CLJ 3 Notes Cabinet

College Wesleyan University
Module
On
Criminal Law Book 1
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW

Definition of Criminal Law
Scope of Application and Characteristics
Constitutional Limitations
Chapter 2 FELONIES
Differentiating Felonies, Offense, Misdemeanor and Crime
How is Criminal Liability Incurred
Classification of Felonies
Elements of Criminal Liability
Conspiracy and Proposal
Multiple Offenders
Complex Crimes and Special Complex Crimes
(Preliminary Examination)
Chapter 3 CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Justifying Circumstances
Exempting Circumstances
Mitigating Circumstances
Aggravating Circumstances
Alternative Circumstances
Absolutory Cause
(Midterm Examination )
Chapter 4 PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE

Principal
Accomplice
Accessory
Chapter 5 PENALTIES
General Principles
Classification
Principal and Accessory Penalties
Indeterminate Sentence Law
Three-fold Rule
Subsidiary Imprisonment
Modification and Extinction of Criminal Liability
(Final Examination )
Chapter One
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
Objectives:
1. Define Criminal Law
2. Learn the fundamental principles of Penal Laws
3. Learn the source of authority of State to punish crimes and the limitations to such
authority
4. Distinguish the concepts of mala in se and mala prohibita
CRIMINAL LAW – A branch of public substantive law which defines crimes, treats of their
nature and provides for their punishment. It is substantive because it defines the state’s right to
inflict punishment and the liability of the offenders. It is a public law because it deals with the
relation of the individual with the state.
LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL LAWS

1. Must be general in application.
2. Must not partake of the nature of an ex post facto law.
3. Must not partake of the nature of a bill of attainder.
4. Must not impose cruel and unusual punishment or excessive fines.
CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW:

1. General – the law is binding to all persons who reside in the Philippines
General rule:
Art. 14, New Civil Code (NPC).
The penal law of the country is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in Philippine
territory, subject to the principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations.
Exception:
Art. 2, Revised Penal Code (RPC). ― Except as provided in the treaties or laws of preferential
application xxx”
a. Treaty Stipulations
o Bases Agreement entered into by Philippines and US on Mar. 14, 1947 and expired on Sept. 16, 1991.
o Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA)2 signed on Feb. 10, 1998.
b. Laws of Preferential Application

o Members of Congress are not liable for libel or slander for any speech in Congress or in any committee
thereof. (Sec. 11, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
o 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 are exempt from arrest and
imprisonment and whose properties are exempt from distraint, seizure and attachment.3 (R.A. No. 75)
o Warship Rule – A warship of another country, even though docked in the Philippines, is considered an
extension of the territory of its respective country. This also applies to embassies.
c. Principles of Public International Law
The following persons are exempt from the provisions of the RPC:
i. Sovereigns and other heads of state
ii. Ambassadors, ministers, plenipotentiary, minister resident and charges d‘ affaires.
(Article 31, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations)
Note: Consuls and consular officers are NOT exempt from local prosecution. (See Article 41, Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations)
Public vessels of a friendly foreign power are not subject to local jurisdiction.
Note: Generality has NO reference to territoriality.
2. Territorial – the law is binding to all crimes committed within the National Territory of the
Philippines
o Terrestrial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over land.
o Fluvial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over maritime and interior waters.
o Aerial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over the atmosphere.
Exception to Territorial Application: Instances enumerated under Article 2, RPC.
3. Prospective – the law does not have any retroactive effect.

Exception to Prospective Application: when new statute is favorable to the accused.
THEORIES OF CRIMINAL LAW
1. Classical Theory
Man is essentially a moral creature with an absolute free will to choose between good and
evil and therefore more stress is placed upon the result of the felonious act than upon the
criminal himself.
Primary purpose: Retribution.
2. Positivist Theory
Man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon which conditions him to
do wrong in spite of or contrary to his volition.
Primary purpose: Reformation; prevention/ correction.
3. Eclectic or Mixed Philosophy

This combines both positivist and classical thinking. Crimes that are economic and social
and nature should be dealt with in a positivist manner; thus, the law is more
compassionate. Heinous crimes should be dealt with in a classical manner; thus, capital
punishment.
The Revised Penal Code today follows the mixed or eclectic philosophy. For example:
> Intoxication of the offender is considered to mitigate his criminal liability, unless it is intentional or habitual;
> Age of the offender is considered;
> A woman who killed her child to conceal her dishonor has in her favor a mitigating circumstance.
SOURCES OF STATE AUTHORITY TO PUNISH CRIMES
1. Constitution
a. Section 5, Art. 2, 1987 Constitution
The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and
promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the
blessings of democracy.
b. Section 1, Art. 6, 1987 Constitution

The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall
consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the
people by the provision on initiative and referendum.
2. Revised Penal Code (RPC)
3. Special Criminal Laws
4. Penal Provisions in Other Laws
5. Local Ordinances
6. Jurisprudence
LIMITATIONS TO STATE AUTHORITY
2. Due Process and Equal Protection

Section 1, Article III, 1987 Constitution
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any
person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
People vs. Carlos, 78 Phil. 535

Facts:
The accused, a Japanese spy, guided the Japanese military police to the houses of Martin Mateo and Fermin Javier. The
Japanese soldier then broke into the said houses and seized Martin Mateo, Ladulao Mateo and Fermin Javier. They were
sent to Fort Santiago where they were tortured and released 6 days later.
Contention of the state: the accused is guilty of treason
Contention of the accused: they cannot be convicted of the crime of treason because it is a settled principle of international
law that once the territory is occupied by an enemy, the allegiance is a legal obligation distinguishable by the inhabitants
therein, the government is temporarily suspended. The people’s court violates the constitutional guarantee of equal
protection of laws.
Ruling:
The people’s court was not meant to last forever and so that all cases within 6 months and where deemed enough to
occupy the attention of the people’s court within its limited to life should be cognizable by it and the rest should be
instilled in the people’s court doesn’t violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of laws and due process
because the constitution does not present a state from adjusting its legislative to difference in situations and making a
distinction in its legislation provided that the distinction has reasonable foundation on national basis and is not purely
and entirely arbitrary in the legislative sense.
3. Freedom of Expression
Section 4, Article III, Constitution
No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
Barnes vs. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560

Facts:
An Indiana statute made it a misdemeanor to appear in a public place in a state of nudity within a statutory definition of
nudity, such as the female genitalia, pubic area or buttocks with less than a fully opaque covering part of the nipple. Two
entertainment establishments in south bend Indiana wished to provide totally nude dancing as entertainment, which
brought suit in the US courts for the northern district of Indiana against the city of South Bend.
Contention of the state: the prohibition against nude dancing or entertainment did violate the constitution; first
amendment of freedom of expression.
Contention of the accused: the statute prohibition violated the freedom of expression, first amendment.
Ruling:
The prohibition of nude dancing or entertainment does not violate the first amendment because the statute was a general
law regulating conduct and was specifically directed at expression.
4. Freedom of Religion
Section 5, Article III, Constitution
No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without
discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the
exercise of civil or political rights.
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon vs. Smith 494 U.S. 872
Facts:
Two Native Americans were fired by a private drug rehabilitation organization because they used drugs for sacramental
purposes at a ceremony of their Native American church. Their application for employment compensation was denied by
the state of Oregon due to a state law disqualifying employees discharge for work related to misconduct. The two Native
American filed a complaint in court to determine if their right was violated, in case of the free exercise of religion.
Contention of the accused: there was violation of freedom of religion
Ruling:
Religious belief of individual does not excuse him from compliance with a valid law. An individual does not excuse him
from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the government is free to regulate allowing
exemptions to every state law on regulation affecting religion would lead to confusion and chaos.
5. Section 14 (1), Article III, 1987 Constitution

No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved,
and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the
witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and
the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided that he has been duly notified and his
failure to appear is unjustifiable.
7. Section 18 (1), Article III, 1987 Constitution –

No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.

No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the
party shall have been duly convicted.
9. No excessive fines nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment

Sec. 19, Par. (1), Article III, Constitution
Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted.
Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes,
the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to
reclusion Perpetua.
10. Section 19 (2) Article III, 1987 Constitution
The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner
or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman
conditions shall be dealt with by law.
People vs. Echegaray, 267 SCRA 682

Facts:
Leo Echegaray was convicted for the crime of rape for raping the 10 year old daughter of his common spouse with death
penalty.
Contention of the state: the crimes punishable by death under RA 1659 are heinous crimes for being grave and hateful
offenses and which by reason of their inherent and manifest wickedness and perversity are repugnant and outrageous to
the common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just civilized and ordered society.
Contention of the accused: the accused argues that RA 8177 and its implementing rules do not pass constitutional
muster for violation of the constitutional proscription against cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment, violation of our
international treaty obligation, being an undue delegation of legislative power and being discriminatory.
Ruling:
The court denied the motion for reconsideration and the supplemental motion for reconsideration with a finding that
congress duly complied with requirements for the reimposition of death penalty and therefore the death penalty law is
not unconstitutional.
11. Section 20, Article III, 1987 Constitution

No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.
12. Bill of Attainder – Section 22, Article III, Constitution

No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.
o Bill of attainder - a legislative act that inflicts punishment without trial, its essence being the substitution of
legislative fiat for a judicial determination of guilt.
o Ex post facto law is one which:

a. Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when done, and
punishes such an act.
b. Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed;
c. Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when
committed;
d. Alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony than the
law required at the time of the commission of the offense;
e. Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right
for something which when done was lawful; and
f. Deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as
the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty. (Reyes, The Revised
Penal Code citing In re: Kay Villegas Kami, Inc.)
o U.S. vs. Diaz-Conde, 42 Phil. 766

Facts
Complainants Bartolome Oliveros and Engracia Lianco entered into a contract with the defendants concerning a debt of
P300. Oliveros and co. were obligated to pay five percent interest per month within the first ten days of every month. On
May 6, 1921, Vicente Diaz Conde and Apolinaria R. De Conde were charged with violating the Usury Law in the Court
of First Instance of the city of Manila. They were found guilty, sentenced to pay a fine of P120 and in case of insolvency,
to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in accordance with the provisions of law. They took it to SC to plead.
Contention of the state: the defendants violated the Act 2655 and they were not guilty on the court of first instance.
Bartolome Oliveros and Engracia Liancoborrowed p300 and had to pay 50% interest monthly.
Contention of the accused: the contract upon the alleged interest collected was executed before act 2655,when the contract
was made there was no usury law and act 2655 could have no retroactive effect.
Ruling:
The SC decided that the acts complained of by the defender did not constitute a crime at the time they were committed
and therefore the sentence of the lower court should be revoked and that the complaint be dismissed and the defendants be
discharged from the custody of the law.
CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS
1. Criminal Statutes are liberally construed in favor of the offender. This means that no person
shall be brought within their terms who is not clearly within them, nor should any act be
pronounced criminal which is not clearly made so by statute.
2. The original text in which a penal law is approved in case of a conflict with an official
translation.
3. Interpretation by analogy has no place in criminal law
BASIC MAXIMS IN CRIMINAL LAW
Doctrine of Pro Reo
Whenever a penal law is to be construed or applied and the law admits of two interpretations –
one lenient to the offender and one strict to the offender – that interpretation which is lenient or
favorable to the offender will be adopted.
Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege
There is no crime when there is no law punishing the same. This is true to civil law countries,
but not to common law countries.
Because of this maxim, there is no common law crime in the Philippines. No matter how
wrongful, evil or bad the act is, if there is no law defining the act, the same is not considered a
crime.
Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea
The act cannot be criminal where the mind is not criminal. This is true to a felony characterized
by dolo, but not a felony resulting from culpa. This maxim is not an absolute one because it is
not applied to culpable felonies, or those that result from negligence.
Dura lex, sed lex
The law may be harsh, but that is the law.
MALA IN SE and MALA PROHIBITA
Mala In se Mala Prohibita

Those so serious in their effects on Those violation of mere rules of
As to nature society as to call for almost unanimous convenience designed to secure a more
condemnation of its member; Wrong by orderly regulation of the affairs of
its very nature. society; wrong because it is prohibited
by law
As to whether or
Criminal intent is immaterial, BUT still
not criminal intent Criminal intent is necessary
is an element requires intelligence & voluntariness
As to what laws Generally, felonies defined and
Generally, Special Laws
are violated penalized by the Revised Penal Code
As to use of
Good faith is a valid defense, unless the
good faith as Good faith is not a defense.
crime is the result of culpa
defense
Degree of accomplishment (attempted,
As to degree of The act gives rise to a crime only when
frustrated, and consummated stage) is
accomplishment consummated.
taken into account for the punishment.
As to mitigating
They are taken into account in imposing
and aggravating They are not taken into account.
penalty
circumstances
When there is more than one offender, The degree of participation of the
the degree of participation of each in the offenders is not considered. All who
As to degree of commission of the crime is taken into perpetrated the prohibited act are
participation account in imposing the penalty; thus, penalized to the same extent. There is
offenders are classified as principal, no principal or accomplice or accessory
accomplice and accessory to consider.
Note, however, that not all violations of special laws are mala prohibita. While intentional felonies
are always mala in se, it does not follow that prohibited acts done in violation of special laws are
always mala prohibita. Even if the crime is punished under a special law, if the act punished is one
which is inherently wrong, the same is malum in se, and, therefore, good faith and the lack of
criminal intent is a valid defense; unless it is the product of criminal negligence or culpa.
Chapter Two
FELONIES
Objectives:
1. Learn the general provisions of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines (Act No.
3815);
2. Identify the extra-territorial application of penal laws;
3. Define and distinguish crime, felonies, offense, and misdemeanor;
4. Know the general elements of a crime and how is criminal liability incurred;
5. Know the different classes of felonies;
6. Learn the concept of conspiracy and proposal to commit conspiracy
7. Identify who are multiple offenders
8. Learn the concept of complex crimes and special complex crimes and how are they
applied
REVISED PENAL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (Act No. 3815)
Art. 1. This Code shall take effect on January 1, 1932.
Art. 2. Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application, the provisions
of this Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago including its
atmosphere, its interior waters and Maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against
those who:
1. Should commit an offense 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 officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of
their functions; or
o Examples of these crimes are bribery, fraud against national treasury, malversation of public funds or property, and
illegal use of public funds; e.g., A judge who accepts a bribe while in Japan.
o As a general rule, the Revised Penal Code governs only when the crime committed pertains to the exercise of the
public official’s functions, those having to do with the discharge of their duties in a foreign country. The functions
contemplated are those, which are, under the law, to be performed by the public officer in the Foreign Service of the
Philippine government in a foreign country.
o Exception: The Revised Penal Code governs if the crime was committed within the Philippine Embassy or within
the embassy grounds in a foreign country. This is because embassy grounds are considered an extension of
sovereignty.
5. Should commit any crimes against the national security and the law of nations, defined
in Title One of Book Two of this Code.
o These crimes include treason, espionage, piracy, mutiny, and violation of neutrality
o Crimes against national security does not include rebellion
o Crimes against national security:
i. Treason (A.114)
ii. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason (A.115)
iii. Misprision of treason (A.116)
iv. Espionage (A.117)
o Crimes against the law of nations:
i. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals (A.118)
ii. Violation of neutrality (A.119)
iii. Correspondence with hostile country (A.120)
iv. Flight to enemy‘s country (A.121)
v. Piracy in general and mutiny on the highseas or in Philippine waters (A.122)
RULES AS TO CRIMES COMMITTED ABOARD FOREIGN MERCHANT VESSELS:
1. French Rule – It is the flag or nationality of the vessel, unless their commission affects the
peace and security of the territory or the safety of the state is endangered.
2. English Rule – the location or situs of the crime determines jurisdiction, unless they merely
affect things within the vessel or they refer to the internal management thereof. (This is
applicable in the Philippines)
NOTE:
o The above rules are NOT applicable if the vessel is on the high seas when the crime was committed. In these cases,
the laws of the nationality of the ship will always apply.
o When the crime is committed in a war vessel of a foreign country, the nationality of the vessel will always
determine jurisdiction because war vessels are part of the sovereignty of the country to whose naval force they
belong.
o When the foreign country in whose territorial waters the crime was committed adopts the French Rule, which
applies only to merchant vessels, except when the crime committed affects the national security or public order of
such foreign country.
o Under international law rule, a vessel which is not registered in accordance with the laws of any country is
considered a pirate vessel and piracy is a crime against humanity in general, such that wherever the pirates may go,
they can be prosecuted.
o US v. Bull
A crime which occurred on board of a foreign vessel, which began when the ship was in a foreign territory and
continued when it entered into Philippine waters, is considered a continuing crime. Hence within the jurisdiction
of the local courts.
DIFFERENTIATING FELONIES, OFFENSE, MISDEMEANOR AND CRIME
o Felonies (Delitos) – acts and omissions punishable by the Revised Penal Code
> Acts – an overt or external act
> Omission – failure to perform a duty required by law.
> Example of an omission: failure to render assistance to anyone who is in danger of dying or is in an uninhabited place
or is wounded – abandonment.
o Offense – A crime punished under a special law is called a statutory offense.
o Misdemeanor – A minor infraction of the law, such as a violation of an ordinance.
o Crime – Whether the wrongdoing is punished under the Revised Penal Code or under a
special law, the generic word “crime” can be used.
HOW FELONIES ARE COMMITTED
1. by means of deceit (dolo)

There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent.
Requisites:
a. freedom
b. intelligence
c. intent
o Intent which is a mental process presupposes the exercise of freedom and the use of intelligence.
o If an act is proven to be unlawful, then intent will be presumed prima facie. (U.S. v. Apostol)
o An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent which arises from the commission of a
felonious act. (People v. Oanis)
o General v. Specific Intent
In some particular felonies, proof of specific intent is required. In certain crimes against property, there must be
intent to gain (Art. 293 – robbery, Art 308 – theft). Intent to kill is essential in attempted and frustrated homicide
(Art 6 in relation to Art 249), as well as in murder. In forcible abduction (Art. 342), specific intent of lewd designs
must be proved.
General criminal intent is presumed from the mere doing of a wrong act. This does not require proof. The burden is upon the
wrong doer to prove that he acted without such criminal intent.
Specific criminal intent is not presumed because it is an ingredient or element of a crime, like intent to kill in the crimes of
attempted or frustrated homicide/parricide/murder. The prosecution has the burden of proving the same.
Distinction between intent and discernment

Intent is the determination to do a certain thing, an aim or purpose of the mind. It is the design to
resolve or determination by which a person acts.
On the other hand, discernment is the mental capacity to tell right from wrong. It relates to the moral
significance that a person ascribes to his act and relates to the intelligence as an element of dolo, distinct
from intent.
Distinction between intent and motive

Intent is demonstrated by the use of a particular means to bring about a desired result – it is not a state
of mind or a reason for committing a crime.
On the other hand, motive implies motion. It is the moving power which impels one to do an act. When
there is motive in the commission of a crime, it always comes before the intent. But a crime may be
committed without motive.
If the crime is intentional, it cannot be committed without intent. Intent is manifested by the instrument
used by the offender. The specific criminal intent becomes material if the crime is to be distinguished from
the attempted or frustrated stage.
WHEN MOTIVE BECOMES MATERIAL IN DETERMINING CRIMINAL LIABILITY

1. When the act brings about variant crimes (e.g. kidnapping v. robbery)
2. When there is doubt as to the identity of the assailant.
3. When there is the need to ascertain the truth between two antagonistic versions of the
crime. When the identification of the accused proceeds from an unreliable source and the
testimony is inconclusive and not free from doubt.
4. When there are no eyewitnesses to the crime, and when suspicion is likely to fall upon a
number of persons.
5. When the evidence on the commission of the crime is purely circumstantial.
6. Lack of motive can aid in achieving acquittal of the accused, especially where there is
doubt as to the identity of the accused.
2. by means of fault (culpa) – There is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence,
negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
o Imprudence – deficiency of action; e.g. A was driving a truck along a road. He hit B
because it was raining – reckless imprudence.
o Negligence – deficiency of perception; failure to foresee impending danger, usually
involves lack of foresight
o Requisites:
1. Freedom
2. Intelligence
3. Imprudence, negligence, lack of skill or foresight
The concept of criminal negligence is the inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to
perform an act. If the danger impending from that situation is clearly manifest, you have a case of reckless imprudence. But if
the danger that would result from such imprudence is not clear, not manifest nor immediate you have only a case of simple
negligence.
o Example:
Dave and JR are supposed to meet in Audrey‘s home but when JR arrived Dave was not home. JR received an SMS from
Dave telling the former to get the house key from under the doormat. Dave lets himself in and saw an iPod on the table.
JR took the iPod.
What is JR’s criminal liability? He is liable only for theft and not robbery because the intent to gain concurred only with
the act of taking BUT NOT with the act of using the owner‘s keys to enter the house.
OMISSION
It is inaction, the failure to perform a positive duty which a person is bound to do. There must
be a law requiring the doing or performing of an act.
Punishable omissions in the RPC:

1. Art. 116: Misprision of treason.
2. Art. 137: Disloyalty of public officers or employees.
3. Art. 208: Negligence and tolerance in prosecution of offenses.
4. Art. 223: Conniving with or consenting to evasion.
5. Art. 275: Abandonment of person in danger and abandonment of one‘s own victim.
6. Art. 276: Abandoning a minor.
CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES
Felonies are classified as follows:
1. According to the manner of their commission

Under Article 3, they are classified as,
a. intentional felonies or those committed with deliberate intent; and
b. culpable felonies or those resulting from negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of
foresight or lack of skill.
2. According to the stages of their execution

Under Article 6., felonies are classified as
a. attempted felony 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;
b. frustrated felony when the offender commences the commission of a felony as a
consequence but which would produce the felony as a consequence but which
nevertheless do not produce the felony by reason of causes independent of the
perpetrator; and,
c. consummated felony when all the elements necessary for its execution are present.
3. According to their gravity

Under Article 9, felonies are classified as
a. grave felonies or those to which attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in
any of their periods are afflictive;
b. less grave felonies or those to which the law punishes with penalties which in their
maximum period was correccional; and
c. light felonies or those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty is
arresto menor.
o Why is it necessary to determine whether the crime is grave, less grave or light?
To determine whether these felonies can be complexed or not, and to determine the prescription of the crime and the
prescription of the penalty. In other words, these are felonies classified according to their gravity, stages and the penalty
attached to them. Take note that when the Revised Penal Code speaks of grave and less grave felonies, the definition
makes a reference specifically to Article 25 of the Revised Penal Code. Do not omit the phrase “In accordance with
Article 25” because there is also a classification of penalties under Article 26 that was not applied.
o If the penalty is fine and exactly P200.00, it is only considered a light felony under Article 9.
o If the fine is imposed as an alternative penalty or as a single penalty, the fine of P200.00 is considered a correctional
penalty under Article 26.
o If the penalty is exactly P200.00, apply Article 26. It is considered as correctional penalty and it prescribes in 10
years. If the offender is apprehended at any time within ten years, he can be made to suffer the fine.
o This classification of felony according to gravity is important with respect to the question of prescription of crimes.
o In the case of light felonies, crimes prescribe in two months. If the crime is correctional, it prescribes in ten years, except
arresto mayor, which prescribes in five years.
4. As to Count
Plurality of crimes may be in the form of:
a. Compound Crime
b. Complex crime
c. Composite crime
5. As to Nature
a. Mala in se
b. Mala prohibita
Art. 4. Criminal liability shall be incurred:

1. By any person committing a felony, 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 on account of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
Article 4, paragraph 1 presupposes that the act done is the proximate cause of the resulting
felony. It must be the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the felonious act.
Requisites:
1. the felony was intentionally committed
2. the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural and logical consequence of
the felony committed by the offender
GENERAL RULE:
The offender is CRIMINALLY LIABLE for ALL the natural and logical consequences of his
felonious act, although not intended, if the felonious act is the proximate cause of the resulting
harm.
1. ERROR IN PERSONAE – mistake in the identity of the victim; injuring one person mistaken
for another (Art. 49 – penalty for lesser crime in its maximum period)
a. At least two subjects
b. A has intent to kill B, but kills C
c. Under Art. 3, if A hits C, he should have no criminal liability. But because of Art. 4, his act
is a felony.
o This is a complex crime under Art. 48)

o Example: A intended to shoot B, but he instead shot C because he (A) mistook C for B.
o In error in personae, the intended victim was not at the scene of the crime. It was the actual victim upon whom the blow
was directed, but he was not really the intended victim.
o How does error in personae affect criminal liability of the offender?
Error in personae is mitigating if the crime committed is different from that which was intended. If the crime committed
is the same as that which was intended, error in personae does not affect the criminal liability of the offender.
In mistake of identity, if the crime committed was the same as the crime intended, but on a different victim, error in
persona does not affect the criminal liability of the offender. But if the crime committed was different from the crime
intended, Article 49 will apply and the penalty for the lesser crime will be applied. In a way, mistake in identity is a
mitigating circumstance where Article 49 applies. Where the crime intended is more serious than the crime committed,
the error in persona is not a mitigating circumstance
2. ABERRATIO ICTUS - mistake in the blow; when offender intending to do an injury to one
person actually inflicts it on another (Art. 48 on complex crimes – penalty for graver offense
in its maximum period)
a. There is only one subject.
b. The intended subject is a different subject, but the felony is still the same.
o Hitting somebody other than the target due to lack of skill or fortuitous instances (this is a complex crime under Art. 48)
o Example: B and C were walking together. A wanted to shoot B, but he instead injured C.
o In aberratio ictus, a person directed the blow at an intended victim, but because of poor aim, that blow landed on
somebody else. In aberratio ictus, the intended victim as well as the actual victim are both at the scene of the crime.
o Aberratio ictus generally gives rise to a complex crime. This being so, the penalty for the more serious crime is imposed
in the maximum period.
3. PRAETER INTENTIONEM – injurious result is greater than that intended (Art. 13 –

mitigating circumstance)
a. If A‘s act constitutes sufficient means to carry out the graver felony, he cannot claim
praeter intentionem.
o Causing injury graver than intended or expected (this is a mitigating circumstance due to lack of intent to commit so
grave a wrong under Art. 13)
o Example: A wanted to injure B. However, B died.
MISTAKE OF FACT
– is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused injury to another. He is not
criminally liable.
Requisites:
1. that the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them
to be;
2. intention of the accused is lawful;
3. mistake must be without fault of carelessness.
o United States v. Ah Chong.

Ah Chong being afraid of bad elements, locked himself in his room by placing a chair against the door. After having gone
to bed, he was awakened by somebody who was trying to open the door. He asked the identity of the person, but he did
not receive a response. Fearing that this intruder was a robber, he leaped out of bed and said that he will kill the intruder
should he attempt to enter. At that moment, the chair struck him. Believing that he was attacked, he seized a knife and
fatally wounded the intruder.
o Mistake of fact would be relevant only when the felony would have been intentional or through dolo, but not when the
felony is a result of culpa. When the felony is a product of culpa, do not discuss mistake of fact.
DOCTRINE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE
PROXIMATE CAUSE
¾ that cause, which, in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces the injury without which the result would not have occurred.
Criminal liability exists from the concurrence of the mens rea and the actus reus.
Proximate Cause is negated by:

1. Active force, distinct act, or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused,
which serves as a sufficient intervening cause.
2. Resulting injury or damage is due to the intentional act of the victim.
The following are not efficient intervening cause:

1. The weak or diseased physical condition of the victim, as when one is suffering from
tuberculosis or heart disease. (People v. Illustre).
2. The nervousness or temperament of the victim, as when a person dies in consequence of
an internal hemorrhage brought on by moving about against the doctor‘s orders, because
of his nervous condition due to the wound inflicted on the accused. (People v. Almonte).
3. Causes which are inherent in the victim, such:
a. the victim not knowing to swim and
b. the victim being addicted to tuba drinking. (People v. Buhay and People v. Valdez).
4. Neglect of the victim or third person, such as the refusal by the injured party of medical
attendance or surgical operation, or the failure of the doctor to give anti-tetanus injection
to the injured person. (U.S. v. Marasigan).
5. Erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical treatment, as when the assault took place in
anu outlaying barrio where proper modern surgical service was not available. (People v.
Moldes).
o Proximate cause does not require that the offender needs to actually touch the body of the offended party. It is enough that
the offender generated in the mind of the offended party the belief that made him risk himself.
o Requisite for Presumption that the blow was the cause of death – Where there has been an injury inflicted sufficient to
produce death followed by the demise of the person, the presumption arises that the injury was the cause of the death.
Provided:
1. victim was in normal health
2. death ensued within a reasonable time
o The one who caused the proximate cause is the one liable. The one who caused the immediate cause is also liable, but
merely contributory or sometimes totally not liable.
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
Requisites:
1. Act would have been an offense against persons or property
2. Act is not an actual violation of another provision of the Code or of a special penal law
3. There was criminal intent
4. Accomplishment was inherently impossible; or inadequate or ineffectual means were
employed.
o Offender must believe that he can consummate the intended crime, a man stabbing another who he knew was already
dead cannot be liable for an impossible crime.
o The law intends to punish the criminal intent.
o There is no attempted or frustrated impossible crime.
o Felonies against persons: parricide, murder, homicide, infanticide, physical injuries, etc.
o Felonies against property: robbery, theft, usurpation, swindling, etc.
o Inherent impossibility: A thought that B was just sleeping. B was already dead. A shot B. A is liable. If A knew that B
is dead and he still shot him, then A is not liable.
When we say inherent impossibility, this means that under any and all circumstances, the crime
could not have materialized. If the crime could have materialized under a different set of facts,
employing the same mean or the same act, it is not an impossible crime; it would be an
attempted felony.
• Employment of inadequate means: A used poison to kill B. However, B survived because A
used small quantities of poison – frustrated murder.
• Ineffectual means: A aimed his gun at B. When he fired the gun, no bullet came out
because the gun was empty. A is liable.
DEVELOPMENT OF A CRIME
1. Internal acts – intent and plans; usually not punishable

2. External acts
a. Preparatory Acts – ordinarily not punishable except when considered by law as
independent crimes
(e.g. Art. 304, Possession of picklocks and similar tools)
b. Acts of Execution – acts directly connected the crime, thus punishable
STAGES OF COMMISSION OF A CRIME
Attempted Frustrated Consummated

• Overt acts of execution are • All acts of execution are • All the acts of execution are
started present present
• Not all acts of execution are • Crime sought to be • The result sought is achieved
present committed is not achieved
• Due to reasons other than the • Due to intervening causes
spontaneous desistance of the independent of the will of
perpetrator the perpetrator
CRIMES, WHICH DO NOT ADMIT OF FRUSTRATED AND ATTEMPTED STAGES:

1. Offenses punishable by Special Penal Laws, unless the otherwise is provided for.
2. Formal crimes (e.g., slander, adultery, etc.)
3. Impossible Crimes
4. Crimes consummated by mere attempt. (e.g., attempt to flee to an enemy country,
treason, corruption of minors.)
5. Felonies by omission
6. Crimes committed by mere agreement. (e.g., betting in sports (endings in basketball),
corruption of public officers.)
CRIMES WHICH DO NOT ADMIT OF FRUSTRATED STAGE:

1. Rape
2. Bribery
3. Corruption of Public Officers
4. Adultery
5. Physical Injury
o DESISTANCE
Desistance on the part of the offender negates criminal liability in the attempted
stage. Desistance is true only in the attempted stage of the felony. If under the definition of the
felony, the act done is already in the frustrated stage, no amount of desistance will negate
criminal liability.
The spontaneous desistance of the offender negates only the attempted stage but not
necessarily all criminal liability. Even though there was desistance on the part of the offender, if
the desistance was made when acts done by him already resulted to a felony, that offender will
still be criminally liable for the felony brought about his act
In deciding whether a felony is attempted or frustrated or consummated, there are three criteria
involved:
1. The manner of committing the crime;
2. The elements of the crime; and
3. The nature of the crime itself.
APPLICATIONS:
1. A put poison in B’s food. B threw away his food. A is liable – attempted murder.
2. A stole B’s car, but he returned it. A is liable – (consummated) theft.
3. A aimed his gun at B. C held A’s hand and prevented him from shooting B – attempted
murder.
4. A inflicted a mortal wound on B. B managed to survive – frustrated murder.
5. A intended to kill B by shooting him. A missed – attempted murder.
6. A doused B’s house with kerosene. But before he could light the match, he was caught –
attempted arson.
7. A cause a blaze, but did not burn the house of B – frustrated arson.
8. B’s house was set on fire by A – (consummated) arson.
9. A tried to rape B. B managed to escape. There was no penetration – attempted rape.
10. A got hold of B’s painting. A was caught before he could leave B’s house – frustrated
robbery.
o The attempted stage is said to be within the subjective phase of execution of a felony. On the subjective phase, it is that
point in time when the offender begins the commission of an overt act until that point where he loses control of the
commission of the crime already. If he has reached that point where he can no longer control the ensuing consequence,
the crime has already passed the subjective phase and, therefore, it is no longer attempted. The moment the execution of
the crime has already gone to that point where the felony should follow as a consequence, it is either already frustrated or
consummated. If the felony does not follow as a consequence, it is already frustrated. If the felony follows as a
consequence, it is consummated.
o Although the offender may not have done the act to bring about the felony as a consequence, if he could have continued
committing those acts but he himself did not proceed because he believed that he had done enough to consummate the
crime, Supreme Court said the subjective phase has passed
o NOTES ON ARSON;
The weight of the authority is that the crime of arson cannot be committed in the frustrated stage. The reason is because
we can hardly determine whether the offender has performed all the acts of execution that would result in arson, as a
consequence, unless a part of the premises has started to burn. On the other hand, the moment a particle or a molecule of
the premises has blackened, in law, arson is consummated. This is because consummated arson does not require that the
whole of the premises be burned. It is enough that any part of the premises, no matter how small, has begun to burn.
ART. 7: WHEN LIGHT FELONIES ARE PUNISHABLE
General Rule: Punishable only when they have been consummated

Exception: Even if not consummated, if committed against persons or property
o Examples:
slight physical injuries; theft; alteration of boundary marks; malicious mischief; and intriguing against honor.
o In commission of crimes against properties and persons, every stage of execution is punishable but only the principals
and accomplices are liable for light felonies, accessories are not.
ART. 8: CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT FELONY
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its
execution to some other person or persons.
o Conspiracy is punishable in the following cases: treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition,

and monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade.
o Conspiracy to commit a crime is not to be confused with conspiracy as a means of committing a
crime. In both cases there is an agreement but mere conspiracy to commit a crime is not
punished EXCEPT in treason, rebellion, or sedition. Even then, if the treason is actually
committed, the conspiracy will be considered as a means of committing it and the accused
will all be charged for treason and not for conspiracy to commit treason.
o Mere conspiracy in combination in restraint of trade (Art. 186), and brigandage (Art. 306).
Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit a Crime
Conspiracy Proposal
Elements 1. Agreement among 2 or more persons 1. A person has decided to commit a crime
to commit a crime 2. He proposes its commission to another
2. They decide to commit it
Crimes 1. Conspiracy to commit sedition 1. Proposal to commit treason

2. Conspiracy to commit rebellion 2. Proposal to commit rebellion
3. Conspiracy to commit treason 3. Proposal to commit coup d’ etat
4. Conspiracy to commit coup d’ etat
Two ways for conspiracy to exist:

1. There is an agreement.
2. The participants acted in concert or simultaneously which is indicative of a meeting of the
minds towards a common criminal goal or criminal objective. When several offenders act
in a synchronized, coordinated manner, the fact that their acts complimented each other is
indicative of the meeting of the minds. There is an implied agreement.
Two kinds of conspiracy:

1. Conspiracy as a crime in itself; and
2. Conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability
o When conspiracy itself is a crime, no overt act is necessary to bring about the criminal liability. The mere conspiracy is
the crime itself. This is only true when the law expressly punishes the mere conspiracy; otherwise, the conspiracy does
not bring about the commission of the crime because conspiracy is not an overt act but a mere preparatory act. Treason,
rebellion, sedition, and coup d’etat are the only crimes where the conspiracy and proposal to commit to them are
punishable.
o When the conspiracy is only a basis of incurring criminal liability, there must be an overt act done before the co-
conspirators become criminally liable. For as long as none of the conspirators has committed an overt act, there is no
crime yet. But when one of them commits any overt act, all of them shall be held liable, unless a co-conspirator was
absent from the scene of the crime or he showed up, but he tried to prevent the commission of the crime.
o As a general rule, if there has been a conspiracy to commit a crime in a particular place, anyone who did not appear shall
be presumed to have desisted. The exception to this is if such person who did not appear was the mastermind.
o For as long as none of the conspirators has committed an overt act, there is no crime yet. But when one of them commits
any overt act, all of them shall be held liable, unless a co-conspirator was absent from the scene of the crime or he showed
up, but he tried to prevent the commission of the crime
o When several persons who do not know each other simultaneously attack the victim, the act of one is the act of all,
regardless of the degree of injury inflicted by any one of them. All will be liable for the consequences. A conspiracy is
possible even when participants are not known to each other. Do not think that participants are always known to each
other.
Concept of How
Stage Legal Requirements Illustration
Conspiracy incurred
AS A
Preparatory Mere
• The RPC must specifically A, B, C and D came to an agreement to
FELONY IN punish the act of conspiring (and commit rebellion. Their agreement was
acts agreement
ITSELF proposing) to ring about the rebellion on a certain
• The act MUST NOT BE date.
ACCOMPLISHED, else the
conspiracy is obliterated and the Even if none of them has performed the
ACT ITSELF IS PUNISHED. act of rebellion, there is already criminal
• QUANTUM OF PROOF: liability arising from the conspiracy to
Conspiracy as a crime must be commit the rebellion.
established beyond reasonable
doubt But if anyone of them has committed the
overt act of rebellion, the crime of all is
no longer conspiracy but rebellion itself.
This subsists even though the other co-

conspirators do not know that one of
them had already done the act of
rebellion.
• Participants acted in concert or
simultaneously or IN ANY WAY
which is indicative of a meeting
of the minds towards a common
criminal goal or criminal
objective.
• The act of meeting together is not
necessary as long as a common Three persons plan to rob a bank. For as
objective can be discerned from long as the conspirators merely entered
the overt acts. the bank there is no crime yet. But when
AS A one of them draws a gun and disarms
Executory Commission • THE ACT MUST BE
BASIS FOR the security guard, all of them shall be
acts of overt act ACCOMPLISHED, if there is
LIABILITY held liable, unless a co- conspirator was
only conspiracy or proposal,
absent from the scene of the crime or he
THERE IS NO CRIME TO BE
showed up, but he tried to prevent the
PUNISHED.
commission of the crime.
• QUANTUM OF PROOF:
Reasonably inferred from the acts
of the offenders when such acts
disclose or show a common
pursuit of the criminal objective.
(People v. Pinto)
o GENERAL RULE:
when there is conspiracy, the rule is that the act of one is the act of all. This principle
applies only to the crime agreed upon.
o EXCEPTION:
if any of the co-conspirator would commit a crime not agreed upon. This happens when
the crime agreed upon and the crime committed by one of the co-conspirators are distinct
crimes.
o EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION:

In acts constituting a single indivisible offense, even though the co-conspirator performed
different acts bringing about the composite crime, all will be liable for such crime. They
can only evade responsibility for any other crime outside of that agreed upon if it is
proved that the particular conspirator had tried to prevent the commission of such other
act.
MULTIPLE OFFENDERS
Habituality/
Recidivism/ Reincindencia Reiteracion/ Quasi-Recidivism; Habitual Delinquency;
Art. 14 (9) Repetition Art. 160 Art. 62 (5)
Art. 14 (10)
Sufficient that the offender Necessary that the Before serving or Specific crimes:
have been previously offender shall have while serving 1. less serious or
convicted by final judgment served out his sentence sentence, the serious physical
Crimes for another crime embraced for the first offense offender commits injuries
committed in the same title of the Code a felony (NOT a 2. robbery
on the date of his trial crime) 3. theft
4. estafa
5. falsification
Period of time No period of time Before serving or Within 10 years from his
the crimes are while serving last release or conviction
committed sentence
The second conviction for The previous and Offender commits Guilty the third time or
Number of an offense embraced in the subsequent offenses a felony oftener
crimes same title of RPC must NOT be
committed embraced in the same
title of the RPC
If not offset by any Not always an Imposes the An additional penalty
mitigating circumstance, aggravating maximum of the shall be imposed
increase the penalty only to circumstance penalty for the
Their effects the maximum new offense, and
cannot be offset by
any mitigating
circumstance
1. RECIDIVISM
Basis: the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by his inclination to commit crimes
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously
convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal
Code. (People v. Lagarto, 1991)
Requisites:
a. Offender is on trial for an offense
b. He was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime
c. Both the first and second offenses are embraced in the same title of the RPC
d. Offender is convicted of the new offense
o NOTE: What is controlling is the time of trial, not the time of commission of the crime. (Reyes, Revised Penal Code)
2. HABITUALITY (REITERACION)
Requisites:
1. Accused is on trial for an offense
2. He previously served sentence
a. for another offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty, OR
b. for two or more crimes to which it attaches lighter penalty than that for the new
offense
3. He is convicted of the new offense
3. QUASI-RECIDIVISM
Art. 160. Commission of another crime during service of penalty imposed for another
offense; Penalty. — Besides the provisions of Rule 5 of Article 62, any person who shall commit a felony
after having been convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the
same, shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony.
4. HABITUAL DELINQUENCY
Art. 62, (last par.) – For the purpose of this article, a person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent, if within a
period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical
injuries, robo, hurto estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.
Requisites
1. Offender had been convicted of any of the crimes of serious or less serious physical
injuries, robbery, theft, estafa, or falsification
2. After that conviction or after serving his sentence, he again committed, and, within 10
years from his release or first conviction, he was again convicted of any of the said crimes
for the second time
3. After his conviction of, or after serving sentence for, the second offense, he again
committed, and, within 10 years from his last release or last conviction, he was again
convicted of any of said offenses, the third time or oftener
o Purpose of the law in imposing additional penalty

To render more effective social defense and the reformation of habitual delinquents
(REYES, quoting People v. Abuyen)
COMPLEX CRIMES AND SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES
Plurality of Crimes (Concursu de delitos)

1. Consists of the successive execution
2. by the same individual
3. of different criminal acts
4. for any of which no conviction has yet been declared.
Philosophy behind plural crimes

Through the concept of plural crimes, several crimes are treated as one. The purpose of this is to
allow leniency towards the offender, who, instead of being made to suffer distinct penalties for
every resulting crime is made to suffer one penalty only, although it is the penalty for the most
serious one and is imposed in its maximum period.
Kinds of Plurality of Crimes
a. Real or Material Plurality

1. There are different crimes in law as well as in the conscience of the offender.
2. In such cases, the offender shall be punished for each and every offense that he
committed.
Illustration:
A stabbed B. Then, A also stabbed C. There are two crimes committed.
b. Formal or Ideal Plurality

1. There is but one criminal liability in this kind of plurality.
2. Divided into 3 groups:
a. Complex Crimes - When the offender commits either of the complex crimes defined in
Art. 48 of the Code.
b. Special Complex Crimes - When the law specifically fixes a single penalty for 2 or more
offenses committed.
c. Continuing and Continued Crimes - A single crime consisting of a series of acts but all
arising from one criminal resolution.
COMPLEX CRIMES
Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes.

When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or 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 period.
Art. 48 requires the commission of at least 2 crimes. But the two or more GRAVE or LESS
GRAVE felonies must be
1. the result of a single act, or
2. an offense must be a necessary means for committing the other.
Nature of complex crimes

Although two or more crimes are actually committed, they constitute only one crime, in the
eyes of the law; and in the conscience of the offender.
Even in the case where an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the evil intent
of the offender is only one. Hence, there is only one penalty imposed for the commission of a
complex crime.
Two kinds of complex crimes
1. Compound Crime (Delito Compuesto)

¾ A single act results in two or more grave or less grave felonies.
Requisites:
a. That only a single act is performed by the offender
Single Act Several Acts
Throwing a hand grenade Submachine gun – because of the number of bullets released
A single bullet killing two person Firing of the revolver twice in succession
b. That the single acts produces:

• 2 or more grave felonies, or
• 1 or more grave and 1 or more less grave felonies, or
• 2 or more less grave felonies
o Light felonies produced by the same act should be treated and punished as separate offenses or may be absorbed by the
grave felony.
o Illustration:
When the crime is committed by force or violence, slight physical injuries are absorbed.
o When an offender performed more than one act, although similar, if they result in separate crimes,
a. there is no complex crime at all,
b. instead, the offender shall be prosecuted for as many crimes as are committed under separate information.
o Compound crimes under Art. 48 is also applicable to crimes through negligence. Thus, a
municipal mayor who accidentally discharged his revolver, killing a girl and injuring a
boy was found guilty of complex crime of homicide with less serious physical injuries
through reckless imprudence. (People v. Castro)
o Example of a compound crime:

o The victim was killed while discharging his duty as barangay captain to protect life and
property and enforce law and order in his barrio.
o The crime is a complex crime of homicide with assault upon a person in authority.
o When in obedience to an order several accused simultaneously shot many persons,
without evidence how many each killed, there is only a single offense, there being a single
criminal impulse.
b. Complex Crime Proper (Delito Complejo)

¾ An offense is a necessary means for committing the other.
¾ In complex crime, when the offender executes various acts, he must have a single
purpose. But, when there are several acts performed, the assumption is that each act is
impelled by a distinct criminal impulse, hence each will have a separate penalty.
Requisites:
1. That at least two offenses are committed
2. That one or some of the offenses must be necessary to commit the other
3. That both or all the offenses must be punished under the same statute.
o Note: The phrase “necessary means” does not mean “indispensable means”
No complex crime proper in the following instances:
a. Subsequent acts of intercourse, after forcible abduction with rape, are separate acts of
rape.
b. Not complex crime when trespass to dwelling is a direct means to commit a grave offense.
c. No complex crime, when one offense is committed to conceal the other.
d. When the offender already had in his possession the funds which he misappropriated, the
subsequent falsification of a public or official document involving said offense is a
separate offense.
e. No complex crime where one of the offenses is penalized by a special law.
f. There is no complex crime of rebellion with murder, arson, robbery, or other common
crimes (People v. Hernandez; Enrile v. Salazar).
g. In case of continuous crimes.
h. When the other crime is an indispensable element of the other offense.
General rules in complexing crimes:
a. When two crimes produced by a single act are respectively within the exclusive
jurisdiction of two courts of different jurisdiction, the court of higher jurisdiction shall try
the complex crime.
b. The penalty for complex crime is the penalty for the most serious crime, the same to be
applied in its maximum period.
c. When two felonies constituting a complex crime are punishable by imprisonment and
fine, respectively, only the penalty of imprisonment should be imposed.
d. Art. 48 applies only to cases where the Code does not provide a definite specific penalty
for a complex crime.
e. One information should be filed when a complex crime is committed.
f. When a complex crime is charged and one offense is not proven, the accused can be
convicted of the other.
g. Art. 48 also applies in cases when out of a single act of negligence or imprudence, two or
more grave or less grave felonies resulted, but only the first part is applicable, i.e.
compound crime. The second part of Art. 48 does not apply, referring to the complex
crime proper because this applies or refers only to a deliberate commission of one offense
to commit another offense.
2. Special Complex/Composite crimes

¾ The substance is made up of more than one crime but which in the eyes of the law is only
a. a single indivisible offense.
b. all those acts done in pursuance of the crime agreed upon are acts which constitute a
single crime.
Special Complex Crimes

a. Robbery with Homicide (Art. 294 (1))
b. Robbery with Rape (Art. 294 (2))
c. Robbery with Arson
d. Kidnapping with serious physical injuries (Art. 267 (3))
e. Kidnapping with rape
f. Rape with Homicide (Art. 335)
g. Arson with homicide
When crimes involved cannot be legally complexed, viz:

a. Malicious obtention or abusive service of search warrant (Art. 129) with perjury;
b. Bribery (Art. 210) with infidelity in the custody of prisoners;
c. Maltreatment of prisoners (Art. 235) with serious physical injuries;
d. Usurpation of real rights (Art. 312) with serious physical injuries; and
e. Abandonment of persons in danger (Art. 275) and crimes against minors (Art. 276 to 278)
with any other felony.
3. Continued and Continuing Crimes (Delito Continuado)

¾ Continued crime (continuous or continuing)
A single crime, consisting of a series of acts but all arising from one criminal resolution.
Cuello Calon explains the delito continuado in this way: When the actor , there being unity of
purpose and of right violated, commits diverse acts, each one of which, although of a delictual
character, merely constitutes a partial execution of a single particular delict, such delictual acts
is called delito continuado. Example: One who on several occasions steals wheat deposited in a
granary. Each abstraction constitutes theft, but instead of imposing on the culprit different
penalties for each theft committed, he is punished for only one ―hurto continuadoǁ for the total
sum or value abstracted.
¾ Continuing offense
A continuous, unlawful act or series of acts set on foot by a single impulse and operated
by an unintermittent force, however long a time it may occupy. Although there is a series
of acts, there is only one crime committed. Hence, only one penalty shall be imposed.
A continued crime is different from a transitory crime (moving crime.) in criminal procedure for
purposes of determining venue. When a transitory crime is committed, the criminal action may
be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality, city or province wherein any of the
essential ingredients thereof took place.
People v. Garcia (1980):

The accused were convicts who were members of a certain gang and they conspired to kill the
other gang. Some of the accused killed their victims in one place within the same penitentiary, some killed the others in another
place within the same penitentiary.
The Supreme Court ruled that all accused should be punished under one information because they acted in conspiracy. The act of
one is the act of all. Because there were several victims killed and some were mortally wounded, the accused should be held for the
complex crime of multiple homicide with multiple frustrated homicide. There is a complex crime not only when there is a single
act but a series of acts. It is correct that when the offender acted in conspiracy, this crime is considered as one and prosecuted
under one information. Although in this case, the offenders did not only kill one person but killed different persons, the Supreme
Court considered this as complex.
Applying the concept of the “continued crime”, the following cases have been treated as
constituting one crime only:
• People v. Tumlos, (1939)
The theft of 13 cows belonging to two different persons committed by the accused at the
same place and period of time;
• People v. Jaranilla, (1974)
The theft of six roosters belonging to two different owners from the same coop and at the
same period of time;
• People v. Sabbun, (1964)
The illegal charging of fees for service rendered by a lawyer every time he collected
veteran‘s benefits on behalf of a client who agreed that attorney‘s fees shall be paid out of
such benefits. The collections of legal fees were impelled by the same motive, that of
collecting fees for services rendered, and all acts of collection were made under the same
criminal impulse.
The Supreme Court declined to apply the concept in the following cases:
• People v. Dichupa, (1961)
Two estafa cases, one which was committed during the period from January 19 to
December, 1955 and the other from January 1956 to July 1956. Said acts were committed
on two different occasions;
• People v. CIV
Several malversations committed in May, June and July 1936 and falsifications to conceal
said offenses committed in August and October, 1936. The malversations and
falsifications were not the result of one resolution to embezzle and falsity;
In THEFT cases:
The trend is to follow the SINGLE LARCENY DOCTRINE:
i. taking of several things,
ii. whether belonging to the same or different owners,
iii. at the same time and place, constitutes one larceny only.
Reference:
https://lawphilreviewer.wordpress.com/tag/criminal-law-book-1-articles-1-10/
Criminal Law Book 1 Reviewer, Ateneo Central Bar Operations 2001
Revised Penal Code of the Philippines (Act No. 3815)
UP Law Bar Reviewer in Criminal Law 1 (2012)

CLJ 3 Notes Cabinet

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

CLJ 3 Notes Cabinet

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

College Wesleyan University

Chapter 1 FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW

Chapter 3 CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Chapter 4 PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW

LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL LAWS

CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW:

b. Laws of Preferential Application

Exception to Territorial Application: Instances enumerated under Article 2, RPC.

3. Prospective – the law does not have any retroactive effect.

THEORIES OF CRIMINAL LAW

3. Eclectic or Mixed Philosophy

SOURCES OF STATE AUTHORITY TO PUNISH CRIMES

b. Section 1, Art. 6, 1987 Constitution

LIMITATIONS TO STATE AUTHORITY

2. Due Process and Equal Protection

People vs. Carlos, 78 Phil. 535

Barnes vs. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560

5. Section 14 (1), Article III, 1987 Constitution

6. Section 14 (2), Article III, 1987 Constitution

7. Section 18 (1), Article III, 1987 Constitution –

8. Section 18 (2), Article III, 1987 Constitution

9. No excessive fines nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment

People vs. Echegaray, 267 SCRA 682

11. Section 20, Article III, 1987 Constitution

12. Bill of Attainder – Section 22, Article III, Constitution

o Ex post facto law is one which:

o U.S. vs. Diaz-Conde, 42 Phil. 766

CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS

BASIC MAXIMS IN CRIMINAL LAW

Doctrine of Pro Reo

Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege

Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea

Dura lex, sed lex

The law may be harsh, but that is the law.

MALA IN SE and MALA PROHIBITA

Mala In se Mala Prohibita

REVISED PENAL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (Act No. 3815)

Art. 1. This Code shall take effect on January 1, 1932.

RULES AS TO CRIMES COMMITTED ABOARD FOREIGN MERCHANT VESSELS:

DIFFERENTIATING FELONIES, OFFENSE, MISDEMEANOR AND CRIME

HOW FELONIES ARE COMMITTED

1. by means of deceit (dolo)

Distinction between intent and discernment

Distinction between intent and motive

WHEN MOTIVE BECOMES MATERIAL IN DETERMINING CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Punishable omissions in the RPC:

Felonies are classified as follows:

1. According to the manner of their commission

2. According to the stages of their execution

3. According to their gravity

Art. 4. Criminal liability shall be incurred:

o This is a complex crime under Art. 48)

3. PRAETER INTENTIONEM – injurious result is greater than that intended (Art. 13 –

o United States v. Ah Chong.

DOCTRINE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE

Proximate Cause is negated by:

The following are not efficient intervening cause:

1. Internal acts – intent and plans; usually not punishable

STAGES OF COMMISSION OF A CRIME

Attempted Frustrated Consummated

CRIMES, WHICH DO NOT ADMIT OF FRUSTRATED AND ATTEMPTED STAGES:

CRIMES WHICH DO NOT ADMIT OF FRUSTRATED STAGE:

ART. 7: WHEN LIGHT FELONIES ARE PUNISHABLE