Criminal Law Reviewer by Mark Nino de Asis

Author: Mark Nino De Asis
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER (derived from the 2024 Syllabus for Bar Exam)
“A COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER FOR THE 2024 BAR EXAM”
INTRODUCTION
Criminal law stands as a fundamental pillar of any just and ordered society. It serves
as a guardian of individual rights, a protector of the vulnerable, and a potent
deterrent to those who would seek to disrupt the harmony of the community. For
aspiring lawyers and seasoned practitioners alike, the mastery of criminal law is a
critical pursuit, essential not only for legal success but also for contributing to the
maintenance of a lawful and equitable society.
CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal law= branch of public law which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and
provides for their punishment.
Penal laws = acts of the legislature which prohibit certain acts and establish
penalties for their violations. A statute is penal when it imposes punishment for an
offense committed against the state which, under the Constitution, the Executive has
the power to pardon.
Crime =acts or omissions punishable by criminal law. A generic term used to refer to
a wrongdoing either under the RPC or the special law.
Felony= a crime punished under the Revised Penal Code

Offense= a crime punished under the special law
I. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW

A. Schools of Thoughts
1.Classical Theory=The classical school of thought emphasizes individual free will

and rationality in committing crimes. It focuses on the concept of legal responsibility
and punishment as a means of deterrence and retribution. According to this school,
individuals have the capacity to make rational choices and should be held accountable
for their actions. Punishments should be proportionate to the gravity of the offense
committed.
PRIMARY PURPOSE:Retribution
BASIS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY: Human Free Will
Example:
An example of the classical school of thought in the Revised Penal Code (RPC) of
the Philippines can be seen in the principle of "imputability." According to Article 12
of the RPC, "An imbecile or an insane person is exempt from criminal liability,
Criminal Law Reviewer by Mark Nino De Asis <Page 1>

unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval." This provision reflects the
classical school's emphasis on individual free will and rationality.
Under this principle, individuals who are deemed to lack the mental capacity to
understand the consequences of their actions are not held criminally liable. The
classical school believes that individuals should only be punished if they possess the
mental capacity to make rational choices and understand the wrongfulness of their
actions.
Therefore, the RPC recognizes the concept of imputability and provides for
exemptions from criminal liability for individuals who are considered imbeciles or
insane. This reflects the classical school's belief that punishment should be reserved
for those who possess the necessary mental capacity to be held responsible for their
actions.
IMPUTABILITY IN THE CONTEXT OF CRIMINAL LAW
In the context of criminal law, "imputability" refers to the ability to attribute criminal
responsibility to an individual for their actions. It is the capacity to comprehend the
nature and consequences of one's behavior and to be held accountable for it under
the law.
Imputability is closely linked to the concept of mental capacity or mental state. It
involves assessing whether an individual has the necessary mental faculties to
understand the wrongful nature of their actions and to act in accordance with the law.
If a person lacks imputability due to factors such as mental illness, intellectual
disability, or being in a state of intoxication, they may be exempted from criminal
liability or their liability may be reduced.
The concept of imputability is significant in criminal law as it helps determine whether
an individual can be held responsible for their actions and subjected to punishment.
It reflects the principle that criminal punishment should be reserved for those who
possess the mental capacity to understand the consequences of their behavior and
make rational choices.
2nd example of classical theory under the RPC
Another example of the classical school of thought in the Revised Penal Code (RPC)
of the Philippines is the principle of "dolo" or "intent." According to Article 4 of the
RPC, "Criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony (delito)
although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended."
This provision reflects the classical school's emphasis on individual free will and
rationality. It recognizes that individuals are responsible for the consequences of
their actions, regardless of whether they intended to commit a crime or not. The
classical school believes that individuals should be held accountable for their actions
and that punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offense committed.

Therefore, the RPC recognizes the concept of dolo or intent and provides for criminal
liability for individuals who commit a felony, even if their wrongful act was different
from what they intended. This reflects the classical school's belief that individuals
should be held responsible for the consequences of their actions, regardless of their
intentions.
2.Positivist Theory
The positivist school of thought takes a more scientific and sociological approach to
criminal law. It emphasizes the study of human behavior and the underlying causes
of criminal conduct. This school believes that criminal behavior is influenced by
various factors such as social, economic, psychological, and biological conditions.
Rather than focusing solely on punishment, the positivist school aims to rehabilitate
offenders and address the root causes of criminal behavior.
PRIMARY PURPOSE:Reformation/ Prevention/ Correction
BASIS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY: Sum of Social, Natural and Economic
Phenomena to which the offender is exposed.
Example of Positivist Theory under the REVISED PENAL CODE
An example of the positivist theory in the Revised Penal Code (RPC) of the
Philippines can be seen in the provision for mitigating circumstances based on
the offender's age and education. According to Article 68 of the RPC, "The court
shall consider the education, social standing, and other circumstances of the
offender." This provision reflects the positivist school's emphasis on the study of
human behavior and the underlying causes of criminal conduct.
The positivist school believes that criminal behavior is influenced by various factors
such as social, economic, psychological, and biological conditions. In this regard, the
RPC recognizes that the offender's age, education, and social standing can be
mitigating factors that can reduce their criminal liability. This provision reflects the
positivist school's belief that criminal behavior is not solely the result of individual free
will and rationality, but also influenced by various external factors.
Therefore, the RPC recognizes the concept of mitigating circumstances based on
the offender's age, education, and social standing. The court is required to consider
these factors when determining the degree of criminal liability and the appropriate
penalty to be imposed. This reflects the positivist school's belief that the criminal
justice system should aim to rehabilitate offenders and address the root causes of
criminal behavior, rather than focusing solely on punishment.
2nd example of Positivist Theory in the RPC
Another example of the positivist theory in the Revised Penal Code (RPC) of the
Philippines can be seen in the provision for the suspension of sentence and
probation. According to Article 64 of the RPC, "After conviction and upon
application by the convict within the period of perfecting an appeal, the
sentence shall be suspended if the convict applies for probation." This

provision reflects the positivist school's emphasis on the rehabilitation of offenders
and the prevention of recidivism.
The positivist school believes that criminal behavior is not solely the result of
individual free will and rationality, but also influenced by various external factors such
as social environment, upbringing, and education. In this regard, the RPC recognizes
that the suspension of sentence and probation can be an effective means of
rehabilitating offenders and preventing them from committing future crimes.
Therefore, the RPC recognizes the concept of the suspension of sentence and
probation as a form of rehabilitative justice. It allows offenders who have been
convicted of a crime to serve their sentence in the community under certain
conditions, such as regular reporting to a probation officer, attending rehabilitation
programs, and refraining from criminal behavior. This reflects the positivist school's
belief that the criminal justice system should aim to rehabilitate offenders and
address the underlying causes of criminal behavior, rather than focusing solely on
punishment.
Difference of classical theory and positivist theory
Classical Theory = The basis of criminal liability is human free will and the purpose
of the penalty is retribution.
Positivist Theory =The basis of criminal liability is the sum of social, natural and
economic phenomena to which the actor or offender is exposed. The purposes of
penalty are prevention and correction.
3.Eclectic or Mixed Theory
Eclectic or Mixed Theory is a school of thought in criminal law that combines
elements from different theories and approaches to understand and address criminal
behavior. It recognizes that no single theory can fully explain the complexities of
criminal conduct and the factors that contribute to it. Instead, it draws upon various
perspectives to develop a more comprehensive understanding of crime and the
appropriate response to it.
Eclectic or Mixed Theory=combination of positivist and classical thinking wherein
crimes that are economic and social in nature should be dealt in a positive manner;
thus, the law is more compassionate
= combines the good features of classical and positivist theories. It is believed that
our Revised Penal Code (RPC) adheres to this theory because although the Code is
mainly on classical theory, there are some provisions that pertain on positivist theory
like Article 13 (mitigating circumstances).
=Crimes that are economic and social by nature should be dealt in a positivist
manner, thus , the law is more compassionate , and ; Heinous Crimes should be
dealt with ,in a classical manner, thus , capital punishment.
=RPC today follows the MIXED OR ECLECTIC philosophy

The Eclectic or Mixed Theory acknowledges that criminal behavior is influenced by
a combination of individual, social, economic, psychological, and environmental
factors. It recognizes that while individuals have some level of free will and
rationality, their actions are also shaped by external circumstances and influences.
In terms of criminal justice policy, the Eclectic or Mixed Theory promotes a balanced
approach that combines punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, and prevention. It
recognizes that different offenders may require different interventions based on their
individual circumstances and the nature of their offenses. For example, some
offenders may benefit from rehabilitative programs aimed at addressing underlying
issues such as substance abuse or mental health, while others may require stricter
punishment or deterrent measures.
The Eclectic or Mixed Theory emphasizes the need for a flexible and individualized
approach to criminal justice, taking into account the specific circumstances and
needs of each offender. It recognizes that a one-size-fits-all approach may not be
effective in reducing crime or promoting long-term rehabilitation.
Overall, the Eclectic or Mixed Theory in criminal law aims to integrate various
theories and approaches to develop a more nuanced understanding of criminal
behavior and to guide the development of effective and fair criminal justice policies
and practices.
Example of Eclectic Theory under the RPC
In the context of the Philippine Revised Penal Code (RPC), an example of an
eclectic theory approach can be seen in the interpretation and application of the
principle of "imprudence" or "reckless imprudence" in criminal liability.
Under the RPC, criminal liability can arise not only from intentional acts but also from
negligent or reckless conduct. The principle of "imprudence" refers to the failure to
exercise due diligence or caution, resulting in harm to another person.
An eclectic theory approach in interpreting and applying the principle of imprudence
in the RPC could involve combining elements from different legal theories, such as:
1. Objective Theory of Negligence: This theory focuses on the reasonable
person standard, assessing whether a reasonable person in the same
circumstances would have acted with due diligence. In an eclectic approach,
this theory may be used to determine whether the accused's conduct fell
below the standard of diligence expected of a reasonable person.
2. Subjective Theory of Negligence: This theory emphasizes the accused's state
of mind and subjective awareness of the risks involved in their actions. In an
eclectic approach, this theory may be used to consider the accused's personal
knowledge, experience, and awareness of the potential harm caused by their
conduct.
3. Proximate Cause Theory: This theory examines the causal connection
between the accused's conduct and the resulting harm. In an eclectic

approach, this theory may be used to determine whether the accused's
imprudent conduct was the direct cause of the harm suffered by the victim.
By incorporating elements from these and other relevant theories, an eclectic
approach to interpreting and applying the principle of imprudence in the RPC can
provide a more comprehensive analysis of the accused's conduct and its impact on
others. It allows for a balanced assessment of criminal liability, considering both
objective standards of care and subjective factors that may have influenced the
accused's behavior.
4.Utilitarian Theory= The utilitarian theory is a legal theory that emphasizes the
prevention of harm and the promotion of social welfare as the primary goals of the law.
This theory is based on the idea that legal rules and policies should be designed to
maximize the overall happiness or well-being of society.
PRIMARY PURPOSE:Protection of Society from actual or potential wrongdoers
According to the utilitarian theory, the law should aim to create the greatest amount of
happiness for the greatest number of people. This means that legal rules and policies
should be evaluated in terms of their ability to promote the well-being of society as a
whole, rather than simply protecting the rights or interests of individuals.
In the context of criminal law, the utilitarian theory suggests that the primary goal of
punishment should be to deter future criminal behavior and protect society from harm.
Punishment is seen as a means of preventing future harm by discouraging others from
engaging in similar criminal conduct.
The utilitarian theory also emphasizes the importance of rehabilitation and reformation
as a means of reducing future harm. Rather than simply punishing offenders, the law
should aim to help them become law-abiding citizens through education, counseling,
and other forms of support.
Overall, the utilitarian theory seeks to balance the interests of individuals and society
as a whole by promoting the greatest happiness and well-being for all. It emphasizes
the importance of prevention, rehabilitation, and social welfare in the legal system, and
encourages a forward-looking approach to legal decision-making.
Example of Utilitarian Theory under the RPC
An example of the utilitarian theory under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) can be
seen in the approach to sentencing and punishment for criminal offenses.
In the context of the RPC, the utilitarian theory suggests that the primary goal of
punishment should be to deter future criminal behavior and protect society from
harm. This means that the severity of the penalty imposed should be based on its
potential to prevent future crimes and promote social welfare, rather than solely
focusing on retribution or the punishment of the offender.
For example, let's consider a case of theft under Article 308 of the RPC. Under
the utilitarian theory, the court would evaluate various factors to determine the
appropriate punishment that would maximize social welfare and prevent future thefts.
The court may consider the following factors:

1. Severity of the offense: The court would assess the value of the stolen
property, the impact on the victim, and any aggravating circumstances. A
higher penalty may be imposed for theft involving significant financial loss or
harm to vulnerable individuals.
2. Deterrence: The court would evaluate the potential deterrent effect of the
penalty on the offender and others in society. A more severe penalty may be
imposed if it is believed to have a greater deterrent effect, discouraging
potential thieves from committing similar crimes.
3. Rehabilitation: The court may consider the offender's potential for
rehabilitation and reformation. If there are indications that the offender is
remorseful, has taken steps towards rehabilitation, or shows a low likelihood
of reoffending, a less severe penalty may be imposed with a focus on
rehabilitation rather than punishment.
By considering these factors, the court can determine an appropriate penalty that not
only addresses the specific offense but also serves the broader purpose of
preventing future thefts and promoting social welfare. This utilitarian approach aims
to strike a balance between the interests of the offender, the victim, and society as a
whole.
B. Construction or Interpretation of Penal Laws
1. Effects of Repeal/Amendments of Penal Laws
2. Retroactive Effect of Penal Laws
3. Pro reo Principle
CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS
**Strict Construction against the State and liberally in favor of the accused
EFFECTS OF REPEAL/ AMENDMENT OF PENAL LAWS
1. If the new law makes the penalty lighter, it shall be applied unless the offender
is a habitual delinquent, or when the new law is inapplicable to pending action
or existing causes of action
2. If the new law imposes 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 making the act not punishable,
the crime is obliterated
The repeal or amendment of a penal law in the Philippines can have various
effects, both on past and future criminal cases. Here are some possible effects:
Retroactive Application: If a penal law is repealed or amended, it may have

retroactive effects. This means that individuals who were convicted or charged
under the old law may have their cases reevaluated. In some cases, they may
be entitled to have their convictions overturned or their sentences reduced.

Prospective Application: The repeal or amendment of a penal law will generally

apply prospectively to new cases. This means that individuals who commit
offenses after the repeal or amendment will be subject to the new law. They will
be charged and prosecuted based on the updated legal provisions.
Transitional Provisions: In some cases, when a penal law is repealed or

amended, transitional provisions may be included to address ongoing cases.
These provisions may specify how pending cases will be handled and whether
the old or new law will be applied.
Legal Certainty: Repealing or amending a penal law can help clarify and update
the legal framework. It ensures that laws are in line with contemporary societal
values, international standards, or evolving legal principles. This promotes legal
certainty and consistency in the application of criminal laws.
Impact on Sentencing: The repeal or amendment of a penal law can also impact
sentencing guidelines. Changes in the law may result in different penalties or
sentencing options for specific offenses. This can affect the severity or leniency
of punishments imposed by the courts.
It is important to note that the specific effects of repealing or amending a penal law
will depend on the nature and scope of the changes made. The Philippine legal
system follows the principle of legality, which means that individuals cannot be
punished for acts that were not considered criminal at the time they were committed.
DOCTRINE OF PRO REO

Whenever a penal law is to be construed or applied and the law admits of two
interpretations , one lenient to the offender and one strict to the offender , that
interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the offender will be adopted. This
is in consonance with the fundamental rule that all doubts shall be construed in favor
of the accused and consistent with the presumption of innocence of the accused.
The doctrine of pro reo, also known as the rule of lenity or the principle of
favorability, is a legal principle that is often applied in criminal law. It is derived from
the Latin phrase "pro reo," which means "for the accused" or "in favor of the
accused."
BASIS: The fundamental rule that all doubts shall be construed in favor of the
accused and presumption of innocence of the accused.
Article III Section 14 par. 2 of the 1987 Constitution
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proved=this is peculiar only in criminal law

The doctrine of pro reo is based on the idea that when interpreting and applying
criminal laws, any ambiguity or doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused. It is
a safeguard that protects the rights of the accused and ensures that they are not
unfairly penalized.
Under this doctrine, if there is any uncertainty or ambiguity in the interpretation of a
criminal law, the court will interpret it in a manner that is more favorable to the
accused. This means that if there are multiple reasonable interpretations of a law,
the court will choose the interpretation that is less harsh or that results in a lesser
penalty for the accused.
C.THE PRINCIPLE OF NULLUM CRIMEN , NULLA POENA SINE LEGE
Nullum Crimen, Nulla Poena Sine Lege =means that there is no crime when
there is no law that defines and punishes it.
The principle of "nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege" is a fundamental principle in
criminal law, which is enshrined in Article 21 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in
the Philippines. This principle means that there can be no crime and no punishment
without a law that defines the offense and prescribes the corresponding penalty.
Under this principle, the government cannot punish an individual for an act that is not
expressly prohibited by law. The law must be clear and specific in defining what
conduct is criminal and what penalties may be imposed for committing such conduct.
This principle serves as a safeguard against arbitrary or excessive punishment by
the government.
Furthermore, the principle of "nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege" also means that
laws cannot be applied retroactively to the detriment of the accused. This means that
a person cannot be punished for an act that was not considered a crime at the time it
was committed. The law that applies to a particular offense is the law that was in
effect at the time the offense was committed.
In practice, the principle of "nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege" requires that
criminal laws be drafted with clarity and precision to ensure that individuals are
aware of what conduct is prohibited and what penalties may be imposed for violating
the law. This principle also requires that criminal laws be applied consistently and
fairly to ensure that individuals are not punished arbitrarily or unjustly.
MALA IN SE(evil in itself) VS MALA PROHIBITA (prohibited evil)

Wrong from its very nature Wrong because it is prohibited by law
Good Faith is a valid defense Good Faith is not a valid defense
Criminal Intent is an element Criminal Intent is not an element
Degree of accomplishment is taken into Degree of accomplishment is not taken
account into account
Degree of participation is taken into Degree of participation is not taken into
account account
Mitigating and aggravating Mitigating and aggravating
circumstances are taken into account circumstances are taken into account
There are three stages, attempted, No stages of execution
frustrated and consummated

There are three persons criminally Only the principal is liable
liable, principal, accessory and
accomplice
Penalty is computed on the basis of The penalty on the offenders is the
whether there is a principal, accessory same whether principal, accessory or
or accomplice accomplice
DIFFERENCE OF ACTUS REUS AND MENS REA

Actus reus and mens rea are fundamental concepts in criminal law that collectively
constitute the elements of a criminal offense. These terms, which are often
expressed in Latin, refer to the physical and mental components necessary to
establish criminal liability.
1. Actus Reus:
 Definition: Actus reus, which translates to "guilty act," refers to the
physical or external element of a criminal offense. It is the voluntary,
deliberate, and unlawful action or conduct of the accused that
constitutes the prohibited act specified by the criminal law.
 Examples: Actus reus can encompass various actions, such as theft,
assault, homicide, or any other behavior that is criminalized by the law.
For example, taking someone else's property without permission (theft)
or causing physical harm to another person (assault) can be
considered actus reus.
 Causation: In some cases, actus reus also includes the concept of
causation, where the accused's conduct must be shown to be the
cause of the prohibited consequence or harm.
2. Mens Rea:
 Definition: Mens rea, which translates to "guilty mind," pertains to the
mental or internal element of a criminal offense. It involves the state of
mind, intent, knowledge, or awareness of the accused at the time of
committing the actus reus.
 Examples: Mens rea can take various forms, such as intention,
recklessness, negligence, or knowledge. For instance, the accused's
intent to cause harm (intention), knowing that their actions may result in
harm (knowledge), or acting without due care for the potential
consequences (negligence) are all forms of mens rea.
 Degrees of Mens Rea: The level of mens rea required to establish a
particular criminal offense can vary. Some offenses may require a
specific intent, while others may only necessitate a lower level of
culpability, such as recklessness or negligence.
Both actus reus and mens rea must be present for an individual to be found
criminally liable. In essence, a person must not only commit a prohibited act (actus

reus) but must also possess the requisite guilty state of mind (mens rea) for that act.
This dual requirement ensures that criminal liability is based on both the wrongful act
and the culpable mental state, thereby protecting individuals from wrongful
convictions and ensuring that criminal punishment is just and proportionate to the
level of moral blameworthiness.
I. SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

A. Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act (R.A. No.
10591, Secs. 3 and 28-41)
The Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act, officially

known as Republic Act No. 10591 (R.A. 10591), is a Philippine law that regulates
firearms and ammunition in the country. The law aims to establish a comprehensive
system for the licensing, possession, and carrying of firearms, as well as the
regulation of ammunition.
Here, I will provide an overview of key sections of R.A. 10591:
1. Section 3: Declaration of State Policy and Principles
 This section outlines the state policy and principles underlying R.A. 10591,
which include ensuring public safety, responsible firearm ownership, and
stricter regulation of firearms and ammunition.
2. Sections 28-41: Licensing, Registration, and Regulation of Firearms and
Ammunition
 These sections cover various aspects of firearm regulation, including
licensing, registration, and the regulation of firearms and ammunition. Key
provisions include:
 Licensing Requirements: The law specifies the qualifications and
requirements for the issuance of a firearm license, differentiating between
those for individuals and entities, such as security agencies or private
corporations.
 Categories of Firearms: R.A. 10591 classifies firearms into different
categories (e.g., handguns, shotguns, long firearms) and sets requirements
for their ownership and possession.
 Prohibited Firearms: The law identifies specific types of firearms and
ammunition that are prohibited for civilian ownership, emphasizing the need
for public safety.
 Safekeeping and Storage: The law requires the safe storage and keeping of
firearms to prevent unauthorized access.
 Registration: Firearms must be registered with the Philippine National Police
(PNP) and assigned a unique serial number.

 Transfer and Sale: R.A. 10591 governs the procedures for the transfer, sale,
and disposal of firearms, emphasizing the importance of notifying the PNP.
 Ammunition Regulation: The law also covers the regulation of ammunition,
including requirements for possession, sale, and registration.
R.A. 10591 establishes a more stringent and centralized system for the regulation of
firearms and ammunition in the Philippines. It seeks to balance the right of
responsible citizens to own firearms with the need to ensure public safety and
prevent unlawful possession and use of firearms. The law places significant
responsibility on the Philippine National Police and other authorities for the
implementation and enforcement of its provisions. Please note that specific details
and requirements may evolve over time, so it's important to consult the most current
legal sources and government documents for the latest information regarding
firearms and ammunition regulation in the Philippines.
The Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act (R.A. No. 10591) is a
special penal law in the Philippines that regulates the ownership, possession, and
use of firearms and ammunition. The law aims to promote public safety by
preventing the proliferation of illegal firearms and ensuring that licensed firearms
owners are responsible and law-abiding citizens.
Under the law, firearms are classified into four categories: low-powered firearms,
high-powered firearms, light weapons, and explosives. The ownership and
possession of firearms require the appropriate license or permit, which is issued by
the Philippine National Police (PNP).
The law also sets the standards for the safekeeping and handling of firearms and
ammunition. Licensed firearms owners are required to keep their firearms in a
secure and safe place, and they must not allow unauthorized individuals to handle or
use their firearms.
The law also imposes penalties for violations, such as the illegal possession,
manufacture, or sale of firearms and ammunition. The penalties vary depending on
the offense, but they can range from imprisonment to fines or both.
In addition, the law provides for the regulation of firearms dealers and
manufacturers, as well as the registration and marking of firearms to prevent the use
of unlicensed or stolen firearms in criminal activities.
Overall, the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act is an
important law that seeks to promote public safety and prevent the proliferation of
illegal firearms. It aims to ensure that firearms are owned and used responsibly by
licensed individuals and that those who violate the law are held accountable for their
actions.
Bar Exam Question Using ALAC / KISS
Jesusa, a mayoralty candidate of the Municipality of Jaen, Nueva Ecija during the
2019 local elections, was ambushed and gunned down by Jhudas, a gun for hire.
Jhudas was arrested at a COMELEC checkpoint just after the incident. The firearm

he used, a baby Armalite, was verified to be without any license. During the
interrogation, Jhudas admitted that Pontio, the rival mayoralty candidate of Jesusa,
paid him Php 1,000,000.00 to assassinate Jesusa. Due to Jhudas’ admission,
coupled with the sworn statement of an eyewitness, the prosecutor filed two
Informations, one for Murder and one for Illegal Possession of Firearm, against both
Jhudas and Pontio.
Do you agree with the prosecutor’s charges against Jhudas and Pontio?
Explain briefly. (5 points)
SAMPLE : ALAC FORMAT

ANSWER
No, I disagree with the prosecutor’s charges because the use of unlicensed firearm
should be an aggravating circumstance .
LEGAL BASIS
RA No 10591 provides that the use of firearm, when inherent in the commission of
the crime punishable under RPC or other special laws, it shall be considered as an
aggravating circumstance. If the crime is committed by the person without using the
loose firearm, the violation shall be considered as a distinct and separate offense.
ARGUMENT/APPLICATION/
In this problem, the prosecutor is incorrect in charging Jhudas with the separate
crime of illegal possession of firearms because the baby Armalite was used in killing
Jesusa. The charge cannot also be made against Pontio because he was principal
by inducement , not by direct participation.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, Jhudas and Pontio may only be convicted of the crime of murder.
DEFENSES AGAISNT ESTAFA ARTICLE 315

Defenses against an estafa charge under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code in
the Philippines can vary depending on the specific circumstances of the case. Here
are some common defenses that can be raised in estafa cases:
Lack of Intent to Deceive: One of the key elements of estafa is fraudulent intent. If
the accused can demonstrate that there was no intent to deceive or defraud the
complainant, this may serve as a valid defense. For example, if there was a genuine
misunderstanding or mistake in a business transaction, it may not constitute estafa.
Absence of Damage or Injury: Estafa requires actual financial or economic
damage or injury to the victim. If no financial loss occurred or if the alleged victim
cannot prove that they suffered financial harm, this can be a defense. For instance, if
the accused can show that the alleged victim was not financially disadvantaged, it
may weaken the estafa case.
Good Faith: If the accused can establish that they acted in good faith and with an
honest belief that their actions were legal and fair, this can be a defense. For

example, if the accused can show that they genuinely believed a contract was valid
and legally binding, it may negate the fraudulent intent required for estafa.
Fulfillment of Obligations: If the accused can prove that they eventually fulfilled
their obligations or that they made efforts to rectify the situation and compensate the
victim, this can be a mitigating factor in an estafa case. It may show that the accused
did not have fraudulent intent from the outset.
Absence of False Pretenses: Estafa often involves the use of false pretenses,
deceit, or misrepresentations. If the accused can demonstrate that there were no
false pretenses or that the alleged victim was aware of all the relevant facts, it may
weaken the estafa case.
Wrongful Prosecution or False Accusation: If the accused believes they are
wrongly accused and that the case is based on false allegations, they can assert
their innocence and challenge the credibility of the accuser's claims.
Prescription or Lapse of Time: In some cases, the statute of limitations

(prescription) may apply, and if the alleged estafa offense occurred outside the
prescribed time limit, it can be a defense.
PRISION CORRECTIONAL PENALTIES

The maximum period of "prision correccional" is 4 years and 2 months. This means
that if a person is sentenced to "prision correccional in its maximum period," they
may serve a prison term of up to 4 years and 2 months.
The medium period of "prision correccional" is 2 years, 4 months, and 1 day to 4
years and 2 months. The minimum period of "prision correccional" is 6 months and 1
day to 2 years, 4 months, and 1 day.
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW ( excerpt from Atty RCD Blog)

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
(Act No. 4103, as amended, Dec. 5, 1933)
The purpose of the law is to uplift and redeem valuable human material and prevent
unnecessary and excessive deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness.
(People v. Onate, 78 SCRA 43) As a rule, it is intended to favor the accused
particularly to shorten his term of imprisonment, depending upon his behavior and
his physical, mental, and moral record as a prisoner to be determined by the Board
of Indeterminate Sentence.
Indeterminate Sentence is a sentence with a minimum term and a maximum

benefit of a guilty person, who is not disqualified therefore, when the maximum
penalty of imprisonment exceeds one year. It applies to both violations of the RPC
and special laws.

COVERAGE:
1. Revised Penal Code
The court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the
MAXIMUM TERM of which shall be that which, in view of the attending
circumstances, could be properly imposed under the Code, and the MINIMUM
TERM which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree to
that prescribed by the Code for the offense.
The maximum is the penalty imposed as provided by law, depending upon the
attending circumstances. The minimum is one degree next lower to the penalty
prescribed for the offense. The latter is determined without considering the attending
circumstances to the penalty prescribed,and is left to the discretion of the court.
(People v. Yco, 6545, July 27, 1954)
Example: Homicide with one mitigating circumstance. The maximum penalty

prescribed by law is Reclusion temporal. Since there is one mitigating and no
aggravating it will be in the minimum or reclusion temporal minimum period. On the
other hand, the minimum is one degree next lower to reclusion temporal without
considering the mitigating circumstance and that will be prision mayor. The range of
prision mayor will depend upon the discretion of the court. Therefore, the
indeterminate penalty is a minimum of prision mayor (within the range fixed by the
court) to a maximum of reclusion temporal minimum period.
2. Special Law
The court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the
MAXIMUM TERM of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law
and the minimum shall not be less than the MINIMUM TERM prescribed by
the same. (Q11, 1994 Bar)
Example: Penalty is one year to 5 years. Indeterminate sentence may be one year
to 3 years or 3 years to 5 years.
This act shall not apply to persons:
1. Convicted of offenses punished with death or life imprisonment. (Q12, 1990 Bar)
2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason, misprision
of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage, or piracy.
3. Those who are habitual delinquents.
Recidivists are entitled to an indeterminate sentence. (People v. Jaranilla, 28547,
Feb. 22, 1974)
4. Those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence.

A minor who escaped from confinement in the reformatory is entitled to the benefits
of the law because confinement is not considered imprisonment. (People v. Perez,
44 OG 3884) (Q6, 1991 Bar)
5. Those who having been granted conditional pardon by the President shall have
violated the terms thereof.
6. Those whose maximum period of imprisonment does not exceed one year. (Q8,
1999 Bar)
The application of which is based upon the penalty actually imposed in accordance
with law. (People v. Hidalgo, 452, Jan. 22, 1962)

7. Those already serving final judgment upon the approval of this Act (December 5,
1933).
8. Those sentenced to the penalty of destierro or suspension. (Q12, 1999 Bar)
Whenever any prisoner who shall have served the minimum penalty imposed on
him, said Board of Indeterminate Sentence may, in its discretion, and in accordance
with the rules and regulations adopted thereunder, authorize the release of such
prisoner on parole. If during the period of surveillance, such parolee shall show
himself to be a law-abiding citizen and shall not violate any of the laws of the
Philippines, the Board may issue a final certificate of release in his favor. Whenever
any prisoner released on parole shall, during the period of surveillance, violate any
of the conditions of his parole, the Board may issue an order for his re-arrest and
shall serve the remaining unexpired portion of the maximum sentence.
The application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is mandatory if the imprisonment
would exceed one year. It would be favorable to the accused. (People v. Judge
German Lee, Jr., 86859, Sept. 12, 1984)
RELATIVES BY AFFINITY
Relatives by affinity within the fourth civil degree are individuals related to each other
through marriage. In the Philippines, the law defines these relationships, and it's
important to understand the concept of civil degrees of affinity to determine the
closeness of the relationship. Here are some examples of relatives by affinity within
the fourth civil degree:
First Civil Degree: This includes the spouse of the person or their former spouse. For
example:
John is married to Mary. Mary's brother, Mark, is related to John by affinity within the
first civil degree.
Second Civil Degree: This includes the parents of the spouse. For example:
Jane is married to David. David's mother, Susan, is related to Jane by affinity within
the second civil degree.
Third Civil Degree: This includes the parents of the spouse's parents. For example:
Karen is married to Paul. Paul's maternal grandmother, Emily, is related to Karen by

affinity within the third civil degree.
Fourth Civil Degree: This includes the parents of the parents of the spouse. For
example:
Michael is married to Lisa. Lisa's paternal great-grandfather, Robert, is related to

Michael by affinity within the fourth civil degree.

It's important to note that the calculation of civil degrees of affinity is based on the
concept of shared relationship through marriage. In the examples provided, the
relationships are based on the marital connections between individuals and their
respective relatives. Understanding these degrees of affinity is significant for legal
and cultural reasons, as they can affect issues related to inheritance, consanguinity,
and certain legal prohibitions in various jurisdictions.
ARRESTO MENOR VS ARRESTO MAYOR
In the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, the penalties for "arresto menor" and
"arresto mayor" are defined as follows:
Arresto Menor: This penalty ranges from one day to 30 days of imprisonment. It is
considered a light penalty for minor offenses.
Some examples of offenses that may be punishable by "arresto menor" under the
Revised Penal Code and other relevant laws include:
Simple slander (oral defamation)

Slight physical injuries
Theft of items of low value
Malicious mischief involving minor damage to property
Simple disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such person
Trespass to dwelling
Arresto Mayor: This penalty ranges from one month and one day to six months of
imprisonment. It is a more severe penalty compared to "arresto menor" and is
imposed for more serious offenses.
Some examples of offenses that may carry the penalty of "arresto mayor"
include:
Serious physical injuries

Theft of items of higher value
Slander by deed (committing any act that causes dishonor, discredit, or contempt)
Slight physical injuries that are committed against a person in authority, such as law
enforcement officers
Direct assault (attacking, employing force, or seriously resisting a person in
authority)
Less serious forms of illegal drug possession or use
PRISION CORRECTIONAL VS PRISION MAYOR
Prisión Correccional: This is a medium level of imprisonment for certain offenses. It

has a duration of more than 6 months and 1 day up to 6 years. Offenses punishable
by "prisión correccional" include serious physical injuries, theft, estafa (swindling),
and other similar offenses.

Some examples of offenses that may carry the penalty of "prisión correccional"
include:

Theft of items of higher value
Estafa (swindling) involving a moderate amount of money
Frustrated homicide
Reckless imprudence resulting in physical injuries
Prisión Mayor: This is a higher level of imprisonment, typically for more serious offenses. It
has a duration of 6 years and 1 day up to 12 years. Offenses punishable by "prisión mayor"
include qualified theft, robbery, and other grave felonies.
Some examples of offenses that may carry the penalty of "prisión mayor" include:
Qualified theft (theft committed under certain aggravating circumstances)
Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons
Kidnapping for ransom
Rape
Certain forms of illegal drug trafficking and distribution
VOID FOR VAGUENESS RULE

The rule holds that a law is void and unenforceable if its language is so vague and
unclear that a person of ordinary intelligence cannot determine what is prohibited or
required by the law.
SPECIFIC AGGRAVATING VS GENERIC AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
In criminal law, aggravating circumstances are factors that increase the severity of a
crime or the culpability of the offender. The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines
provides for both specific and generic aggravating circumstances. Let's distinguish
between the two, along with examples:
Specific Aggravating Circumstances

Specific aggravating circumstances are those that apply only to a particular crime.
They are mentioned in the law as elements that, when present, make the
commission of a crime more serious. Here are a few examples:
Treacherous Means/Treachery (Revised Penal Code Article 14, No. 16)

Example: A person attacks another from behind, making it impossible for the victim
to defend himself.
Evident Premeditation (Revised Penal Code Article 14, No. 9):

Example: A person plans a crime in advance and carries it out as intended.
Craft, Fraud, or Disguise (Revised Penal Code Article 14, No. 19):

Example: A person, dressed as a police officer, gains access to a house to commit a
crime.
Ignominy (Revised Penal Code Article 14, No. 22):

Example: Committing a crime in a manner that adds a sense of public shame or
disgrace to the victim.
Cruelty (Revised Penal Code Article 14, No. 21):

Example: Inflicting unnecessary physical or psychological suffering on the victim
during the commission of a crime.
Use of Motor Vehicles (Revised Penal Code Article 14, No. 20):
Example: Using a getaway car to facilitate the escape after committing a robbery.
Generic Aggravating Circumstances
Generic aggravating circumstances are more general and can apply to any crime.
They are not tied to a specific offense but, instead, are conditions or situations that,
when present, increase the penalty for the offense.
Examples include:
Abuse of Confidence (Revised Penal Code Article 14, No. 13):

Example: An employee who embezzles money entrusted to him by his employer.
Nighttime (Revised Penal Code Article 14, No. 2):

Example: Committing a crime during the nighttime to take advantage of darkness.
In Contempt of or with Insult to the Public Authorities (Revised Penal Code Article
14, No. 15):
Example: Committing a crime while disrespecting or showing contempt for law
enforcement.
Recidivism (Revised Penal Code Article 14, No. 9):

Example: A person who has previously been convicted of a crime and, after serving
the sentence, commits a new offense.
Quasi-Recidivism (Revised Penal Code Article 14, No. 10):

Example: Someone who, having committed a crime, is again found guilty of another
crime before serving the sentence for the first offense.
Unlawful Entry (Revised Penal Code Article 14, No. 12):

Example: Committing a crime after unlawfully entering a dwelling or building.
Aid of Armed Men (Revised Penal Code Article 14, No. 8):
Example: Committing a crime with the assistance of individuals armed with weapons.

Price, Reward, or Promise (Revised Penal Code Article 14, No. 11):
Example: Committing a crime in exchange for payment, reward, or under the
promise of compensation.
VIOLATION OF DOMICILE VS. TRESPASS TO DWELLING
The differences between violation of domicile and trespass to dwelling are;

1. The offender in violation of domicile is a public officer acting under color of
authority; in trespass to dwelling, the offender is a private person or public officer
acting in a private capacity.
2. Violation of domicile is committed in 3 different ways:
(1) by entering the dwelling of another against the will of the latter;
(2) searching papers and other effects inside the dwelling without the previous
consent of the owner; or
(3) refusing to leave the premises which he entered surreptitiously, after being
required to leave the premises.
3. Trespass to dwelling is committed only in one way; that is, by entering the
dwelling of another against the express or implied will of the latter.
IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
In the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, an "impossible crime" is defined in

Article 4, paragraph 2. It occurs when the act intended to be committed is not
only unlawful but is also inherently impossible to accomplish. The impossibility
must arise from extraneous circumstances, such as the lack of the required means
or conditions for the crime to be completed.
Three essential elements for an act to be considered an impossible crime under the
Revised Penal Code are:
Criminal Intent: The offender must have the intent to commit a crime.
Act Performed: An overt act must be performed in furtherance of the criminal intent.
Inherent Impossibility: The act intended to be committed is inherently impossible to
accomplish or is factually impossible due to extraneous circumstances.
Here are three examples to illustrate the concept of an impossible crime:
Counterfeiting Non-Existent Currency:
Intent: A person intends to counterfeit a specific type of currency.

Act: The person begins the process of counterfeiting, but it turns out that the
currency they are trying to counterfeit doesn't exist.
Inherent Impossibility: Counterfeiting a non-existent currency is inherently
impossible, as the currency itself does not exist.

Killing a Dead Person:
Intent: A person intends to commit murder.

Act: The person takes actions to kill a person, but unknown to them, the intended
victim is already deceased.
Inherent Impossibility: Killing a dead person is inherently impossible because the
person is already dead.
Stealing an Empty Safe:
Intent: A person intends to commit theft by stealing the contents of a safe.

Act: The person breaks into a premises, locates a safe, and attempts to steal from it.
Inherent Impossibility: If the safe is empty and there is nothing to steal, the crime is
inherently impossible, even though the person had the criminal intent and performed
an overt act.
In these examples, the impossibility arises from the fact that the intended criminal
acts cannot be accomplished due to circumstances beyond the control of the
offender.

Criminal Law Reviewer by Mark Nino de Asis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law Reviewer by Mark Nino de Asis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Author: Mark Nino De Asis

Felony= a crime punished under the Revised Penal Code

I. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW

1.Classical Theory=The classical school of thought emphasizes individual free will

Criminal Law Reviewer by Mark Nino De Asis <Page 1>

IMPUTABILITY IN THE CONTEXT OF CRIMINAL LAW

Criminal Law Reviewer by Mark Nino De Asis <Page 1>

Criminal Law Reviewer by Mark Nino De Asis <Page 1>

Criminal Law Reviewer by Mark Nino De Asis <Page 1>

Criminal Law Reviewer by Mark Nino De Asis <Page 1>

Criminal Law Reviewer by Mark Nino De Asis <Page 1>

CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS

EFFECTS OF REPEAL/ AMENDMENT OF PENAL LAWS

Retroactive Application: If a penal law is repealed or amended, it may have

Criminal Law Reviewer by Mark Nino De Asis <Page 1>

Prospective Application: The repeal or amendment of a penal law will generally

Transitional Provisions: In some cases, when a penal law is repealed or

DOCTRINE OF PRO REO

Criminal Law Reviewer by Mark Nino De Asis <Page 1>

MALA IN SE(evil in itself) VS MALA PROHIBITA (prohibited evil)

Criminal Law Reviewer by Mark Nino De Asis <Page 1>

DIFFERENCE OF ACTUS REUS AND MENS REA

Criminal Law Reviewer by Mark Nino De Asis <Page 1>

I. SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

The Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act, officially

Criminal Law Reviewer by Mark Nino De Asis <Page 1>

Criminal Law Reviewer by Mark Nino De Asis <Page 1>

SAMPLE : ALAC FORMAT

DEFENSES AGAISNT ESTAFA ARTICLE 315

Criminal Law Reviewer by Mark Nino De Asis <Page 1>

Prescription or Lapse of Time: In some cases, the statute of limitations

PRISION CORRECTIONAL PENALTIES

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW ( excerpt from Atty RCD Blog)

Indeterminate Sentence is a sentence with a minimum term and a maximum

Criminal Law Reviewer by Mark Nino De Asis <Page 1>

Example: Homicide with one mitigating circumstance. The maximum penalty

4. Those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence.

Criminal Law Reviewer by Mark Nino De Asis <Page 1>

Karen is married to Paul. Paul's maternal grandmother, Emily, is related to Karen by

Michael is married to Lisa. Lisa's paternal great-grandfather, Robert, is related to

Criminal Law Reviewer by Mark Nino De Asis <Page 1>

ARRESTO MENOR VS ARRESTO MAYOR

Simple slander (oral defamation)

Serious physical injuries

PRISION CORRECTIONAL VS PRISION MAYOR

Prisión Correccional: This is a medium level of imprisonment for certain offenses. It

Criminal Law Reviewer by Mark Nino De Asis <Page 1>

Serious physical injuries

VOID FOR VAGUENESS RULE

SPECIFIC AGGRAVATING VS GENERIC AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE

Specific Aggravating Circumstances

Treacherous Means/Treachery (Revised Penal Code Article 14, No. 16)

Evident Premeditation (Revised Penal Code Article 14, No. 9):

Criminal Law Reviewer by Mark Nino De Asis <Page 1>

Ignominy (Revised Penal Code Article 14, No. 22):

Cruelty (Revised Penal Code Article 14, No. 21):

Generic Aggravating Circumstances

Abuse of Confidence (Revised Penal Code Article 14, No. 13):

Nighttime (Revised Penal Code Article 14, No. 2):

Recidivism (Revised Penal Code Article 14, No. 9):

Quasi-Recidivism (Revised Penal Code Article 14, No. 10):

Unlawful Entry (Revised Penal Code Article 14, No. 12):

Criminal Law Reviewer by Mark Nino De Asis <Page 1>