Criminal Law Notes

Principle of Territoriality the Philippine has jurisdiction over crimes committed inside its
territory except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application.

Principle of Extraterritoriality the provisions of the RPC shall be enforced outside the
Philippine territory as provided in Article 2, pars 1-5 of the RPC. Criminal laws shall be enforced
outside the jurisdiction of Philippines against persons who should forge, or counterfeit Philippine
coin or currency note (money) or obligations and securities (e.g., Treasury Bills) or who should
import forged currency note or securities and obligations into the Philippines.

 Flag State Rule

 Protective Principle, State has jurisdiction over acts committed abroad by nationals or
foreigners, which are prejudicial to its national security or vital interest.

 Function Related Crime

The following can be prosecuted in the Philippines:
(1) falsification of public document by a consul of the Philippines stationed in a foreign
country in connection with his function of issuing visa allowing a foreign applicant to
the Philippine soil is within the jurisdiction of the Philippines; and
(2) plunder committed at his place of assignment abroad by a Philippine public officer.

 Universality Principle, the court has jurisdiction over privacy committed on high seas
for being a universal crime; but it has no jurisdiction over murder qualified by the
circumstance of taking advantage of the calamity brought about by piracy on the high
seas.

3 Crimes against the law of nation under the RPC: piracy, qualified piracy and mutiny.

Jurisdiction over piracy unlike all other crimes has no territorial limits. As it is a crime
against all, so it may be punished by all. Nor does it matter that the crime was committed
within the territorial waters of a foreign state.

Prospectivity Principle criminal law merely punishes crimes committed on or after its
effectivity. Under Article 2 of the RPC, no felony shall be punishable by any penalty prescribed
by law prior to its commission. If a criminal law is favorable to the accused, it must a retroactive
effect

Bill of Attainder is a legislation that inflicts punishment on an individual without a judicial trial.
In a passing a bill of attainder, legislature in effect exercises judicial power in disregard of the
doctrine of separation of power.
Ex Post Facto Law is a law which retroactively affects that right or condition of an accused who
committed a crime prior to its effectivity.
Impossible Crime is 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. The law punishes the accused not because of
the commission of the crime but based on his tendency to do so.

Requisites of an Impossible Crime:

(1) Offender performed an act which would have been an offense against person or property;
(2) Offender performed an act with evil intent;
(3) Offender did not commit the offense because of the impossibility of its accomplishment
or employment of inadequate or ineffectual means; and
(4) Offender in performing an act is not violating another provision of the law

Impossible Crime vs Attempted Felony vs Frustrated Felony

 IC-external cause if the impossibility of accomplishing the crime or employment of
ineffectual means
 Attempted Felony-some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance
 Frustrated Felony- causes independent of the will of the perpetrator

 There is conspiracy when two or more persons participated in the commission of a crime
although absent any agreement to that effect, such as when they acted in concert,
demonstrating unity of criminal intent and a common purpose or objective. The existence
of conspiracy can be inferred or deduced from their criminal participation in pursuing the
crime and thus the act of one shall be deemed the act of all.

In the given case, the acts of the offender are coordinated and synchronized in a way
indicative that they are pursuing a common criminal objective and intent. Thus,
conspiracy exists. (Answer to BLD question -Dino and Raffy page 14)

 The rule is when a person, by a felonious act, generates in the mind of another a sense of
imminent danger, promoting the latter to escape from or avoid such danger and in the
process, sustains injuries or dies, the person committing the felonious act is responsible
for such injuries or death.

 Under Art 4, any person committing a felony shall incur liability although the wrongful
act done be different from that which he intended.
 If a person against whom a criminal assault is directed believes himself to be in danger of
death or great bodily harm, and in order to escape jumps into the water, impelled by the
instinct of self-preservation, the assailant is responsible for the homicide in case death
results by drowning.

 No, Vicente cannot be charged of homicide for the death of Anacleto, because the
hacking was not the proximate cause of the death of the latter.

Proximate cause has been defined as that cause, which in the natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the
injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.

In the given case, there had been an interval of 25 days between the date of hacking and
the date when Anacleto was rushed to the hospital because of symptoms of tetanus. The
incubation period of severe tetanus is less than 14 days. Thus, the victim could not have
been infected at the time of the hacking since the incident occurred 25 days before he was
rushed to the hospital. The infection of the victim’s wound by tetanus was an efficient
intervening cause because such infection is foreign from the hacking.

Hence, Vicente cannot be charged of homicide. (Answer to BLD Q page 20 Vicente vs

Anacleto)

 Any person performing a felonious act is criminally liable for the direct, natural and
logical consequence thereof although different from what he intended.

 B is liable for parricide because his act of hitting his wife.

Any person performing a felonious act is criminally liable for the direct, natural and
logical consequence thereof although different from what he intended. Moreover,
even if the victim is suffering from an internal ailment, liver or heart disease or
tuberculosis, if the blow delivered by the accused is the efficient cause of death or
has accelerated his death or is the proximate cause of death, then he is criminally
liable for the death of the victim.

In the given case, although A died of heart attack, the said attack was generated by the
felonious act of hitting her by B with his fist. Such felonious act was the immediate cause
of the heart attack, having materially contributed to and accelerated the death of A.
Hence, B is liable of parricide. (Answer to BLD Q page 20 A vs B)
  Senio committed the crime of attempted arson.

A felony is at the attempted stage when the offender commences the commission of a
felony with 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.

In the given case, Senio has manifested his intention to burn the house of Bal and
commences the commission of the felony with overt acts by pouring gasoline around the
walls of the house ,but because of he was caught up by the police, he was not able to
perform all the acts of execution which would produce the felony.

Thus, Senio is liable for the crime of attempted arson.

 X is not liable for frustrated parricide.

A felony is at the frustrated stage when the offender performs all the acts of
execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless,
do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.

In the given case, although X already performed all the acts of execution to kill his wife,
by giving her food with poison, his wife however did not die due to the medicine
administered by him because his conscience bothered him. Thus, the felony was not
produced due to the voluntary act of X of helping his wife. Hence, he is not liable for
frustrated parricide.

RECIDVISM, QUASI RECIVIDISM, REITERACION, HABITUAL DELIQUENCY

 A Recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall been previously
convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the RPC.
- Generic aggravating and therefore can be offset by ordinary mitigating
circumstance.
 There is Reiteracion when the offender has been previously punished for an offense to
which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty for two or more crimes to which it
attaches a lighter penalty.
- In appreciating reiteracion, what is controlling is the penalty prescribed by law for the
previous and present crimes and not the penalty actually imposed by the court after
trial.

 Quasi-Recividism- 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 considered as a quasi-recidivist. Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating
circumstance and cannot be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance.
 A person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent, if within a period of 10 years from
the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious physical injuries,
robbery, homicide, estafa and falsification, he is found guilty of any of the said crimes
a third time or oftener.

QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE

 A qualifying circumstance would be deemed an element of a crime when:

1. It changes the nature of the crime, bringing about a more serious crime and a heavier
penalty;
2. It is essential to the crime involved, otherwise some other crime is committed, and
3. It is specifically alleged in the information and proven during the trial.

 Any qualifying circumstances of murder cannot be inferred but must be proved

satisfactorily and conclusively as the act itself.
 Cruelty requires deliberate prolongation of the suffering of the victim. The number of
wounds in itself does not show cruelty as it is essential to prove that the wounds were
inflicted unnecessarily while the victim was alive to prolong his physical suffering. In
cruelty, the wrongful done in the commission of the crime is deliberately augmented by
causing other wrongs not necessary in the commission of the crime.
 Generic vs Qualifying
- A generic aggravating circumstance can be offset by an ordinary mitigating
circumstance which is not so in a qualifying circumstance.
- A qualifying circumstance cannot be proved unless alleged in the information
whereas a generic aggravating circumstance may be proved even though not alleged.
- A generic aggravating not offset has the effect of increasing the penalty to the
maximum but not beyond that provided by law. A qualifying circumstance changes
not only the nature but also the name of the crime and the offender becomes liable for
the new offense which is more serious in nature.

PRINCIPAL, ACCOMPLICE, ACCESSORIES

 Accomplice vs Conspirators
- As to participation: an accomplice incurs liability by merely cooperating in the
execution of the crime by prior or simultaneous acts, without participating as a
principal, whereas a conspirator participates in the commission of crime as a co-
principal.

- As to the requisites/elements to be established by the prosecution: an accomplice

incurs liability in an individual capacity by his act alone of cooperating in the
execution of the crime, while the conspirator incurs criminal liability not only for his
individual acts in the execution of the crime but also for the acts of the other
 participants in the commission of the crime collectively. The acts of the other
participants in the execution of the crime are considered also as acts of a conspirators
for purposes of collective criminal responsibility.
- As to knowledge of criminal design-an accomplice participates in the execution of a
crime when the criminal design or plan is already in place, whereas a conspirator
participates in the adoption or making of the criminal design.

- As to penalty imposed: An accomplice is subjected a penalty one degree lower than

that of a principal, whereas a conspirator incurs the penalty of a principal.

 Accomplices are those persons who, not being a principal, cooperate in the execution of
the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.
- An accomplice must be aware of the criminal design of the principal and must
performed acts, whether previous or simultaneous, showing his approval or
concurrence to said criminal design.
 The penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such
with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural and adopted
brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees, with the single
exemption of accessories falling within the provisions of par 1 of the next preceding
article.
- The exemption from criminal liability of an accessory by virtue of relationship with
the principal does not cover accessories who themselves profited from or assisted the
offender to profit by the effects or proceeds of the crime.

FENCING

 Fencing is committed when a person, with intent to gain for himself or for another, deals
in any manner with an article which he knows or should be known to him to have been
derived from the proceeds of theft or robbery. Thus, for a charged of fencing to prosper,
it must first be established that a theft or robbery of the article subject of the fencing has
been committed.
- Mere possession of any article of value which has been the subject of theft or robbery
shall be prima facie evidence of fencing. The burden is upon the accused to prove that
she acquired the jewelry legitimately.

 Elements of Fencing:
- A robbery or theft has been committed.
- The accused, who took no part in the robbery or theft, “buys, receives, possesses,
keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes or buys and sells, or in any manner deals
in any article or object taken during that robbery or theft.
- The accused knows or should have known that the thing was derived from the crime,
and
- By the deal he makes he intends to gain for himself or for another.