TO GOD BE THE GLORY

CRIMINAL LAW 1 SELF STUDY

Criminal law defined> criminal law is that branch or division of law which defines
crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for their punishment.

Crime defined> crime is an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law

forbidding or commanding it.

 Courts decisions are not sources of criminal law, because they merely explain the
meaning of, and apply the law as enacted by the legislative branch of the
government.
 The State has the authority, under its police power (one of the three inherent
power of the State), to define and punish crimes and to lay down the rules of
criminal procedure.

LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF THE LAWMAKING BODY TO ENACT

PENAL LEGISLATION.
 No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted
 No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of
law.

EX POST FACTO LAW DEFINED

 Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent
when done, and punishes such an act.
 Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was.
 Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed
to the crime when committed.
 Alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or different
testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense.
 Assumes to regulate civil rights remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or
deprivation of a right for something which when than was lawful.
  Deprived a person accused of a crime some lawful protection to which he has
become entitled, such as the protection of the former conviction or acquittal, or
proclamation of amnesty.

BILL OF ATTAINDER DEFINED

 A legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial.
 Substitution of legislative act for a judicial determination of guilt

To give a law retroactive application against the accused is to make it an ex post facto
law.

Article 4 of the New Civil Code states that, a law shall have no retroactive effect, unless it
is otherwise provided.

As a rule, Penal statute are to be construed liberally in favor of the accused, and strictly
against the State, the rational rule behind is not to free the guilty person, but to make a
precise definition of a punishment.

The second limitation requires that criminal laws must be of general application and
must clearly define the acts and omissions punished as crimes.

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

Right which may waive is personal, while right which may not be waive involved public
interest which may be affected.

THREE (3) CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW

1) PRINCIPLE OF GENERALITY> criminal law is binding on all persons who
live or sojourn in Philippine territory (Art 14, NCC)
  A foreigner who contended that he cannot be charged of illegal possession of f/a
because in his country he has the right to possess and bear f/a, is untenable,
because the Philippines a sovereign state with the obligation and the right of
every government to uphold its laws and maintain order with its domain
underlying the principle of Generality.

EXCEPTION> no foreigner enjoys in this country extra-territorial right to be

exempted from its laws and jurisdiction, with the exception of heads of the states
and diplomatic representatives who, by virtue of the customary law of
nations, are not subject to the Philippine territorial jurisdiction. “PP v Galac”

Civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction with general courts-martial over soldiers of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines. (Murder cases)

Civil courts have jurisdiction over the offense of malversation (Art 217) committed by
any finance officer. “PP v Livara”

Also, in times of war, provided that in the place of the commission of the crime no
hostilities are in progress and civil courts are functioning, but RPC or other penal law is
not applicable when a military court takes cognizance of the case. (Articles of War)
(including CAFGU)

Acceptance of appointment of a civilian in the outbreak of war may became member of

the AFP amenable to the Articles of War.

AFP and CAFGU in violation of RPC and other penal statute may be tried in the civil
courts, except when the civil courts found that the commission is service connect, in
which case, the person may be tried in the military courts, provided, that the President
of the Philippines, in the interest of justice, order or direct at any time before
arraignment that any such crimes or offense be tried by the proper civil courts.
Military courts may impose the penalty under the RPC or other penal statute as the case
may be to members of the AFP and CAFGU who committed such crimes or offense.

RA 7055 did not divest the military court of jurisdiction over service-connected cases, as
this was triable under court martial. “CA 408 ‘ARTICLES OF WAR’.” As amended by RA
Nos. 516 & 242, PD Nos. 1968 @ 1166.

Court-martial is a court, and the prosecution of the accused is a criminal.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL APPLICATION OF THE LAW

Laws of preferential application> Art 2 of RPC and Art 14 of NCC

Treaty or treat stipulation are one among the exceptions to the principle of generality.

RA 75 maybe considered a law of preferential application in favor of diplomatic

representatives and their servant.

NOTE: not applicable when the foreign country adversely does not provide
similar protection to our diplomatic representatives. (sec 7, of RA 75)

Another exception to the principle of generality is Public international law are the ff:
 Sovereigns and other chief of state.
 Ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, ministers resident, and charges
d’affairs.

Consuls is not entitled to such immunity possessed by the ambassadors or ministers, but
is subject to the laws and regulations of the country to which he is accredited. (deported
and tried in his “consul” country), provided there is a treaty that he is exempt from
criminal prosecution for the violations of the laws of the country where he resides,
otherwise, he will be subjected to prosecution.
 2) PRINCIPLE OF TERRITORIALITY> As a rule, penal laws of the Philippines
are enforceable only within its territory. (Art 2 of RPC)

EXCEPTIONS TO THE PRINCIPLE OF TERRITORIALITY

Article 2 of RPC

3) PRINCIPLE OF PROSPECTIVIT> a penal law cannot make an act punishable

in manner in which it is not punishable when committed.

Art 366 provides that crimes are punished under the laws in forced at the time of their
commission.

Exceptions to the prospective application of criminal laws

When statutes establish or provides a condition favorable to the accused, but is not
applicable where a statute expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing
causes of action, or when the offender is a habitual criminal under rule 5, art 62 of RPC
and art 22 of the same code.
Example: when the new law totally repeals the existing law so that the act which was
penalized under the old law is no longer punishable, the crime is obliterated, because it
is favorable to the accused.

When the repeal is absolute, the offense ceases to be criminal. “PP V Tamayo”

But repeal of a penal law by its reenactment, even without a saving clause, would not
destroy criminal liability. “US V Cuna”

When the new law and the old law penalize the same offense, the offender can be tried
under the old law.

When the repealing law fails to penalize the offense under the old law, the accused
cannot be convicted under the new law.
A person erroneously accused and convicted under a repealed statute may be punished
under the repealing statute, provided that the accused had an opportunity to defend
himself against the charge brought against him. “PP V Baesa”

A new law which omits anything contained in the old law dealing on the same subject,
operates as a repeal of anything not so included in the amendatory act. Doctrine
“cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex” “PP V Almuete”

It is a recognized rule in this jurisdiction that the repeal of a law carries with it the
deprivation of the courts of jurisdiction to try, convict and sentences persons charged
with violation of the old law prior to the repeal. “PP V Jacinto”

CONSTRUCTIONS OF PENAL LAWS

The rule that penal laws are strictly construed against the State and liberally in favor of
the accused is to be only applicable where the statue is ambiguous and there is doubt as
to its interpretation, but where the law is clear there is no room to apply the said rule.

In the constructions and interpretations of the RPC the Spanish text is controlling,
because it was approved by the Philippine legislature in its Spanish text. “PP V Manaba”

THE REVISED PENAL CODE

(ACT NO. 3815, AS AMENDED)
AN ACT REVISING THE PENAL CODE AND OTHER PENAL LAWS

The old penal code (the Spanish text) took effect on July 14, 1887, and was in until
December 31, 1931.

The RPC as enacted by the Philippine legislature, was approved on December 8, 1930,
and took effect of January 1, 1932.

Book 1 consist of two parts: (A) basic principles affecting criminal liability (Arts. 1-20);
and (B) the provisions on penalties including criminal and civil liability (Arts. 21-113)
Book two defines felonies with the corresponding penalties, classified and grouped
under 14 different titles (Arts. 114-365)

There are two important theories in criminal law, the classical theory, and positivist
theory.

Under classical theory, the basis of criminal liability is human free will and the purpose
of the penalty is retribution.

Under positivist theory, the man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid
phenomenon which constrains him to do wrong, in spite or contrary to his volition
(will).

Article 2 of the RPC explained> a Philippine vessel, although beyond three miles from
the seashore, is considered part of the national territory.

But when the Philippine vessel or aircraft is within the territory of a foreign country, the
crime committed on said vessel or aircraft is subject to the laws of that foreign country.

A Philippine vessel or aircraft must be understood as that which is registered in the

Philippine bureau of customs; thus, a Philippine airship or vessel must be registered not
on the citizenship of the owner, nor an unlicensed vessel or aircraft may fall within the
purview of Par. 1 Article 2 of RPC.

RTC’s have original jurisdiction (aka “courts of general jurisdiction”) over all crimes and
offenses committed on the high seas or beyond the jurisdiction of any country on board
a ship or warcraft of any kind registered or licensed in the Philippines in accordance
with its laws.

TWO RULES AS TO JURISDICTION OVER CRIMES COMMITTED ABOARD

FROREIGN MERCHANT VESSELS.
French rule> such crimes are not triable in the courts of that country, unless their
commission affects the peace and security of the territory or the safety of the state is
endangered, the French courts therefore claim exclusive jurisdiction over crimes
committed on board French merchant vessels in foreign ports by one member of the
crew against another.

English rule> such crimes is triable in that country, unless they merely affect things
within the vessel or they refer to the internal management thereof. (observe by the
Philippines)

Homicide even inside the vessel or airship is triable in the Philippines.

Mere possession of opium aboard a foreign merchant vessel is not triable in Philippine
court, because it does not constitute a breach of public order. But when the foreign
merchant vessel is not in transit because the Philippines is its terminal port, the person
in possession of opium on board that vessel is liable, because he may be held guilty of
illegal importation of opium. “US V Ah Sing”. Smoking opium aboard an English vessel
while anchored two and one-half miles in Manila Bay constitutes a breach of public
order, because the primary object of the law in punishing the use of opium is to protect
the inhabitants of this country against the disastrous effects entailed by the use of such
drugs. “PP V Wong Cheng”

Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over offense committed on board foreign warships
in territorial waters.

RA 9372 “human security act” of 2007, has extra territorial application particularly
section 58.

TITLE ONE
FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY
CHAPTER ONE
FELONIES
Felonies defined> acts and omission punishable by the RPC.

Elements of felonies
1) That there must be an act or omission
2) That the act or omission must be punishable by the RPC.
3) That the act is performed or the omission incurred by means of dolo or culpa.

Meaning of the word ‘act’ in Art. 3> any bodily movement tending to produce some
effect in the external world, but the act must one which is defined by the RPC as
constituting a felony, or at least an overt act of that felony, that is an external act which
has direct connection with the felony intended to be committed. (ex. Of which is ‘theft’)

Only external act is punished, not a mere internal thought, thus, even if A entertains the
idea of killing B, if the former did not constitute such felonious act does not constitute
an overt act, therefore cannot be punish under RPC, because only an overt or external
act are punishable by the Code.

Meaning of the word ‘omission’ in Art. 3> means inaction, the failure to perform a
positive duty which one is bound to do. There must be a law requiring the doing or
performance of an act. (ex. Of which is delay in the delivery of a detained persons to the
proper judicial authorities within the period of; 12hr, 18hr, or 36hr ‘Art. 125’)

Note: in felonies by omission, there is a law requiring a certain act to be performed and
the person required to do the act fails to do it.

The phrase punishable by law, should be understood to mean punished by the RPC and
not by special law. The term felony means acts and omission punished by the RPC, while
the word crime and offense which are applied to infractions of the law punished by
special law.

DOLO (DECEIT) VIS FAULT (CULPA)

In intentional felonies (dolo), the act or omission of the offender malicious, the act is
performed with deliberate intent (with malice), the person performing the act has the
intention of causing an injury to another. While in culpable felonies (fault), the act or
omission of the offender is not malicious, the injury cause by the offender is
unintentional, the wrongful acts result from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight
or lack of skill.

Crimes which cannot be committed thru imprudence or negligence, such as, murder,
treason, robbery, and malicious mischief.

Imprudence indicates a deficiency of action, ex. If a person fails to take the necessary
precaution to avoid injury to person or damage to property, there is imprudence, which
involves lack of skill. Negligence indicates a deficiency of perception, if a person fails to
pay proper attention and to use due diligence in foreseeing the injury or damage
impending to be caused, there is negligence which involves lack of foresight.

Both acts or omission of dolo (with malice) and culpa (without malice) is a voluntary act,
the only difference between the two is the former involves malice while the latter does
not have malice.

The importance in determining whether the act constitute dolo or culpa is the “intent”
Because if there be no intent it falls within the purview of culpa, if there has an intent,
then it constitutes dolo.

REQUISITE OF DOLO OR MALICE

He must have freedom, intelligence, intent while doing an act or omitting to do an
act.

Freedom> when the person acts without freedom, he is no longer a human being but a
tool. Thus, a person who acts under the compulsion of irresistible force is exempt from
criminal liability. “Art. 12 para 5”
Intelligence> without this power, necessary to determine the morality of human acts, no
crime can exist. Thus, imbecile or the insane, and the infant under nine years of age as
well as the minor over nine but less than fifteen years old and acting without
discernment, have no criminal liability, because they act without intelligence. “Art. 12,
pars. 1, 2 and 3”.

Intent> intent to commit the act with malice, being purely a mental process, presumed
and the presumption arises from the proof of the commission of an unlawful act.

Note: all the three requisites of voluntariness in intentional felony mist be present,
because “a voluntary act is a free, intelligent and intentional act.” (US V Ah Chong)

Of the three requisites to constitute an act of culpa (without malice), the intent is not
included, only an act with freedom and intelligence will do.

The existence of intent is shown by the overt act (external result) of the person.

From the felonious act (taking another’s property) of the accused, freely and deliberately
executed, the moral and legal presumption of a criminal and injurious intent arises
conclusively and indisputably, in the absence of the evidence to the contrary. But the
presumption of criminal intent does not arise from the proof of the commission of an act
which is not unlawful. “actus non facit reum, nisi men sit rea” which means, a crime in
not committed if the mind of the person performing to act complained be innocent.

If the act established be unlawful the presumption of criminal intent arises, it is for the
accused to rebut such presumption.

MISTAKE OF FACT
Ignorance or mistake of fact relieves the accused from criminal liability.
Mistake of fact is misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused injury to
another. He is not, however, criminally liable, because he did not act with criminal
intent.

An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent

which arises upon the commission of a felonious act. “PP V Oanis”

Requisites of mistake of fact as a defense:

1) That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been the accused believed
them to be. “US V Ah Chong”
2) That the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful. “PP V
Oanis”
3) That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused.

In mistake of fact, the act done by the accused would have constituted a justifying
circumstance under Article 11, and an absolutory cause, such as that contemplated in
Article 247, para. 2, or 3 an involuntary act.

Lack of intent to kill the deceased because the intention was to kill another, does not
relieved the accused from criminal responsibility. “PP V Goana”

In mistake of fact, the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful.

In error in personae or mistake in the identity of the victim, the principle of mistake of
fact does not apply.

Ah Chong and Oanis case distinguished:

In the Ah Chong case, there is an innocent mistake of fact without any fault or
carelessness on the part of the accused, because, having no time or opportunity to
make any further inquiry, and being pressed by circumstances to act
immediately, the accused had no alternative but to take the facts as they then
appeared to him, and such facts justified his act of killing the deceased.
In the Oanis case, the accused found no circumstances whatever which would
press them to immediate action. The person in the room being then asleep, the
accused had ample time and opportunity to ascertain his identity without hazard to
themselves and could even effect a bloodless arrest if any reasonable effort to that end
had been made, as the victim was unarmed. This indeed, is the only legitimate course of
action for the accused to follow even if the victim was really Balagtas, as they instructed
not to kill Balagtas at sight, but to arrest, and to get him dead or alive only if resistance
or aggression is offered by him.

Hence, the accused in the Oanis case, were at fault when they shot the victim in violation
of the instructions given to them. They were also careless in not verifying first the
identity of the victim.

In mistake of fact, what is involved is lack of intent (malice) on the part of the accused.
In felonies committed (firing at a person without knowing first the identity) through
negligence, there is no intent to consider, as it is replaced by imprudence, negligence,
lack of foresight or lack of skill.

Criminal intent is necessary in felonies committed by means of dolo because of the legal
maxim, Actus no facit reum nisi mens sit rea, “the act itself does not make a man guilty
unless his intention were so.” Actus me invito factus non est meus actus, “an act done by
me against my will is not my act.”

In felonies committed by means of culpa, criminal intent is replaced by negligence and

imprudence.

Act or omission in felonies by means of culpa may be considered voluntary, the

following requisites must concur:
1) He must have FREEDOM while doing an act or omitting to do an act.
2) He must have INTELLIGENCE while doing the act or omitting to do the act.
3) He is NEGLIGENT, IMPRUDENT or LACKS FORESIGHT or SKILL while doing
the act or omitting to do the act.
In order that an act may be qualified as imprudence it is necessary that neither malice
nor intention to cause injury should intervene, where such intention exist, the act
should be qualified by the felony it has produced even though it may not have been the
intention of the actor to cause an evil of such gravity as that produced.

A deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is essentially inconsistent with the idea of

reckless imprudence. Where such an unlawful act is willfully done, a mistake in the
identity of the intended victim cannot be considered as reckless imprudence. “PP V
Guillen”

There are (3) classes of crimes, the RPC defines and penalizes the first two classes of
crimes; 1) the intentional felonies (dolo/deceit), 2) the culpable felonies (culpa/fault).
The third class of crimes are those defines and penalized by special laws which include
crimes punished by municipal or city ordinances.

The rule is that in acts mala in se, there must be a criminal intent, but in those mala
prohibita, it is sufficient if the prohibited act was intentionally done.

In acts mala prohibita the only question arise is, does the law has been violated?

With respect to election law (special law) a man carrying a gun pursuing a criminal
passing a polling precint has no intent to perpetrate the act prohibited, as well as a man
passing by a polling precint, and a man living within 50 meters away from a polling
precint while cleaning his gun within their own residence is also not liable under the
election laws.

Reasons why criminal intent is not necessary in crimes made such by

statutory enactment> the to society and to the government does not depend upon
the state of mind of the one who displays the banner, but upon the effect which that
display has upon the public mind. The public is affected by the intention of the actor; in
the other by the act itself “US V Go Chico”, therefore, the act itself is a crime no matter
how pure the intention is.
Good faith and absence of criminal intent not valid defenses in crimes punished by
special law.

EXCEPTION> temporary, incidental, casual or harmless possession or control of a f/a

is not a violation of a statute, prohibiting the possessing or carrying of this kind of
weapon. EX. A person picks up a weapon or hands it to another to examine or hold for a
moment, or to shoot at some object. “PP V Estoista”

Crimes mala in se are those so serious in their effects on society as to call for almost
unanimous condemnation of its members; while crimes mala prohibita are violations of
mere rules of convenience designed to secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs of
the society.
In acts mala in se, intent governs, but in those mala prohibita, the only inquiry is, has
the law been violated? “PP V Kiber”

Generally, crimes mala in se are punishable by the RPC, while crimes mala prohibita are
those punishable under a special law, but if the acts constitute wrong per se even
punishable under a special law, then, the acts is considered as mala in se, because of its
nature. “Garcia V CA and PP”

Intent distinguished from motive

Motive is the moving power which impels one to action for a definite result, while intent
is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result.

Motive is not an essential element of crime, hence, need not to be proved for purposes of
conviction. “PP V Aposaga”

Motive no matter how pure may convict a person. EX. Mercy killing

Motive, when relevant and when need not be established.

1) IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED
Relevant> where the identity of a person accused of having committed a crime is in
dispute, the motive that may have impelled its commission is very relevant. “PP V
Feliciano”

When need not be established> motive is essential only when there is doubt as to the
identity of the assailant. It is immaterial when the accused has been positively identified.

2) Antagonistic theories
Motive is important in ascertaining the truth between two antagonistic theories or
versions of the killing. “PP V Boholst-Caballero”

3) No eyewitness
Where there are no eyewitness to the crime, and where suspicion is likely to fall upon a
number of persons, motive is relevant and significant. “PP V Melgar”

4) Circumstantial evidence or sufficient evidence

If the evidence is merely circumstantial, proof of motive is essential. “PP V Oquino”

Proof of motive is not indispensable where guilt is otherwise established by sufficient

evidence.

Motive is established by the testimony of the witness.

Proof of motive alone is not sufficient to support a conviction.

Even a strong motive to commit the crime cannot take the place of proof beyond
reasonable doubt, sufficient to overthrow the presumption of innocence. Proof beyond
reasonable doubt is the mainstay of our accusatorial system of criminal justice. “PP V
Pisalvo”

Lack of motive may be an aid in showing the innocence of the accused.

EX> a man acted while in a dream and his acts, with which he was charged, were not
voluntary in the sense of entailing criminal liability.

Lack of motive to kill the deceased has been held as further basis for acquitting the
accused, where the lone testimony of the prosecution witness is contrary to common
experience and, therefore, incredible. “PP V Padirayon”

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 4
One who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the consequences which
may naturally and logically result therefrom, whether foreseen or intended or not.

One is not relieved from criminal liability for the natural consequences of one’s illegal
acts, merely because one does not intend to produce such consequences.

Rationale of rule in paragraph 1 of Article 4

The rationale rule is found in the doctrine “el que es causa de la causa del mal causado”
he who is the cause of the cause of the evil caused. “PP V Ural”

The phrase “committing a felony” means that the offender should be one committed by
means of dolo (malice) because para. 1 of Article 4 speaks of wrongful act done different
from that which he intended.

If the wrongful act results from the imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight
(negligence) or lack of skill (imprudence) of the offender, his liability should be
determined under Article 365, which defines and penalizes criminal negligence.

The causes which may produce a result different from that which the
offender intended are:
1) Mistake in the identity of the victim. (error in personae) “PP V Oanis”
2) Mistake in the blow, that is, when the offender intending to do an injury to one
person actually inflicts it on another. (aberration ictus) “PP V Mabugat”
 3) The acts exceeds the intent, that is, the injurious result is greater than that
intended. (praeter intentionem) “PP V Cagoco”

Requisites of para. 1 Article 4 “the result is greater from that which

intended.”
1) That an intentional felony has been committed.
2) That the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural and logical
consequence of the felony committed by the offender. “US V Brobst”

NOTE: Therefore, Article 4 para. 1 is not applicable when the act done or the felony was
a result of negligence (lack of foresight) or imprudence (lack of skill) otherwise stated by
means of fault (culpa).

No felony is committed (1) when the act done is not punishable by the RPC, or (2) when
the act is covered by any of the justifying circumstances enumerated in Article 11, which
is, self defense, defense of relative, defense of a stranger, or in the fulfilment of duty is
not committing a felony, the act being justified. (EX. Movie of SPO4 santiago)

NOTE: the act of defense or fulfilment of duty must be exercised with due care,
otherwise the accused would be liable for culpable felony.

If a man creates in another person’s mind an immediate sense of danger, which causes
such person to try to escape, and, in so doing, the latter injure himself, the man who
creates such a state of mind is responsible for the resulting injuries. “PP V Page”

NOTE: in order for the offender be held criminally liable, the injury sustained by the
victim which cause his life should be direct and logical consequence of the act done by
the offender. (EX. Nang holdap at ang ilan sa biktima ay tumalon sa jip at namatay)

NOTE: the accused is still liable for the death or injury of the victim even though the
victim refused to undergo medical treatment such as surgical operation, thus, if the
victim dies because of the refusal to do so, the offender does not release from criminal
liability, and even the victim has undergone a surgical operation and seems to survive
death momentarily and on his way of recovery, develop a condition because of the
operation and that operation was the direct result and logical consequence of the injury
caused or inflict by the accused to the victim and death occurs, the accused still be liable
for the said death of the victim.

Natural refers to an occurrence in the ordinary course of human life or events, while
logical means that there is a rational connection between the act of the accused and the
resulting injury or damage. (Meaning of the phrase “natural and logical consequence”)

HOW TO DERTEMINE PROXIMATE CAUSE (pinakamalapit na dahilan)

In Vda. De Bataclan, et al V Medina, the Court held that an accident which cause the
overturning of the bus was the proximate cause of the injury and death suffered by the
victims even though it was due to the fire accidentally ignited by the rescuers from the
leaked coming from the overturned bus, but the circumstances would be different if
through some event, unexpected and extraordinary, the overturned bus is set on fire,
say, by lightning, or if some highwaymen after looting the vehicle set it on fire, and the
passenger is burned to death, in which case, it may be contended that the proximate
cause was the fire.

NOTE: THERE MUST BE A RELATION OF “CAUSE AND EFFECT.”

The cause being the felonious act of the offended, the effect being the resultant injuries
and/or death of the victim. The “cause and effect” relationship is not altered or changed
because of the pre-existing conditions, such as the pathological condition of the victim
(nervousness of the victim), the predisposition of the offended party (refusal of the
victim to submit oneself to a surgical operation), or the concomitant or current
conditions, such as the negligence or fault of the doctors.

Thus, in view of the preceding paragraph, the following are not efficient intervening
causes which break the relation of cause and effect, the felony committed and resulting
injury:
1) Weak or diseased physical condition of the victim (suffering from tuberculosis)
“PP V Illustre
 2) The nervousness or temperament of the victim (the deceased did not follow the
doctors order which result from his death) “PP V Almonte”
3) Causes which are inherent to the victim, such as, the victim not knowing how to
swim “PP V Valdez”
4) Neglect of the victim or the third person (refusal to submit oneself in a surgical
operation, or failure of the doctor to give anti tetanus to the deceased) “US V
Marasigan and PP V Red.”
5) Erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical treatment “PP V Moldes.”

The only instances that release the offender from criminal liability is the intervening
cause (the reason of the death or seriously injured of the victim other than the injury
inflicted by the offender), without which the principle of cause and effect is not broken,
and the proximate cause still prevail.

The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the resulting injury when, 1) there is
an active force that intervened between the felony committed and the resulting injury,
and the active force is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of
the accused, 2) the resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim.

A supervening event may be the subject of amendment of original information or of a

new charge without double jeopardy.

The 2nd para. of Article 4 defines the so-called impossible crimes (impossible attempts)
Requisites of impossible crime:
1) That the act performed would be an offense against persons or property.
2) That the act was done with evil intent (therefore dolo, furthermore mala in se)
3) That its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that the means employed is
either inadequate or ineffectual.
4) That the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of
the RPC.
NOTE: that the felony against person or property should not be actually committed
(number (3) of the requisite), for, otherwise, he would be liable for that felony, if that so,
there would be no impossible crime produced.

FELONIES AGAINST PERSONS ARE:

a) Parricide (Art 246)
b) Murder (Art 248)
c) Homicide (Art 249)
d) Infanticide (Art 255)
e) Abortion (Arts 256, 257, 258, and 259)
f) Duel (Arts 260 and 261)
g) Physical injuries (Arts 262, 263, 264, 265, and 266)
h) Rape (Arts 266-A)

FELONIES AGAINST PROPERT ARE:

1) Robbery (Arts 294, 297, 298, 299, 300, 302, and 303)
2) Brigandage (Arts 306 and 307)
3) Theft (Arts 308, 310, and 311)
4) Usurpation (Arts 312, 313)
5) Culpable insolvency (Art 314)
6) Swindling and other deceits (Arts 315, 316, 317, and 318)
7) Chattel mortgage (Art 319)
8) Arson and other crimes involving destruction (Arts 320, 321, 322,
323, 324, 325, and 326)
9) Malicious mischief (Arts 327, 328, 329, 330, and 331)

NOTE: impossible crime constitutes a felonious act against persons and property with
evil intent, that is, he must have the intent to do an injury to another, thus, if a felonious
act is not against persons or property, impossible crime does not produce.

The phrase “he must have the intent to do an injury to another” means that the offender
knew that the victim he stab was already dead, at the time he stab it, thus, he cannot
actually cause damage to the deceased. Therefore, if one person stabs another person
knowing that person, he stabs was already dead does not produce an impossible crime,
because he already knew that person was dead and therefore cannot inflict
damage/injury to the same.

That the act was done with evil intent. (impossible crime)

The phrase “inherent impossibility of its accomplishment” means that the act intended
by the offender is by its nature one of impossible accomplishment. Art 59 RPC
There must be either (1) legal impossibility, or (2) physical impossibility of
accomplishing the intended act.
EX. When one tries to kill another by putting in his soup a substance which he believes
to be arsenic when in fact it is common salt, or, when one tries to murder a corpse.
NOTE: the above example in order to produce an impossible crime, the act must have
an evil intent, and an intention to inflict damage or injury to another.

Example of an offense against person in relation with impossible crime> A shot B not
knowing that be was dead hours prior to the shooting, therefore, it cannot produce a
crime against person, thus, constitute an impossible crime. There is physical and legal
impossibility in this example.

Example of an offense against property in relation with impossible crime> A with intent
to gain took a watch which he believes belong to B, only to find out that the watch he
took was actually his own watch which is lost few days ago, in this example a crime of
theft would have been produce if the watch belongs to B, thus, in this example legal
there is a legal impossibility of accomplishing it, because, in the crime of theft the
requisite is that the taking of a thing must belong to another.

Employment of inadequate means> that if A put a small quantity of arsenic in B’s food
but because of insufficiency, B did not die. The means employed (putting small
quantity of poison) is inadequate to kill a person. But if the means employed is
inadequate and the person did not die, simply because he/she has a strong resistance
against the sufficient poison that has employed, the crime produce is frustrated murder.

Ineffectual means> A tried to kill B by putting in his soup a substance which he believes
was arsenic, but turns out to be a sugar, Consequently, B did not die because the means
employed is ineffectual, but A here is criminally liable under Article 4 para (2) RPC in
relation to Article 59 RPC.

Inherent impossibility of accomplishment means> A did not remit a check which

belongs to the company instead he deposited it to his personal account, but the check
turns out to be unfunded, here the crime of theft or qualified theft has already been
consummated, but due to the fact that the said check is dishonored, therefore,
constitutes impossibility of its accomplishment.

In impossible crime the act performed should not constitute a violation of another
provision of the code.

Purpose of the law in punishing the impossible crime> to suppress criminal propensity
or criminal tendencies. Objectively, the offender has not committed a felony, but
subjectively, he is a criminal.

ARTICLE 5
In Article 5 para (1), the act of the offender is not punishable under the existing laws,
and the judge has a reasonable belief that the act committed should be a subject of penal
legislation, he should dismiss the case for there is no law punishing the act “nullum
crimen nulla poena sine lege”, but the judge concerned must make report to the chief
executive thru the secretary of justice, stating the reasons which induce him to believe
that the said act should be made the subject of penal legislation.

In Article 5 para (2), the court finds the accused guilty, that the imposable penalty is
clearly excessive because the accused acted with lesser degree of malice or there is no
injury or the injury caused is of lesser gravity, the court should not suspend the
execution, but the judge should submit a statement to the Chief Executive, thru the Sec
of Justice, recommending executive clemency.

Courts have the duty to apply the penalty provided by law, disregarding their wisdom,
efficacy, or morality of laws, because it belongs to the legislative department who enacts
the laws as well as the executive department who approve or veto the laws. This in
accordance with the latin maxim “DURA LEX SED LEX” the law is harsh, but it is the
law.

Well settled rule that courts duty is to apply the laws, interpretation comes in only when
the same is ambiguous.

Judge of the lower court has the duty to apply the law as interpreted by the SC, courts
are not the forum to plead for sympathy.

NOTE: Article 5 para (1 & 2) applied in relation to penalty that the court believe should
be the subject of amendment by the legislature.

ARTICLE 6
Consummated> all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are
present.

Frustrated> 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.

Attempted> 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 causse or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.

Development of crime> one is internal act, and the other is external act.
Internal acts> such as mere ideas in the mind of a person, are not punishable even if,
had they been carried out, they would constitute a crime.

Intention and effect must concur> mere intention producing no effect is no more a
crime than a mere effect without the intention is a crime.
EX. If A intended to commit treason by joining a group of armed men in the belief that
they were MAKAPILIS, when in fact they were GUERRILLEROS, A was not liable for
treason, despite his intent.

External acts cover (1) preparatory act, (2) act of execution

Preparatory acts> generally are not punishable, hence, proposal and conspiracy to
commit a felony, which are only preparatory acts, are not punishable, except when the
law provides for their punishment in certain felonies (ART 8), EX. Possession of pick
lock under Article 304, possession of the same is a preparatory act to the commission of
robbery. (Articles 299 & 302)

Examples of preparatory acts> buying a poison and possession of gun these examples
are not punishable under the law because it depict or susceptible of double
interpretation, it can be use as a murder weapon or it can be used in a manner which is
not illegal, buying a poison may be a purpose to kill a rat, a possession of gun and
proceeding to a certain person may be interpreted as for purposes of cleaning the gun to
that person.

Acts of execution> are punishable under Art. 6, stages are, attempted, frustrated and
consummated.

Elements of attempted felony

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 act is not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance. Otherwise, he
is either not criminally liable or criminally liable for other specific crime separate
 and distinct from which is intended (EX. A enraged pointed a gun to B ready to
pull the trigger, B beg for mercy, A took the mercy and forgive B, A is not liable
for attempted murder or homicide as the case may be because he decide by his
own not to kill B, but he is liable for the act of pointing a gun to B, because mere
pointing of a gun already constitute a crime)
4) The non-performance of all the acts of execution was due to cause or accident
other than his spontaneous desistance.

Commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts> (1) that there be external
act, (2) such external act have direct connection with the crime intended to be
committed.

Overt acts> physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular
crime, more than a mere planning or perpetration, which if carried to its complete
termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles
nor by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen
into a concrete offense.

Preparatory acts is not connected to the intended to commit, while overt acts is
necessarily connected with the crime intended to commit, thus if A buy a poison in
preparation to commit a crime in killing B, it is only preparatory and susceptible of
double meaning, because that poison may be use to kill a rat, and is not directly
connected for killing B, but if that poison was mixed to the food of B, such act is
punishable under Article 248 (killing a person by using a poison “murder”), thus,
constitute an overt act, because it was directly connected to the intended felony.

NOTE: in attempted stage, the offender has the control of his action, because in the
subjective stage of the felony, the offender could have voluntarily desisted from
performing all the acts of execution and which, had it happened, would completely
exempt him from criminal responsibility for the offense he intended to commit. “PP V
Tabago”
Drawing or trying to draw a gun does not constitute an overt act of homicide, also,
raising a bolo as if to strike the offended party with it is not an overt act of homicide,
because it is not directly connected with the crime of homicide, and it could either be a
commission of a separate and distinct crime from that of homicide, further, the offender
may, at the subjective stage of the felony, voluntarily desisted from performing all the
acts of execution making him exempt from criminal liability.

Therefore, in case of a bolo, when there’s no blow struck to the offended party it cannot
be attributed to an overt act of homicide, likewise, in case of drawing or trying to draw a
gun or even firing a gun clearly not in the direction of the offended party, is not an overt
act of homicide, because it clearly shows a different intention and constitute a different
crime separate and distinct from that of homicide.

Overt act may not be by physical activity> EX. A proposal consisting in making an offer
of money to a public officer for the purpose of corrupting him is the overt act in the
crime of corrupting a public officer. “US V Gloria”

Indeterminate offense- it is one where the purpose of the offender in performing an

act is not certain. Its nature in relation to its objective is ambiguous.
Acts susceptible of double interpretation, that is, in favor as well as against the accused,
and which show an innocent as well as a punishable act, must not and cannot furnish
grounds by themselves for attempted crime. “PP V Lamahang.”

The law requires that the offender commences the commission of the felony directly by
overt acts.
EX. A induced B to kill C, but B refused to do it, A cannot be liable for attempted
homicide, because, although there was an attempt on the part of A, such an attempt was
not done directly with physical activity (overt acts). The inducement made by A to be is
in the nature of a proposal, not ordinarily punished by law, but, if B pursuant to his
agreement with A, commence the commission of the crime by shooting C, with intent to
kill, but missed and did not injure C, both A and B are guilty of attempted felony,
because of conspiracy. When there is conspiracy, the rule is, the act of one is the act of
all.

If the offender performs all the acts of execution and there is no more left to be done, if
the felony is not produced, it constitutes a mere frustrated, and consummated if a felony
has been produced, and if anything remained for him to do, he would be guilty of an
attempted crime.

By reason of some cause or accident in relation to attempted stage of felony> (cause) A

picked the pocket of B, inside of it is the wallet of B containing a money, before A could
remove his hand inside the pocket, B timely grabbed the hand of A causing the latter to
unsuccessfully consummate all the acts of execution. (accident) A aimed his pistol to B
to kill the latter, but when he pressed the trigger it jammed and no bullet was fired from
the pistol.

Other than his own spontaneous desistance> if the actor does not perform all the acts of
execution by reason of his own spontaneous desistance, there is no attempted felony.
Reason, it is a sort of reward granted by law to those who, having one foot on the venge
of crime, heed the call of their conscience and return to the path of righteousness.

NOTE: the desistance should be made before all the acts of execution are performed>
EX. A stole the chicken of B, and later on returned the same, because A realizes what he
did was wrong, here A already did all the acts of execution and produced the crime of
theft, the latter does not relieve of his criminal responsibility by returning what he stole
from B.

The desistance which exempts from criminal liability has reference to the crime
intended to be committed, and has no reference to the crime actually committed by the
offender before his desistance. EX. A with intent to kill, fired his pistol at B, but did not
hit the latter. B beg for mercy to A and asked not to shoot him. A took the mercy and
left. A therefore is not liable for attempted homicide because he desisted before he could
perform all the acts of execution, but for grave threats which was already committed by
him before he desisted.

Illustration of a case where the accused inflicted injury> the accused is admittedly shot
the victim but only caused a slight injury to the latter, the issue is, whether or not the
accused is liable for the death of the victim due to the fatal wound caused by his co-
accused.
Held> the slight wound did not cause the death of the victim, nor materially contribute
to it, his liability should therefore be limited to slight injury he caused, however, the fact
that he inflicted a gunshot wound on the victim shows the intent to kill. The use of a gun
fired at another certainly leads to no other conclusion than that there is intent to kill. He
therefore liable for the crime of attempted homicide and not merely for slight physical
injury. Therefore, use of a gun fired at the victim even it causes only slight wound to the
latter would constitute the crime of attempted homicide, because of the intent to kill.
“Araneta Jr. V CA”

In attempted felony, the offender never passes the subjective phase of the offense.

Subjective phase> portion of the acts constituting the crime, starting from the point
where the offender begins the commission of the crime to that point where he has still
control over his acts, including their (acts) natural course.
If between these two points the offender is stopped by any cause outside of his own
voluntary desistance, the subjective phase has not been passed and it is an attempt. If he
is not so stopped but continues until he performs the last act, it is frustrated if the crime
is not produced, the acts then of the offender reached the objective phase of the crime.
EX. A with intent to kill, mixes poison in the soup of B, and B begins to take into his
mouth a spoonful of it, until this point, A can still prevent the poisoning of B by
voluntarily desisting and telling B to throw the substance from his mouth as it contains
poison (subjective phase). But from the moment B swallows it, A has no more control
over his acts. The poison is now in B’s stomach, and it will require the intervention of a
physician to prevent the poisoning of B (objective phase).
If because of the intervention of the physician, B did not die, A will be liable for
frustrated murder. The acts performed by A, following their natural course, passed from
subjective phase to objective phase of the crime.

Frustrated felony elements:

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 the causes independent against the will of the perpetrator.

Frustrated felony distinguished from attempted felony> in frustrated felony all the acts
of execution necessary to produce a crime has been committed, the perpetrator has left
nothing to perform necessary to produce the crime intended or otherwise stated the last
acts of execution has been performed, however the crime intended is not produced, this
distinguished from the attempted felony, because in this stage all the acts of execution
has not been performed because of some cause or accident other than perpetrators own
spontaneous desistance. He merely commences the commission of a felony directly by
overt acts. In frustrated the offender reached the objective phase, while in attempted,
the offender has not passed the subjective phase (in subjective phase, the offender has
the control of his acts whether he pursue his intended crime or not).

NOTE: if A fired a gun at B and missed or the wound sustained by B is not mortal, the
last act necessary to produce the crime of homicide is not yet performed by A
(attempted). but if the wound inflicted is mortal, that is, sufficient to cause death to B,
and if no medical intervention B would surely die, the crime committed was
consummated homicide or murder, but if A survived it merely falls short in frustrated.

In relation to frustrated felony> the belief of the accused need not be considered, what
should be considered is whether all the acts of execution performed by the offender
‘would produce the felony as a consequence.’
In frustrated felony> it is necessary that a mortal wound has been inflicted or sufficient
to cause death upon the victim. “PPV Kalalo”

If the 4th element is not present (by reason of the causes other than perpetrators own
spontaneous desistance) there is no frustrated felony. Therefore, if the perpetrator
himself refused the victim die by means of aiding the victim even though all the acts of
execution has been performed necessary to commit murder and the victim survived, the
possible crime produce is serious physical injury.
Illustration: the doctor spouse put an arsenic to the food of his spouse, and the latter
consume the food which cause the victim in a life and death situation, but the
perpetrator upon his own will administer aid and give enough antidote to put the life of
his spouse out of danger, is not guilty of frustrated parricide, because the important 4 th
element of frustrated felony was lacking, which is by reason of the causes other than
perpetrators own spontaneous desistance.

Attempted or frustrated felony distinguished from impossible crime

In impossible crime, the evil intent of the offender cannot be accomplished because it is
inherently impossible of accomplishment (killing a person which is already dead), or
because the means employed is inadequate (putting an arsenic which is insufficient to
cause the life of the victim) or ineffectual (putting a sugar in to the food of the victim
which the accused believed to be poisonous), while, in attempted and frustrated felony,
what prevented its accomplishment is the intervention of certain cause or accident in
which the offender has no part.

Consummated felony> a felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for
its commission and accomplishment are present.

In determining whether the felony is only attempted or frustrated, or it is consummated,

(1) the nature of the offense, (2) the elements constituting the felony, (3) the manner of
committing the felony, must be considered.
Nature of crime> Arson (Arts. 320-326) it is considered consummated if the fire touches
any part of the property intended to destroy by means of fire regardless of its amount, it
is considered frustrated when some rags soaked in to a kerosine oil was set to fire and
placing them near the wooden partition of the house, and it is considered an attempted
when a person had poured a gasoline under the house of another and was about to strike
a match to set the house on fire when he was apprehended, the acts performed by him
are directly connected with the crime of arson, the offense he intended to commit, the
pouring of the gasoline under the house and the striking of the match could not be for
any other purpose. Therefore, if there was a blaze but no part of the house touches by
the fire the crime was only frustrated, if any of the house touches by the fire no matter
how small the damage it is consummated.

In theft, actual taking with intent to gain of personal property, belonging to another,
without the latter’s consent, is sufficient to constitute consummated theft. It is not
sufficient that the offender carries away, appropriates the property taken or has the
actual possession of the property taken, because in the case of US V Adiao, the property
taken by the perpetrator was not found in his actual possession but was secretly put in
his personal desk of his workplace.

However, in estafa, the crime was only in frustrated if, (1) abuse of confidence, and (2)
damage to the offended party must be present. Thus, in the case of US V Dominguez,
wherein the salesman did not remit the sales of book, which is properly should be given
to the cashier, but instead putting the same in his own pocket was timely discovered,
was guilty only by frustrated estafa because of the lacking abuse of confidence and
damage to the offended party.

In consummated theft, it is not necessary that the offender has the ability to dispose the
property taken or not or otherwise stated was immaterial in consummated theft, it is
sufficient that the property was already in the possession of the perpetrator and the
taking was with intent to gain. Therefore, the SC held that there was no crime of
frustrated theft. “Valenzuela V PP”
Consummated theft> unlawful taking, which is deprivation of one’s personal property is
one of the elements of consummated theft.

Frustrated estafa by means of deceit> accused falsely pretend that he was an authority
of the government to collect money arising from the cutting of a timber without a
permit, the complainant refused or unable to pay demanded by the accused, the
fraudulent and false representation of the accuse that he was authorize to collect the
money is the overt act, and the refusal or the inability of the complainant to pay the
money demanded by the perpetrator was prevented the accused from performing all the
acts of execution necessary to produce the crime of consummated estafa.

In robbery by the use of force upon things, since the offender must enter the building to
commit the crime, he must be able to carry out of the building the thing taken to
consummate the crime.

In robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons, the crime is consummated

the moment the offender gets hold of the thing taken and or is in a position to dispose of
it freely.

element of intent to kill when present in physical injuries> accused with a

pocket knife inflicted several wounds on the victim, accompanied with the words “until I
can kill you” were uttered by the assailant, was held to be attempted homicide and not
physical injury.

Manner of committing crimes

1) Formal crimes> consummated in one instant, no attempt. Its either there is a
crime or no crime at all.
EX> in the sale of marijuana and other prohibited drugs, the mere act of selling
or even acting as broker consummate the crime. “PP V Marcos”
2) Crimes consummated by mere attempt or proposal or by overt acts.
EX> flight to enemy’s country (Art. 121), in this crime, the mere attempt to flee to
an enemy’s country is a consummated felony
 > Corruptions of minor (Art. 340), a mere proposal to the minor to satisfy the
lust of another will consummate the offense.
> there is no attempted crime of treason, because the overt act in itself
consummates the crime.
3) Felony by omission> there can be no attempted stage when the felony is by
omission, because in this kind of felony the offender does not execute acts. He omits to
perform an act which the law required him to do.
4) Crimes requiring the intervention of two persons to commit them are
consummated by mere agreement.
EX> betting in sport contest and corruption of public officer (Art. 197 and Art
212), which require the intervention of two persons to commit them, the same are
consummated by mere agreement. The offer made by one of the parties to the
other constitutes attempted felony, if the offer is rejected.
5) Material crimes> there are three stages of execution, such as homicide and
rape, because they are not consummated in one instant or by single act
(A) Consummated rape> entry of the labia or lips of the female organ without
rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina is generally held sufficient to
warrant conviction of the accused for consummated rape. “PP V Hernandez”
(B) Frustrated rape> there is no frustrated in the crime of rape.
(C) Attempted rape> if there was no penetration in the vagina, the crime is in
attempted stage.
(D) Consummated homicide> the accused appellant was found guilty of
consummated homicide even though the wound he inflicted upon the victim
was not fatal, but his co-accused inflict fatal wound to the victim, he therefore
liable for the crime of homicide arising from the establishment of conspiracy
which rule that the act of one is the act of all.
(E) Frustrated murder> the accused stab the victim with treachery, was able to
survive death due to medical intervention, therefore, the crime produced was
frustrated murder, alevosia being present.
(F) Attempted homicide> the accused intended to kill his victim, but he was not
able to perform all the acts of execution necessary to consummate the killing.
 The wounds inflicted was not fatal. He first warned his victim before shooting
him.

There is no attempted or frustrated impossible crime> because the acts performed by

the offender are considered as constituting a consummated offense.

Article 7
What are light felonies> are those infractions of law for the commission of which the
penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding P200, or both, is provided ( Art. 9 para
‘3’)

Light felonies under the RPC

1) Slight physical injuries (Art. 266)
2) Theft (Art. 309 para ‘7’ and ‘8’)
3) Alteration of boundary marks (Art. 313)
4) Malicious mischief (Art. 328 para ‘3’, Art. 329 para ‘3’)
5) Intriguing against honor (Art. 364)

As a general rule light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated

Reason for the general rule> light felonies produce such light, such insignificant moral
and material injuries that public conscience is satisfied with providing a light penalty for
their consummation. If they are not consummated, the wrong done is so light that there
is no need of providing a penalty at all.

Article 8
Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony are two different acts or felonies.

Unless there is a specific provision in the RPC providing a penalty for conspiracy or
proposal to commit a felony, mere conspiracy or proposal is not a felony. Such as,
treason (Art. 115), rebellion (Art. 136), and sedition (Art. 141)
As long as the conspirators do not perform overt acts in furtherance of their malevolent
design, the sovereignty of the State is not outraged, and the tranquility of the public
remains undisturbed.

Reason for the rule> conspiracy and proposal to commit a crime are only preparatory
acts, and the law regards them as innocent or at least permissible except on rare and
exceptional cases.

If they commit treason, they will be held liable for treason, and the conspiracy which
they had before committing treason is only a manner of incurring criminal liability. It is
not a separate offense.

In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, even if one’s participation is a mere lookout
or guard.

Indications of conspiracy
When the defendants by their acts aimed at the same object, one performing one part
and the other performing another part so as to complete it, with a view to the attainment
of the same object, and their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact
concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association, concerted
action and concurrence of sentiments, the court will be justified in concluding that said
defendants were engaged in conspiracy. “PP V Geronimo”

The act of an accused showed unity of purpose and unity in the execution of the
unlawful acts, as to the facts that he knew the exact location of the killing was to take
place and also the date and approximate time of the assault. “PP V Cantuba”

The acts of the defendants must show a common design> it is fundamental for
conspiracy to exist that there must be unity of purpose and unity in the execution of the
unlawful objective.

Requisites of conspiracy
 1) That two or more persons came to an agreement. (meeting of the mind)
2) That the agreement concerned the commission of a felony. (it must be an
agreement to act, to effect, to bring about what was already been conceived and
determined)
3) That the execution of the felony be decided upon. (There must be a determination
to commit the crime of treason, rebellion or sedition)

Direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy and may inferred from the collective
acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime.

Conspiracy can be presumed from and proven by acts of the accused themselves when
the said acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of
interest.

Mere presence of a person at the scene of the crime does not make him a conspirator for
conspiracy transcend companionship.

There is no proposal when> the person who proposes is not determined to commit the
felony.
EX. A desires that the present government be overthrown. But A is afraid to do it
himself with others. A then suggest the overthrowing of the government to some
desperate people who will do it at a slightest provocation. In this case, A is not liable for
proposal to commit rebellion, because A has not decided to commit it.

>There is no decided, concrete and formal proposal

EX. In the above example, note that there was merely a suggestion, not a decided,
concrete and formal proposal.

>it is not execution of a felony that is proposed

EX. A conceived the idea of overthrowing the present government. A called several of his
trusted followers and instructed them to go around the country and secretly to organize
groups and to convince them of the necessity of having a new government. Note that
what A proposed in this case is not the execution of the crime of rebellion, but the
performance of the preparatory acts for the commission of the rebellion. Therefore,
there is no criminal proposal.

The accused cannot be exempt from criminal liability of proposal to commit rebellion,
treason or sedition despite desistance of the same, once the proposal has been
committed.

What constitute the felony of proposal to commit treason or rebellion is the making of
proposal. The law does not require that the proposal be accepted by the person to whom
the proposal is made. If it is accepted, it may be conspiracy to commit treason or
rebellion, because there would be an agreement and a decision to commit it.

Proposal as an overt act of corruption of public officer

Treason is against the external security of the state. Coup d’etat, rebellion and sedition
are against internal security. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade are
against economic security.

Reason why conspiracy and proposal to commit a crime is punishable in crimes

against external and internal security of the state> in ordinary crimes, the state survive
the victim, and the culprit cannot find in the success of his work any impunity. While, in
crimes against external and internal security of the state, if the culprit succeeds in his
criminal enterprise, he would obtain the power and therefore impunity for the crime
committed.

Article 9
The afflictive penalties in accordance with Article 25 of RPC
Reclusion perpetua
Reclusion temporal
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification
Prison mayor

The following are correctional penalties

Prison correctional
Arresto mayor
Suspension
Distierro