Criminal Law 1

ASSIGNMENT: 1

• Define Criminal Law

Criminal law is a system of law and body of legislation that deals with the punishment of those
who commit crimes. The Cornell Law School defines criminal law as a system of laws
concerned with crimes and the punishment of individuals who commit crimes
(https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/criminal_law).

• What are the Sources of Criminal Law in the Philippines (Codes, Books)

The primary sources of criminal law in the country (Philippines) are found in several codes and
laws. Here are the main sources:

Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815): The Revised Penal Code is the primary legal document
that defines criminal offenses and their corresponding penalties in the Philippines. It was
enacted on December 8, 1930, and remains in effect with subsequent amendments.

Special Penal Laws: These are individual laws that define specific criminal offenses and their
penalties. Examples of special penal laws include the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act,
Anti-Cybercrime Law, Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and many others.

Presidential Decrees (PDs) and Executive Orders (EOs): Presidential Decrees and Executive
Orders are issued by the President of the Philippines to address particular issues or concerns.
Some PDs and EOs may contain provisions related to criminal offenses and their penalties.

Revised Administrative Code: The Revised Administrative Code contains provisions governing
the organization and operation of the various branches of the Philippine government. It may
include sections related to administrative offenses and corresponding penalties.

Jurisprudence: In the Philippines, court decisions and interpretations of the law made by the
Supreme Court and other lower courts contribute to the development and understanding of
criminal law. These legal precedents can influence how certain laws are applied and enforced.

International Treaties and Agreements: Some criminal offenses, particularly those involving
transnational crimes or human rights violations, may be governed by international treaties and
agreements to which the Philippines is a signatory.
Criminal Law 1

 How did Criminal Law develop in the Philippines (History, Origin)

The development of Criminal Law in the Philippines has been shaped by a complex interplay of
indigenous customs, Spanish colonial influences, American legal principles, and modern
domestic reforms. This historical journey has contributed to the present state of Criminal Law in
the Philippines, which continues to evolve as the country progresses.

Before the arrival of the Spanish in the 16th century, the indigenous peoples of the Philippines
had their own customary laws and practices to maintain social order and resolve disputes within
their communities. These customary laws varied among different ethnic groups but generally
revolved around principles of justice, restitution, and reconciliation.

With the arrival of Spanish colonizers in the 16th century, Spanish law was introduced and
imposed in the archipelago. The Spanish colonial authorities established a legal system based
on Roman law, Canon law, and the Siete Partidas, a medieval Castilian legal code. The Spanish
Crown issued various decrees and laws that governed different aspects of life, including criminal
offenses and their corresponding penalties.

During this period, the Spanish authorities used Criminal Law as a tool to assert control over the
Filipino population and protect Spanish interests. Indigenous customary practices were often
superseded by Spanish laws and judicial procedures.

After the defeat of Spain in the Spanish-American War of 1898, the Philippines fell under
American rule (1898-1946). Under American colonial administration, the legal system underwent
significant changes, heavily influenced by American legal principles. The American colonial
authorities introduced a system of common law, which included English-based jurisprudence
and the principles of due process and equal protection under the law.

The Americans enacted several legal codes, including the Penal Code of 1930, which defined
criminal offenses and their corresponding penalties. These codes were based on the American
legal system but also incorporated some elements of Spanish law that remained in force.

The Philippines gained independence from the United States in 1946. In the post-independence
era, the country continued to refine its legal system and Criminal Law. Several significant
amendments and reforms were made to address changing societal needs and to harmonize the
legal system with the principles enshrined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
Criminal Law 1

ASSIGNMENT 2:

The criminal law system is shaped and governed by various theoretical underlying the criminal
law system, to wit:

Classical or Juristic Theory:

The classical or juristic theory of criminal law is one of the earliest and most influential
approaches. It emerged during the 18th century Enlightenment period. Key proponents of this
theory include Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham. The main principles of the classical
theory are:

Free Will: Individuals have free will and rationality, allowing them to make choices based on a
cost-benefit analysis of potential rewards and punishments.

Punishment: Punishment serves as a deterrent to crime, preventing individuals from engaging

in unlawful activities by instilling fear of the consequences.

Proportionality: Punishments should be proportional to the seriousness of the crime

committed.

Certainty: Laws should be clearly defined, and the application of punishments should be
certain, predictable, and swift.

Positivist or Realistic Theory:

The positivist or realistic theory of criminal law emerged in the 19th century as a reaction to the
limitations of the classical approach. Key figures in this theory include Cesare Lombroso and
Emile Durkheim. The main principles of the positivist theory are:

Determinism: Criminal behavior is influenced by internal and external factors, such as genetics,
psychology, social environment, and economic conditions. Individuals may not have complete
control over their actions due to these influences.

Treatment: Instead of punishment, the focus is on rehabilitation and treatment of offenders to

address the underlying causes of criminal behavior.

Individualization: The criminal justice system should consider individual circumstances and
tailor interventions accordingly.
Criminal Law 1

Scientific Method: Positivists emphasize the use of scientific methods, such as empirical
research, to study and understand criminal behavior.
Eclectic or Mixed Theory:

The eclectic or mixed theory of criminal law is a combination of elements from both the classical
and positivist theories. It seeks to integrate the strengths of both approaches to create a more
comprehensive understanding of criminal behavior and appropriate responses to it. The main
principles of the eclectic theory are:

Rational Choice: While acknowledging external influences on behavior, individuals still have
some degree of rationality and free will in making choices.

Punishment and Treatment: Punishment may deter some individuals, but rehabilitation and
treatment are also important to prevent recidivism and address the root causes of crime.

Individualized Justice: The criminal justice system should balance general deterrence and
individual circumstances to deliver fair and just outcomes.

Utilitarian or Protective Theory:

The utilitarian or protective theory of criminal law focuses on the greater good and the protection
of society as a whole. The main principles of the utilitarian theory are:

Greatest Happiness Principle: Actions are considered morally right if they promote the
greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

Social Welfare: Criminal law should aim to maximize social welfare and minimize harm to
individuals and society.

Deterrence and Prevention: Punishment is utilized to deter criminal behavior and prevent
future crimes, safeguarding the well-being of the society.

Each of these theories offers a distinct perspective on how the criminal law system should
operate, and legal systems around the world may draw upon elements from one or more of
these theories in shaping their approach to criminal justice.

ASSIGNMENT 3: When may a penal law may be given retroactive application

Criminal Law 1

Retroactive application refers to applying a law to events that occurred before the law was
enacted. In Article 22, Retroactive Effect of Penal Laws - Penal laws shall have a retroactive
effect in so far as they favor the person guilty of a felony who is not a habitual criminal, as this
term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of
such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.

This means that if a new law is enacted that reduces the penalty for an offense or in any manner
is more favorable to the accused, that law can be applied retroactively. The rationale behind this
exception is to ensure that the accused benefits from any favorable changes in the law that
occur after the commission of the offense. In general, penal laws are generally not given
retroactive application, except when the law is more favorable to the accused. This principle is
rooted in the Constitution and is in line with the fundamental legal principle of protecting
individuals from arbitrary and unfair punishment.
Criminal Law 1

ASSIGNMENT 4: Differentiate Felonies / Offense/. Crime / Misdemeanor

In the context of criminal law in the Philippines, it's essential to understand the distinctions
between the following terms:

Felonies: Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault
(culpa). In the Philippine justice system, felonies are governed by the Revised Penal Code (Act
No. 3815), which categorizes felonies into four classes based on their gravity: grave felonies,
less grave felonies, light felonies, and attempted felonies. Each class carries a specific penalty
range.

Offense: The term "offense" is a broader and more general term that encompasses both
felonies and misdemeanors. It refers to any act or omission punishable by law. Offenses include
not only criminal acts but also violations of administrative or regulatory laws, like traffic offenses
or minor violations of government rules.

Crime: In the context of criminal law, the terms "crime" and "offense" are often used
interchangeably. A crime refers to an illegal act that can be prosecuted by the state and, if
proven guilty, can result in punishment.

Misdemeanor: In the Philippine legal system, the term "misdemeanor" is not commonly used as
it is in some other legal systems. Instead, misdemeanors are generally referred to as "light
felonies" under the Revised Penal Code. Light felonies are less serious offenses compared to
grave and less grave felonies, and they carry the lightest penalties.

To summarize:
Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa).
Offense and crime are general terms referring to any act or omission punishable by law,
including both felonies and misdemeanors.
Misdemeanors are referred to as "light felonies" in the Philippine legal system and represent
less serious offenses with lighter penalties compared to grave and less grave felonies.
JOHN VINCENT P. BALILIS
Criminal Law 1

ASSIGNMENT 5: Differentiate Dolo from Culpa, intent from motive.

In Philippine criminal law, "dolo" and "culpa" refer to two different mental states or degrees of
fault that can determine the criminal liability of an individual. Additionally, "intent" and
"motive" are distinct concepts related to a person's mental state and reasons for committing
a criminal act.

Dolo and Culpa:

a. Dolo (or "dolus" in Latin) - This refers to a criminal act committed with "malice" or "criminal
intent." In dolo, the offender deliberately and consciously commits a wrongful act, fully aware
of its unlawful nature and the potential consequences. Dolo can be further divided into two
categories:

i. Dolo directo (direct intent) - This occurs when the person aims to achieve a specific
criminal result and consciously chooses to commit the offense.

ii. Dolo eventual (eventual intent) - In this case, while the person may not directly desire
the criminal outcome, they are aware that their actions will likely lead to it, yet they proceed
with the act anyway.

b. Culpa - This concept involves criminal liability arising from negligence or lack of foresight.
Unlike dolo, culpa pertains to situations where the offender does not intend to commit a
crime but acts carelessly or negligently, leading to harm or damage. Culpa can be
categorized into:

i. Culpa imprudencia (reckless negligence) - This occurs when the person, without
intent to cause harm, acts with extreme carelessness or recklessness, which results in harm
to others.

ii. Culpa neglicencia (simple negligence) - This involves cases where the person's lack
of care or prudence causes harm to another, but the negligence is not as severe as in
reckless negligence.

Intent and Motive:

JOHN VINCENT P. BALILIS
Criminal Law 1

a. Intent - It refers to the mental state of an individual at the time they commit a criminal
act. It involves the conscious decision and purpose to engage in a specific behavior or
achieve a particular result. Intent can be an essential element in determining the degree of
criminal liability and the specific offense committed. For example, if a person intentionally
kills someone with a weapon, it could lead to a charge of murder or homicide, depending on
other circumstances.

b. Motive - "Motive" refers to the reason or underlying cause that drives a person to
commit a criminal act. Unlike intent, motive may not directly relate to the specific criminal act
itself, but it provides an explanation or context for why the person acted in a certain way.
Motive alone is generally not enough to establish criminal liability, but it can be relevant in
investigations and trials to understand the accused person's state of mind or potential
motives behind the crime.

Therefore, "dolo" and "culpa" are mental states related to criminal intent and negligence,
respectively, while "intent" and "motive" are distinct concepts where intent refers to the
conscious decision to commit a crime, and motive refers to the reason or driving force
behind the criminal act.
JOHN VINCENT P. BALILIS
Criminal Law 1

ASSIGNMENT 6:

WHEN DOES MOTIVE BECOME MATERIAL IN DETERMINING CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Motive becomes material in determining criminal liability when it is an essential element of a

specific crime or when it is used to establish the accused's guilt or innocence. In general,
motive refers to the reason or purpose behind committing a crime. While motive alone is not
enough to establish criminal liability, it can be significant in certain circumstances:

Specific intent crimes: In some crimes, the law requires a specific intent on the part of the
offender. In such cases, the prosecution may present evidence of the accused's motive to
prove that they had the required mental state to commit the crime. For example, in the crime
of murder, proving the motive can help establish that the accused intended to kill the victim.

Identifying the perpetrator: When there are multiple suspects in a crime, their motives can
help investigators narrow down the list of potential offenders. If there is strong evidence of
motive pointing to a particular individual, it can be a factor in determining their culpability.

Circumstantial evidence: In the absence of direct evidence proving a person's guilt, the
presence of a strong motive can be used as circumstantial evidence to link the accused to
the crime.

Differentiating degrees of a crime: In some cases, the gravity of a crime may vary depending
on the motive behind it. For example, in the crime of homicide, if the motive was a heated
argument compared to a premeditated intention to kill, the penalties might differ.

While motive can be relevant and helpful in criminal investigations and trials, it is not a
standalone basis for conviction. The prosecution must still prove all the elements of the
crime and demonstrate the accused's direct involvement through proper evidence.

In summary, motive becomes material in determining criminal liability when it is used to

establish specific intent, identify the perpetrator, provide circumstantial evidence, or
differentiate degrees of a crime.
JOHN VINCENT P. BALILIS
Criminal Law 1

ASSIGNMENT 7:

What is Mala in se vs. Mala prohibita

In Philippine criminal law, offenses can be categorized into two main types: "mala in se" and
"mala prohibita." These Latin terms refer to the two different ways that crimes are classified
based on their inherent nature and the intent of the law.

Mala in se:
"Mala in se" offenses are crimes that are inherently evil or wrong in themselves. These
offenses are considered universally immoral and are generally accepted as wrongful in any
society. They are crimes that involve actions that are intrinsically harmful or dangerous, and
they violate the basic principles of morality and conscience. Examples of mala in se crimes
include murder, theft, rape, and assault.
Punishment for mala in se offenses is based on the moral blameworthiness of the offender
and the severity of the harm caused. The penalties for these crimes are typically more
severe and are meant to deter individuals from engaging in such behavior.

Mala prohibita:
"Mala prohibita" offenses, on the other hand, are crimes that are considered wrong solely
because they are prohibited by law. These offenses are not inherently evil or immoral, but
they are crimes because the law says they are. Mala prohibita offenses are often regulatory
or public order offenses and may not be universally condemned as morally wrong.
Examples of mala prohibita crimes include traffic violations, public order offenses, certain
drug offenses, and some white-collar crimes like insider trading or tax evasion.

The punishment for mala prohibita offenses is generally less severe than for mala in se
offenses. The primary aim of these penalties is to ensure compliance with the law and
maintain order in society.

It's important to understand the distinction between mala in se and mala prohibita because it
can have implications for the interpretation of the law, the severity of penalties, and
considerations in the criminal justice system.
JOHN VINCENT P. BALILIS
Criminal Law 1

ASSIGNMENT 8:

DIFFERENTIATE Error in personae, ABERRATIO ICTUS, Praeter intentionem

The terms "error in personae," "aberratio ictus," and "praeter intentionem" refer to specific
legal concepts related to criminal liability and the consequences of committing a crime. Let's
differentiate each of them:

Error in personae:
"Error in personae" is a Latin term that translates to "mistake in identity" or "mistake in
person." In criminal law, it refers to a situation where the offender intends to commit a crime
against a specific person, but due to a mistake or misidentification, they end up committing
the offense against a different person.
For example, if a person intends to kill Person A, but mistakenly shoots and kills Person B,
the doctrine of error in personae may come into play. In such cases, the offender may not be
entirely relieved of criminal liability. Philippine law recognizes that the criminal intent was
directed at a particular individual, even though a different person was harmed or killed. As a
result, the offender may still be held accountable for the crime committed against the
unintended victim.

Aberratio Ictus:
"Aberratio ictus" is another Latin term, which translates to "mistake of blow" or "mistake of
the hit." This concept is related to the crime of "complex crime" where a person intends to
commit one crime but, while carrying out the act, mistakenly ends up committing a different
crime. For instance, if a person intends to stab Person A, but due to a miss or sudden
movement, the knife lands on Person B, resulting in their injury or death, aberratio ictus may
be relevant. In this case, the offender intended to commit one crime (stabbing Person A) but
ended up committing another crime (assault on Person B). In Philippine law, the offender
may be held liable for both the intended crime and the unintended crime that resulted from
the mistake.

Praeter Intentionem:
JOHN VINCENT P. BALILIS Criminal
Law 1
"Praeter intentionem" is a Latin term meaning "beyond intention." In criminal law, it refers to
a situation where the consequence of the offender's action goes beyond what they intended
or foresaw.
For example, if a person intended to scare someone by firing a warning shot into the air, but
the bullet accidentally hits and injures another person, the doctrine of praeter intentionem
might apply. In such cases, the offender may still be held liable for the unintended
consequences of their actions, even though they did not intend to cause harm to the
unintended victim.

Therefore, these legal concepts deal with situations where the actions of the offender
deviate from their original intent, resulting in unintended consequences. While these
doctrines can have some impact on the criminal liability of the offender, they do not
necessarily absolve them of responsibility for the harm caused. Philippine law considers the
specific circumstances and intent behind the criminal act when determining the appropriate
legal consequences for the offender.
JOHN VINCENT P. BALILIS Criminal
Law 1

ASSIGNMENT 9: DEFINE Impossible Crime

In Philippine criminal law, an "impossible crime" is a concept that pertains to a criminal act
that, by its nature, cannot produce a harmful result or effect on the intended victim or the
community. It is a unique and exceptional situation where the act is criminal, but no actual
harm or injury is caused because the circumstances or conditions make it impossible to
accomplish the intended criminal objective.

The elements of an impossible crime in the Philippines are as follows:

Criminal Act: There must be a specific criminal act performed by the offender. This means
that the person attempted to commit a crime.

Inherent Impossibility: The intended criminal act is inherently impossible to accomplish.

This could be due to factual impossibility (external factors preventing the crime), legal
impossibility (the intended act is not considered a crime), or physical impossibility (the
conditions or circumstances make the crime impossible to execute).

Criminal Intent: The offender must have a criminal intent or mens rea to commit the crime.
This means that the person had the purpose or intention to carry out the unlawful act.

It's essential to understand that an impossible crime is not considered a mere attempt,
where the offender fails to complete the crime due to external circumstances or intervention
by law enforcement. Instead, in an impossible crime, the objective is fundamentally
impossible to achieve, regardless of the circumstances.

An example of an impossible crime would be an attempted theft of an item that doesn't exist
or is in a place that the perpetrator cannot access.

Suppose a person plans to steal a rare and valuable painting displayed in a heavily fortified
museum. The individual successfully manages to bypass several security measures,
including alarms and surveillance cameras, to reach the exhibit room where the painting
should be. However, upon arriving at the designated spot, they discover that the museum
had already moved the painting to a different location for safekeeping, and instead, a replica
or an empty frame remains in its place.
JOHN VINCENT P. BALILIS Criminal
Law 1

In this case, even though the person had the criminal intent (to steal the painting), and they
performed several criminal acts to gain unauthorized access to the museum, the actual theft
of the valuable painting is impossible because it's not present at the intended location. Since
the essential element of "inherent impossibility" is present, the individual could be charged
with an impossible crime under Philippine law.

It's worth noting that the person's actions to bypass security and access the museum without
permission can still be considered criminal acts and may lead to other charges, such as
trespassing or attempted theft. However, the charge of an impossible crime would apply
specifically to the unattainable objective of stealing the painting due to its absence or
unavailability.

Example 2: Killing a person already dead.

A dead person cannot be injured or killed again. (People vs. Balmores, 85 Phil. 493 (1950)

The concept of impossible crime serves as a safeguard in the Philippine legal system to
prevent the unjust conviction of individuals who may have attempted a criminal act but failed
to bring about any actual harm due to factors beyond their control.