prohibitum, malice or
criminal intent is completely immaterial."
Hence, " intent to commit the crime and intent to perpetrate the
act must be distinguished. A person may not have consciously
intended to commit a crime; but he did intend to commit an act,
and that act is, by the very nature of things, the crime itself. " When
an act is prohibited by a special law, it is considered injurious to
public welfare, and the performance of the prohibited act is the crime
itself.
Volition, or intent to commit the act, is different from criminal intent.
Volition or voluntariness refers to knowledge of the act being done.
On the other hand, criminal intent refers to the state of mind beyond
voluntariness. It is this intent that is being punished by crimes mala
in se.
The acts prohibited in Section 27(b) of the Omnibus Election Code
are mala in se. Given the volume of votes to be counted and
canvassed within a limited amount of time, errors and
miscalculations are bound to happen. And it could not be the intent of
the law to punish unintentional election canvass errors.
Criminal intent is presumed to exist on the part of the person who
executes an act which the law punishes, unless the contrary shall
appear. Thus, whoever invokes good faith as a defense has the
burden of proving its existence.
The act of transporting a prohibited drug is a " malum
prohibitum" because it is punished as an offense under a special law.
It is a wrong because it is prohibited by law. Without the law
punishing the act, it cannot be considered a wrong. As such, the mere
commission of said act is what constitutes the offense punished and
suffices to validly charge and convict an individual caught
committing the act so punished, regardless of criminal intent.
2. Applicability and effectivity of the RPC
a. Generality- Philippine penal laws binding upon all persons who
live or sojourn within the Philippine territory.
Exceptions: those exempt from criminal prosecution by virtue of –
[a] the universally-accepted principles of Public International Law, such as
sovereigns, heads of states, ambassadors, charge d’ affaires;
[b] treaties and treaty stipulations; and
[c] laws of preferential application.
b. Territoriality-Philippine penal laws undertake to punish crimes
committed within the Philippine territory.
Exceptions:
[a] crimes committed on board a Philippine registered vessel or
aircraft cruising on international waters or airspace;
[b] crimes involving counterfeiting or forging of coins or currency notes
or introduction thereof into the Philippines;
[c] crimes committed by public officers while in the exercise of their
functions;
[d] crimes against national security and the laws of nations under Arts.
114-123 of the RPC; and [e] violations of certain provisions of the
Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (R.A. No. 11479).
Exceptions to the exceptions: Treaties and laws of preferential application.
People v. Tulin re extraterritoriality and universal jurisdiction
The attack on and seizure of "M/T Tabangao'' and its cargo were
committed in Philippine waters, although the captive vessel was later
brought by the pirates to Singapore where its cargo was off-loaded,
transferred, and sold. And such transfer was done under
accused-appellant Hiong's direct supervision. Although PD No. 532
requires that the attack and seizure of the vessel and its cargo be
committed in Philippine waters, the disposition by the pirates of the
vessel and its cargo is still deemed part of the act of piracy, hence, the
same need not be committed in Philippine waters.
Moreover, piracy falls under Title One of Book Two of the Revised
Penal Code. As such, it is an exception to the rule on territoriality
in criminal law. It is likewise, well-settled that regardless of the law
penalizing the same, piracy is a reprehensible crime against the
whole world ( People v. Lol-lo) .
c. Prospectivity- Philippine penal laws cannot make an act
punishable which when committed are not yet so. They cannot be
given retroactive effect.
Exception: Those which establish conditions that are favorable or
lenient to the accused.
For as long as a penal law is favorable to the accused, it shall find
application regardless of whether its effectivity comes after the time
when the judgment of conviction is rendered and even if service of
sentence has already begun. The accused shall be entitled to the
benefits of the new law warranting him to serve a lesser sentence, or
to his release, if he has already begun serving his previous sentence,
and said service already accomplishes the term of the modified
sentence. (Hernan vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 217874, 05
December 2018)
Penal laws are laws which, while not penal in nature, have provisions
defining offenses and prescribing penalties for their violation. While
R.A. No. 10592 does not define a crime or provide a penalty as it
addresses the rehabilitation component of our correctional system, its
provisions have the purpose and effect of diminishing the punishment
attached to the crime. (Inmates of the New Bilibid Prison, et al. vs.
Sec. Leila M. De Lima, et al., G.R. No. 212719, 25 June 2019)
Exceptions to the exceptions: [a] habitual delinquents; or [b] if made
expressly inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of action.
3. Interpretation of penal laws
a. Penal laws are strictly construed against the Government and
liberally in favor o f the accused;
b. The Spanish text is controlling.
Penal or criminal laws are strictly construed against the state
and liberally in favor of the accused. If the language of the law
were ambiguous, the court will lean more strongly in favor of the
defendant than it would if the statute were remedial, as a means of
effecting substantial justice. The law is tender in favor of the rights of
an individual. It is this philosophy of caution before the State may
deprive a person of life or liberty that animates one of the most
fundamental principles in our Bill of Rights, that every person is
presumed innocent until proven guilty. (People vs. Bon, 506 SCRA
168)
If the statute admits of two reasonable but contradictory constructions, that
which operates in favor of a party accused under its provisions is to be
preferred. (People vs. Sullano, G.R. No. 228373, 12 March 2018)
The fundamental principle in applying and in interpreting criminal
laws is to resolve all doubts in favor of the accused. In dubio pro
reo. When in doubt, rule for the accused.
Intimately related to the in dubio pro reo principle is the rule of
lenity. The rule applies when the court is faced with two possible
interpretations of a penal statute, one that is prejudicial to the
accused and another that is favorable to him. The rule calls for the
adoption of an interpretation which is more lenient to the
accused.
Lenity becomes all the more appropriate when this case is viewed
through the lens of the basic purpose of Article 332 of the RPC to
preserve family harmony by providing an absolutory cause.
4. Retroactive effect of penal laws (Art. 22)
The general rule is that penal laws shall have a retroactive effect
insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony except
a. If the offender is a habitual delinquent;
b. The new or amendatory law is not favorable to him; or
c. Retrospective application is expressly proscribed.
Sec 68 of RA 9344 allows the retroactive application of the Act to
those who have been convicted and are serving sentence at the time
of the effectivity of this said Act, and who were below the age of 18
years at the time of the commission of the offense. (Pp. v. Sarcia)
Penal laws shall have retroactive effect insofar as they
favour the person guilty of a felony, who is not habitual
criminal, xxx, although at the time of the publication of such
laws a final sentence has been pronounced and convict is
serving the same.
B. Felonies
1. Criminal liabilities and felonies
a. Classification of felonies (grave, less grave and light
felonies) ART.9
Grave Felonies- attaches the capital punishment or penalties
which is any of their period are afflictive, xxx.
Less Grave Felonies- penalties which in their maximum
period are correctional;
Light Felonies- infractions of law for the commission of
which the penalty of arresto menor or fine not exceeding
200pesos, or both.
Article 7. When light felonies are punishable. — Light felonies are
punishable only when they have been consummated, with the exception of those
committed against person or property.
GR : Light felonies are punishable o nly w hen c onsummated.
EXC: Those committed against persons or property, even if
attempted or frustrated. e.g. Slight physical injuries and
maltreatment (266); Art 309, nos. 7 and 8; Alteration of
boundary marks (313); Malicious mischief (328 and 329, no.
3).
b. Aberratio ictus, error in personae, and praetor
intentionem
Accused is still liable under the following circumstances:
1. Praeter intentionem. — Injury caused is greater than what
was intended;
Any person may be held liable for an intentional felony although the
wrong done is not intended by him, if:
a. he has committed an i ntentional felony;
b. the wrong done or injury caused is the direct, natural or
logical consequence o f the felony committed; O R
if the intentional felony committed is the proximate
cause of the injury or damage incurred by the victim.
2. Aberratio ictus. — M iscarriage of the blow;
3. Error in personae. — M istake in identity.
ABERRATIO ICTUS- “mistake of blow”; a person is
criminally responsible for committing an intentional felony
although the actual victim is different from the intended
victim due to mistake of blow.
- There are at least two victims, the intended victim and
the 3rd person who was hit by reason of mistake of
blow.
ERROR IN PERSONAE- “mistake of identity”; a person is
criminally responsible for committing an intentional felony
although the actual victim is different from the intended
victim due to mistake of identity.
PRAETER INTENTIONEM- “unintentional”; a person shall
incur criminal liability for committing an intentional felony
although its wrongful consequence is graver than that
intended.
c. Impossible crime
1. The act performed would be an offense against persons or property;
2. Act done with evil intent;
3. Its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that the
means employed is either i nadequate or ineffectual;
4. The act performed should not constitute a violation of another
provision of the RPC.
NB: There is N O attempted or frustrated impossible crime.
Intod v. CA and People
There must be either
1) legal impossibility, or
2) physical impossibility of accomplishing the intended act in
order to qualify the act as an impossible crime.
Legal impossibility would apply to those circumstances where
1) the motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in
violation of the law;
2) there is intention to perform the physical act;
3) there is a performance of the intended physical act; and
4) the consequence resulting from the intended act does not
amount to a crime.
On the other hand, factual impossibility occurs when extraneous
circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent
the consummation of the intended crime. One example is the man
who puts his hand in the coat pocket of another with the intention to
steal the latter's wallet and finds the pocket empty. The case at bar
belongs to this category.
In impossible crimes, the act performed by the offender cannot
produce an offense against persons or property because:
(1) the commission of the offense is inherently impossible of
accomplishment; or
(2) the means employed is either (a) inadequate or (b) ineffectual.
That the offense cannot be produced because the commission of the
offense is inherently impossible of accomplishment is the focus of this
petition. To be in impossible under this clause, the act intended by the
offender must be by its nature one impossible of accomplishment.
There must be either (1) legal impossibility, or (2) physical
impossibility of accomplishing the intended act in order to qualify the
act as an impossible crime.
Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts, even if completed,
would not amount to a crime. Legal impossibility would apply to those
circumstances where
(1) the motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in violation
of the law;
(2) there is intention to perform the physical act,
(3) there is a performance of the intended physical act; and
(4) the consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount
to a crime. The impossibility of killing a person already dead falls in
this category.
On the other hand, factual impossibility occurs when extraneous
circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the
consummation of the intended crime. One example is the man who
puts his hand in the coat pocket of another with the intention to steal
the latter’s wallet and finds the pocket empty. (Intod vs. CA, 215
SCRA 52)
d. Stages of execution
The essential elements of an attempted felony are as follows:
1. The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by
overt acts;
2. He does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce
the felony;
3. The offender’s act be not stopped by his own spontaneous
desistance;
4. The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause or
accident other than his spontaneous desistance.

The first requisite of an attempted felony consists of two elements,
namely:
(1) That there be external acts;
(2) Such external acts have direct connection with the crime intended
to be committed. (Macapagal-Arroyo vs. Sandiganbayan, 797 SCRA
241)
The elements of a frustrated felony as the following:
1. The offender performs all the acts of execution;
2. All the acts performed would produce the felony as a consequence;
3. But the felony is not produced;
4. By reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
(People vs. Caballero, 400 SCRA 424)
(Art. 6) A felony is attempted stage when the offender commences the
commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and 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.
A felony is at the frustrated stage 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.
A felony is at the consummated stage when all the elements
necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present.
Stages of execution in Homicide cases.
1. Consummated Homicide: if the victim dies or is killed.
2. If the intended victim survives, the accused is guilty thereof either in
its attempted or frustrated stage only.
Frustrated Homicide. The accused is deemed to have performed all
acts of execution which would have produced the felony of Homicide,
etc. if the wound sustained by the victim is fatal or mortal, which
could have caused his instantaneous death where it not for a cause
independent of the offender’s will, say, timely medical intervention.
Attempted Homicide. The accused has not performed all the acts of
execution where the wound inflicted on the victim is not fatal or
mortal, or even if the latter has not incurred any injury.
3. In attempted and frustrated homicide, there must always be
intent to kill. Otherwise, the accused may be held guilty of physical
injuries or other lesser offenses only. However, the accused may be
held liable for Homicide, Infanticide or Parricide, even absent intent
to kill, if the death of the victim resulted under the circumstances
referred to in Art. 4, par. 1 of the RPC. In Murder in whatever stage,
intent to kill is essential. (Ticman, The Preweek Reviewer for Jittery
Bar Takers, Vol. III, 2021 ed., pp. 191-192)
Theft or Robbery has no frustrated stage. They are either attempted
or consummated. It is already produced upon the “taking of personal
property of another xxx.” There was no need for permanency in the
taking or in its intent, as the mere temporary possession by the
offender or disturbance of the proprietary rights of the owner is
enough to constitute the crime in its consummated stage. (Valenzuela
vs. People, 525 SCRA 306)
There is no frustrated stage in Rape; it is either attempted or
consummated. For its consummation, perfect penetration is not
essential. Any penetration of the female organ by the male organ is
sufficient. It is attempted if there is no penetration of the female organ
because not all acts of execution were performed. (People vs. Orita,
184 SCRA 114)
e. Continuing crimes- one which is consummated in one
place but by reason of the nature of the offense, the violation
of the law is deemed continuing; the purpose of the principle
of continuing crime is to determine the proper venue,
validity of arrest and the commencement of the running of
prescription.
note: Continuing crimes and delito continuado(continuous or
continued crime) are not the same but are distinguished from
one another.

Examples and Effects of Continuing crimes
1. Kidnapping with homicide;
2. The term of prescription commences to run from the date the
crime ended;
3. BP 22. — Thus, venue may be had either at the place where the
check was issued, drawn, or dishonored.
4. Rebellion. — a rebel may be arrested at any time without need
of a warrant as he is deemed to be in the act of committing the
offense at any time.
f. Complex crimes and composite crimes
Article 48. Penalty for complex crimes. —
1. ( Compound crime or delito compuesto) When a single act
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or
2. ( Complex crime proper or delito complejo) when an
offense is a necessary means for committing the other,
the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same
to be applied in its maximum p eriod.
Plurality of crimes
1. Consists in the successive execution by the same individual of
different criminal acts upon any of which no conviction has yet
been declared.
2. If there has been a conviction for one or some of them, the rules on
recidivism, quasi-recidivism, reiteracion, or habitual
delinquency may instead be applied.
3. There are t wo kinds
a. Formal or ideal — Multiple crimes committed from the same
criminal intent are punished with O NE penalty:
1. Complex crime;
i. Delito compuesto;
ii. Delito complejo.
2. Special complex crimes;
3. Continued, continuous or continuing crimes.
b. Real or material — There are different crimes in law as well
as in the conscience of the offender. They are thus
SEPARATELY p unished.
Special from ordinary
4. Special complex crimes are those specifically designated by law to
be penalized as one felony, although composed of many crimes.
5. May consist of crimes punished under SPLs, whereas the complex
crime in Art 48 contemplates of felonies punished under the RPC.
Kinds of ordinary complex crimes
1) Compound crime. Requisites:
a. Only a s ingle act is performed;
b. It produces
i. 2 or more grave felonies, or
ii. one or more grave and one or more less grave felonies,
or
iii. 2 or more less grave felonies.
2) Complex crime proper. Requisites:
a. At least 2 offenses are committed;
b. One or some of the offenses must be necessary to commit
the other;
c. All of the offenses must be punished under the same
statute.
Rules to determine the crime/s to be charged if two or
more are committed
6. Foreknowledge Rule. — Where the accused repetitively performed
one element of a crime (or component of a complex crime) over a
period of time on a more or less regular basis, having
foreknowledge of its occurrence.
7. Doctrine of Absorption. — If one of the offense is an element of
another, the former is deemed absorbed by the latter and there is
only one crime.
8. Single Impulse Doctrine. — If the act or acts complained of
resulted from a single criminal impulse, it constitutes a single
offense.
People v. Orias 2010
People v. Nelmida 2012 En Banc
Napolis v. CA cited in Fransdilla v. People 2015
People v. Garcia
Santiago v. Garchitorena
9. Political Offense Doctrine
COMx C RM PRE-WEEK NOTES For the 2020/21 #BestBarEver
Orias should be convicted of three (3) counts of murder and
NOT of the complex crime of multiple murder
The three (3) crimes of murder did not result from a single act but
from several individual and distinct acts. Deeply rooted is the
doctrine that when various victims expire from separate shots,
such acts constitute separate and distinct crimes.
In the instant, the acts of Orias and Elarcosa demonstrate the
existence of conspiracy, thereby imputing collective criminal
responsibility upon them, as the act of one is the act of all.
Appellants and their co-accused simultaneous act of riddling the
vehicle boarded by Mayor Tawan-tawan and his group with bullets
discharged from their firearms when the said vehicle passed by,
resulted in the death of two security escorts of Mayor Tawan-tawan.
Evidently, there is in this case no complex crime proper. And the
circumstances present in this case do not fit exactly the description
of a compound crime.
⭐As held in People v. Valdez, each act by each gunman
pulling the trigger of their respective firearms, aiming each
particular moment at different persons constitute distinct
and individual acts which cannot give rise to a complex
crime.
In People v. Lawas, the Court was " forced" to find all the accused
guilty of only one offense of multiple homicide. However, as this
Court held in People v. Remollino, the Lawas doctrine is more of
an exception t han the general rule.
Here, conspiracy is very much evident from the actuations of the
appellants and their co-accused. Collective responsibility replaced
individual responsibility. The Lawas doctrine, premised on the
impossibility of determining who killed whom, cannot be
applied.
The current rule is where several killings on the same occasion
were perpetrated, but not involving prisoners , a different rule
may be applied, that is to say, the killings would be treated as
separate offenses.
Thus, appellants are liable for the separate crimes of two (2)
counts of murder and seven (7) counts of attempted murder.
As to penalty
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law in the case of attempted
murder,
1. the maximum shall be taken from the medium period of
prision mayor, which is 8 years and 1 day to 10 years,
2. while the minimum shall be taken from the penalty next
lower in degree, i.e., prision correccional, in any of its
periods, the range of which is 6 months and 1 day to 6 years.
The complex crime of robbery in an inhabited house by armed
persons and robbery with violence against or intimidation of
persons was committed when the accused, who held firearms,
entered the residential house of the victims and inflicted injury upon
the victims in the process of committing the robbery. Hence, the
penalty is that imposed for the robbery in an inhabited house, the
more serious crime. Citing Napolis v. CA, the CA correctly ruled that
all the accused, including Fransdilla, were guilty of committing the
complex crime of robbery in an inhabited house under Article 299,
and robbery with intimidation or violence under Article 294.
The crime of forcible abduction with rape is a complex crime that
occurs when there is carnal knowledge with the abducted woman
under the following circumstances:
1) by using force or intimidation;
2) when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious; and
3) when the woman is under twelve years of age or is
demented.
Garcia is guilty of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape.
He should also be held liable for the other three counts of rape
committed by his three co-accused, considering the clear conspiracy
among them.
However, as correctly held by the trial court, there can only be ONE
complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. The crime of
forcible abduction was only necessary for the first rape. Thus, the
subsequent acts of rape can no longer be considered as separate
complex crimes of forcible abduction with rape. They should be
detached from and considered independently of the forcible
abduction. Therefore, Garcia should be convicted of one complex
crime of forcible abduction with rape and three separate acts of
rape.
The 32 Amended Informations reproduced verbatim the allegation of
the original information, except that instead of the word "aliens" in
the original information each amended information states the name
of the individual whose stay was legalized. The 32 Amended
Informations aver that the offenses were committed on the same
period of time. The strong probability even exists that the approval of
the application for the legalization of the stay of the 32 aliens was
done by a single stroke of the pen, as when the approval was
embodied in the same document.
9. Political Offense Doctrine
a. Common crimes, perpetrated in furtherance of a political
offense, are divested of their character as “common”
offenses and assume the political complexion of the main
crime of which they are mere ingredients, and,
consequently, cannot be punished separately from the
principal offense, or complexed with the same, to justify
the imposition of a graver penalty.
b. When a killing is committed in furtherance of rebellion,
the killing is not homicide or murder. Rather, the killing
assumes the political complexion of rebellion.
c. When the political offense doctrine is asserted as a defense
in the trial court, it becomes crucial for the court to
determine whether the act of killing was done in
furtherance of a political end, and for the political
motive of the act to be conclusively demonstrated.
Ocampo v. Abando 2 014 En Banc
Special Complexing
1. Component crimes in a special complex crime have no
attempted or frustrated stages because the intention of the
offenders is to commit the principal crime which is to rob but
in the process of committing the said crime, another crime is
committed.
2. As held in People v. Jugueta, in special complex crimes like
robbery with homicide where the penalty imposed is reclusion
perpetua, the awards for civil indemnity, moral damages, and
exemplary damages are now uniformly pegged at P75K. The
award of temperate damages is also increased to P50K.
Inapplicability of Art 48
1. When the crime subject of the case are covered by the
doctrine of common elements;
a. There can be no complexing wherein two felonies have
a common element and such element is used to
complete the requirements for integrating one crime,
the other crime would be incomplete in that element
and consequently, non-existent.
b. Thus, there can be NO complex crime of estafa
through falsification of a private document as both
crimes require damage as an element which is used
for one renders the other incomplete.
2. When the crimes involved are subject to the rule of
absorption o f one crime by the other;
3. Where the two offenses resulting from a single act are
specifically punished as a single crime (Art 265 par 2).
4. Special complex crimes;
a. Art 266-B Rape with homicide;
b. Art 267 Kidnapping with homicide and/or rape;
c. Art 294 Robbery with homicide or rape or
intentional mutilation or arson;
d. Art 297 Attempted or frustrated robbery with
homicide;
e. Art 320 Destructive arson.
5. When the crimes involved c annot be legally complexed:
a. Art 129 Search warrants maliciously obtained and
abuse in the service of those legally obtained with
perjury;
b. Art 210 Bribery with infidelity in the custody of
prisoners;
c. Art 235 Maltreatment of prisoners with serious
physical injuries;
d. Art 312 Usurpation of real rights with serious
physical injuries;
e. Art 275 Abandonment of persons in danger and Art
276-278 crimes against minors with any other
felony.
NB: Complexing is ‘legally impossible’ because the provisions
expressly state that the penalty for such felonies is in addition
to those imposed on the other felonies committed.
Rules on Robbery and Homicide
1. If homicide was consummated, the case will be a special
complex crime of either Art 294, wherein robbery was
consummated, or Art 297, wherein it was merely attempted or
frustrated.
2. If the homide was not consummated, but was a necessary
means to commit any stage of the robbery, A rt 48 applies.
3. If the homicide was neither consummated nor necessary to
robbery, these felonies are s eparate and distinct offenses.
People v. Dillatan 2018
COMx C RM PRE-WEEK NOTES For the 2020/21 #BestBarEver
Whether the murder charges against petitioners should be dismissed
under the political offense doctrine.
NO . The political offense doctrine is not a ground to dismiss the
charge against petitioners prior to a determination by the trial court
that the murders were committed in furtherance of rebellion.
As held in the case of Prosecutor of Zamboanga v. CA, if during
trial, petitioners are able to show that the alleged murders were
indeed committed in furtherance of rebellion, the trial court shall
dismiss the murder charges upon the filing of the Information
for simple rebellion, as long as petitioners would not be placed in
double jeopardy.
The component crimes in a special complex crime have no
attempted or frustrated stages.
Thus, as in the present case where, aside from the killing of Homer,
the Spouses Acob, on the occasion of the same robbery, also
sustained injuries, regardless of the severity, the crime committed is
still robbery with homicide as the injuries sustained by the Spouses
Acob are subsumed under the generic term "homicide" and,
thus, become part and parcel of the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide.
Neither in law nor in jurisprudence is there an aggravating
circumstance as robbery in band. More importantly, the evidence
shows that what was committed is the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide aggravated by rape.
The original design of the malefactors was to commit robbery in
order to facilitate their escape from the penal colony. Their original
intent did not comprehend the commission of rape. Hence, the rape is
deemed to aggravate the crime but damages or indemnification for
the victim may be awarded. Instead of ignominy, it is the rape
itself that aggravates the crime.
With respect to the deaths of Daisy Gonzales and Yolanda Argue, the a. Principals, accomplices, and accessories (Arts. 16-20)
appellants are clearly liable therefor since, as held by this Court in
People v. Mangulabnan, it is immaterial that the death of a
person supervened by mere accident, provided that the b. Conspiracy and proposal
homicide is produced by reason or on occasion of the robbery.
A conviction for highway robbery requires proof that the accused
were organized for the purpose of committing robbery c. Multiple offenders
indiscriminately. There is no such proof in this case. The trial court i. Recidivism
thus correctly found Pulusan and Rodriguez guilty of the crime of
robbery with homicide aggravated by rape under Article
294(1). ii. Habituality
We must state that regardless of the number of homicides committed
on the occasion of a robbery, the crime is still robbery with
homicide. In this special complex crime, the number of persons
iii. Quasi-recidivism
killed is immaterial and does not increase the penalty
prescribed in Art. 294. There is NO crime of robbery with iv. Habitual delinquency
multiple homicide. Moreover, whenever the special complex crime
of robbery with homicide is proven to have been committed, all
those who took part in the robbery are liable as principals
therein although they did not actually take part in the 4. Penalties
homicide.
a. Imposable penalties

2. Circumstances affecting criminal liability b. Classification

a. Justifying circumstances (Art.11) c. Duration and effects

d. Application and graduation of penalties

b. Exempting circumstances (Art. 12)

c. Mitigating circumstances (Art. 13) i. Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103)
e. Accessory penalties
d. Aggravating circumstances (Art. 14)
f. Subsidiary Imprisonment
e. Alternative circumstances (Art. 15)

f. Absolutory causes 5. Execution and service of sentence

a. Three-fold rule

3. Persons liable and degree of participation

b. Probation Law (P.D. No. 968, as amended)
c. Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (R.A. No. 9344, as
amended)
d. Republic Act No. 10592 (Amendments to Articles 29, 94,
97, 98 and 99 of the RPC)
e. Community Service Act (R.A. No. 11362; A.M. No. 20-
06-14-SC)
6. Extinction of criminal liability (as amended by R.A. No.
10592)
7. Civil liability in criminal cases
II. CRIMES UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE
(Revised Penal Code – Book 2)
A. Crimes against national security and laws of nations
B. Crimes against the fundamental law of the State
C. Crimes against public order
D. Crimes against public interest
E. Crimes against public morals
F. Crimes committed by public officers
G. Crimes against persons
H. Crimes against personal liberty and security
I. Crimes against property
J. Crimes against chastity
K. Crimes against the civil status of persons
L. Crimes against honor
M. Quasi-offenses
III. SPECIAL PENAL LAWS
A. Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 (Secs. 3[a-c], 4 and
5, R.A. No. 9775)
B. Anti-Fencing Law of 1979 (Secs. 2 to 6, P.D. No. 1612)
C. Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019, as
amended by R.A. No. 3047, P.D. No. 677, P.D. No. 1288,
B.P. Blg. 195 and R.A. No. 10910)
D. Anti-Hazing Act of 2018 (R.A. No. 8049, as amended by
R.A. No. 11053)
E. Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001 (R.A. No. 9160)
F. Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 (Secs. 3
and 4, R.A. No. 9995)
G. Anti-Plunder Act (Secs. 1, 2 and 6, R.A. No. 7080, as
amended by R.A. No. 7659)
H. Anti-Torture Act of 2009 (Secs. 3 [a, b], 4 and 5, R.A.
No. 9745)

I. Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (Secs. 3 to 12,

R.A. No. 9208)

J. Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of

2004 (Secs. 3, 5 and 26, R.A. No. 9262)

K. Anti-Wire Tapping Act (Secs. 1 to 4, R.A. No. 4200)

L. Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. Blg. 22)

M. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. No.

9165 as amended by R.A. No. 10640)

N. Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (R.A. No. 10175)

O. New Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016 (Secs. 3 to 4, R.A.

No. 10883)

P. Special Protection of Children Against Abuse,

Exploitation, and Discrimination Act (Secs. 3(a), 5 and 10,
R.A. No. 7610)

Q. Swindling by Syndicate (P.D. No. 1689)

IV. PRACTICAL EXERCISES

A. Drafting of Complaint, Information, Affidavits of
Desistance, etc.