I. Revised Penal Code (RPC) and related Special Laws Article 1. Time when Act takes effect.
hen Act takes effect. — This Code shall take
A. BOOK 1 (ARTICLES 1-99,RPC)
1. Fundamental Principles
1. Fundamental principles
MAGNO ENTERED INTO A BUSINESS AGREEMENT WITH
VP TENG OF MANCOR INDUSTRIES (TO SUPPPLY
EQUIPMENT) AND VP GOMEZ OF LF FINANCE (TO
BORROW SOME FUND). UNKNOWINGLY TENG IS THE
ONE WHO LEND HIM THE BOUNCING CHECKS.
UNAVAILABLE TO PAY HIS DEBTS, HE PULLED OUT THE
EQUIPMENT. MRS. TENG ON THE OTHER HAND TO
FILED WITH THE RTC VIOLATION BP BLG.22 OF THE
BOUNCING CHECKS LAW. RTC AND COA FIND ACCUSED
GUILTY WHILE THE SC REVERSED AND ACQUITTED
THE ACCUSED.
HELD: Under the utilitarian theory, the "protective theory" in
criminal law, "affirms that the primary function of punishment is the
protective (sic) of society against actual and potential wrongdoers."
.The application of the theory that "criminal law is founded upon that
moral disapprobation . . . of actions which are immoral, i.e., which
are detrimental (or dangerous) to those conditions upon which
depend the existence and progress of human society. This
disapprobation is inevitable to the extent that morality is generally
founded and built upon a certain concurrence in the moral opinions
of all . . . That which we call punishment is only an external means
of emphasizing moral disapprobation: the method of punishment is
in reality the amount of punishment." (Magno v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 96132, June 26, 1992)
effect on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and
thirty-two
Two theories in Criminal Law -RPC continues like the old Penal
Code, to be based on the principles of the Old or classical school.
Characteristics of the classical theory
1.The basis of criminal liability is human free will and the purpose
of the penalty is retribution.
2. That man is essentially a moral creature with an absolutely free
will to choose between good and evil, thereby placing more stress
upon the effect or result of the felonious act than upon the man, the
criminal himself.
3. It has endeavored to establish a mechanical and direct proportion
between crime and penalty.
4. There is a scant regard to the human element. (Basic Principles,
Rationale, p. 2, by the Code Commission on Code of Crimes.
Characteristics of the positivist theory
1. That man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid
phenomenon which constrains him to do wrong, in spite of or
contrary to his volition.
2. That crime is essentially a social and natural phenomenon; each
case is different
a) Definition of Criminal Law
Criminal law is that branch or division of law which defines crimes,
treats of their nature, and provides for their punishment. (12 Cyc.
129)
Sources of Philippine Criminal Law.
1. The Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) and its amendments.
2. Special Penal Laws passed by the Philippine Commission,
Philippine Assembly, Philippine Legislature, National Assembly, the
Congress of the Philippines, and the Batasang Pambansa.
3. Penal Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law.
(i) Mala in Se and Mala Prohibita
Senatorial candidate Aquilino Pimentel Jr. filed before the RTC
Alaminos charging Election Officer Arsenia B. Garcia, Municipal
Treasurer Herminio R. Romero, Public School District Supervisor
Renato R. Viray, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and Member-Secretary,
respectively, of the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Alaminos,
Pangasinan, tabulators Rachel Palisoc and Francisca de Vera with
violation of Sec 27 RA 6646 by conspiring to decrease the votes
received by him from 6998 to 1921 votes (difference 5034).
The RTC acquitted all the accused, for lack of evidence, except for
Garcia. Garcia was sentenced six months to six years imprisonment,
without probation, disqualified to hold public office, and be deprived
of her right to suffrage/vote. Her bail posting was also cancelled.
Garcia appealed and filed a motion for reconsideration before the
Court of Appeals (CA) but was denied. The CA affirmed the
decision of the RTC but increased the minimum penalty from six
months to one year.
Garcia filed before the Supreme Court (SC) contending that the
judgment of the CA was based on speculations not evidence and that
she has no motive to reduce the votes (good faith).
The CA argued that good faith or lack of criminal intent is not a
defense under the violation of an election law, which falls under the
class of Mala Prohibita.
The acts prohibited in Section 27(b) are Mala In Se because even the
errors and mistakes committed due to overwork and fatigue would be
punishable. It could not be the intent of the law to punish
unintentional election canvass errors but intentionally increasing or
decreasing the number of votes received by a candidate is inherently
immoral, since it is done with malice and intent to injure another.
(Garcia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 157171, March 14, 2006)
Revised Penal Code.
MALA IN SE- Acts complained of are inherently immoral, they
are punished by a special law.[8] Accordingly, criminal intent
must be clearly established with the other elements of the crime;
otherwise, no crime is committed.
- wrongful from their nature, such as theft, rape, homicide,
etc.,
- Crimes mala in se are those so serious in their effects on
society as to call for almost unanimous condemnation of
its members
- Intent govern
MALA PROHIBITA- the criminal acts are not inherently
immoral but become punishable only because the law says they
are forbidden. With these crimes, the sole issue is whether the law
has been violated.[9] Criminal intent is not necessary where the acts
are prohibited for reasons of public policy.[10]
- by statute, such as illegal possession of firearms
- violations of mere rules of convenience designed to secure a
more orderly regulation of the affairs of society. (Bouvier's
Law Dictionary, Rawle's 3rd Revision)
- has the law violated
(ii) Construction of penal laws
1. Penal laws are strictly construed against the Government and
liberally in favor of the accused. (U.S. vs. Abad Santos, 36 Phil.
243; People vs. Yu Hai, 99 Phil. 728)
(The rule that penal statutes should be strictly construed against the
State may be invoked only where the law is ambiguous and there is
doubt as to its interpretation. Where the law is clear and
unambiguous, there is no room for the application of the rule.
(People vs. Gatchalian, 104 Phil. 664)
2. In the construction or interpretation of the provisions of the
Revised Penal Code, the Spanish text is controlling, because it
was approved by the Philippine Legislature in its Spanish text.
(People vs. Manaba, 58 Phil. 665, 66.)
b) Scope of application and characteristics of Philippine criminal
law
(i) Generality
-in that criminal law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in
Philippine territory. (Art. 14, new Civil Code)
Exceptions to the general application of Criminal Law.
The opening sentence of Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code says
that the provisions of this Code shall be enforced within the
Philippine Archipelago, "except as provided in the treaties and
laws of preferential application."
Article 14 of the new Civil Code provides that penal laws and those
of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or
sojourn in Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public
international law and to treaty stipulations.
EXAMPLE : The Bases Agreement entered into by and between the
Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America on
March 14, 1947 .
Persons exempt from the operation of our criminal laws by
virtue of the principles of public international law.
The following are not subject to the operation of our criminal laws:
(1) Sovereigns and other chiefs of state.
(2) Ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, ministers resident, and
charges d'affaires
A consul is not entitled to the privileges and immunities of an
ambassador or minister
ii) Territoriality
- Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the provisions
of said code shall be enforced within the Philippine Archipelago,
including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone.
Exceptions to the territorial application of criminal law.
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the
Philippines or obligations and securities issued by the Government of
the Philippines;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into the
Philippines of the obligations and securities mentioned in the
preceding number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an
offense in the exercise of their functions; or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the
law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of the Revised
Penal Code.
(iii) Prospectivity
Penal law cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which it was
not punishable when committed.
Exceptions to the prospective application of criminal laws.
Whenever a new statute dealing with crime establishes conditions
more lenient or favorable to the accused, it can be given a retroactive
effect.
But this exception has no application:
1. Where the new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending
actions or existing causes of action. (Tavera vs. Valdez, 1 Phil. 463,
470-471)
2. Where the offender is a habitual criminal under Rule 5,
Article 62, Revised Penal Code. (Art. 22, RPC)
(a) Effects of repeal/amendment of penal law
1. If the repeal makes the penalty lighter in the new law, the new
law shall be applied, except when the offender is a habitual
delinquent or when the new law is made not applicable to pending
action or existing causes of action.
2. If the new law imposes a heavier penalty, the law in force at the
time of the commission of the offense shall be applied.
3. If 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.
c) Constitutional limitations on the power of Congress to enact
penal laws
The Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution imposes the following
limitations:
1. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. (Art. Ill,
Sec. 22)
2. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without
due process of law. (Art. Ill, Sec. 14[1])
(i) Equal protection
- Constitution prohibits any state from denying to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
(ii) Due process
2. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without
due process of law. (Art. Ill, Sec. 14[1])
(iii) Non-imposition of cruel and unusual punishment or
excessive fines
6. Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or
inhuman punishment inflicted. (Sec. 19[1]) (Statutory Rights of the
Accused )
(a) Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the
Philippines (R.A. No. 9346)
SECTION 1. The imposition of the penalty of death is hereby
prohibited. Accordingly, Republic Act No. Eight Thousand One
Hundred Seventy-Seven (R.A. No. 8177), otherwise known as the
Act Designating Death by Lethal Injection is hereby repealed,
Republic Act No. Seven Thousand Six Hundred Fifty-Nine (R.A.
No. 7659), otherwise known as the Death Penalty Law, and all other
laws, executive orders and decrees, insofar as they impose the death
penalty are hereby repealed or amended accordingly.
SEC. 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed:
(a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes
use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code;
or
(b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not
make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal
Code.
SEC. 3. Persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion
perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua,
by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No.
4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as
amended.
(iv) Bill of attainder
A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment
without trial. Its essence is the substitution of a legislative act for a
judicial determination of guilt. (People vs. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382,
395)
CANNOT ENACT LAWS THAT PUNISH PEOPLE
WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.
(v) Ex post facto law
An ex post facto law is one which:
(1) makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and
which was innocent when done, and punishes such an act;
(2) aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when
committed;
(3) changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than
the law annexed to the crime when committed;
(4) 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;
(5) assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect
imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when
done was lawful; and
(6) deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection to
which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a former
conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty. (In re: Kay
Villegas Kami, Inc., 35 SCRA 429, 431)
ARTICLE 2. Application of its provisions. — Except as provided
in the treaties and laws of preferential application, the provisions of
this Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine
Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and
maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:
IMPORTANT WORDS AND PHRASES
1. "Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential
application."
- the RP-US Visiting Forces Accord, the Military Bases Agreement
between the Republic
2. "its atmosphere."
penal laws extend to all the air space which covers its territory,
3. "interior waters."
interior waters" includes creeks, rivers, lakes and bays, gulfs,
straits, coves, inlets and roadsteads lying wholly within the
three-mile limit.
4. "maritime zone."
States by means of treaties have fixed its length to three miles
from the coastline, starting from the low water mark.
The provisions of the Revised Penal Code shall be enforced not only
within the Philippine Archipelago, but also outside of its jurisdiction
in certain cases.
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or
airship;
The Philippine vessel, although beyond three miles from the
seashore, is considered part of the national territory.
A Philippine vessel or aircraft must be understood as that which is
registered in the Philippine Bureau of Customs.
Thus, any person who committed a crime on board a Philippine ship
or airship while the same is outside of the Philippine territory can be
tried before our civil courts for violation of the Penal Code.
But when the Philippine vessel or aircraft is in the territory of a
foreign country, the crime committed on said vessel or aircraft is
subject to the laws of that foreign country.
EXAMPLE: if a crime is committed ten miles from the shores of the
Philippines on board a vessel belonging to a Filipino, but the same is
not registered or licensed in accordance with the laws of the
Philippines, paragraph No. 1 of Art. 2 is not applicable.
The Philippine court has no jurisdiction over the crime of theft
committed on the high seas on board a vessel not registered or
licensed in the Philippines. (U.S. vs. Fowler, 1 Phil. 614)
I. RPC AND SHIP
Crimes committed on board foreign merchant ship or airship.
-an offense commited on the high seas on board a foreign
merchant vessel is not triable by our courts. (U.S. vs. Fowler, 1 Phil.
614)
Continuing offense on board a foreign vessel.
-The offense of failing to provide suitable means for securing
animals while transporting them on a (foreign) ship from a foreign
port to a port of the Philippines is within the jurisdiction of the courts
of the Philippines
Offense committed on board a foreign merchant vessel while on
Philippine waters is triable before our court.
- Since the Philippine territory extends to three miles
from the headlands, when a foreign merchant vessel enters this
three-mile limit, the ship's officers and crew become subject to the
jurisdiction of our courts.
II. Rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard foreign
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.
English Rule. — Such crimes are triable in that country, unless
they merely affect things within the vessel or they refer to the
internal management thereof. PHILIPPINES OBSERVED THIS
RULE.
III. Crimes not involving a breach of public order committed on
board a foreign merchant vessel in transit not triable by our
courts.
Smoking opium constitutes a breach of public order. courts
acquire jurisdiction when the tins of opium are landed from the
vessel on Philippine soil. Landing or using opium is an open
violation of the laws of the Philippines. (U.S. vs. Look Chaw, 18
Phil. 573, 577-578)
Philippine courts have jurisdiction over crimes constituting a breach
of public order aboard merchant vessels anchored in Philippine
jurisdictional waters. (People vs. Wong Cheng, 46 Phil. 729, 733)
Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over offenses committed
on board foreign warships in territorial waters
II. Extra-territorial application of Republic Act No. 9372 -
Human Security Act of 2007"
Has subject to the provision of an existing treaty of which the
Philippines is a signatory and to any contrary provision of any law of
preferential application,
the provisions of the Act shall apply
● persons who commit any of the crimes within the Philippine
territory
 ● persons involved in a crime within the territory despite being
physically outside the territory.
● persons commit any of the said crimes on board Philippine
ship or airship;
● persons who commit any of said crimes within any
embassies, consulate or diplomatic premises belonging to or
occupied by the Philippine government in an official
capacity;
● persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits
of the Philippines, commit said crimes against Philippine
citizens or persons of Philippine descent, where their
citizenship or ethnicity was a factor in the commission of the
crime; and
● persons commit said directly against the Philippine
government.
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the
Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the
Government of the Philippine Islands;
Thus, any person who makes false or counterfeit coins (Art. 163) or
forges treasury or bank notes or other obligations and securities (Art.
166) in a foreign country may be prosecuted before our civil courts
for violation of Art. 163 or Art. 166 of the Revised Penal Code.
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into
these Islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the
preceding number;
The reason for this dangerous to the economical interest of the
country.
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an
offense in the exercise of their functions; or
bribery (Art. 210), indirect bribery (Art. 211), frauds against the
public treasury (Art. 213), possession of prohibited interest (Art.
216), malversation of public funds or property (Art. 217), failure of
accountable officer to render accounts (Art. 218), illegal use of
public funds or property (Art. 220),
When any of these felonies is committed abroad by any of our
public officers or employees while in the exercise of his functions,
he can be prosecuted here.
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and
the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.
treason (Art. 114), conspiracy and proposal to commit treason (Art.
115), espionage (Art. 117), inciting to war and giving motives for
reprisals (Art. 118), violation of neutrality (Art. 119), correspondence
with hostile country (Art. 120), flight to enemy's country (Art. 121),
and piracy and mutiny on the high seas. (Art. 122)
2. Felonies
Art. 3. Definition. — Acts and omissions punishable by law are
felonies (delitos).
Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also
by means of fault (culpa).
There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent; and
there is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence,
negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
I. Elements of felonies.
The elements of felonies in general are:
1. That there must be an act or omission.
2. That the act or omission must be punishable by the Revised Penal
Code.
3. That the act is performed or the omission incurred by means of
dolo or culpa.
II. FIRST REQUISITE: THERE MUST BE AN ACT OR
OMISSION
A. IMPORTANT WORDS AND PHRASES
Felonies are acts and omissions punishable by the Revised Penal
Code.
"act”
- Any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the
external world,
EXAMPLE : A took the watch of B with intent to gain and without
the consent of the latter. The act of taking the watch of B, with intent
to gain, constitutes the crime of theft.
-Must be defined as a felony in the Revised Penal Code
● At least an overt act à an act which has direct connection
with the felony to be committed.
Omission
It will be noted that 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 perform it.
Failure to perform a positive duty that one is bound to do
● There must be a law requiring the doing or performance of
an act
Examples
● Article 275, par. 1 à Abandonment of persons in danger.
● Article 213, par. 2[b] à Failure to issue receipts
● Article 116 à Misprision of Treason..
B. Are Internal Acts Covered By The Revised Penal Code?
No because they are beyond the sphere of penal law. Thinking of
committing a felony does not constitute a felony unless you act on it.
Thus, only external act is punished.
III. SECOND REQUISITE : Said Act Or Omission Must Be
Punishable By Revised Penal Code
● "Punishable by law."
⮚ "nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege," that is, there is
no crime where there is no law punishing it.
Case: People v. Silvestre and Atienza
⮚ Atienza threatens to burn down a house; Silvestre is
standing right beside him.
⮚ Silvestre does nothing as Atienza commits the crime.
⮚ Court ruled that Silvestre is not criminally liable
because mere passive presence at the scene of
another’s crime, mere silence, and a failure to give
the alarm, without evidence of agreement or
conspiracy is not punishable.
IV. THIRD REQUISITE : SAID ACT OR OMISSION
PERFORMED BY MEANS OF DECIT OR FAULT
a) Classifications of felonies: INTENTIONAL v. CULPABLE
(1) intentional felonies, and
intentional felonies, the act or omission of the offender is
malicious. In the language of Art. 3, the act is performed with
deliberate intent (with malice). The offender, in performing the act or
in incurring the omission, has the intention to cause an injury to
another.
Intentional Felonies
● Act is performed with deliberate intent (malice).
 ● Offender has the intention to cause an injury to the person,
property or right of another.
● Crimes which cannot be committed through
imprudence or negligence such as murder, treason,
robbery, and malicious mischief.
● Requisites of dolo (malice)
o Freedom
- Without freedom, a person is no longer a human being, but a
tool.
- There is no freedom if the offender is under the compulsion
of an irresistible force or uncontrollable fear.
o Intelligence
- Intelligence is necessary to determine the morality of human
acts. Without this, no crime can exist.
⮚ The imbecile, insane, infant under years of age,
and minor between 9-15 years of age have no
criminal liability.
o Intent
- This is presumed from the proof of the commission of an
unlawful act
(2) culpable felonies.
the act or omission of the offender is not malicious. The injury
caused by the offender to another person is "unintentional, it being
simply the incident of another act performed without malice."
(People vs. Sara, 55 Phil. 939) As stated in Art. 3, the wrongful act
results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of
skill.
● The injury caused is unintentional, it being simply the
incident of another act performed without malice.
⮚ People v. Guillen
⮚ Accused threw a grenade at the president in an attempt to kill
him and ended up killing other people.
⮚ Accused did not commit a culpable felony because deliberate
intent to do an unlawful act is essentially inconsistent with
the idea of reckless imprudence.
● Acts resulting from imprudence, negligence, lack of
foresight, or lack of skill.
● Reason for punishing acts of negligence:
o A man must use his common sense and exercise
due reflection in all his actions.
o He is responsible for such results as anyone might
foresee and for his acts which no one would have
performed except through culpable abandon.
Examples
⮚ US v. Divina - Defendant who is not a medical
practitioner ties up a girl and sets her
on fire.
-He claims he is trying to cure
her ulcer and that he acted in good
faith.
-Defendant is guilty of physical injury
through imprudence
⮚ People v. Lopez - A man runs over a girl with his truck
despite him not intending to do so.
-Man convicted of reckless imprudence
-The driver should have taken the precaution
necessary to avoid injury to persons because he was neither
compelled to refrain from or prevented from doing so.
● Definition of reckless imprudence à consists in voluntarily
but without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which
material damage results.
B. Both Intentional And Culpable Felonies Are Voluntary
● Reasons
o Man has free will.
o Man is a rational being who can distinguish between good
and evil.
o Intentional felonies were intended while culpable felonies
resulted from acts, which were voluntary but not intended as
felonies.
● Acts cease to be voluntary when there is compulsion or
prevention by force or intimidation
V. Intent
● Intent is a mental state manifested through the overt acts of
people.
o A person who causes an injury by mere accident does
not have intent therefore is not criminally liable.
● When the acts naturally produce a definite result, courts are
slow in concluding that some other result was intended
⮚ People v. Sia Teh Ban - Respondent stole a watch therefore
showing intent to gain.
-Criminal intent and the will to commit a crime are always
presumed to exist on the part of the person who executes an
act which the law punishes, unless the contrary shall appear
● Lack of intent to kill the deceased because offender meant to
kill another person does not clear the offender of criminal
liability.
● Lack of intent may be inferred from the facts of the case
A. Presumption Of Criminal Intent Does Not Arise From The
Proof Of The Commission Of An Act Which Is Not Unlawful.
⮚ US v. Catolico
⮚ Judge orders money deposited by the defendants as a bond to
be given to the plaintiff. Judge is subsequently accused of
malversation.
⮚ It was ruled that his original act was not unlawful therefore
there was no criminal liability.
⮚ Actus non facit reum, nisi mens set rea
-The act itself does not make a man guilty unless his
intentions were so.
B. Criminal Intent Is Necessary In Felonies Committed By
Means Of Dolo
● There is no felony by dolo if there is no intent.
● Actus me invito factus non est meus actus
o An act done by me against my will is not my act.
Example
● People who commit crimes while sleepwalking do not incur
criminal liability because there was no intent (People v.
Taneo).
C. Distinction Between General Intent And Specific Intent
● Some felonies necessitate specific types of intent.
o Robbery necessitates intent to gain.
o Frustrated homicide necessitates intent to kill.
● When the accused is charged with intentional felony, absence
of criminal intent is a plausible defense.
 o If there is only error on the part of the accused, he does not
act with malice and as such, he cannot be liable for intentional
felony.
● Criminal intent is replaced by negligence and imprudence in
felonies committed by means of culpa.
⮚ Killed a sleeping man because he was mistaken for an
escaped felon.
⮚ Accused was convicted because he did not take all the
necessary precautions needed to verify the identity of the
person and the accused had no authority to shoot a sleeping
man even if he was the escaped felon. Lastly, the
circumstances did not press him for immediate and decisive
action.

VI. Mistake Of Fact

2. Intention of the accused must be lawful.
A. General Points
● When an unlawful act is done willfully, mistake of the
● Ignorantia facti excusat identity of an intended victim does not relieve the accused of
criminal responsibility (People v. Gona).
o Ignorance of fact relieves the accused from criminal
● Mistake in the identity of the intended victim is not reckless
liability.
imprudence (People v. Guillen).
● Mistake of fact à is a misapprehension of fact on the part of
3. Mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the
the person who injury to another. He is not criminally liable,
accused
because he did not act with criminal intent.
● An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of ⮚ People v. De Fernando
criminal intent which arises upon the commission of a ⮚ Accused shot a man going up the stairs because he thought
felonious act. he was an escaped felon
⮚ Accused is guilty of homicide through reckless negligence
B. Requisites Of Mistake Of Fact As A Defense:
because he failed to take all the necessary precautions to
1. Act would have been lawful is facts were as the accused believed ensure the identity of the man he eventually shot
them to be.
● The act done by the accused would have constituted:
⮚ US v. Ah Chong
⮚ Accused killed a man because after taking all of the o A justifying circumstance (Article 11)
necessary precautions, he thought that he was being attacked
o Absolutory clause (Article 247)
by a robber .Acquitted by mistake of fact because had the
facts been as the accused thought, his actions would have o An involuntary act
constituted self defense. Also, the circumstances pressed him
for immediate and decisive action ● Resisting arrest is not a crime when there is a mistake of fact
⮚ People v. Oanis

VII. Crimes Punishable By Special Laws
A. General Points
● Includes crimes punishable by municipal or city ordinances.
● Dolo is not required.
o It is enough that the prohibited act is done freely and
consciously.
o The act alone, irrespective of its motives, constitutes the
offense.
⮚ People v. Bayona
⮚ Unwittingly but voluntarily brought a gun into a polling
place.
⮚ Convicted because no matter what his intentions were, the
act prohibited by the special laws was committed
● Intent to commit the crime and intent to perpetuate the act
must be distinguished
o If there is no intent to perpetrate the act prohibited,
there is no criminal liability.
B. Reasons Why Criminal Intent Is Not Necessary In Crimes
Made By Statutory Enactment
● The act in itself, without the intervention of any other fact, is
the evil.
⮚ Example: Law Prohibiting display of revolutionary
flags
⮚ The evil 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 not affected by the intention
of the offender but by the act itself.
● When the doing of an act is prohibited by a special law, it is
considered that the act is injurious to public welfare and the
doing of the prohibited act is the crime itself.
C. Good Faith And Absence Of Criminal Intent Are Not Valid
Defenses In Crimes Punished By Special Laws
● Since the offense is malam prohibitum, the performance of
the act itself will constitute the offense.
Exceptions:
⮚ People v. Landicho à If it is done in order to
comply with government policies.
⮚ When there is a law prohibiting the carrying
of loose firearms in relation to a man who
was authorized to buy and collect guns to be
sold to the authorities later on, that
individual is not criminally liable.
⮚ This is not the same if the man held on to
the firearms for a undue length of time
when he had all the chances to surrender it
to the proper authorities.
⮚ People v. Asa & US v. Samson à Civilian
guards who acted in good faith and never
had any intention of committing an offense
against the law prohibiting the carrying of
loose firearms because they believed their
position in the civilian guard association
warranted the carrying of such firearms.
⮚ Peope v. Mallari à When the accused has a
pending application for permanent permit to
possess a firearm and whose possession in
not unknown to the authorities who actually
 advised him to keep his firearm for the
meantime.
⮚ People v. Lucero à When accused was given
authority to carry a revolver in order to
capture or kill a wanted person.
● In all cases mentioned, the absence of intent to violate the
law was considered in favor of the accused.
VIII. Mala In Se And Mala Prohibita Distinguished
● General rule: Acts in mala in se, there must be a criminal
intent; but those in mala prohibita it is sufficient if the
prohibited act was intentionally done.
A. Mala In Se
● Wrongful from its nature.
● Crimes mala in se are those so serious in their effects on
society as to call for almost unanimous condemnation from
its members.
● Punishable by Revised Penal Code.
B. Mala Prohibita
● Wrongful because it is prohibited by a statute
● Violations of mere rules of convenience designed to secure a
more orderly regulation of the affairs of society
● Found in special laws.
● Refers generally to acts made criminal by special laws.
C. When The Acts Are Inherently Immoral, They Are Mala In Se
Even If Punished Under Special Law
⮚ People v. Sunico et al.
⮚ Voters names were omitted from the list.
⮚ The act was mala in se because the omission and failure to
include a voter’s name in the registry list of voters is not
only wrong because it is prohibited, it is wrong per se
because it disenfranchises a voter and violates one of his
fundamental rights. For such an act to be punished, it must
be shown that said act was committed with malice.
IX. Motive
A. Intent Distinguished From Motive
● Motive- à The moving power which impels one to action
for a definite result.
● Intent - à The purpose to use a particular means to effect
such result.
B. Motive: When Relevant And When Not Need To Be Established
● Not an essential element of a crime; need not be proven for
purposes of a conviction.
o Even a strong motive cannot take the place of proof
beyond reasonable doubt.
● Good motives do not prevent an act from becoming a crime
⮚ Example: Mercy Killing
Relevance:
When the identity of the perpetrator is being disputed,
the motive is very relevant (People v. Murray).
● Not applicable if perpetrator has been
positively identified (People v. Gadiana).
● Not applicable if perpetrator admits to crime
(People v. Arcilla).
o When ascertaining the truth between two antagonistic
theories or versions of the killing (People v.
Boholst-Caballero; People v. Lim; People v. Tabije)
o Where the identification of the accused proceeds from
an unreliable source and the testimony is inconclusive
and not free from doubt, evidence of motive is
 necessary (People v. Beltran).
o When there are no eyewitnesses and suspicion falls on
a lot of people (People v. Melgar).
o When evidence is merely circumstantial (People v.
Oquiño).
● Not applicable if guilt is established by
sufficient evidence (People v. Corpuz).
o When there is no doubt that the accused committed
the crime, his motives are unimportant (People v.
Feliciano).
C. How Motive Is Proved
● Established by the testimony of witnesses on the acts or
statements of the accused before or immediately after the
commission of the offense.
● Establishment through the evidence presented.
● Lack of motive may be aid in showing innocence.
● Proof of motive alone is not sufficient to support a
conviction. It cannot take the place of proof beyond
reasonable doubt,
sufficient to overthrow presumption of innocence
b) Elements of criminal liability
Art. 4. Criminal liability. — Criminal liability shall be incurred:
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the
wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense
against persons or property, were it not for the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual mean.
I. The Manner Of Incurring Criminal Liability Under The Revised
Penal Code Is Stated In Article 3
● This article has not reference to the manner criminal liability
is incurred.
II. 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 the criminal liability for the natural
consequence of one’s illegal acts, merely because one does
not intend to produce such consequences.
o Thus, one who fired his gun at B, but missed and hit C
instead, is liable for the injury caused to C, although the one who
fired the gun had no intention to injure C.
III. Rationale Of Article 4
● El que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado
o He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.
IV. Important Words
● “Committing a felony”
o Act or omission has to be punishable by the Revised Penal
Code.
o Necessitates malice because of the phrase “that which he
intended”.
o Cannot therefore be an act or omission punished by a
special law because the offender violating such a law may not
have the intent to do an injury to another.
⮚ US v. Divino
 ⮚ Defendant who is not a medical practitioner ties up a girl
and sets her on fire. He claims he is trying to cure her
ulcer and that he acted in good faith.
⮚ He is not guilty of a felony because he had no intent to
harm. He is however guilty of physical injury through
imprudence and/or illegal practice of medicine.
● “Although the wrongful act be different from that which
he intended”
o Causes
o Mistaken identity (error in personae) à A shoots B
because he thinks he is C.
o Mistaken blow (aberration ictus) à A tries to shoot B but
accidentally shoots C.
o The act exceeds the intent (praeter intentionem) à A only
intends to injure B but ends up killing him.
Examples
⮚ People v. Mabugat
⮚ Accused and B were sweethearts. They got into a
fight and one night, accused, with revolver in
hand, waited for B and her niece C to leave the
house of D and head home. As they reached the
house, accused aimed and fired a shot at B but
instead hit C.
⮚ Accused is criminally liable (frustrated murder)
⮚ People v. Tomotorgo
Accused, incensed by his wife, beats her until she
falls to the ground and complains of chest pains.
Accused proceeds to take his wife home and take
care of her. Wife dies.
Accused is guilty of parricide.
SC ruled that the fact that the accused intended to
maltreat his wife only or inflict physical injuries
does not exempt him from liability for the
resulting and more serious crime of parricide
⮚ Maltreatment inflicted by the accused was the
proximate cause of wife’s death
V. When A Person Has Not Committed A Felony, He Is Not
Criminally Liable For The Result Which Is Not Intended
⮚ US v. Villanueva
⮚ Accused, out of curiosity, snatched a bolo carried
by the victim in his belt. The victim was
subsequently injured.
⮚ Accused is not criminally liable because there is
no provision punishing the act of snatching the
property of another just to satisfy curiosity.
⮚ People v. Bindoy
⮚ Accused, carrying a bolo in one hand, got into a
heated altercation with Pacas’ wife. Pacas
attempted to take away the bolo from the accused
and during the scuffle, an innocent bystander was
injured.
⮚ Accused is not criminally liable because the law
permits him to use necessary force to retain what
belongs to him. If accused had been trying to
 strike Pacas and instead hit someone else, he
would be criminally liable.
PAR. 1: BY ANY PERSON COMMITTING A FELONY
(DELITO), ALTHOUGH THE WRONGFUL ACT DONE BE
DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH HE INTENDED
I. Requisites Of Article 4 Paragraph 1
⮚ In order that a person may be held criminally liable for a
felony different from that which he intended to commit:
1. Intentional felony was committed
2. The wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural,
and logical consequence of the felony committed by the offender
II. FIRST REQUISITE: Intentional Felony Was Committed
A. No Felony Is Committed When:
⮚ The act or omission is not punishable under Revised
Penal Code.
o Suicide is not punishable under the Revised Penal Code
(Article 253) à If A jumps off the building and lands on B, he is
not criminally liable for intentional homicide.
⮚ The act is covered by any of the justifying circumstances
in Article 11
o Self defense, fulfillment of duty, etc.
o These acts must still be exercised with due care otherwise
the accused will be liable for culpable felony.
Example: People v. Salinas
⮚ Accused, along with B, go to the house of C and D.
Accused enters the house, B stays outside. B challenges C
to a fight and accused holds on to C to prevent him from
going outside. A struggle ensues and D, while holding a
baby, attempts to free C from the accused. D ends up
falling down the stairs, baby in hand. The baby eventually
dies.
⮚ Accused cannot be criminally liable for holding on to C
and preventing him from engaging in what would have
been a bloody encounter with B because such an act is not
punishable.
⮚ Similarly, accused is not guilty of the death of the baby
because the death was not the direct consequence of a
crime seeing as how accused did not committing any
crime.
B. Any Person Who Creates In Another’s Mind An Immediate
Sense Of Danger, Which Causes The Latter To Do Something
Resulting In The Latter’s Injuries, Is Liable For The Resulting
Injuries
⮚ People v. Toling
o Accused proceeds to commit robbery aboard a jeepney.
Accused threatens the passengers and subsequently, B jumps out
of the jeepney in order to escape. B ends up hitting her head on
the pavement and eventually dies.
o It was held that accused is guilty for the death of B
because he created an immediate sense of danger that prompted B
to try and escape.
o Similarly, if a person believing himself to be in danger
of death or great bodily harm jumps into the water and drowns,
the person who caused him to believe he was in danger is
criminally liable for his death.
III. SECOND REQUISITE: Wrong Done Must Be The Direct,
Natural, And Logical Consequence Of A Felonious Act
(Proximate Cause)
⮚ General Rule: A person is criminally responsible for acts
committed by him in violation of the law and for all the natural
and logical consequences resulting therefrom.
Examples
⮚ US v. Valdez à Victim who was threatened or chased
by the accused with a knife, jumps into the water and drowns
because of the heavy current.
⮚ Accused is criminally liable.
⮚ People v. Quianson à Victim removes drainage from a
wound given to him by the accused in order to alleviate
great pain. Victim subsequently contracts an infection
and dies.
⮚ Accused is criminally liable because he directly caused
the great pain which victim was trying to alleviate.
⮚ People v. Moldes à A wound that was inflicted was
dangerous or calculated to destroy human life.
Immediate cause of death was erroneous medical
treatment.
⮚ Even if erroneous medical treatment comes into play, the
one who inflicted the wound is still criminally liable.
⮚ People v. Illustre; People v. Rodriguez; People v. Reyes à
Victim was suffering from an internal malady and said
malady was fatally aggravated by a blow from the
accused.
⮚ Accused is criminally liable.
⮚ US v. Marasigan à Victim refused to submit to surgical
operation.
⮚ §Offended party is not obliged to submit to a surgical
operation to relieve the accused from the natural and
ordinary results of his crime.
⮚ People v. Martir à Injury was aggravated by infection
CASE
⮚ People v. Villacorta, G.R. No. 186412, September 7, 2011
⮚ The SC ruled there is merit in the argument of Villacorta
that he should only be held liable for slight physical
injuries for the stab wound he inflicted upon Cruz. The
proximate cause of Cruz's death is the tetanus infection,
and not the stab wound. The rule is that the death of the
victim must be the direct, natural, and logical
consequence of the wounds inflicted upon him by the
accused. The proof that the accused caused the victim's
death must convince a rational mind beyond reasonable
doubt. Villacorta is not totally without criminal liability.
Villacorta is guilty of slight physical injuries under Article
266(1) of the Revised Penal Code for the stab wound he
inflicted upon Cruz. SC cannot hold Villacorta criminally
liable for attempted or frustrated murder because the
prosecution was not able to establish Villacorta's intent to
kill. Villacorta's assault was done only once. Thus, there is
 doubt as to whether appellant had an intent to kill the
victim. The intent must be proved in a clear and evident
manner to exclude every possible doubt as to the
homicidal (or murderous) intent of the aggressor. When
such intent is lacking but wounds were inflicted, the crime
is not frustrated murder but physical injuries only.
A. Proximate Cause
The felony committed must be the proximate cause of the resulting
injury
● Proximate cause à is that cause which, in natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening
cause, produces the injury, and without which the result
would not have occurred.
o Natural refers to an occurrence in the ordinary course of human
life or events.
o Logical means that there is a rational connection between the
act of the accused and the resulting injury or damage.
● Proximate legal cause
o That acting first and producing the injury, either immediately,
or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and
continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection
with its immediate predecessor.
o 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.
● Not altered because of pre-existing conditions,
predisposition of the offended party or the concomitant or
concurrent conditions, or the conditions supervening the
felonies.
● Exceptions (felony committed is not proximate cause 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.
● The offender is criminally liable for the death of the
victim if his delictual (wrongful) act caused, accelerated,
or contributed to the death of the victim.
B. How To Determine The Proximate Cause
⮚ People v. Luces
⮚ Accused gave a fist blow to victim in the stomach, causing
her to fall to the ground and become unconscious. Victim
never regains consciousness and eventually dies. Autopsy
shows that cardiac failure was probable cause for death.
⮚ Accused argues that cardiac failure and not the fist blow
was not the cause of death.
⮚ Court rules that the fist blow was the primary and proximate
cause of death because the cardiac failure (incurred either
directly because of the fist blow, while falling to the ground,
or while being unconscious) was caused by the fist blow.
§ He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil
caused.
— Causes, not being efficient intervening causes, do not break
the relation of cause and effect – the felony committed and
the resulting injury
C. Intervening Causes
The following are not efficient intervening causes
 ⮚ People v. Illustre & People v. Reyes à The weak or diseased
physical condition of the victim, as when one is suffering
from tuberculosis or heart disease.
⮚ People v. Almonte & People v. Quianson à Nervous
temperament, as when a person dies in consequence of an
internal hemorrhage because he was moving around against
doctors orders because of his nervous temperament due to
the wound inflicted by the accused.
D. Natural Consequence - When death is presumed to be the natural
consequence of physical injuries inflicted
1. The victim was in normal health when the injury was inflicted.
2. Death may be expected from the physical injuries inflicted.
3. Death ensued within a reasonable time.
— Case: People v. Tammang
o Boy was in good health the morning of the incident. Teacher
assaults boy and boy complains about experiencing oppressive pain
to his mother later on. Boy vomits blood until he dies 3 days later.
o Teacher’s liability for homicide necessarily follows from the
premises stated.
o Had it been proven that the boy died from hypochondria and not
the injuries inflicted by the teacher, accused would have been
acquitted on the charge of homicide.
Not direct, natural, and logical consequence of the felony committed.
● If the consequences produced have resulted from a
distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the criminal
act, the offender is not responsible for such
consequences.
● A person is not liable criminally for all possible
consequences which may immediately follow his
felonious act, but only for such as are proximate:
⮚ People v. Rockwell
⮚ A strikes B. B falls to the ground. A horse jumps on B and
kills him. A is not liable for the death of B
⮚ US v. De los Santos
⮚ A lightly injures B. B deliberately immerses himself in a
cesspool of filth. The injuries of B become greater.
⮚ A is not liable for the worsened condition of B.
o Urbano v. IAC
⮚ When medical findings lead to the possibility that the
infection of the wound was an efficient intervening cause
(not a proximate cause), the accused must be acquitted of the
crime of homicide.
PAR. 2: BY ANY PERSON PERFORMING AN ACT
WHICH WOULD BE AN OFFENSE AGAINST PERSONS
OR PROPERTY, WERE IT NOT FOR THE INHERENT
IMPOSSIBILITY OF IT’S ACCOMPLISHEMTN, OR ON
ACCOUNT OF THE EMPLOYMENT OF INADEQUATE
OR INEFFECTUAL MEANS.
I. Impossible Crimes
● The commission of an impossible crime is indicative of
criminal propensity or criminal tendency on the part of
the actor.
o Such person is therefore a potential criminal.
o The community must be protected from anti-social
activities, whether actual or potential, of the morbid
type of man called “socially dangerous person”.
II. Requisites Of Impossible Crime
1. Act performed would be an offense against persons or
property
2. Act was done with evil intent
3. Accomplishment is inherently impossible or that the means
employed are inadequate or ineffectual
4. Act is not a violation of another provision of the Revised
Penal Code
III. Important Words And Phrases
● “Performing an act which would be an offense against
persons or property” (Requisite 1)
o A felony against persons or property should not be
actually committed, for, otherwise, offender would be liable
for that felony. This means there is no impossible crime to
speak of.
o Felonies against persons
§Parricide (Article 246)
§ Murder (Article 248),
§ Homicide (Article 249),
§ Infanticide (Article 255),
§ Abortion (Article 256, 257, 258, and 259),
§ Duel (Article 260 and 261),
§ Physical injuries (Art, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266)
§ Rape (Article 266-A)
o Felonies against property
§ Robbery (Art. 294, 297, 298, 299, 300, 302, 303)
§ Brigandage (Article 306 and 307)
§ Theft (Article 308, 310, 311)
§ Usurpation (Article 312 and 313)
§ Culpable insolvency (Article 314)
§ Swindling and other deceits (Article 315, 316, 317 and318)
§ Chattel mortgage (Article 319)
§ Arson and other crimes involving destruction, malicious
mischief (Article 327, 328, 329, 330 and 331)
● If the act performed would be an offense other than a
felony against persons or property, there is no impossible
crime
● Act was done with evil intent (Requisite 2)
⮚ A peppers the bedroom of B with bullets. B was not in his
bedroom.
⮚ Convicted of an impossible crime
● “Were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or on account of the employment of
inadequate or ineffectual means”
o Inherent impossibility of accomplishment
1.Legal impossibility
Stealing a watch even if it turns out the said watch is
actually yours à legal impossibility,
2.Physical impossibility
 Examples:
Trying to kill a person without knowing that he is
already dead à legal and physical impossibility.
• A tries to shoot B in the head only to find out the
gun is not loaded when he pulls the trigger
CASE:
Jacinto v. People, G.R. No. 162540, July 13, 2009
● In this case, petitioner performed all the acts to
consummate the crime of qualified theft, which is a
crime against property. Petitioner's evil intent cannot be
denied, as the mere act of unlawfully taking the check
meant for Mega Foam showed her intent to gain or be
unjustly enriched. Were it not for the fact that the check
bounced, she would have received the face value
thereof, which was not rightfully hers. Therefore, it was
only due to the extraneous circumstance of the check
being unfunded, a fact unknown to petitioner at the
time, that prevented the crime from being produced.
The thing unlawfully taken by petitioner turned out to
be absolutely worthless, because the check was
eventually dishonored, and Mega Foam had received
the cash to replace the value of said dishonored check.
● Hence, the accused is found guilty of the IMPOSSIBLE
CRIME.
People of the Philippines v. Malisce, G.R. No. 190912. January 12,
2015
● YES. The Revised Penal Code, inspired by the Positivist
School, recognizes in the offender his formidability, and
now penalizes an act which were it not aimed at
something quite impossible or carried out with means
which prove inadequate, would constitute a felony
against person or against property. The rationale of
Article 4(2) is to punish such criminal tendencies.
● The Supreme Court held that factual impossibility is
present in this case. Factual impossibility is when
extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or
beyond his control prevent the consummation of the
intended crime. One example is the man who puts his
hand in the coat pocket of another with the intention to
steal the latter's wallet and finds the pocket empty.
● In the case at bar, Petitioner shot the place where he
thought his victim would be, although in reality, the
victim was not present in said place and thus, the
petitioner failed to accomplish his end.
Article 5. – Duty of the court in connection with acts which should
be repressed but which are not covered by the law, and in cases of
excessive penalties. Whenever a court has knowledge of any act
which it may deem proper to repress and which is not punishable by
law, it shall render the proper decision and shall report to the Chief
Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons which
induce the court to believe that said act should be the subject of
legislation.
 In the same light, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive,
through the Department of Justice, such statements as may be
II. Second Paragraph Pertains To Excessive Penalties
deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence,
when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would
⮚ Second paragraph requires the following:
result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into
consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the 1. The court of trial finds the accused guilty
offense.
2. The penalty provided by law and which the court imposes for
the crime committed appears to be clearly excessive because

⮚ The accused acted with lesser degree of malice

I. First Paragraph Pertains To Acts Which Should Be Repressed But
⮚ There is no injury or the injury caused is of lesser gravity
Which Are Not Punishable By Law.
3. The court should not suspend the execution of the sentence.
⮚ Basis of Paragraph 1: Nulllum crimen, nulla poena sine lege
4. The judge should submit a statement to the chief executive,
o There is no crime if there is no law that punishes the through the Secretary of Justice, recommending executive clemency.

act (no matter how bad that act may be).

A. Cases
⮚ Trial of a criminal case requires the following:
⮚ People v. Monleon
1. The act committed by the accused appears not punishable by
any law. ⮚ Accused maltreats his wife while inebriated. Wife dies. Since
2. The court deems it proper to repress such act. the accused had no intent to kill his wife and her death may
have been hastened by lack of proper medical care, the
3. In that case, the court must render the proper decision by
punishment of reclusion perpetua appears to be excessive.
dismissing the case and acquitting the accused.
⮚ People v. Espino
4. The judge must then make a report to the Chief Executive
through the Secretary of Justice, stating the reasons which induce ⮚ Accused steals coconuts for his family’s consumption.
him to believe that the said act should be made the subject of penal
legislation.

⮚ Punishment for the crime was 4 months and 1 day of arresto
mayor to 3 years, 6 months, and 21 days of prison
correccional according to the Revised Penal Code
⮚ In light of the circumstances surrounding the case, the
court recommended the accused be pardoned after serving
4 months of the sentence
B. Penalties Are Not Excessive When Intended To Enforce A Public
Policy
⮚ People v. Estoista
⮚ Rampant lawlessness justifies imprisonment for
promiscuous carrying and use of powerful firearms when
ordinarily such a penalty would seem excessive.
⮚ People v. Tiu Ua
⮚ Heavy fines imposed by congress to repress profiteering so
that people would not take advantage of critical conditions
(like a global recession, strong storms, etc.) to make unusual
profits.
III. Duty Of The Courts To Apply The Law
A. Courts Have The Duty To Apply The Penalty Provided By Law
● It is the duty of judicial officers to respect and apply the law,
regardless of their private opinions.
o Courts are not concerned with the wisdom, efficacy, or
morality of laws. Such questions fall exclusively within the legislative
that makes the law and the executive who approves or vetoes it.
Example
⮚ Judge sentences accused to life imprisonment when the law
clearly states that the punishment should be death.
⮚ In this situation, the judge did not fulfill his duty
B. Judge Has The Duty To Apply The Law As Interpreted By The
Supreme Court
● Judge must first think that it is his duty to apply the law as
interpreted by the Highest Court of the land, and that any
deviation from a principle laid down by the latter would
unavoidable cause, as a sequel, unnecessary
inconveniences, delays and expenses to the litigants
● Judge is free to state his opinion on the matter if his views
contrast with those of the SC but he must still follow the
interpretation of the SC
C. Courts Are Not The Forum To Plead For Sympathy
● Dura lex sed lex
o The law is hard but it is the law
III. Strict Enforcement Of The Provisions Of This Code
● Article 5 may not be invoked for cases of mala prohibita
because it is expressly worded that Article 5 only applies to
 strict enforcement of the provisions of the Revised Penal
Code
Article 6. – Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies.
Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated and
attempted are punishable.
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its
execution and accomplishment are present; and it is 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.
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of
a felony, directly through overt acts, and does not perform all the acts
of execution which would produce the felony by reason of some
cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
I. Development Of Crime
● From the moment the culprit conceives the idea of
committing a crime up to the realization of the same, his act
passes through certain stages.
A. Stages:
1. Internal acts
● Thoughts in the mind of the person; can never be punishable
no matter how evil they are.
● Mere intent to commit a crime cannot be punished if it
produces no effect.
● Intent and effect must concur.
2. External acts
a. Preparatory acts
● Ordinarily they are not punishable unless provided by law.
● The act of buying poison is not necessarily punishable.
Carrying a picklock is punishable because there is a
provision against it.
● BUT preparatory acts which are considered in themselves by
law as independent crimes are punishable.
o Article 304 à The possession of picklocks is a
preparatory act to the commission of robbery.
b. Acts of execution
● Punishable by law
● Stages of acts of execution:
Attempted- Frustrated-Consummated
● All stages of acts of execution are punishable
II. STAGE 1: Attempted Felony
A. Elements Of Attempted Felony
1. Commencement of the commission of the felony directly by overt
acts.
2. Offender does not perform all acts of execution which should
produce the felony.
3. The offender’s act is not stopped by his own spontaneous
desistance.
4. The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to a cause or
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
B. Important Words And Phrases For Attempted Felony
● “Commences the commission of a felony”
o Two requisites:
i. There must be an external act committed.
ii. External acts must be connected with the crime
intended to be committed.
● “Directly by overt acts”
o Only offenders who personally execute the commission of
a crime can be guilty of attempted felony.
⮚ If A tells B to kill C but B refuses –
⮚ A is not liable for attempted homicide since the attempt was
not done directly with physical activity
⮚ If A tells B to kill C and B shoots at C and misses
⮚ A and B are criminally liable of attempted felony because of
conspiracy. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.
● “Does not perform all the acts of execution”
o If all the acts of execution are performed, it is
automatically either frustrated or consummated.
o If not all acts are performed, it is only attempted.
⮚ US v. Eduave
⮚ If anything yet remained for him to do, he would be guilty
of an attempted crime.
⮚ People v. Lamahang
⮚ Accused did not enter the store therefore there was only an
attempted trespass.
● “By reason of some cause or accident”
o Cause
⮚ A tries to pickpocket B but B catches him before he
can do so.
⮚ A has not done all the acts of execution in relation to
pick pocketing.
o Accident
⮚ A tries to shoot B but the gun jams.
⮚ A has not committed all the acts of execution.
● “Other than his own spontaneous desistance”
o You cannot be punished if you stop yourself from
committing a crime.
o It is a sort of reward granted by law to those who,
having one foot on the verge of crime, heed the call of
their conscience and return to the path of
righteousness.
o One who takes part in planning a criminal act but
desists in its actual commission is exempt from criminal
liability.
§ Could have been caused by his conscience
o It does not matter if spontaneous desistance was due
to either fear or remorse as long as act is stopped on
account of the would-be offender’s own free will.
o Desistance must be made before the crime is
committed.
§ A steals a chicken & brings it back an hour later.
⮚ Robbery has already been committed
therefore the return of the chicken
does not free A from criminal liability.
o Own spontaneous desistance exempts one from
 criminal liability for the intended crime, and not from
any crimes which may have been committed before the
desistance.
⮚ A shoots B and misses. A decides not to shoot
anymore.
⮚ A is not guilty of attempted homicide
because of his spontaneous desistance
but he is guilty of making grave threats
which he had already committed.
Subjective phase of the offense
● In an attempted felony, the offender never gets past the
subjective phase.
● Definition
o That 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 still has
control over his acts, including their natural cause.
- As long as he does not commit the last act of
execution, offender is still in the subjective phase
Example: A tries to poison B with poisoned soup.
o Subjective phase ends as soon as the B swallows the soup.
III. Overt Acts
● Some physical activity or deed indicating the intention to
commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or
preparation, 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.
A. Distinguishing Between Preparatory Acts And Overt Acts
● Act of buying poison
o On its own, this act is a mere preparatory act because
it does not logically follow that he who buys poison
wishes to commit a felony.
o It becomes an overt act when he who buys poison
begins to mix said substance into a soup which he will
serve to his intended victim. In such case, there is clear
intent to poison a person
⮚ People v. Tabago
⮚ Accused seemed to be drawing his pistol while
talking to a policeman.
⮚ Accused is not criminally liable for attempted
homicide because merely drawing a pistol does not
show intent to kill.
⮚ To constitute attempted homicide, the person using a
firearm must fire it, with intent to kill, at the
intended victim without inflicting a mortal wound.
⮚ US v. Simeon Accused raised a bolo as if to strike at
the offended party.
⮚ Not an overt act because there was no blow struck,
and there is no proof that the accused issued threats
to kill or to do bodily harm.
B. Overt Acts May Not Always Be Physical Activities
⮚ US v. Gloria
⮚ Offering money to a public officer with the purpose
of corrupting him is an overt act in the crime of
corruption of a public officer.
 C. External Acts Must Have Direct Connection With The
Crime Intended To Be Committed By The Offender
⮚ People v. Lamahang
⮚ Accused was caught making an opening in the wall
of a store while the owners were asleep. Cannot be
counted as attempted robbery because the mere act
of making an opening in the wall of the store does
not immediately mean that a robbery was taking
place.
⮚ The crime that the accused was convicted of was
attempted trespass given that when he was caught, the
only act that he had committed so far was the making
of an opening in the wall of the store.
IV. Indeterminable offense
● It is one when the purpose of the offender in performing an
act is not certain. Its nature in relation to its objective is
ambiguous.
A. The Intention Of The Accused Must Be Viewed From
The Nature Of The Acts Executed By Him, And Not From
His Admission
● The intention of the accused must be ascertained from the
facts It is necessary that the mind be able to directly infer
from the facts the intention of the perpetrator to cause
a particular injury.
⮚ People v. Lamahang
⮚ 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.
⮚ Acts must be shown to be directly aimed at the
execution of the crime, and therefore they must have
an immediate and necessary relation to the offense.
V. STAGE 2: Frustrated Felony
A. Elements Of Frustrated Felony
1. Offender commits all acts of execution.
2. All the acts performed would produce a felony.
3. Felony is not produced.
4. By reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator.
B. Important Words And Phrases For Frustrated Felony
● “Performs all the acts of execution”
o Nothing left to be done by the offender.
⮚ Homicide à Offender is able to afflict a fatal wound.
o The SC in some cases has emphasized the belief of the
accused.
⮚ People v. Sy Pio
⮚ A shoots at B. B escapes and A does not chase him. A
cannot be accused of frustrated homicide because he knew
that he did not perform all the acts of execution necessary to
kill his victim.
⮚ A is guilty of attempted murder.
⮚ People v. Dagman
⮚ A shoots at B. B pretends to be dead. A no longer shoots at
B. .A is guilty of frustrated homicide because he only
stopped shooting because he thought he had already killed B.
⮚ US v. Eduave
⮚ A thinks he kills B and disposes of the in the bushes.
⮚ A is guilty of frustrated homicide because he believed he had
already killed B.
o The belief of the accused need not always be
What ought to be considered is whether or not
all the acts of execution that would produce
 the felony as a consequence were performed.
“Would produce the felony as a consequence”
o All the acts of execution performed by the offender
could have produced the felony as a consequence.
⮚ A tries to stab B but instead stabs the back of
the chair where B was sitting. Attempted
murder only because murder would not have
been produced as a consequence of the actions performed by
A. Does not pertain to the stopping of the felony from
happening because the performance of the acts of
execution were prevented.
● “Do not produce it” If the intended felony was produced, the
act is consummated.
● “Independent of the will of the perpetrator”
o If the crime is not produced because of the timely
intervention of a third party (after all acts of execution
have been committed).
preparation, which if carried out to its complete termination
following its natural course, without being frustrated by
external obstacles nor by the spontaneous desistance of the
perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a
concrete offense. It is necessary that the overt act should
have been the ultimate step towards the consummation of the
design. It is sufficient if it was the "first or some subsequent
step in a direct movement towards the commission of the
offense after the preparations are made." The act done need
not constitute the last proximate one for completion. It is
necessary, however, that the attempt must have a causal
relation to the intended crime. In the words of Viada, the
overt acts must have an immediate and necessary relation to
the offense.
In this case, petitioner had already successfully removed the
victim’s clothing and had inserted his finger into her vagina.
;[

o If the crime is stopped because of spontaneous

desistance (perpetrator’s own will), there is no
frustrated felony, because the 4th element is absent.
⮚ Example:
⮚ Doctor poisons wife but immediately
administers to her an adequate antidote. Not guilty of
frustrated parricide because the intervening cause that saved
the wife was not independent of the will of the perpetrator.
⮚ Doctor is only guilty of physical injuries since
the wife already ingested the poison before he administered
the antidote.

This Court has held that an overt or external act -is defined
as some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to
commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or
CONSUMMATED THEFT
Aristotle Valenzuela v. People
G. R. No. 160188 | June 21, 2007
J. Tinga
Indeed, we have, after all, held that unlawful taking, or
apoderamiento, is deemed complete from the moment the offender
gains possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to
dispose of the same.[92] And long ago, we asserted in People v.
Avila:[93]

Insofar as we consider the present question, "unlawful taking" is

most material in this respect. Unlawful taking, which is the
deprivation of one's personal property, is the element which
produces the felony in its consummated stage. At the same time,
without unlawful taking as an act of execution, the offense could
only be attempted theft, if at all.

With these considerations, we can only conclude that under Article

308 of the Revised Penal Code, theft cannot have a frustrated stage.
Theft can only be attempted or consummate

Three Friends Drug Raid
1. Accused: Henry Milan, Jackman Chua, and Restituto
Carandang 2. Setting: April 5, 2001, in QC Philippines
3. Criminal Case No. Q-01-100061. Accused conspired and killed
PO2 Dionisio Alonzo y Salgo by shooting him with several
gunfires.
4. Criminal Case No. Q-01-10006
2. Accused conspired and killed SPO2 Wilfredo Red y Pilar by
shooting him with several gunfires and placing grenade
underneath the body
5. Criminal Case No. Q-01-100063. Accused conspired to kill
SPO1 Wilfredo Montecalvo y Dalida by shooting him on his
neck. It was unsuccessful.
6. The sister of accused Milan requested assistance from La
Loma Police Station regarding a drug deal that would allegedly
take place in her house.
7. Red was instructed to talk to Milan’s sister. He formed a team
composed of himseld, Alonzo, Montecalvo, and Estores. 8. 4 PM
- they reached the said house and saw the accused inside
Milan’s room which was open.
9. Milan immediately shut the door as soon as they noticed it
was the police.
10. Alonzo and Red pushed the door open but as soon as they
entered they were shot several times. Alonzo and Red were not
able to return fire because the gunshots were sudden.
11. Carandang shot Montecalvo and fell to the ground. Estores
pulled Montecalvo out of the house. 12. 4;30 PM reinforcements
arrived and Montecalvo was brought to General Hospital.Milan
also stepped out of the house and was brought to the hospital.
13. Carandang and Chua negotiated and asked for the presence
of Col. Reyes and Ramon Tulfo. 14. Around 11PM to 12 MN
Carandang and Chua surrendered.
WHTHER OR NOT The court a quo erred in holding that there
was conspiracy among the appellants in the case at bar.
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to
commit it.
Evidence need not establish the actual agreement among the
conspirators showing a preconceived plan or motive for the
commission of the crime.
Proof of concerted action before, during and after the crime, which
demonstrates their unity of design and objective, is sufficient.
When conspiracy is established, the act of one is the act of all
regardless of the degree of participation of each.43
In the case at bar, the conclusion that Milan and Chua conspired with
Carandang was established by their acts (1) before Carandang shot
the victims (Milan’s closing the door when the police officers
introduced themselves, allowing Carandang to wait in ambush), and
(2) after the shooting (Chua’s directive to Milan to attack SPO1
Montecalvo and Milan’s following such instruction). Contrary to the
suppositions of appellants, these facts are not meant to prove that
Chua is a principal by inducement, or that Milan’s act of attacking
SPO1 Montecalvo was what made him a principal by direct
participation. Instead, these facts are convincing circumstantial
evidence of the unity of purpose in the minds of the three. As
co-conspirators, all three are considered principals by direct
participation.
Furthermore, we have time and again ruled that factual findings of
the trial court, especially those affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are
conclusive on this Court when supported by the evidence on
record.45 It was the trial court that was able to observe the
demeanors of the witnesses, and is consequently in a better position
to determine which of the witnesses are telling the truth. Thus, this
Court, as a general rule, would not review the factual findings of the
courts a quo,
Neither can the rapid turn of events be considered to negate a
finding of conspiracy. Unlike evident premeditation, there is no
requirement for conspiracy to exist that there be a sufficient period of
time to elapse to afford full opportunity for meditation and reflection.
Instead, conspiracy arises on the very moment the plotters agree,
expressly or impliedly, to commit the subject felony.47
As held by the trial court and the Court of Appeals, Milan’s act of
closing the door facilitated the commission of the crime, allowing
Carandang to wait in ambush. The sudden gunshots when the police
officers pushed the door open illustrate the intention of appellants
and Carandang to prevent any chance for the police officers to
defend themselves. Treachery is thus present in the case at bar, as
what is decisive for this qualifying circumstance is that the execution
of the attack made it impossible for the victims to defend themselves
or to retaliate.48
PAWNSHOP
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
MICHAEL BOKINGO alias "MICHAEL BOKINGCO" and
REYNANTE COL, Accused-Appellants.
At around 1am on 29 February 2000, Dante Vitaliano saw Michael
Bokingco hitting something on the floor in Apartment 3. Bokingco
saw Vitalicio and the latter was allegedly hit many times by Bokingco
with a hammer. Vitalicio managed to pushed away Bokingco and
escaped to his house. His wife told him that Pasion was found dead
in the kitchen of Apartment 3.
Pasion and Vitalicio were both rushed to the hospital. Pasion died
after few hours. Elsa, Pasion's wife testified that when he heard her
husband's moans, she immediatly went down and was blocked by
Col. Col ordered her to open the pawnshop's vault. Col was holding
her neck when Bokingco called Col to leave the area because
Pasion was already dead. Col immediately ran away together with
Bokingco.
Bokingco admitted that he hit Pasion in the head and that he has ill
feelings towards the victim. Afterwards, Bokingco pointed out Col as
the person who killed Pasion.
The finding of conspiracy was premised on Elsa’s testimony that
appellants fled together after killing her husband and the extrajudicial
confession of Bokingco.
WHETHER OR NOT THERE’S A CONSPIRACY BETWEEN
APPELLANTS?
For treachery to be appreciated, the prosecution must prove that at
the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend
himself, and that the offender consciously adopted the particular
means, method or form of attack employed by him.29
To warrant a finding of evident premeditation, the prosecution must
establish the confluence of the following requisites:
(a) the time when the offender was determined to commit the crime;
(b) an act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his
determination; and
(c) a sufficient interval of time between the determination and the
execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the consequences
of his act.
In the instant case, the extrajudicial confession is inadmissible
against Bokingco because he was not assisted at all by counsel
during the time his confession was taken before a judge.
The finding that nighttime attended the commission of the crime is
anchored on the presumption that there was evident premeditation.
Having ruled however that evident premeditation has not been
proved, the aggravating circumstance of nighttime cannot be
properly appreciated. There was no evidence to show that Bokingco
purposely sought nighttime to facilitate the commission of the
offense.
1) when the trial court’s findings of facts and conclusions are not
supported by the evidence on record, or
2) when certain facts of substance and value likely to change the
outcome of the case have been overlooked by the lower court, or
3) when the assailed decision is based on a misapprehension of
facts.41 The second exception obtains in this case.
Indeed, in order to convict Col as a principal by direct participation in
the case before us, it is necessary that conspiracy between him and
Bokingco be proved.
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
to commit an unlawful act. It may be inferred from the conduct of the
accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime.
Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the
offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused
evincing a joint or common purpose and design, concerted action,
and community of interest.42
essential to establish the existence of conspiracy.43
● Unity of purpose and
● Unity in the execution of the unlawful objective
. Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that the act or
declaration of the conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its
existence may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator
provided that the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than by
such act or declaration.49
Based on these acts alone, it cannot be logically inferred that Col
conspired with Bokingco in killing Pasion. At the most, Col’s
actuations can be equated to attempted robbery, which was actually
the initial information filed against appellants before it was amended,
on motion of the prosecution, for murder.47
Elsa testified that she heard Bokingco call out to Col that Pasion had
been killed and that they had to leave the place. This does not prove
that they acted in concert towards the consummation of the crime. It
only proves, at best, that there were two crimes committed
simultaneously and they were united in their efforts to escape from
the crimes they separately committed.
Their acts did not reveal a unity of purpose that is to kill Pasion.
Bokingco had already killed Pasion even before he sought Col. Their
moves were not coordinated because while Bokingco was killing
Pasion because of his pent-up anger, Col was attempting to rob the
pawnshop.1avvphi1
In order that the admission of a conspirator may be received against
his or her co-conspirators, it is necessary that
first, the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the
admission itself;
second, the admission relates to the common object; and
third, it has been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying
out the conspiracy.50
As a rule, conspiracy must be established with the same quantum of
proof as the crime itself and must be shown as clearly as the
commission of the crime.44
As we have previously discussed, we did not find any sufficient
evidence to establish the existence of conspiracy. Therefore, the
extrajudicial confession has no probative value and is inadmissible in
evidence against Col. All told, an acquittal for Col is in order because
no sufficient evidence was adduced to implicate him.
GIN
G.R. No. 196960, March 12, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ERWIN TAMAYO Y
BAUTISTA, Appellant.
DECISION
• Norman Pleno (Norman), Wilson Quinto (Wilson), Alvin Hernaez
(Alvin), and Leonard Miranda (Leonard) testified that in the early
morning of April 8, 2004, while Joey M. Obamen (Joey), Wilson,
Alvin, and Lorenzo Gloria (Lorenzo) were having drink and
merriment beside the Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) chapel on Lacson Street
in Tondo, Manila, someone hurled empty bottles of gin at them.
• As Wilson went to look for whoever had done it, he saw accused
Erwin and John, in the company of several others, also having their
drink.
• Retaliating, Joey and his group threw stones and empty gin bottles
at accused Erwin and his companions.
• Enraged, the latter group gave chase to Joey and the others with
him.
• Unfortunately, Joey tripped on an iron chain that guarded the INC’s
parking area and fell to the ground.
• He was in this position when Erwin and his companions attacked
and mauled him. Some, including Erwin, stabbed Joey with their
knives. They scampered away afterwards.
• Joey was rushed to the Jose Reyes Memorial Hospital but died
shortly on arrival.
• A subsequent autopsy of his body showed that he died of traumatic
injuries on the head and multiple stab wounds on the abdomen.
• Trial took place only as to Erwin since John jumped bail and
remained at-large.
Whether or not the CA and the RTC erred in finding that abuse of
superior strength qualified the killing of Joey to murder.
The Court also finds no error in the RTC and the CA’s rejection of his
alibi. The site of the murder was not far from where he lived.
Besides, he presented no corroborating testimony that he was then
at his house. As to his lament that the RTC and the CA should not
have given credit to Norman’s testimony for he had a grudge against
him, Erwin presented no proof apart from his word that this was so.
At any rate, the accounts of the remaining eyewitnesses were just as
positive, straightforward, consistent, and clear. They all testified that
Erwin stabbed Joey with a knife.
Assuming that the prosecution witnesses failed to identify exactly
who inflicted the fatal wounds on Joey during the commotion, Erwin’s
liability is not diminished since he and the others with him acted with
concert in beating up and ultimately killing Joey. Conspiracy makes
all the assailants equally liable as co-principals by direct
participation.22crallawlibrary
People of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 158754 | August 10, 2007
 conducting numerous bail hearings and evaluating the weight of the
prosecution’s evidence, it determined that the evidence against
GARCIA, J. individual respondent was not strong and, on the basis of that
This case involves a petition for certiorari against the Resolution of determination, resolved to grant him bail.
Sandiganbayan granting the prayer for bail in the respondent's
motion. Impeachment proceedings against Joseph Ejercito Estrada
and members of his family were filed in the office of Ombudsman.
Upon finding a probable cause, the crime of plunder was charged
against Jinggoy Estrada. A warrant of arrest was issued against
Jinggyo and he were placed in custody of the law. Jinggoy filed a
Very Urgent Omnibus Motion and Motion to to Resolve, alleging that
there is no probable cause, but they were denied by Sandiganbayan. SIMON FERNAN, JR. and EXPEDITO TORREVILAS
Jinggoy petitioned for a certiorari before this court, but was also
denied. Jinggoy motioned to Sandiganbayan to conduct hearings to vs.
determine if the evidence of guilt is strong as to warrant the granting
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
of bail to him. Sandiganbayan issued the assailed resolution in
March 6, 2003, where Sandiganbayan granded the omnibus G.R. No. 145927 | August 24, 2007
application for bail of Php 500,000 in cash.
Whether Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it granted bail to VELASCO, JR., J
respondent Jinggoy Estrada considering that the undisputed fact
clearly evidences that respondent Jinggoy Estrada, even without a
finding of conspiracy, is equally guilty and liable as accused Joseph 1. This petition under Rule 45 originated from 119 criminal cases filed
Estrada himself by his indispendable cooperation and/or direct with the Sandiganbayan (SB) involving 36 former officials and
participation in the commission of the crime of plunder. employees of the then Ministry of Public Highways (MPH) and
Petitioner’s second and third arguments focus on the possible several suppliers of construction materials for defalcation of public
degrees of participation of Jinggoy in the crime of Plunder. funds arising from numerous transactions in the Cebu First Highway
Noticeably, both arguments, if pursued to their respective logical Engineering District in 1977. The incident is popularly known as the
conclusions, tend to cancel each other out, one leading as it were to “86 million highway scam.”
a direction quite the opposite of the other. For while the second
argument attempts to establish an "implied conspiracy" between
Jinggoy and his father - hence, the guilt of one is the guilt of the 2.The conspiracy to defraud the government was formed in February
other - the third argument eschews the idea of conspiracy, but 1977 when accused Rolando Mangubat (Chief Accountant), Delia
respondent Jinggoy is nonetheless "equally guilty" as President Preagido (Accountant III), Jose Sayson (Budget Examiner), and
Estrada because of his indispensable cooperation and/or direct Edgardo Cruz (Clerk II), all of MPH Region VII, met at the Town and
participation in the crime of Plunder. Country Restaurant in Cebu City and hatched their plan. The
fraudulent scheme involved the splitting of Letters of Advice of
In all, the Court rules that public respondent Sandiganbayan (Special Allotments (LAAs) and Requisition for Supplies and Equipment
Division) did not commit grave abuse of discretion when, after
(RSE) so that the amount covered by each general voucher is less
than P50,000.00 to do away with the approval of the Regional
Auditor; the charging of disbursements to unliquidated obligations
due the previous year to provide the supposed source of funds; and
the manipulation of the books of account by negation or adjustment,
i.e., the cancellation of checks through journal vouchers to conceal
disbursements in excess of the Cash Disbursement Ceiling (CDC),
so as not to reflect such disbursements in the trial balances
submitted to the Regional Office.
3. In 1978, a Commission on Audit (COA) investigation confirmed the
suspected issuance of fake LAAs in the Cebu City, Cebu 1st, Cebu
2nd and the Mandaue City Highway Engineering Districts (HED).
They discovered that two sets of LAAs were received by the districts.
One set consists of regular LAAs which clearly indicated the covering
sub-allotment advices and were duly signed by Mrs. Angelina
Escaño, Finance Officer of the MPH Regional Office. The other set
consists of fake LAAs which do not indicate the covering
sub-allotment advice and were signed by Chief Accountant Rolando
Mangubat and Engr. Jose Bagasao, instead of the Finance Officer.
Mangubat, however, had no authority to approve them because
since October 1977 he had already been detailed to the MPH
Central Office. There were indications that the practice had been
going on for years.
4.The fake LAAs became the vehicles in the disbursement of funds
amounting to P3,839,810.74 for the purchase and delivery of
materials allegedly used for the maintenance and repair of the
national highways within the Cebu First HED. Despite the enormous
additional expenditure, the testimonies of barangay captains of the
afftected areas disclosed that were no actual major repair works
undertaken on the national highway except the filling of potholes by
crushed limestone (anapog).
5.Rolando Mangubat and others were found guilty in all 119 counts
and were accordingly sentenced by the Sandignbayan.
Petitioners Simon Fernan, Jr. and Expedito Torrevillas were both
Civil Engineers of the MPH assigned to the Cebu First HED.
Petitioner Fernan, Jr. was included among the accused in 6 of the
criminal cases allegedly for having signed six tally sheets or
statements of deliveries of materials, used as bases for the
preparation of the corresponding number of general vouchers. Fund
releases were made to the suppliers, contractors, and payees based
on these general vouchers.
6. The Sandiganbayan found Fernan, Jr. guilty in all 6 criminal cases
as co-principal (with Mangubat et al) in the crime of Estafa thru
falsification of Public Documents under Articles 318 and 171, in
relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.
7.Petitioner Torrevillas was similarly convicted under the same
offense in 9 criminal cases.
8. Petitioners made the supplication before the court a quo to recall
the adverse judgments against them which was declined by the
August 29, 2000 SB Resolution. Firm in their belief that they were
innocent of any wrongdoing, they now interpose the instant petition
to clear their names.
9. Petitioner interpose the instant petition claiming that their guilt was
not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Specifically, the State was
unable to show that government funds were illegally released based
on alleged ghost deliveries in conjunction with the false or fake tally
sheets and other documents which they admittedly signed.
WHETHER OR NOT The honorable sandiganbayan erred in
convicting petitioners as co-conspirators despite the prosecution’s
failure to specifically prove beyond reasonable doubt the facts and
circumstances that would implicate them as co-conspirators and
justify their conviction.
The essential elements of estafa through falsification of public
documents.
Indeed, the burden of proving the allegation of conspiracy falls to the
shoulders of the prosecution. Considering, however, the difficulty in
establishing the existence of conspiracy, settled jurisprudence finds
no need to prove it by direct evidence. In People v. Pagalasan, the
Court explicated why direct proof of prior agreement is not
necessary:
After all, secrecy and concealment are essential features of a
successful conspiracy. Conspiracies are clandestine in nature. It may
be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after
the commission of the crime, showing that they had acted with a
common purpose and design.
Conspiracy may be implied if it is proved that two or more persons
aimed their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful
object, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though
apparently independent of each other, were in fact, connected and
cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a
concurrence of sentiment.
To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy,
he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or
furtherance of the complicity. There must be intentional participation
in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common
design and purpose.50
In Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, we categorized two (2) structures of
multiple conspiracies, namely:
(1) the so-called "wheel" or "circle" conspiracy, in which there is a
single person or group (the "hub") dealing individually with two or
more other persons or groups (the "spokes"); and
(2) the "chain" conspiracy, usually involving the distribution of
narcotics or other contraband, in which there is successive
communication and cooperation in much the same way as with
legitimate business operations between manufacturer and
wholesaler, then wholesaler and retailer, and then retailer and
consumer.51
We find that the conspiracy in the instant cases resembles the
"wheel" conspiracy. The 36 disparate persons who constituted the
massive conspiracy to defraud the government were controlled by a
single hub, namely: Rolando Mangubat (Chief Accountant), Delia
Preagido (Accountant III), Jose Sayson (Budget Examiner), and
Edgardo Cruz (Clerk II), who controlled the separate "spokes" of the
conspiracy. Petitioners were among the many spokes of the wheel.
Mangubat enticed Preagido, Cruz and Sayson to join him. All three
agreed to help him carry out his plan. They typed fake LAAs during
Saturdays. Cruz and Sayson also took charge of negotiating or
selling fake LAAs to contractors at 26% of the gross amount.
Preagido manipulated the general ledger, journal vouchers and
general journal through negative entries to conceal the illegal
disbursements. In the initial report of COA auditors Victoria C.
Quejada and Ruth I. Paredes it was discovered that the doubtful
allotments and other anomalies escaped notice due to the following
manipulations:
"The letter-advices covering such allotments (LAA) were not signed
by the Finance Officer nor (sic) recorded in the books of accounts.
Disbursements made on the basis of these fake LAAs were charged
to the unliquidated obligations although the obligations being paid
were not among those certified to the unliquidated obligations at the
end of the preceding year. To conceal the overcharges to authorized
allotments and the excess of checks issued over authorized cash
disbursements ceiling, adjustments were prepared monthly through
journal vouchers to take up the negative debit to and a negative
credit to the Treasury Checking Account for Agencies Account
8-70-790. These journal vouchers in effect cancelled the previous
entry to record the disbursements made on the basis of fake LAAs.
Thus the affected accounts as appearing in the trial balance, would
not show the irregularity. The checks, however, were actually
issued."52
The four formed the nucleus of the nefarious conspiracy. Other
government employees, tempted by the prospect of earning big
money, allowed their names to be used and signed spurious
documents.
Where the acts of each of the accused constitute an essential link in
a chain and the desistance of even one of them would prevent the
chain from being completed, then no conspiracy could result as its
consummation would then be impossible or aborted. But when each
and everyone of the accused in the instant cases performed their
assigned tasks and roles with martinet-like precision and accuracy,
by individually performing essential overt acts, so much so that the
common objective is attained, which is to secure the illegal release of
public funds under the guise of fake or simulated public documents,
then each and everyone of said accused are equally liable as
co-principals under the well-established and universally-accepted
principle that, once a conspiracy is directly or impliedly proven, the
act of one is the act of all and such liability exists notwithstanding
no-participation in every detail in the execution of the offense.54
In sum, the required quantum of proof has been adduced by the
State on the conspiracy among the accused including petitioners.
The conviction of petitioners must perforce be sustained.
G.R. No. 81563 December 19, 1989
AMADO C. ARIAS, petitioner,
vs.
THE SANDIGANBAYAN, respondent.
G.R. No. 82512 December 19, 1989
CRESENCIO D. DATA, petitioner,
vs.
THE SANDIGANBAYAN, respondent.
Paredes Law Office for petitioner
• In 1975, the Bureau of Public Works initiated the Mangahan
Floodway Project to ease the perennial floods affecting the towns of
Marikina and Pasig, Metro Manila
• The implementation of the Mangahan Floodway Project was
entrusted to the Pasig Engineering District headed by the District
Engineer, Cresencio Data. He formed a committee. The team was
tasked to notify lot owners affected by the project of the impending
expropriation of their properties and to receive and process
applications for payment.
• May 5, 1977 - Among the lots affected was a portion of a riceland
in Pasig registered in the name of Benjamin Agleham under Original
Certificate of Title No. 0097.
• Among those who filed an application for payment at the District
Engineer's Office was Natividad Gutierrez, who was armed with a
Special Power of Attorney allegedly executed on February 24, 1978
by Benjamin Agleham in her favor. She submitted supposedly
certified Tax declaration describing the property as "residential"
(instead of riceland), and with a fair market value of P2,413,520 or
P80 per sqm (instead of P5 per sqm).
• On April 20, 1978, the Deed of Absolute Sale was signed by Data
and Gutierrez (as attorney-in-fact of Agleham).
• On June 8, 1978, the sale was registered and Transfer Certificate
of Title No. T-12071 was issued in the name of the Government after
the documents were returned to Data's office for Transfer of Title to
the government.
• On October 23, 1978, the voucher and its supporting documents
were pre-audited and approved for payment by the accused, Amado
C. Arias, as auditor of the Engineering District.
• October 24, 1978, sixteen (16) PNB checks were issued to
Gutierrez as payment for Agleham's lot.
• On October, 1979, an investigation was conducted by the Ministry
of National Defense on the gross overpricing of Agleham's property
where it was found that the xerox copy of Tax Declaration No. 47895
submitted by Gutierrez was fake.
• This case presents a conspiracy of silence and inaction where
chiefs of office who should have been vigilant to protect the interest
of the Government in the purchase of Agleham's two-hectare
riceland, accepted as gospel truth the certifications of their
subordinates, and approved without question the million-peso
purchase which, by the standards prevailing in 1976-78, should have
pricked their curiosity and prompted them to make inquiries and to
verify the authenticity of the documents presented to them for
approval. The petitioners kept silent when they should have asked
questions; they looked the other way when they should have probed
deep into the transaction.
• Both Arias and Data appealed. Arias anchors his petition for review
of the Sandiganbayan's decision (G.R. No. 81563) on his contention
that the court's findings that he conspired with his co-accused and
that he was grossly negligent are based on misapprehension of
facts, speculation, surmise, and conjecture. Data's main defense is
that the acquisition of the Agleham property was the work of the
committee of Precillo Fernando in which he did not take an active
part, and that the price which the Government paid for it was
reasonable. Hence, it suffered no injury in the transaction.
• In his consolidated brief or comment for the State, the Solicitor
General recommends the acquittal of the petitioners because the
Agleham property was allegedly not grossly overpriced.
Whether Arias and Data beyond reasonable doubt, as
co-conspirators in the conspiracy to cause undue injury to the
Government through the irregular disbursement and expenditure of
public funds, has not been satisfied.
The majority is of the view that Messrs. Arias and Data should be
acquitted on grounds of reasonable doubt. The Court feels that the
quantum of evidence needed to convict petitioners Arias and Data
beyond reasonable doubt, as co-conspirators in the conspiracy to
cause undue injury to the Government through the irregular
disbursement and expenditure of public funds, has not been satisfied
We agree with the counsel for the People. There is no adequate
evidence to establish the guilt of the petitioners, Amado C. Arias and
Cresencio D. Data, beyond reasonable doubt. The inadequate
evidence on record is not sufficient to sustain a conviction.
A conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence of the acts
charged, but may and generally must be proven by a number of
indefinite acts, conditions and circumstances (People vs. Maralit,
G.R. No. 71143, Sept. 19,1988; People vs. Roca, G.R. No. 77779,
June 27, 1988).
This case presents a conspiracy of silence and inaction where chiefs
of office who should have been vigilant to protect the interest of the
Government in the purchase of Agleham's two-hectare riceland,
accepted as gospel truth the certifications of their subordinates, and
approved without question the million-peso purchase which, by the
standards prevailing in 1976-78, should have pricked their curiosity
and prompted them to make inquiries and to verify the authenticity of
the documents presented to them for approval. The petitioners kept
silent when they should have asked questions they looked the other that “although there may be inconsistencies in the testimonies of
way when they should have probed deep into the transaction. witnesses on minor details, they do not impair their credibility where
there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive
identification of the assailant.”36