CRIM LAW 1- MONDAY

Art 3- 7

1. ART 3- Felonies- committed by means of deceit or fault

 Deceit- act is with deliberate intent
 Fault- the wrongful act resulted from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skills

- Offenses- Crimes penalized under Special Laws

-A felony which is defined and penalized by the RPC does not absorb nor is absorb by an offense (SPL)
- Ex: Violation of BP 22 and Estafa; Illegal Recruitment and Estafa, Torture and the resulting murder/
homicide/ phsyical injuries
- Offense and Felonies cannot be complexed for Art 48 RPC does not allow complexing of felony with
offenses (pp v Abay, Feb 24, 2009)

- But Special complex crime is possible for offenses and felonies like carnapping with homicide bcus
carnapping law allows it

 Intent
- Is the use of particular means to effect the desired result
- Ex: Use of lethal weapon would show criminal intent to kill altho death did not result
- Note that Intent is a mental state, thus need to determine it by the means used- this is demonstrated by the
overt act of person
- Intent to kill is presumed in the ff acts:
1. Weapon used
2. Location of the injury sustained by the victim
3. Number of woulds inflicted

- GR: Criminal intent is presumed from the voluntray commission of unlawful act (Adbulla v Pp) So,
when the victim dies, intent to kill is conclusively presumed BUT when the victim survives, intent to kill
becomes a specific criminal intent which cannot be presumed but most be proved. Ex: Acts of lasciviousness,
attempted rape, unjust vexation, slander by dead- specific criminal intent cannot be presumed but must be
established and prove

Instances when the offender can be criminally liable if there is no criminal intent
 Felonies committed by culpa
 Ex: Discharging a firearm from the window of one’s house and killing a neigbour who just at the
moment leaned over at the balcony front
 Where the defendant, to stop a fist fight, fired his .45 cal. Twice in the air, and, as a result the bout
continued, he fired another shot at the ground, but the bullet ricocheted and hit a bystander who
died soon thereafter (pp v Belbes)
 Offenses mala phibita
 Violation of city, municipal or provincial ordinances

2. ART 4: Criminal liability- (Who commits the Felony)

 By any person committing a felony
 Wrongful act done be different than which intended
 Impossible Crime

 Factors affecting Intent and corresponding the Criminal Liability

 Mistake of Fact
 Mistake of blow/ Aberratio Ictus
 Error in Personae
 Praeter intentionem - so grave a wrong caused than that intended
 Proximate cause

 Mistake of Fact
- Absolutory Cause for had the facts been true to the belief of the offender, the act he did can be justified
and will negate criminal liability as the element of criminal intent is absent. Thus, mistake of fact is relevant
only in dolo, hence if the offender is negligent in ascertaining the true state of facts, he may be free from dolo
but not from culpa.
 - Ex: U.S v Ah Chong

 Mistake of Blow
- Error in the victim of the blow
- When the Offender intends the injury on one person but the harm fell on another. (3 persons involved:
Offender, the intended victim and the actual victim)
- As a consequence, the act (mistake of blow) may result in a complex crime under Art 48 RPC or in two
felonies, altho there is a single intent. Thus, Aberratio Ictus may result to a lesser criminal liability to the
offender

- If the act, which caused injuries/ death to a third person by reason of mistake of blow, is not intentional
felony, Art 4 shall not apply. Committing an act of self- defense or in the exercise of a right to defend
possession of property or causing death or injuries under exceptional circumstances is not an intentional felony.
- But if the perpetrator is reckless in committing the non-felonious act, he can be held liable for reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide/ physical injuries (pp v abarca)

Intent to kill – In aberration ictus, there at least two victims, the intended victim and
the third person who was hit by reason of mistake of blow. Even though there is intent to kill
the target victim, the court should still make an assessment if there is intent to kill the third
person, who was hit by reason of aberration ictus.
If the third person died, intent to kill is conclusively presumed. Hence, the crime
committed against third person, is homicide or murder. (People v. Adriano. G.R. No. 205228,
July 15, 2015).

If the third person merely suffered injuries, and there is intent to kill, the crime
committed is attempted or frustrated homicide or murder. Intent to kill the third person can
be established if the accused is aware of the possibility of hitting others in the process of
24killing the target victim. Such awareness is a circumstantial evidence of intent to kill the third
person.
If the third person merely

 Error in Personae or Mistake of Identity

- Involves only one offended party but the offended committed a mistake in ascertaining the identity of
the victim
- Ex: Accused intended to kill his mortal enemy, he shot that man but it turned out that the victim was
his father. (crime is parricide)

 Praeter Intentionem (mitigating circumstance)

- Injury is intended but the resulting consequence is much more grave than intended
- Ex: The accused punched his pregnant wife. This is physical injuries. If as a consequence, she and her
unborn baby died, the accused shall incur criminal liability for compound crime of parricide with unintentional
abortion with mitigating circumstance or prater intentionem

ERROR IN PERSONAE and ABERRATIO ICTUS – X treacherously shot and killed A, who
was mistaken by the former as his wife. B, who was hit by mistake of blow, suffered slight
physical injuries. X is liable for murder for the killing of A because of error in personae rule and
slight physical injuries for the wounding of B because of the aberration ictus. This is not a
compound crime because slight physical injuries being a light felony cannot be made a
component thereof. But if B was hit in his left eye causing blindness, the crime committed is a
compound crome of murder and serious physical injuries. (2015 BAR)

 Proximate Cause
- Cause which, in its natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient intervening cause,
produces the injury and without which the result would not have occurred.
 - Ex: If the victim died due to tetanus of which he was infected at the precise moment when the accused
inflicted injuries upon him or immediately thereafter, the crime committed is homicide. The infliction of
injuries is the proximate cause of his death.

- Ex: X and Y had a heated altercation and then exchanged blows. X pulled out a knife and stabbed Y in
the abdomen. Y ran away but before he could reachi his house, he was struck by lightning and died. X
should not be held liable for homicide since the lightning is an efficient and intervening cause that broke
the relation between the felonious act and death. However, X is liable for physical injuries for the stab
wounds.

 Impossible Crime
- An act which would have been an offense against person or property, were it not for the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
The offender shall incur criminal liability for committing an impossible crime because of his criminal
tendency
- Impossible crime is not a real crime since the accused did not commit the crime against the person or
property for it is impossible to do so.
- Ex: if the accused abducted a gay, who underwent gender reassignment, had sexual
intercourse with him, and killed him in the course of detention, the crime committed is
kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide. Having sexual intercourse with a gay
merely constitutes acts of lasciviousness, which is integrated into the special complex crime of
kidnapping with homicide

-Ex: Adultery is committed by any married woman who shall have sexual intercourse with a man not her
husband and by the man who has carnal knowledge of her knowing her to be married. (Article 333 of the RPC).
However, one, who pretended to be a woman in marrying
the complainant, cannot commit adultery since he is not a married woman. Neither is his
sexual partner liable for adultery since this crime committed by the man presupposes that
woman of whom he had carnal knowledge is also liable for adultery. This crime cannot
unilaterally be committed by the man. There is no impossible crime of adultery since this is a
crime against chastity, and not against person or property.

- Ex: Stabbing a dead person with intent to kill is an impossible crime. The accused shall incur criminal
liability for performing an act which would have been homicide/ murder were it not for the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment.

- Ex: Stabbing a dead person with knowledge of his dead condition is not impossible crime since it was
not committed with evil intent. The act does not show criminal tendency, which is the basis of impossible
crime.

Ex: If the check is unfunded, stealing the check of the employer by an employee and presenting the
same for payment with the bank constitute impossible crime. Te act of depositing the check is committed with
evil intent (Jacinto v pp)

Ex: If the check is funded, stealing the check and failure to present the same for payment with the bank
will not make the accused liable for impossible crime. Even if the accused failed to encash the same due to
external cause such as apprehension by police or stop payment, he will be held liable for consummated theft
(pp v Seranilla)

- If the crime is not committed, the accused may be held liable for frustrated felony or Simpossible
crime, and not for frustrated impossible crime

3. Art6-: 3 stages of Felony: Consummated, Frustrated and Attempted Felonies - are punishable
 Consummated- all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present
 All acts of execution are present
 Ex: Flight to enemy’s country (art121) is always consummated
 Slander (Art358) and slander by deed (Art359) are formal crimes and therefore no attempted and
frustrated stage
 Crime of false testimonies (art 180 and 184)
 Frustrated- 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
 crime was not committed for reasons independent of his will
 No frustrated rape, arson, theft, robbery, bribery, corruption of public officials - these crimes can only
be committed in the Attempted and Consummated stages

 Attempted- Offender commences but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator
 Offender commences the felony by overt-act, and does not perform all the acts of execution which
would produce the felony by reason of some cause or incident other than his own spontaneous
desistance
 Still in the subjective stage bcus he has not performed all acts necessary for its accomplishments.
Therefore, he still has control as he may or may not continue his overt acts.

Distinction between Attempted and Frustrated Felonies

Attempted Frustrated
As to Execution  Not all acts of execution had  All acts of execution had been done
been done
As to cause of non-  Cause of Accident other than  Cause independent of the will of the
accomplishment offender’s own spontaneous perpetrator
desistance
 Offender is still in the  Offender is already in the objective
subjective phase as he still has phase
control of his acts
 Ex: in attempted homicide, the  Ex: Frustrated Homocide, the wound is
wound is not mortal, hence the mortal, sufficient to bring about death
offender should still need to hence, there is no need another blow
deal another blow on the victim, but death nevertheless did not
which he was not able to do supervene because timely medical
because he was apprehended. attendance.
He is therefore still in the
subjective stage

- Note: No Frustrated theft bcus unlawful taking is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains
possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose the same (Valenzuela vs Pp)

 Re: Preparatory Act:

- GR: the intent of the person in committing preparatory acts remain unclear. Hence, preparatory acts such
as buying poison, conspiring and going to the place where the
crime agreed upon will be committed are not constitutive of attempted felony because intent
to kill is not clear.
- Ex: preparatory acts are punishable if the law prescribes a penalty for
its commission such as proposal or conspiracy to commit rebellion, or possession of picklock. If
the preparatory acts constitute a felony, commiting it is a consummated crime

Ex: If conpirators while on their way to the house of the complainant for the purpose of killing him were
arrested by policemen on the basis of information of one who heard the conspiracy, they are not criminally
liable for conspiracy to commit murder since the RPC has not prescribed a penalty for it. Neither are they
liable for murder at the attempted state since going to the place where they intended to commit a crime are
preparatory act.

In Pp v Lamahang, accused who was caught in the act of making an opening with an iron bar on the wall of
a store, was held guilty of attempted trespassing and not attempted robbery. The act of making an opening
on the wall of the store is an overt act of trespassing since it reveals an evident intention to enter by means
of force.

-Note: GR: Stages of Felony applies only to crimes defined and penalized by RPC
Ex: Violation of RA 9165 and RA 7610, among others
4. Art7- When Light Felonies are Punishable (Arresto menor)
- Only when they have been consummated; and
- Committed against persons or property (Light felonies are punishable even if they are attempted or
frustrated)
- Who are punishable: Principals and Accomplices (Accessories are not criminally liable)

- Why is Attempted and frustrated light felony is not punishable? and why is an Accessory in consummated
and frustrated light felony is not punishable? - bcus the deduction in penalty is 1 degree for frustrated, 2
degrees for attempted stage and another 2 degrees for accessory offender. Since the penalty for light felony
is Arresto Menor, there is no way of further reducing the penalty.

5. Art 8: CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT FELONY

- punishable only if the law specifically provides a penalty.

- Conspiracy exist when 2 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 persons

- Proposal or Conspiracy to commit is punishable in:

1. Art 115
2. Art 136
3. Art 141
4. Conspiracy to commit arson (Sec 7 of PD 1613)
5. Conspiracy to commit crime involving trafficking of dangerous drugs (sec 26 of RA 9165)
6. Conspiracy to commit terrorism (Sec 4 of RA9372)
7. Conspiracy to commit child pornography ( Sec4 of RA 9775)
8. Conspiracy to commit money laundering (Sec 4, RA 9160)

- Note than conspiracy does not constitute a crime if the law has not specifically provided a penalty
thereof. However, eventho conspiracy is not a crime, but if the conspirators committed the crime agreed upon,
conspiracy shall be considered as a means or manner in incurring criminal liability. The legal effect once an
express or implied conspiracy is proved is that all conspirators are liable as co- principals regardless of the
extent and character of their respective active participation in the commission of the crime that they agreed to
commit. (Collective responsibility)

-However, to make a conspirator collectively responsible, it must also be established that he performed
an act in furtherance of conspiracy. A conspirator who did not perform an act in furtherance of conspiracy to
kidnap the victim for ransom is not liable for conspiracy to commit kidnapping for ransom since there is no law
prescribing a penalty for it. Neither is he liable for kidnapping on the basis of collective responsibility rule
because he did not perform an act in furtherance of conspiracy.

- If a conspirator failed to perform an act in furtherance of conspiracy bcus he was apprehended prior to
the killing of the victim by his co- conspirators, the former is not liable for killing since he did not perform an
act in furtherance of conspiracy

- One who plans the commission of a crime (mastermind) is liable as conspirator and principal by
inducement

- To Exempt from criminal liability, a conspirator must have performed an over act to dissociate/ detach
himself from conspiracy.
 Example:
 A induced B to kill the victim. But A tried to stop the killing by calling the police before the actual
execution of the crime. A is not liable bcus he detached himself from the conspiracy to commit
murder
 Conspirator left the scene of the crime while its commission is in progress and reported the
incident to the police authorities, he is not criminally liable bcus he detached himself from the
conspiracy.
 - But a conspirator who left the scene of the crime while commission of robbery with homicide is in
progress without reporting the incident to the police, he is not exempt from criminal liability.

NOTES:
 Only a man can commit rape thru carnal knowledge against a woman. But if there is conspiracy, the act
of a man in committing the rape is imputable to a woman altho the latter was not similarly situated (Pp v
Dela Torre 2004)
 Only an accountable public officer can commit malversation. Hence, a private person can not commit the
crime of malversation. But if there is conspiracy, the act of an accountable officer in committing
malversation is imputable to non- accountable officer/ private individual, altho the latter is not similarly
situated.

 Committing other crimes during conspiracy

Committing Homicide or Rape in the course of Robbery: whenever homicide has been committed by reason or
on occassion of robbery, all those who took part as principal in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals
of robbery with homicide altho they did not take part in the homicide, UNLESS it appears that they sought to
prevent the killing

ART 9: GRAVE, LESS GRAVE and LIGHT FELONIES

 GRAVE FELONIES
- Penalized by capital punishment or afflictive penalties in any of its period (min. medium. or maximum
period. Afflictive penalties cover: prision mayor, disqualification, reclusion temporal and reclusion
perpetua)

 LESS GRAVE FELONIES

- Punished with penalties which in their maximum period are correctional , thus maximum period must be
destierro, suspension, arresto mayor and prision correctional

 LIGHT FELONIES
- Punishable by Arresto menor or Fine

ART10: OFFENSES NOT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISION OF RPC

- GR: Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under SPL are not subject of RPC. EX:
RPC shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specifically provide the contrary

- SPL defined and penalized crimes not included in the Code. They are different.
- Difference between mala in se and mala prohibita is important.
- In acts mala prohibita, the only question is, has the law been violated? when an act is illegal, the intent
of the offender is immaterial (Dunlao v CA)
-GR: Special laws are not subject to the provision of RPC. The circumstances affecting criminal liability
(Art11- 15) are not applicable to violations of special laws
-Ex: Suppletary application of RPC whenever SPL uses the nomenclature of penalties

- Effects when SPL use the nomenclature of the penalties in the RPC:
1. System of penalties under RPC shall apply
2. The rules under the code shall be followed in the imposition of penalties under ISLAW

- Can special law use the nomenclature of penalties provided under the RPC?- Yes. SC in Sanchez vs Pp
stressed that altho RA7610 is a special law, the ruled in the RPC for graduating the penalties by degrees or
determining the proper period should be applied. The penalty for Other Acts of Child Abuse is prision
mayor in its minimum period. This penalty is derived from
and defined in the Revised Penal Code.

CIRCUMSTANCES AFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY: JEMAA

A. Art 11- Justifying Circumstance
B. Art 12- Exempting Circumstance
C. Art 13 and 15- Mitigating Circumstance
D. Art 14 and 15- Aggravating Circumstance
E. Absolutory Causes- exempting circumstances outside Art 12
F. Extenuating - Mitigating circumstances not found in Art 13 such as: Concealment of dishonour in abortion
and abandonment of wife by the husband in adultery
Absolutory Circumstances
1. Instigation due to public policy
2. Spontaneous desistance in the attempted stage unless the overt act committed constitute another crim (Art
6(3)
3. Attempted/ frustrated light felonies except those against person or property Art7
4. Accessory in light felonies Art 16
5. Accessories- relatives other than profiting in the crime Art 20
6. Injuries except serious physical injuries Art 20
7. Mistake of fact due to lack of intent