JD 1101 CRIMINAL LAW FISCAL RODULPH CARILLO

CRIME Military Government as a legislative body. Thus,

It is an act committed or omitted in violation of the right to prosecute and punish crimes is an
attribute of sovereignty.
public law forbidding or commanding it.
CRIMINAL LAW
ARE COURT DECISIONS AND CIRCULARS
Branch or division of law that defines crimes, treats SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW?
their nature, and provides for their punishment. (12
Court decisions are not sources of criminal law, as
Cyc. 129)
they merely explain the meaning of, and apply the
SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW law as enacted by the legislative branch of
government. (RPC, Reyes 2021)
1. Revised Penal Code.
2. Special Laws passed by the
3. Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law Norma De Joya, vs. The Jail Warden of
Batangas City, G.R. Nos. 159418-19, Dec 10,
2003
INHERENT RIGHT SC Admin. Circular No. 12-2000 is not a penal law;
hence,Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code is not
Power to define crimes and prescribe applicable. The circular applies only to those cases
corresponding penalties is in nature, legislative, pending as of the date of its effectivity and not to
cases already terminated by final judgment.
and inherent in the sovereign power of the state to
maintain social order (an aspect of police power) SC Admin. Circular No. 13-2001, SC Admin.
Circular No. 12-2000 merely lays down a rule of
preference in the application of the penalties for
violation of B.P. Blg. 22.

The State is concerned not only in the imperative

necessity of protecting the social organization
against the criminal acts of destructive individuals
but also in redeeming the individual for economic
usefulness and other social ends. The purpose of
penalties is to secure justice. The penalties
imposed must not only be retributive but must also
be reformative, to give the convict an opportunity to
live a new life and rejoin society as a productive
and civic spirited member of the community.
LIMITS (1987 CONSTITUTION)
1. Ex post facto law or Bill of Attainder (ART.
III, Sec. 22)
- No ex post facto law or bill attainder
shall be enacted.
2. Due Process (Art. III. Sec. 22)
- No person shall be deprived of life,
STATUTORY IN CHARACTER liberty, or property without due
….would partake of a prolixity of a legal code, and process of law, nor shall any person
could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It be denied the equal protection of the
would probably never be understood by the public. laws.
3. Speedy disposition of cases
4. Right to bail
Pp vs. Santiago, GR No. L-17584, 8 Mar 1922. 5. Presumption of innocence
In pursuance of the Constitution of the United
6. Self-incrimination
States, each State has the authority, under its
police power, to define and punish crimes and to 7. Double Jeopardy
lay down the rules of criminal procedure
LIMITS (Statutory)
The General Order does not have the nature of
constitutional law either by reason of its character
1. Presumption of innocence
or by the authority enacted it into law. Since the 2. Informed of the nature and cause of accusation
General Order have the character of statutory law, 3. To be present and defend in person
the power of the Legislature to amend it is 4. To testify on his own behalf
self-evident. Our present Legislature, which has
5. Self-incrimination
enacted Act No. 2886, is a legal successor to the

Page 1
JD 1101 CRIMINAL LAW FISCAL RODULPH CARILLO
6. To confront/cross-examine
JURISDICTION IN CRIMINAL CASES
1. Place/Venue
2. Nature of the crime
3. A person committing the crime
CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW
1. General (Art. 14, new Civil Code) Crimes against national security/law of nations
Binding on all persons who live or sojourn within its
jurisdiction (PH Territory)
JURISDICTION
(U.S V. SWEET 1 Phil. 18)

Concurrent jurisdiction of civil courts over military

personnel with Courts-martial (service-connected);
even in times of war as long as civil courts are still Foreign Merchant Ships
functioning.

Gonzales vs. Abaya, G.R No. 164007, August 10, 2006

Exceptions of Generality
● Treaties;
○ Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) Crime is committed onboard a foreign merchant
between PH and USA ship
○ Laws of Preferential Application;
■ RA NO. 75
○ Sovereigns, Chiefs of State,
Ambassadors, Ministers
plenipotentiary, ministers residents,
and charges d’affaires
2. Territorial
As a rule, penal laws of the Philippines are
enforceable only within its territory.
English vs. French
Philippine territory is an archipelagic doctrine
Example of English Rule.
Exceptions of Territoriality
1. Possession of opium
Article 2, RPC ○ In transit - not triable
○ PH is destination - triable
PH Ship or airship
○ Smoking opium - triable regardless.
○ Landed in PH soil - triable
regardless

Pp vs Wong Cheng ,Pp vs Look Chaw & Pp vs.

Ah Sing

Introduction of forge or counterfeit coins, currency

notes, obligations or securities into the PH

Public officers/employees in the exercise of their

functions;
Page 2
JD 1101 CRIMINAL LAW
We have seen that the mere possession of opium
aboard a foreign vessel in transit was held by this
court not triable by our courts, because it being the
primary object of our Opium Law to protect the
inhabitants of the Philippines against the disastrous
effects entailed by the use of this drug, its mere
possession in such a ship, without being used in
our territory, does not bring about in the said
territory those effects that our statute contemplates
avoiding. Hence such a mere possession is not
considered a disturbance of the public order.
But to smoke opium within our territorial limits,
even though aboard a foreign merchant ship, is
certainly a breach of the public order here
established, because it causes such drug to
produce its pernicious effects within our territory. It
seriously contravenes the purpose that our
Legislature has in mind in enacting the aforesaid
repressive statute.
3. Prospective (Art. 21, RPC)
Penal laws shall have no retroactive application,
lest they acquire the character of an ex post facto
law
Maxim ignorance of the law is not applicable as no
there is no law to be ignorant of.
Exceptions of Prospective
When new law is favorable to the accused.
CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS
1. In favor of the accused; against the
government
2. The Spanish text is controlling
3. Case of ambiguity
ART. 3 FELONIES
FELONY
It is the technical term for violations of RPC
ELEMENTS:
1. Act or omission
2. Punishable by RPC;
3. Dolo or culpa;
Act or omission
This refers to any bodily movement tending to
produce some effect in the external world
Pp vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 80762, Mar. 19, 1990
FISCAL RODULPH CARILLO
Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code
provides how criminal liability is incurred.
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 means.
Thus, one of the means by which criminal
liability is incurred is through the commission
of a felony.
Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code
provides how felonies are committed. 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.
Thus, the elements of felonies in general are:
(1) there must be an act or omission; (2) the
act or omission must be punishable under the
Revised Penal Code; and (3) the act is
performed or the omission incurred by means
of deceit or fault.
Overt - done openly, external, must have direct
connection with felony committed.
Omission - Mere passive presence at the scene of
another’s crime; silence and failure to give alarm,
do not constitute the cooperation
Pp vs. Silvestre, December 14, 1931, G.R. No.
35748
(1) Mere passive presence at the scene of another's
crime, mere silence and failure to give the alarm,
without evidence of agreement or conspiracy, do
not constitute the cooperation required by article 14
of the Penal Code for complicity in the commission
of the crime witnessed passively, or with regard to
which one has kept silent; and
(2) he who desiring to burn the houses in a barrio,
without knowing whether there are people in them
or not, sets fire to one known to be vacant at the
time, which results in destroying the rest, commits
the crime of arson, defined and penalized in article
550, paragraph 2, Penal Code.
● There must be a law punishing such
inaction or failure.
Page 3
JD 1101 CRIMINAL LAW FISCAL RODULPH CARILLO
FELONIES
Facts: The case involved the conviction of
1. Dolo - deceit/malice; deliberate intent accused-appellants Antonio Z. Oanis
and Alberto Galanta, chief of police and
Requisites of dolo: corporal of the Philippine Constabulary,
respectively, for the homicide of Serapio
1. Freedom - No freedom = not voluntary Tecson.
2. Intelligence - discern morality of act
3. Intent - to commit felony; is hard to prove
○ Criminal intent - presumed from the
commission of an unlawful act On December 24, 1938, Oanis and
Galanta received a telegram from Major
GENERAL VS. SPECIFIC INTENT Guido of the Philippine Constabulary,
instructing them to arrest Anselmo
● General intent - intent as an element of Balagtas, a notorious criminal and an
dolo escaped convict, and if overpowered, to
● Specific intent - intent to gain in theft and get him dead or alive.
robbery; intent to kill in homicide and
murder.
Mistake of fact Oanis and Galanta proceeded to the
house where Balagtas was suspected to
1. Misapprehension of facts by person who be staying. They entered the house and
causes injury to another. went to a room where they saw a man
2. No criminal liability on the part of the actor sleeping with his back towards the door.
Oanis and Galanta simultaneously or
because of the absence of criminal intent.
successively fired at the man, believing
Requisites of mistake of fact: him to be Balagtas.
1. act is lawful had facts been as the accused
believed them to be.
2. intention of accused is lawful The man turned out to be Serapio
3. no fault or carelessness Tecson, a peaceful and innocent citizen.
Tecson died as a result of the gunshot
No fault or negligence. wounds.

In the instant case, appellants, …, found no circumstances

whatsoever which would press them to immediate action.
Oanis and Galanta were charged with
And a peace officer cannot claim exemption from criminal
murder. They argued that they acted in
liability if he uses unnecessary force or violence in making an
the performance of their official duties
arrest.
and that they fired at Tecson in the belief
4. Peace officer cannot claim exception from that he was Balagtas.
criminal liability if he uses unnecessary
force or violence in making an arrest.

Pp vs. Oanis, July 27, 1943, G.R. No. 47722

The trial court found Oanis and Galanta
guilty of homicide and sentenced them
to an indeterminate penalty of from one
year and six months to two years and
two months of prison correccional.
Oanis and Galanta appealed their
conviction to the Supreme Court.

Issue: whether accused-appellants Antonio Z.

Oanis and Alberto Galanta, chief of
police and corporal of the Philippine
Constabulary, respectively, are liable for
the homicide of Serapio Tecson.

Ruling: The Supreme Court affirmed the

conviction of Oanis and Galanta for
homicide. The Supreme Court held that
Oanis and Galanta acted recklessly
when they fired at Tecson without first
ascertaining his identity. The Supreme
Court also held that Oanis and Galanta
were not justified in using deadly force
against Tecson, as he was not posing a
threat to their lives or the lives of others.
(review)
REQUISITES:
Page 4
JD 1101 CRIMINAL LAW
Proper invocation of this defense:
1. mistake is honest and reasonable;
2. matter of fact; and
3. negate culpability required to commit the crime
Mistake of fact vs. Mistake of Law
Mistake of fact - This is the basis for the defense of
good faith in bigamy case,
Mistake of law - This does not excuse a person, even a
lay person, from liability
DIEGO vs CASTILLO, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1673,
Aug 11, 2004
Facts: On February 20, 2002, Eduardo Diego
filed a complaint against Judge Silverio
Castillo of the Regional Trial Court of
Dagupan City, Branch 43, for allegedly
knowingly rendering an unjust judgment
in a criminal case and/or rendering
judgment in gross ignorance of the law.
FISCAL RODULPH CARILLO
Ruling: Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled
that Judge Silverio Castillo of the
Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City,
Branch 43, knowingly rendered an
unjust judgment in a criminal case
and/or rendered judgment in gross
ignorance of the law.
The Supreme Court found that Judge
Castillo violated Article 8, Section 1 of
the Constitution, which prohibits judges
from knowingly rendering unjust
judgments. The Supreme Court also
found that Judge Castillo violated Rule
1.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct,
which requires judges to uphold and
observe the law.
The Supreme Court suspended Judge
Castillo from office for six months
without pay. The Supreme Court also
ordered Judge Castillo to pay a fine of
P10,000.00.

The complaint stemmed from a criminal

case for bigamy filed against Diego's
wife, Lucena Escoto. Escoto was Good faith is a good defense
previously married to Jorge de Perio, Jr., In intentional felonies absence of intent is a defense, the
but they were divorced in 1995. In 1996, accused is not liable for intentional felony but may be liable for
Escoto married Diego. However, in culpable felony.
2001, de Perio filed a criminal case for
bigamy against Escoto, alleging that she 2. Culpa - no deliberate intent to cause injury;
was still legally married to him at the but there is:
time of her marriage to Diego. ● negligence; or
● imprudence
Judge Castillo found Escoto guilty of
bigamy and sentenced her to
● must be voluntary*
imprisonment. Diego argued that the
Requisite of Culpa:
judgment was unjust because Escoto's
marriage to de Perio was already 1. Freedom
dissolved at the time of her marriage to 2. Intelligence
Diego. Diego also argued that Judge
3. Imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or
Castillo rendered the judgment in gross
ignorance of the law because he failed lack of skill.
to consider the Supreme Court's ruling
Culpable felonies are those wrongs done as a
in the case of People v. Escarilla, which
held that a divorce decree obtained
result of an act performed without malice or criminal
abroad is valid in the Philippines. design.
● Villareal v. People, G.R. No. 151258, December
The Supreme Court found that the
1, 2014.
evidence presented by Diego was
sufficient to show that Judge Castillo Accused may be liable for culpable felony in felonies
knowingly rendered an unjust judgment. absence of intent.
The Supreme Court noted that Judge
Castillo was aware of the Supreme
Court's ruling in Escarilla, but he Special Penal Laws
nonetheless found Escoto guilty of
1. It is sufficient if the accused had intent to
bigamy. The Supreme Court also noted
that Judge Castillo failed to provide any
perpetrate the act.
explanation for his decision to disregard 2. Prohibited act is done freely and voluntarily.
the Supreme Court's ruling in Escarilla. ○ Drugs
○ Firearms
○ Gambling

Issue: whether or not respondent Judge should

be held administratively liable for
BASIS:
knowingly rendering an unjust judgment
and/or gross ignorance of the law. ● Legislature has pronounced that
performance of the prohibited act is
injurious to public welfare and doing so is
the crime itself.
● Good faith or absence of intent is NOT a
valid defense.
Page 5
JD 1101 CRIMINAL LAW
Mala in se & Mala prohibita
Ruling:
Mala in se - wrong from very nature
Mala prohibita - wrong because it is specifically
prohibited
Intent to commit vs. Intent to perpetrate
…a person morally quite innocent and with every
intention of being a law abiding citizen becomes a
criminal, and liable to criminal penalties, if he does
an act prohibited by these statutes.
FISCAL RODULPH CARILLO
Hence, "[i]ntent to commit the crime and
intent to perpetrate the act must be
distinguished. A person may not have
consciously intended to commit a crime;
but he did intend to commit an act, and
that act is, by the very nature of things,
the crime itself[.]" When an act is
prohibited by a special law, it is
considered injurious to public welfare,
and the performance of the prohibited
act is the crime itself.

Matalam v. People, G.R. Nos. 221849-50
(Resolution), April 4, 2016.
Facts: The Sandiganbayan found Matalam
guilty of the charges and sentenced him
to suffer the indeterminate penalty of
imprisonment ranging from one (1) year
as minimum to three (3) years as
maximum, and to pay a fine of
P20,000.00 each for the violations of
R.A. No. 8291 and Rule XIII, Section 1
of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of Republic Act No. 8291.
Matalam was also sentenced to suffer
absolute perpetual disqualification from
holding public office and from practicing
any profession or calling licensed by the
Government.
Matalam appealed the Sandiganbayan's
decision to the Supreme Court, but the
Supreme Court affirmed the
Sandiganbayan's decision in toto. The
Supreme Court held that Matalam, as
the head of the agency, was criminally
liable for the failure, refusal, or delay in
the payment, turnover, and remittance
or delivery of such accounts to the GSIS
and Pag-IBIG Fund.
Volition, or intent to commit the act, is
different from criminal intent. Volition or
voluntariness refers to knowledge of the
act being done. On the other hand,
criminal intent — which is different from
motive, or the moving power for the
commission of the crime — refers to the
state of mind beyond voluntariness. It is
this intent that is being punished by
crimes mala in se
Motive and Intent
Motive - impels one to action for a definite result.
● Not an essential element of a crime
● NOT sufficient to sustain conviction
Intent - purpose to use a particular means to effect
such result.
People v. Arpon y Ponferrada, G.R. No. 229859,
June 10, 2019

The Supreme Court also held that

Matalam's argument that the duty to
remit the required amounts falls to his
co-accused was without merit. The
Supreme Court stated that Republic Act
No. 8291, Section 52(g) clearly provides
that heads of agencies or branches of
government shall be criminally liable for
the failure, refusal, or delay in the
payment, turnover, and remittance or
delivery of such accounts to the GSIS.

Issue: whether Matalam, as the head of the

agency, was criminally liable for the
failure, refusal, or delay in the payment,
turnover, and remittance or delivery of
such accounts to the GSIS and
Pag-IBIG Fund, even though he may
have delegated such duties to his
subordinates.

Page 6
JD 1101 CRIMINAL LAW
Facts: On May 27, 2010, at around 3:00 a.m.,
Rodolfo and his companion, Bernardo
S. Insigne (Bernardo), were walking
home from attending a vespers in
Barangay Guindaohan, Barugo, Leyte.
When they reached Barangay
Sagkahan, Carigara, Leyte, they were
accosted by Arpon and another man,
Dindo Lanante (Lanante).
Arpon and Lanante blocked Rodolfo and
Bernardo's path and asked them where
they were going. Rodolfo and Bernardo
replied that they were going home.
Arpon and Lanante then started arguing
with Rodolfo and Bernardo.
Suddenly, Arpon pulled out a bladed
weapon and stabbed Rodolfo multiple
times in the chest. Lanante also stabbed
Rodolfo in the back. Rodolfo fell to the
ground, dead.
Bernardo managed to escape and ran to
the nearest police station to report the
incident. Arpon and Lanante fled the
scene of the crime.
On September 3, 2010, Lanante was
arrested. However, the case against him
was provisionally dismissed upon
motion by the prosecution and execution
of an affidavit of desistance by the
victim's mother.
Arpon was eventually arrested on
September 20, 2012. He was charged
with murder and was arraigned on
November 13, 2012. He pleaded not
guilty.
Trial ensued and the prosecution
presented several witnesses, including
Bernardo, who testified to the events of
the night of the murder. Arpon, for his
part, denied the charges and claimed
that he was not at the scene of the
crime at the time of the murder.
On November 13, 2014, the Regional
Trial Court of Carigara, Leyte, Branch 13
found Arpon guilty of murder and
sentenced him to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment
of twelve (12) years as minimum to
twenty (20) years as maximum, and to
pay the heirs of the victim the amount of
P50,000.00 as moral damages and
P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Arpon appealed his conviction to the
Court of Appeals. On September 26,
2016, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
decision of the Regional Trial Court in
toto.
Arpon then filed a petition for review on
certiorari with the Supreme Court.
However, on June 10, 2019, the
Supreme Court denied Arpon's petition
and affirmed the decision of the Court of
Appeals in toto.
FISCAL RODULPH CARILLO
The Supreme Court held that the
evidence presented by the prosecution
was sufficient to sustain Arpon's
conviction for murder. The Supreme
Court also held that Arpon's alibi was
weak and unconvincing.
Issue: whether the evidence presented by the
prosecution was sufficient to convict
accused-appellant Jojit Arpon y
Ponferrada
Ruling: [m]otive is not an essential element of a
crime and hence the prosecution need
not prove the same.
As a general rule, proof of motive for the
commission of the offense charged does
not show guilt and absence of proof of
such motive does not establish the
innocence of [the] accused for the crime
charged such as murder. The history of
crimes shows that murders are
generally committed from motives
comparatively trivial. Crime is rarely
rational. In murder, the specific intent is
to kill the victim.
Motive not a requisite
● Motive is not an essential element.
● Motive alone is NOT sufficient to sustain a
conviction.
The motive may be considered when:
1. Doubt as to the identity of accused;
2. Two antagonistic version
3. No eyewitnesses
4. Circumstantial evidence
ART. 4 CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Criminal liability is incurred
1. Committing a felony although wrongful act
done is different from what he intended;
2. Impossible crime.
Rule on criminal liability
A person who commits an intentional felony is
responsible for all the consequences that may
naturally and logically result therefrom, whether
foreseen or intended or not.
Intentional felony
● Applies only to intentional (dolo) felonies
● “different from that which he intended.”
● Does not apply to unintentional (culpa)
felonies
“different from that which he intended.”
All these three is scope of the doctrine of
proximate cause
● In all three cases, the perpetrator is liable
for all the natural and logical consequence
Page 7
JD 1101 CRIMINAL LAW
that may result from the unlawful act,
whether foreseen or not.
● Mistake in the identity – error in personae
○ A intended to kill B;
○ A mistakes C for B (darkness);
○ A shoots C killing him.
○ A is liable for the death of C, since
C’s death is the direct, natural and
logical consequence of his felonious
act (shooting)
● Mistake in the blow – aberratio ictus
○ X intended to kill Y;
○ X shoots at Y;
○ X hits Z (poor aim) killing him.
○ X is liable for the death of Z, since
Z’s death is the direct, natural and
logical consequence of his felonious
act (shooting Z) X is also liable for
the attempt on Y.
● Injurious result is greater than that
intended – praeter intentionem
○ A punches B once (no intent to kill);
○ B falls to the ground hitting his head
on the pavement;
○ B dies as a result of the injuries to
his head.
○ A is liable for the death of B, since
B’s falling to the ground and hitting
his head on pavement is the direct,
natural and logical consequence of
his felonious act (punching)
○ In all three cases, the perpetrator is
liable for all the natural and logical
consequences that may result from
the unlawful act, whether foreseen
or not.
Proximate cause. It was clearly the direct
consequence of the defendant's felonious act, and
the fact that the defendant did not intend to cause
so great an injury does not relieve him from the
consequence of his unlawful act (Pp vs. Cagoco,
G.R. No. 38511, October 06, 1933)
―Direct, natural and logical. A person who
threatens or pursues another with a knife and
causes the latter to jump to the river in order to
avoid him and drowns as he did not know how to
swim, is liable for the intentional death of that
person. (US vs. Valdez, 41 Phil 497) • if the victim
had a delicate constitution as he was suffering from
tuberculosis and died as a result from the fist
blows, the person who delivered the said blows is
liable for the death. (Pp vs. Illustre, 54 Phil 594).
Physically assaulting a person not knowing that
he‘s already weak because he is suffering from
some sickness, that is also on you. So that even
if your punches were delivered to a normally
healthy person, but since your victim is suffering
from tuberculosis -- even if you did not know that
-- you‘re still liable for his death, because it is a
natural, logical, and direct consequence of your
action.
Refusal of or Unskillful Medical treatment.
Where the victim refuses to submit to surgical
operation, the person who caused the injuries is still
FISCAL RODULPH CARILLO
liable as a person is not obliged to submit to a
surgical operation to relieve the accused from the
natural or ordinary results of his crime. (US vs.
Marasigan, 27 Phil 504)
Proximate cause. 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.'
(Vda. de bataclan, vs. Medina, G.R. No. L10126,
October 22, 1957)
Note: If a person does not go to a doctor, the injury
would go through its normal development. So, the
injury that resulted from your physical assault is the
natural consequence of your felonious act. By him
going to a doctor should not exculpate an offender
from criminal liability. You cannot make it an
excuse. Because we are not looking at this as to
whether a person is obligated to seek medical help
or not, which he is not.
A person is NOT liable for all the possible
consequences of his act. And there is authority
that if the consequences resulted from a distinct act
or fact absolutely foreign from the criminal act, the
offender is not responsible for such consequences.
(Pp vs. MARCO, G.R. Nos. L-28324-5, May 19,
1978)
Not all consequences. Especially when there are
multiple offenders and there is no conspiracy
among them and one of the offenders inflicts a
non-mortal wound and another offender inflicts
the mortal wound, they both should be liable only
for the consequence of their actions. Separate
responsibilities.
Ex. Offender #1 injures the victim‘s hand.
Offender #2 delivers a fatal blow killing the victim,
the responsibilities should be separate and
individual.
Efficient intervening cause. The infection of the
wound by tetanus was an efficient intervening
cause later or between the time Javier was
wounded to the time of his death. The infection
was, therefore, distinct and foreign to the crime. (Pp
vs Villacorta, GR No. 186412, September 7, 2011)
And then you have this tetanus case. What the
decision merely said is that, ―Okay, Mr. offender,
you stabbed the victim and the victim died of
tetanus 28 (?) days after. And basically what the
SC was saying was then the tetanus should have
entered his system after you stabbed him. Not
because of you stabbing-- not during the stabbing
incident. So he died of tetanus and not because of
you stabbing him. Fiscal: And then I guess it might
be stretching the limit of proximate cause if you say,
―Well if you did not stab him then there would
have been no chance of tetanus to enter his
system‖.--dili napod siguro. We‘re just saying it‘s
the tetanus that killed him, not the stab wound. And
they repeated this in two cases so I guess that is
Page 8
JD 1101 CRIMINAL LAW
the rule, not just a stray decision. So different from
what was intended.
Impossible Crimes
• Inherent impossibility
• Employment of inadequate or ineffectual
means.
Requisites of an impossible crime:
1. Persons or property.
2. Evil intent.
3. Inherently impossible/means employed is
inadequate or ineffectual.
4. Should not constitute another violation of
the RPC. Impossible Crimes
Take note of the following:
a. In an impossible crime, there must be
intent, because it‘s a crime.
b. It is only applicable in crimes against
persons or property.
c. There is inherent impossibility. Shooting
up a house thinking that the occupant was inside
when he was in fact on vacation. So no matter how
many bullets you fire at the house, you‘re not going
to kill your intended victim. But you thought he was
inside. You were thinking and you intended to kill
him. That‘s where the evil intent comes in.
d. And your action should not constitute
another violation of the RPC.
Art. 5. Duty of judge when situation not
covered by law.
• Act is not punished by law - must render a
decision according to the law .
• The first and fundamental duty of the courts is
merely to apply the law "as they find it, not as
they like it to be.― (Gonzales v. Abaya)
• Excessive penalties – must not suspend the
execution of sentences.
Alternative penalties not allowed.
• There is nothing in the law which permits courts to
impose sentences in the alternative.
• … he cannot impose both in the alternative.
• ―He must fix positively and with certainty the
particular penalty.‖ ( Abellana vs Pp, GR No.
174654, August 17, 2011)
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
FISCAL RODULPH CARILLO
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 by overt acts, and does not perform all the
acts of execution which should produce the felony
by reason of some cause or accident other than his
own spontaneous desistance.
Art. 6. Stages of Execution
• Consummated
• Frustrated
• Attempted Consummated
• All elements necessary for its execution AND
accomplishment are present.
So, in CONSUMMATED there are two aspects:
(1) all the elements of execution - meaning to say
the overt acts; AND
(2) accomplishment - what was intended by the
offender, what did he want to achieve.
Examples: Murder: to kill - so victim must die; Theft:
to take - property must be taken, property must
transfer possession; he must gain possession of
the property he wants to take In estafa, damage is
caused: you must be able to defraud the victim. So,
EXECUTION and ACCOMPLISHMENT.
Frustrated. Offender performs all the acts of
execution that would produce the felony but does
not produce it by reason of causes independent of
the will of the perpetrator. In
FRUSTRATED, it's the same as consummated that
he performs all the acts of execution, they differ in
the result - in consummated, the intended
accomplishment/he accomplishes what he wants to
achieve while in frustrated, the intended crime is
not produced.
Attempted. Offender commences the commission
of the felony directly by overt acts, and does not
perform all the acts of execution which should
produce the felony by reason of some cause or
accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance.
What is similar between attempted and
frustrated? In attempted and frustrated, they do
not produce the intended effect if they do not
accomplish the ends of their intended crime.
What differentiates them are the overt acts. In
frustrated stage, he performs all the overt acts. In
an attempted stage, offender does not perform all
the overt acts that should produce the intended
crime.
Development of a crime 1st Internal acts – not
punishable 2nd External acts:
Page 9
JD 1101 CRIMINAL LAW
a) Preparatory acts – generally not
punishable;
b) Acts of execution - punishable.
As a rule, internal acts not punishable. So thinking
about committing a crime, not punishable.
Attempted stage, elements • Commences the
commission of the felony directly by overt acts. •
Does not perform all the acts of execution which
should produce the felony. • Acts are not stopped
by his own spontaneous desistance. • Due to a
cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance.
Development of a crime.
● 1st Internal acts – not punishable
● 2nd External acts:
a) Preparatory acts – generally not
punishable;
b) Acts of execution - punishable.
Attempted stage, elements:
• Commences the commission of the felony
directly by overt acts.
• Does not perform all the acts of execution
which should produce the felony.
• Acts are not stopped by his own
spontaneous desistance.
• Due to a cause or accident other than his
own spontaneous desistance.
If there is spontaneous desistance, then the
result is different, it‘s not an attempted stage,
that's another absolute lottery costs, if you
remember. There's that foreign intervening force
that forces him not to perform all the overt acts.
So let's say attempted homicide, usually, the fatal
blow is not inflicted. Why? The victim was able to
run away, police arrived, forcing the offender to
run away, relatives of the victims came forcing
the offender to run away, so he wasn't able to
inflict the final blow. And in frustrated stages, he
performs all the over acts. So in homicide or
murder, he inflicts the fatal blow. By inflicting a
fatal blow you have performed everything, all you
need to do now is just wait for the victim to die
because you have done all you can. That's the
last act required to achieve murder, or homicide
to kill the victim. How to kill the victim? You inflict
the fatal blow.
Overt acts.
• External acts;
• Direct connection with the crime intended
to be committed.
• ―The overt acts must have an immediate
and necessary relation to the offense.‖ (Viada)
FISCAL RODULPH CARILLO
Equivocal vs. Unequivocal.
• Drawing a pistol or raising a bolo are
equivocal acts.
• Drawing a pistol, aiming the same at the
victim and, with intent to kill, discharge the firearm
at the victim are overt acts of homicide.
Overt acts are external acts with a direct
connection to the crime. That's why we call it overt,
because there can be no other, it is unequivocal,
there can be no other interpretation, because
usually when you say overt, it is not limited to one
act - it must be a combination of acts that will tell us
what he intend to commit. If it's a single act, it's
usually equivocal, carrying a gun, pulling out a
weapon, even grabbing a girl, hugging a girl that's
one act that's usually equivocal. So a single act
would usually result in an equivocal action. So what
makes it unequivocal would be a combination or
series of acts that would tell us that he is intending
to commit a particular crime like homicide or
murder. For example he draws a pistol, he aims it
at the victim and he discharges it at the victim.
These are overt acts of homicide which tells us that
his intention was to kill, it becomes unequivocal. He
must personally execute the commission of the
crime.
―Directly by overt acts.
• This element requires that the offender
personally execute the commission of the crime.
Q: With that element, does that mean that there
can be no principal by inducement? A: No. There
can still be principal by inducement in attempted
homicide because when you say personally
execute acts, the principal by inducement will do
his part by offering the reward which induces the
principal by direct participation to commence the
crime by overt acts.
Causal relation.
• … the intention to commit a particular
crime, more than a mere planning or preparation,
• …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. (Pp vs. Lizada, G.R. No.
143468-71, Jan 24, 2003)
Necessarily it must have a causal relation
because these overt acts indicate what crime you
are intending to commit.
―By reason of some cause or accident other
than his own spontaneous desistance.
• Does not perform all acts of execution due
to his own spontaneous desistance – no criminal
liability.
• It is a reward for those ―having one foot
on the verge of crime, heed the call of their
conscience and return to the path of righteousness.
Spontaneous desistance.
Page 10
JD 1101 CRIMINAL LAW
• Absolves one from the crime he intended
to commit NOT from the crime actually committed
before the desistance.
Attempted by some cause of accident other
than by his own.
That is why this is important in the attempted
stage because if there is spontaneous desistance
(an absolutory cause), it negates criminal liability
for the intended crime. That is why it becomes
attempted if you did not perform all acts, for some
cause, which is NOT your spontaneous
desistance.
Ex: Arrival of the police or victim is escaping.
That is not you deciding that I am going to stop of
my own accord. But always remember that
spontaneous desistance negates liability from the
intended crime.
But if a crime has already been committed,
before the spontaneous desistance, you
might be liable.
Ex: You intended to commit robbery, so you are
already pointing your weapon at the victim,
asking for cash or jewelry or whatever, and
before the money could be handed to you, you
said ―sayop man ni akong gibuhat and you
walked away. So, your spontaneous desistance
negates attempted robbery. Because technically,
attempted robbery has already been committed,
you have commenced, but because you did not
perform all acts because of your spontaneous
desistance, Ingon ang balaod, ―okay we‘ll give
you a chance,‖ no attempted robbery. But since
you already pointed a gun against the victim, you
already made threats then you can be liable for
that.
You thought of killing a person, when that person
was already at your mercy, you could inflict that
fatal blow, but you stop at your own accord, that‘s
going to negate any liability for attempted
homicide, however may be the case. But for the
injuries you have inflicted, you are liable.
Frustrated stage.
• Offender performs all acts of execution.
• All the acts performed would produce the
felony as a consequence.
• The felony is not produced.
• By reason of causes independent of the
will of the perpetrator.
Performs all acts of execution. Nothing is left to
be done by the offender because he has performed
the last act necessary to produce the crime.
FISCAL RODULPH CARILLO
Frustrated vs. attempted
Frustrated. - there is no intervention of a foreign or
extraneous cause or agency between the beginning
of the commission of the crime and the moment
when all of the acts have been performed which
should result in the consummated crime.
Attempted. - there is such intervention and the
offender does not arrive at the point of performing
all of the acts which should produce the crime.
Subjective phase • The subjective phase is that
portion of the acts constituting the crime included
between the act which begins the commission of
the crime and the last act performed by the
offender which, with the prior acts, should result in
the consummated crime.
Belief of the offender • ―…this Court has held
that it is not necessary that the accused actually
commit all the acts of execution necessary to
produce the death of his victim, but that it is
sufficient that he believes that he has committed all
said acts.‖ (PP vs. SY PIO, G.R. No. L-5848, April
30, 1954)
GR: You perform all the acts, intended crime is not
accomplished for reasons other than of the
offender‘s will (independent of the perpetrator‘s will)
XPN: If he did not perform all the acts. Why?
Because he believed he performed all the acts.
By reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator.
❖ Felony NOT produced. – causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator.
❖ Eduave. ―A deadly weapon was used. The
blow was directed toward a vital part of the
body. The aggressor stated his purpose to
kill, thought he had killed, and threw the
body into the bushes. When he gave
himself up he declared that he had killed the
complainant.
❖ Dagman. - …playing possum by Magbual.
In the case of Eduave – A deadly weapon was
used. The blow was directed toward a vital part of
the body. The aggressor stated his purpose to
kill, thought he had killed, and threw the body into
the bushes. When he gave himself up he
declared that he had killed the complainant. The
injury was not as bad as it looked. The accused
hacked the victim with a bolo, it was not serious
enough cause he went and told people, ―I just
killed so and so.‖ And that man pretended to be
dead after being beaten up by these perpetrators.
And the defense said, it is attempted because it
is not fatal, but the Court said that it‘s not
because in attempted stage, there‘s that foreign
force that intervenes or interrupts the offender
from performing the other acts of execution (i.e.
police arrives victim escapes), these are
examples of some cause or accident other than
the perpetrators‘ spontaneous desistance, that‘s
Page 11
JD 1101 CRIMINAL LAW
why he was not able to perform all acts of
execution.
However, that is not what happened here, there
was no foreign intervening force, it was their
belief that they had performed all the acts of
execution, that is why in both cases, the Court
said frustrated.
Subjective phase.
• Attempted stage – offender never leaves
the subjective phase.
• Frustrated stage – offender passes the
subjective phase.
Consummated stage. All the elements necessary
for its execution and accomplishment are present.
NOTE: Always remember that when the victim dies,
it is consummated. This is in homicide and murder,
when you say all elements for its accomplishment
are present. Further, execution and
accomplishment.
Factors.
• The nature of the offense.
• The elements constituting the felony.
• The manner of committing the same.
FACTORS. Whether it is accomplished or not
depends on:
1. The nature of the offense
2. The elements constituting the felony.
3. The manner of committing the same.
Nature of the offense: Arson.
- if any part of the structure is burned
(consummated)
- if the fire is started but no part of the
structure is burned (frustrated)
- if no fire has been even started
(attempted)
He already has the device which he placed in the
part of the building which he is going to spread
the fire rapidly across the establishment
(ATTEMPTED ARSON).
He lit the firewood, but the fire did not reach the
building. You don‘t have to burn down the
building to consummate arson. In one decision,
the Court said, furniture inside that caught fire is
already consummated arson as they are an
essential part of the building.
Elements of the offense.
FISCAL RODULPH CARILLO
• Theft – gaining possession of the item
consummates the felony.
• There is no frustrated theft. (Valenzuela vs. Pp,
GR No. 1160188, June 21, 2007)
The elements will tell us that they are already two
stages (consummated and attempted), there is no
frustrated stage theft, because of the element of
taking. As interpreted by the court, taking is a
gaining possession and there are only two possible
situations in possession. You have a possession
and you don‘t have a possession, there is nothing
in between. Only two options are available:
1. Have possession (Consummated)
2. No possession (Attempted) Forget all
those cases of ―frustrated theft‖. No more
―frustrated theft.
Manner of committing the crime Formal crimes.
– slander and false testimony Mere attempt
or proposal
– flight to enemy‘s country (attempt) and
corruption of minor (proposal) Material crimes
– rape, homicide or murder
Slander can only admit of the consummated
stage. There is no attempted stage in slander
because the moment you utter the statement, it's
either heard or not. If nobody hears it, there is no
crime committed. I don‘t think you can be liable if
you are caught in the middle of the defamatory
statement, because you are not able to finish the
statement. It‘s either consummated or not
committed at all.
Consummated Rape.
• As correctly held by the courts a quo, the
slightest penetration of the labia of the female
victim's genitalia consummates the crime of rape.
(People v. XXX, G.R. No. 225793, August 14,
2019)
Frustrated Rape….ist?
• As the evolving case law on rape stands,
therefore, rape in its frustrated stage is a physical
impossibility, (Cruz y Bartolome v. People, G.R. No.
166441, October 8, 2014)
For rape, the problem is in some cases there is a
focus on the slightest penetration. But it also says
penetration. Just be careful of that. There is no
frustrated rape; it‘s either you have penetration or
you do not have penetration. There was a very
old case of frustrated rape but that was never
repeated. Reyes says it was a stray decision and
hopefully will not be repeated.
Page 12
JD 1101 CRIMINAL LAW
Article 7. When light felonies are punishable.
— Light felonies are punishable only when
they have been consummated, with the exception
of those committed against persons or property.
Article 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit
felony.
— Conspiracy and proposal to commit a
felony are punishable only in the cases in which the
law provides a penalty therefore. A conspiracy
exists when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony
and decide to commit it. There is a proposal when
the person who has decided to commit a felony
proposes its execution to some other person or
persons.
Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal.
• Conspiracy exists when two or more persons
come to an agreement concerning the commission
of a felony and decide to commit it.
• There is a proposal when the person who has
decided to commit a felony proposes its execution
to some other person or persons.
No criminal liability.
―… are punishable only in the cases in which the
law specially provides a penalty therefore. (Art. 8,
par. 1, RPC)
• Art. 115. Conspiracy to commit treason
• Art. 136. Conspiracy to commit coup
d‘etat, rebellion or insurrection.
• Art. 141. Conspiracy to commit sedition
Crime vs. Manner of incurring liability.
• Treason, coup d‘etat, sedition is actually
committed – conspiracy is no longer a crime but a
manner of incurring criminal liability.
Conspiracy is either a crime or a manner of
incurring criminal liability.
Ex. If three or more persons conspire to commit
murder, even if they commit different acts but
they have a single purpose to achieve the crime
of murder, then all of them are liable because of
conspiracy.
In the same manner, if people conspire to commit
treason, then they are liable for conspiracy to
commit treason. But if they actually commit
treason the conspiracy to commit treason
becomes absorbed in the crime of treason and
they shall only be liable for treason and not for
conspiracy to commit treason.
Fiscal: But in my opinion, there should be two
crimes:
FISCAL RODULPH CARILLO
(1) when they conspired, they already
committed conspiracy to commit treason;
(2) when they actually did it, they
committed treason. But I have never heard of
anyone sued for both conspiracy to commit
treason and treason. I guess they followed the
rule that ―the moment the subject of conspiracy
is already committed, then conspiracy becomes a
manner of incurring criminal liability.
Conspiracy.
• The essence of conspiracy is the unity of
action and purpose. Its elements, like the physical
acts constituting the crime itself, must be proved
beyond reasonable doubt. (Quidet vs Pp, GR No.
170289, April 8, 2010)
This is the essence of conspiracy, not the definition,
because if you want the latter, then you can just go
to Art. 8 but the essence, the indicator that there is
conspiracy—where the different offenders perform
acts that have unity of action and purpose, a unity
of criminal intent. This can be proven because they
have synchronized their activities to produce a
single criminal intent, thus they can say that they
are conspirators.
Indications of conspiracy.
• …towards the accomplishment of the
same unlawful object, each doing a part so that
their acts,
• …though apparently independent, were in
fact connected and cooperative
• …indicating closeness of personal
association and a concurrence of sentiment,
conspiracy may be inferred. (Pp vs Aleta, GR No.
179708, Apr 16, 2009)
Direct proof not required.
• Direct proof of conspiracy is rarely found;
circumstantial evidence is often resorted to in order
to prove its existence. (Pp vs. Amodia, GR No.
173791, Apr 7, 2009)
It‘s difficult to get complete proof of conspiracy.
Conspirators don‘t go around calling a meeting,
etc. Sometimes, it may even occur at the spur of
the moment. A lot of cases contemplate when
people are just drinking and then just suddenly,
they decide to gang up on a fellow drinker. In
such, it never had an express agreement but
conspiracy occured. So, just like intent, you look
at the unity of actions.
Even if not all the parties committed the same
act, • A conspiracy exists even if not all the parties
Page 13
JD 1101 CRIMINAL LAW
committed the same act, but … indicated unity of
purpose in accomplishing a criminal design.
Moreover… conspiracy may be proven by
circumstantial evidence. (Pp vs Malibiran, GR No.
178301, Apr 24, 2009)
They‘re cooperating with one another even though
they‘re doing different functions.
People v. Malibiran. It was the wife and her lover
who conspired to kill the husband. The wife was in
charge of the schedule of the husband, where he
was going, where he was going to park his car, get
a duplicate key of the car while the lover was in
charge of putting the explosive inside the car
designed to explode once the husband boards the
car. They did different actions, performed different
roles at different times. If you look at this case, they
were actually liable for two different crimes. The
Court said that the act of one is the act of all in
conspiracy, but it does not mean that the crime of
one is the crime of all. The wife was liable for
parricide and the lover boy was liable for murder. I
think what happened here was that they filed two
different pieces of information although mentioning
the circumstances in each. The information for
parricide stated wife conspiring with Mr. lover boy
who is being charged with murder while the
information for murder would be lover boy
conspiring with the wife who is being charged with
parricide.
Conspirators.
• …he need not even take part in every act
or need not even know the exact part to be
performed by the others in the execution of the
conspiracy. (Pp vs Evangelio, GR No. 181902,
August 31, 2011)
Pp vs Evangelio Robbery with rape. It would
seem from all indications that the other robbers
didn‘t even know that a rape was being committed.
While the other robbers were in the other rooms of
the house, this one who committed rape grabbed
one of the, I forgot, daughter or the maid to the
bathroom and raped her. The other robbers didn‘t
know. I guess they got surprised when the charges
came. Robbery with rape. ―Tulisan ra man mi.
Nganong na robbery with rape man ni?‖ The thing
about this if it‘s conspiracy to commit robbery and
rape was committed during the robbery, you‘re all
liable with rape. Your only defense is that you must
show that you endeavored to stop the other crime
from being committed. Probably in that situation
nobody is going to say, ―Oy ayaw na oy. Bad na
ang rape.‖ You‘re committing a robbery. You‘re in
that particular state of mind that kriminal ka. So
nobody is going to try to stop others from
committing other crimes.
No conspiracy – separate and individual
responsibility.
FISCAL RODULPH CARILLO
• In the absence of conspiracy, the liability of
the defendants is separate and individual, each is
liable for his own acts, (Quidet).
Una dayon gidunggab then came others nya iya
gisumbag and then the guard said, well, the intent
of the two actions are not the same, if you are
going to stab somebody then the intent is to kill.
Then this other guy who punched, ingon sila,
probably, as a show of sympathy or as a show of
support (Atty. is not sure with the correct term used
by the SC). Separate responsibility because there
is no conspiracy considering that there was no unity
of criminal purpose.
No unity in the criminal objective:
(1) intent to kill,
(2) to inflict physical injuries.
Proposal. Requisites of proposal:
1. A person has decided to commit a felony
2. He proposes its execution to some other
person or persons.
Art. 115. Proposal to commit treason.
Art. 136. Proposal to commit coup d‘etat,
rebellion or insurrection.
Article 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies,
and light felonies.
❖ Grave felonies are those in which the law
attaches the capital punishment or penalties
which in any of their periods are afflictive, in
accordance with Article 25 of this Code.
❖ Less grave felonies are those which the
law punishes with penalties which in their
maximum period are correctional, in
accordance with the above-mentioned
article.
❖ Light felonies are those infractions of law
for the commission of which the penalty of
arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200
pesos, or both, is provided.
Art. 9. Gravity of Felonies
• Grave Felonies
• Less Grave Felonies
•Light Felonies
Grave felonies.
➔ Capital punishment (death)
➔ Penalties which in any of its period is
afflictive.
➔ Afflictive (Art. 25)
-Reclusion perpetua
-Reclusion temporal
-Permanent/Temporary absolute
disqualification
Page 14
JD 1101 CRIMINAL LAW FISCAL RODULPH CARILLO
-Permanent/Temporary special
disqualification
Light Felonies.
-Prision mayor
•Arresto menor
The minimum period may be correctional but if the
•Fine not exceeding P40,000.00 or both Felony
medium or the maximum period reaches any of
(R.A. 10591)
these, i.e. prision mayor.
Fine of P40,000.00, is a light felony.
Less Grave Felonies.
*Art. 26 classifies fines as a penalty. (Fine is a light
➔ Punishment which in their maximum is
penalty if it is less than P40,000.00)
correctional. Correctional penalties (Art. 25)
➔ Prisión correccional You need to steal something worth P1.2M, or theft
➔ Arresto mayor for your case to reach the RTC, anything less than
➔ Suspension that is MTC. The issue there is that theft of P1.2M,
➔ Destierro that happens once in a blue moon. Most cases of
theft are snatching, shoplifting, and kanang manukit
We are not talking of any period, we are talking of
og karsones, manukit og hinayhay. All these are
the maximum. The moment the maximum would
now being lodged with the MTC, you can just
reach correctional, that is a less grave felony.
imagine the dockets of the MTC rightnow because
Light Felonies. of the changes here. P1.2M would probably be a
car that becomes a carnapping which is RTC pod.
➔ Arresto menor
Another P1.2M may be jewelry. Naunsa man na,
➔ Fine not exceeding P40,000.00 or both
ikumpara nimo sa snatching. I guess, kawaton
Felony – Fine of P40,000.00, is a light
nimo ang cellphone, i-allege nimo na tag P1.3M
felony.
man na akong cellphone, diba RTC na ka. Paita sa
➔ *Art. 26 classifies fines as a penalty. (Fine is
MTC, naa pa didto ang BP 22. The estafa is in the
a light penalty if it is less than P40,000.00)
same boat because you need to cause damage in
Article 10. Offenses not subject to the the million before the estafa reaches the RTC.
provisions of this Code.
Until then RTC is not intended to supersede. RPC
- Offenses which are or in the future may be is not intended to supersede. Your rules on
punishable under special laws are not statutory construction -- specific clause dealing with
subject to the provisions of this Code. This specific matters if it conflicts with general laws, the
Code shall be supplementary to such laws, specific law prevails. The SPL, being the more
unless the latter should sepcially provide the specific law covering specific matters in case of
contrary. conflict with RPC, prevails over RPC.

Art. 10. 1st clause. The RPC is not intended to
supersede SPL‘s.
2nd clause. The RPC is supplementary to special
laws, unless the special law provides otherwise.
RPC may supplement SPL.
• Hence, legal principles developed from the Penal
Code may be applied in a supplementary capacity
to crimes punished under special laws, such as
R.A. No. 9262, in which the special law is silent on
a particular matter. (GoTan vs Spouses Tan, G.R.
No. 168852, September 30, 2008)
Provisions of the RPC not applicable.
Art. 71 of the RPC – scale of penalties. Special
laws.
➔ punishes only consummated acts.
➔ no definition of accessories or
accomplices.
➔ no formula for graduation of penalties. -
terms, i.e., penalties are not the same.
➔ mitigating/aggravating circumstances
cannot be considered, no graduation of
penalties.
The second clause (the more important clause).
RPC, as long as it is not prohibited and the rules
allow it, can be used as a supplement to SPLs. A
lot of provisions of RPC as inapplicable to SPLs
(e.g., Graduation of penalties). IF the SPL uses
different terminology for its penalties, for example,
the Dangerous Drugs Act, it uses years instead of
Reclusion Perpetua, etc. Although this Act uses the
same duration -- 12 years and 1 day to 20 years --
that is the same duration as temporal, but that is
not temporal. So you cannot use 1 degree lower or
2 degrees lower in the Dangerous Drugs Act
because they do not have the same penalties used.
These are things that are inapplicable RPC with
SPL. But there are other provisions, example
conspiracy. There is no conflict in using the
definition of conspiracy in the RPC with the SPL,
which happens in the case of Go-Tan. Where the
wife charged the husband with RA 9262,
including the parents of the husband.
OF course the parents said, ―Nganong apil man
mi? We are not married and we don't have a dating
or sexual relationship with our daughter in law. The
SC said, ―Di man, ang charge sa inyo kay you
conspired with your son when he committed a
violence against his wife. And there is nothing that
prohibits the principle of conspiracy to apply in this
particular case.‖ It is true because there is no
Page 15
JD 1101 CRIMINAL LAW FISCAL RODULPH CARILLO
prohibition. Under your Dangerous Drugs Act, while
there is no prohibition, under 9165 there are only so
many violations where conspiracy is allowed. Sec
26 of RA 9165, provides for violations of that law
which can be subject to conspiracy. Does that
mean that only those crimes as defined in Sec 26
can be subject to conspiracy? That‘s not an outright
prohibition. That‘s why there are cases where the
SC that there is no conspiracy under Sec 11, it only
involves manufacture, etc. But there are cases that
2 or more accused are charged as conspirators
under Sec 11. The SC would convict them without
explanation regarding such. SC is not consistent.

Provisions of the RPC not applicable. Art. 71

of the RPC –scale of penalties. Special laws.
-punishes only consummated acts.
-no definition of accessories or accomplices. -no
formula for graduation of penalties. -terms, i.e.,
penalties are not the same.
-mitigating/aggravating circumstances cannot be
considered, no graduation of penalties.

Page 16