02-SBCA-CBO-BAR-LECTURE-NOTES-2024-Criminal-Law-1-Atty.-Lyan-Juanico

BAR LECTURE SERIES OF 2024
CRIMINAL LAW 1
Atty. Lyan Juanico
10 March 2024
SCRIBES TEAM: PAMELA PAEZ| ZEPHRES BADILLA | JUDDTED CABELTES | HANNAH

MORALES | FRANCES LASHA | PAUL EYMARD LOPEZ | SARAH RIGUERA | LORRAINE
SANTOS
CHECKED BY: MIKHAELA MAYUGA | MARIEL ARAGON | JILLIAN QUIMSON
INTRODUCTION
11 Tips on How to Ace the Bar

By: Atty. Lyan David M. Juanico
1. Always believe in yourself.
2. Always observe the ALAC Format in answering essay problems.
3. Take mock bars and answer them seriously.
4. Attend lectures.
5. Surround yourself with the people who love you and show endless support to all your
endeavors.
6. Stick to your schedule. But do not panic if you fail to do so.
7. Do not be hard on yourself. Relax and unwind.
8. Exercise.
9. Master the Bar Syllabus
10. Sleep the night before the bar exams.
11. Ora et Labora.
THEORIES IN CRIMINAL LAW
CASE PROBLEM:
Mr. ABC needed equipment for his car repair shop but did not have the necessary
funds to purchase the same.
Thus, Mr. ABC approached XYZ marketing Corporation, the exclusive distributor of the
said equipment, which was represented by its president, Ms. XYZ, Ms. XYZ then
referred Mr. ABC to XYZ finance corporation, who was represented by its president, Mr.
XYZ.
XYZ Finance Corporation then accommodated Mr. ABC, subject to the deposit of 30%
of the value of the equipment.
SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG-CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS | 1

Since Mr. ABC could not come up with such an amount, he requested Mr. XYZ, on a
personal level, to look for a third party who could lend him the equivalent amount of
the 30% deposit. However, unknown to Mr. ABC, it was Ms. XYZ who advanced the
deposit in question, on condition that the same would be paid as a loan at 3% interest.
Thereafter, the equipment was delivered to Mr. ABC who in turn, issued a postdated
check and sent it to Mr. XYZ who, unknown to Mr. ABC, delivered the same to Ms. XYZ.
When Mr. ABC was not able to pay, XYZ Finance Corporation pulled-out the
equipment and Ms. XYZ deposited the postdated check, which eventually bounced.
Prosecuted for BP 22, what defense are you going to raise in favor of Mr. ABC?
SUGGESTED ANS:
I will raise Utilitarian Theory as a defense in favor of Mr. ABC.
(ANSWER → complete statement, not just yes or no)
According to jurisprudence, Utilitarian Theory provides that the primary function of

punishment is to protect the society against actual and potential wrongdoers.
(LAW → you do not need to cite specific case, make sure what you cite [law, doctrine, codal]
is correct, accurate, reliable, and relevant)
Here, Mr. ABC is not an actual or potential violator of BP 22 as he was a mere victim of the
scheme employed by Mr. XYZ and Ms. XYZ, which is doubtful validity, designed to prey on
unsuspecting businessmen like Mr. ABC.
(APPLICATION → use transition words/phrases, 2nd par, generic, 3rd par, specific)
Thus, I will raise the defense of Utilitarian Theory in favor of Mr. ABC.
(CONCLUSION)
MAGNO VS. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 96132, June 26, 1992
The Supreme Court stated that “It is intriguing to realize that Mrs. Teng did not want the
petitioner to know that it was she who accommodated petitioner’s request for Joey Gomez,
to source out the needed funds for the warranty deposit.” Thus, it unfolds the kind of
transaction that is shrouded with mystery, gimmickry and doubtful legality. This modus
operandi has in so many instances victimized unsuspecting businessmen, who likewise
need protection from the law.
CLASSICAL THEORY VS. POSITIVIST THEORY
CLASSICAL THEORY POSITIVIST THEORY

As to basis of criminal It accounts to the man Morbid phenomenon that
liability “Human Free Will” man is subjected to the
same which forces to do or
commit an offense.
As to purpose of penalty “Retribution” employs a Reformation
principle: an eye of an eye, a
tooth of a tooth.
As to how man is treated There is a scant regard to the Focus on given to the
human element offender
What do Philippine penal laws apply?

● Legal luminaries or commentators discussed that Philippines penal laws apply
both, called Eclectic Theory or Mixed Theory. One may see the classical theory in our
traditional crimes especially those found in the revised penal code, like murder,
rape. Wherein the purpose of the penalty is retribution, the offense is graver then
the penalty is harsher in character.
● On the other hand, recent trends of legislation would show positivist theory, like the
Juvenile Justice Welfare Act. For example, in the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act, the penalty for the first-time offender for illegal use of dangerous drugs is
merely reformation or drug rehabilitation.
● In general, Philippine Penal Laws employ Eclectic or Mixed Theory.
Utilitarian Theory applying in the case of Magno vs. Court of Appeal, G.R. No. 96132,
June 26, 1992:
This Maneuvering has serious implications especially with respect to the threat of the
penal sanction of the law in issue, as in this case. And, with a willing court system to
apply the full harshness of the special law in question, using the “mala prohibita”
doctrine, the noble objective of the law is tainted with materialism and opportunism in
the highest degree.
MALA IN SE VS. MALA PROHIBITA
MALA IN SE MALA PROHIBITA

As to nature Those which are “Inherently Those which are “not
evil in character” inherently evil in character, but
they are punished because
there is a law penalizing the
same”
As to the Criminal intent is necessary in Criminal intent is NOT
requirement of order for a person to be necessary. The moment that
criminal intent convicted the offender commits the act

punished under the law then
the person is criminally liable.
As to the defense Good faith negates the Good faith is NOT a matter of
of good faith presence of criminal intent, defense.
thus good faith is a matter of
defense
NOTE: Not all offenses in the revised Penal Code are considered crimes mala in se, and not all
crimes punished under special penal laws are considered crimes mala prohibita. The true test
is to look at the nature of the offense involved. If what is involved is an act which is inherently
evil in character then the offense is Mala in se, notwithstanding the fact that it is punishable
under a special penal law. Example: Child Abuse, Plunder, VAWC. (SPLs but mala in se).
Hence, look into the nature of the offense not to the law it involves.
CASE PROBLEM:
The Samahan ng mga Nagkakaisang Mangingisda (SNM) and its members occupied
the foreshore area of barangay San Pedro, Panabo City, Davao del Norte and
constructed sheds, cottages, and other structures, and operated sari sari stores
therein. When prosecuted for violating the provisions of the Water Code of the
Philippines requiring for a permit to use foreshore lands, SNM and its members argues
that they cannot be held liable because they acted in good faith. As evidence thereof,
they presented their pending application for foreshore lease with the Department of
Environmental and Natural Resources. Rule on the contention of SNM and its
members.
SUGGESTED ANS:
The contention of SMN and its members that they are not criminally liable because they
acted in good faith is wrong.
It is settled in criminal law that good faith is not a matter of defense in crimes mala
prohibita. As long as there is proof that the offender violated the act punished under the
law, the same would result in conviction, regardless of the criminal intent of the accused.
Here, the penal provision of the Water Code of the Philippines requiring for a permit to use
foreshore lands can be considered as mala prohibita since it is not inherently immoral.
Considering that there is proof in this case that SMN and its members occupied the
foreshore land of Barangay San Pedro, Panabo City, Davao del Norte without the necessary
permits and licenses, they are criminally liable, regardless of the criminal intent of SNM and
its members.
Therefore, the contention of SNM and its members is wrong.

PEOPLE V. CONSTANTINO
GR No 251636 February 14, 2022
Although an act prohibited by a special law does not automatically make it malum
prohibitum, the act of unauthorized occupancy of seashore without the necessary permit
punished under Article 91(b)(3) of PD 607 is considered malum prohibitum. The test to
determine when the act is mala in se and not mala prohibitum is whether it is inherently
immoral or the vileness of the penalized act.
CASE PROBLEM:
Sandara Park filed a criminal complaint for estafa through falsification of public
documents against Mayor Lisa because allegedly the latter has ghost employees in
the name of Jung kook, Suga and Jimin. As evidence thereof, Sandara Park presents
daily time records which were certified under oath by Mayor Lisa. The DTRs showed
that these employees reported in Mayor Lisa’s main office from 8am to 5pm but in
truth and in fact, they did not do so.
SUGGESTED ANS:
If I were the lawyer of Mayor Lisa, I would raise the defense of good faith.
The Supreme Court has held that estafa through falsification of public documents is a
crime malum in se which requires criminal intent to sustain conviction. Defense of good
faith is not available in such cases because the act must be done maliciously or with evil
intent.
In this case, criminal intent is wanting on the part of Mayor Lisa. Sha acted in goodfaith
when she certified the DTRs in order to process the payrolls of Jung Kook, Suga and Jimin.
Who all legitimately render work in the satellite offices.
Therefore, Mayor Lisa is not criminally liable for the absence of Malice.
PEOPLE V. PALMA GIL - ROFLO

GR No 249564 March 21, 2022
Settled is the rule that falsification of public documents is an intentional felony committed
by means of dolo or malice and could not result from imprudence, negligence, lack of
foresight or lack of skill. Intentional felony requires the existence of dolus malus - that the
act done willfully, maliciously, with deliberate evil intent and with malice afterthought. This
felony falls under the category of mala in se offenses that requires the attendance of
criminal intent.

CASE PROBLEM:
Ghor is a driver by occupation. He was engaged by Thor to drive for his client, an
unknown woman with the alias Sexy, using Thor’s vehicle, i.e., a toyota revo. After
driving Sexy to the Sandiganbayan complex along commonwealth avenue, Sexy
instructed Ghor to proceed to Hap Chan Restaurant without her and to meet with a
certain Star Lord who would get Sexy’s bag for a consideration, which the latter
placed on the backseat of the Toyota Revo. On the other hand, CPO3 Valkyrie received
a reliable tip that a drug trade would happen in front of Hap Chan Restaurant
involving a pusher named Sexy on board a Toyota Revo. Acting on the said tip,
Valkyrie decided to go undercover. Valkyrie went to the said restaurant and walked
towards the parked car matching with the description that she received. When she
opened the door, she saw Ghor to whom she asked where Sexy is. Instead of giving a
responsive answer, Ghor asked him if she is Star Lord to which she answered in the
affirmative. Forthwith, Ghor told him to get the blue bag at the back seat and leave
the money there as instructed by Sexy. At once, SPO3 Valkyrie took the blue bag from
the Toyota Revo and opened it. She then saw 6 brown envelopes containing white
crystalline substance inside a plastic bag which turned out to be shabu. Ghor was
subsequently arrested and was charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Is
Ghor criminally liable?
SUGGESTED ANS:
No, Ghor is not criminally liable for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
One of the elements of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs is intent to
possess or animus possidendi. The accused must knowingly, freely, intentionally and
consciously possess the prohibited drugs in person.
(LAW → there are many elements in criminal law, I only cited the missing element since it’s
the only one relevant)
In this case, Ghor not being the owner of the vehicle where the alleged drug specimen was
recovered, and being a mere driver for hire was simply engaged by other persons and
merely followed the instruction of his principal, Thor, and the latter’s client, Sexy, which on
their face were lawful instructions, it cannot be said that Gjor exercised control and
dominion over the vehicle where the bag of specimen was recovered. Necessarily, the
presumption of animus possidendi did not arise.
Therefore, Ghor is not criminally liable. (Luna v People, GR No. 231902, June 30, 2021)
LANDMARK CASES ON MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA
ISMAEL VS. PEOPLE

GR Nos. 234435-36, February 6, 2023, J. Lopez
● Officials of LGU were charged with GSIS law for failure to remit remittances
deducted from their employees
● Defense: no intent to perpetrate the offense
● Aware that GSIS law is mala prohibitum in character
● Defense used is not good faith but the lack of intent to perpetrate an offense at
the time of committing the offense
● Another defense: wartime in Mindanao but not accepted since LGU was already
in arrears prior to the war in Mindanao
ACHARON VS. PEOPLE

GR No. 224946, November 09, 2021
Mere failure to give support does not amount to violation of the crime of RA 9262 since it is
only an actus reus, it must be coupled with a mens rea
● mala in se = actus reus + mens rea
● an act cannot be criminal unless the mind is criminal
BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW
Basic Characteristics of Criminal Law

1. Territoriality
GR: Crimes that happened in Philippine territory then the Philippine Courts
shall have jurisdiction
2. Generality
GR: Philippine penal laws are obligatory to those who live and sojourn within
the Philippine territory
3. Prospectivity
GR: Penal laws apply prospectively
CASE PROBLEM:
Daniel, married to Kathryn, contracted another marriage with Andrea in Singapore.
While Daniel and Andrea stayed in Singapore for their honeymoon, Kathryn
discovered the clandestine marriage between the two. Devastated and aggrieved,
Kathryn filed a criminal complaint against Daniel for violation RA No 9262 particularly
for psychological violence. Daniel filed a motion to quash arguing that Philippine
courts have no jurisdiction over the case, the marriage happened in Singapore.
Decide.
SUGGESTED ANS:
The motion to quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction should be denied.

(ANSWER → complete thought, include on what grounds)
According to the Supreme Court, Section 7 of RA 9262 contemplates that acts of violence
against women and their children may manifest as transitory or continuing crimes
meaning that some acts material and essential thereto and requisite in their
consummation occur in one municipality or territory while some occur in another. As a
consequence thereof, a court has jurisdiction to try a violation thereof in the place where
any of the elements of the crime occurred.
Here, while marital infidelity occurred in Singapore, the element of mental or emotional
anguish occurred in the Philippines. As such, Philippine courts have jurisdiction to try the
case.
Hence, the motion to quash should not be granted.
AAA v. BBB
GR Nos. 212448, January 11, 2018
In criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional. The place where the crime was committed
determines not only the venue of the action but is an essential element of jurisdiction. It is
a fundamental rule that for jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases, the
offense should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients should have
taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
ARTICLE 2 OF REVISED PENAL CODE
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;

2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or
obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the
obligations and securities mentioned in the presiding number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of
their functions; or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations,
defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE TERRITORIALITY PRINCIPLE
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;

2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or
obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the

obligations and securities mentioned in the presiding number;
● Aside from forging or counterfeiting the coin or currency, acts that will introduce to
our country or our territory the securities mentioned in the presiding number
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of
their functions; or
● Take note that the very important clause “should commit an offense in the exercise of
their functions”.
○ Hence, not all offenses committed by public officers abroad will trigger the
jurisdiction of the Philippines.
○ It should be an offense in the exercise of their functions
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined
in Title One of Book Two of this Code.
CASE PROBLEM:
A, B, C, and D are officers from the Armed Forces of the Philippines. One day, they met
in a hotel in Los Angeles, California and formed an association aimed at overthrowing
the legitimate government of the Republic of the Philippines. Can A, B, C, and D be
prosecuted before Philippine courts?
SUGGESTED ANS:
A, B, C, and D cannot be prosecuted of conspiracy to commit rebellion before Philippine

courts.
Pursuant to the Territoriality Principle of Criminal Law, crimes committed outside of the
Philippine territory, as a rule, are outside of the jurisdiction of Philippine courts. Here, the
crime of conspiracy to commit rebellion, which is considered as a crime against public
order, was committed in Los Angeles, California, USA.
Thus, A, B, C, and D cannot be prosecuted before Philippine courts.
● Atty Juanico’s Topnotch tip: We all know that when you study law, there is a general rule
and there are exceptions and in some instances, there are exceptions to the exception.
Pag barista tayo, palung-palo yung aral natin. Lahat alam natin – general rule and
exceptions pati exception to the exception. BUT whenever you are presenting your
answer at the Bar, you don’t need to write all of them. You only write what is relevant.
○ In this case, what is relevant is the general rule and not the exception under Article 2.
You don’t need to write the entire Article 2, you just need to write the general rule and
that is when a crime happens outside of the Philippines, Philippine Courts do not
have jurisdiction over the same.
○ But, ang topnotch tip ko dyan ay i-specify mo as a rule or as a general rule.

■ You are sending a signal to the examiners that “I know that this rule is not absolute
and there are exceptions but I’m no longer citing those exceptions because they
are no longer relevant.”
● Take note that under Article 2, paragraph 5, what is involved is the crime against national
security and the law of nations, not crime against public order such as rebellion which is
not a crime against national security. Do not commit that mistake.
CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY
CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY

1. Treason
2. Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Treason
3. Misprision of Treason
4. Espionage
5. Provoking War and Disloyalty in Case of War
6. Inciting to War
7. Violation of Neutrality
8. Correspondence with Hostile Country
9. Flight to Enemy's Country
10. Piracy
● Crimes against National Security as defined under Title I Book 2 of the RPC
○ Note that Rebellion is not included in the list of crimes against National Security.
■ Expressio unius est exclusio alterius - When the law does not include, it excludes.
CASE PROBLEM:
A, B, C, and D, who are all Filipinos, decided to throw a bomb at New York Times
Square during the eve of the New Year's festivities. They announced this
predetermined crime after hacking US TV networks. They said that they will not
continue with their plan if the President of the Republic of the Philippines will resign.
Can A, B, C, and D be prosecuted before Philippine courts?
SUGGESTED ANS:
A, B, C, and D can be prosecuted before Philippine courts.
Under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, which has extra-territorial application, a threat to
commit an act of terrorism such as engaging in acts intended to cause death and extensive
damage, with the purpose to intimidate the general public, is punishable.
Here, A, B, C, and D threatened to throw a bomb at New York Times Square which would
cause death and extensive damage and intimidation to the general public. As such, they

are liable for Threat to Commit Terrorism.
Thus, A, B, C, and D can be prosecuted before Philippine courts.
NOTES:
● What is the moral lesson in this case?
○ Don’t be of the impression that only those enumerated under Article 2 RPC
are the exceptions under the Territoriality Principle because it’s possible that
a special law such as Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 will provide for an
extra-territoriality application such that even if committed outside of the
Philippine territory, Philippine courts have jurisdiction over said offense.
ANTI-TERRORISM ACT OF 2020
SECTION 4 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 11479
Subject to Section 49 of this Act, terrorism is committed by any person who, within or
outside the Philippines, regardless of the stage of execution:
(a) Engages in acts intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to any person, or
endangers a person's life;
(b) Engages in acts intended to cause extensive damage or destruction to a
government or public facility, public place or private property;
(c) Engages in acts intended to cause extensive interference with, damage or
destruction to critical infrastructure;
(d) Develops, manufactures, possesses, acquires, transports, supplies or uses weapons,
explosives or of biological, nuclear, radiological or chemical weapons; and
(e) Release of dangerous substances, or causing fire, floods or explosions.
● The phrase “within or outside the Philippines” in the first portion of Section 4 is the legal
basis in stating that the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 has extraterritorial application.
○ Atty Juanico: That’s how you study the law. When there is an important word or
phrase, you highlight or encircle it. Hindi yung cocoloran mo lahat. Hindi yan coloring
book na pagandahan ng kulay. You have to highlight the important words or phrases
in the codal provisions.
● The law provides an enumeration [paragraphs] a-e which you can use to the problem
earlier because bombing is causing an explosion.
○ Why am I citing this? Because in one case decided by the Supreme Court, it ruled on
the validity and constitutionality of Section 4 of R.A. No. 11479.
○ According to the Supreme Court, Section 4 a-e are valid and constitutional because it
merely enumerates the actus reus of terrorism.

SECTION 4 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 11479
When the purpose of such act, by its nature and context, is to intimidate the general public
or a segment thereof, create an atmosphere or spread a message of fear, to provoke or
influence by intimidation the government or any international organization, or seriously
destabilize or destroy the fundamental political, economic, or social structures of the
country, or create a public emergency or seriously undermine public safety, shall be guilty
of committing terrorism and shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment without the
benefit of parole and the benefits of Republic Act No. 10592, otherwise known as "An Act
Amending Articles 29, 94, 97, 98 and 99 of Act No. 3815, as amended, otherwise known as
the Revised Penal Code". Provided, That, terrorism as defined in this section shall not
include advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass action, and other
similar exercises of civil and political rights, which are not intended to cause death or
serious physical harm to a person, to endanger a person's life, or to create a serious risk to
public safety.
● The second portion of Section 4 of RA No. 11479 provides for the mens rea.
○ Going back to the formula I mentioned earlier — actus reus + mens rea
■ In other words, terrorism even if it is a special law is an act Mala In Se. After all, it is
inherently immoral to kill someone or commit an act of terrorism.
○ In this portion, it establishes the mens rea of terrorism which are:
(1) To intimidate the general public or a segment thereof
(2) Create an atmosphere or spread a message of fear
(3) To provoke or influence by intimidation the government or any international
organization
(4) Seriously destabilize or destroy the fundamental political, economic, or social
structures of the country,
(5) Create a public emergency
(6) Seriously undermine public safety
● Atty. Juanico: Ganyan mag-aral ng batas. Himayin niyo yung codal.
● The Supreme Court ruled that these are still constitutional.
CALLEJA VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

G.R. No. 252578, December 7, 2021, J. Carandang
● The “Non-Intended Clause” is ambiguous since there are no sufficient parameters that
render it capable of judicial construction.
● The “Non-Intended Clause” has a chilling effect on the average person.
● Before the protester can speak, he must first guess whether his speech would be
interpreted as a terrorist act under Section 4 and whether he might be arrested,
indicted, and/or detained for it.
● The danger of the clause is made grave by the fact that by shifting the burden to the

accused to explain his intent.
● However, a portion of section 4 which is “not intended to cause death or serious physical
harm to a person, to endanger a person's life, or to create a serious risk to public safety” is
unconstitutional.
○ REASON: The "Not Intended" clause of Section 4's proviso is unconstitutional under
the strict scrutiny test, as well as the void for vagueness and overbreadth doctrines.
(Calleja v. Executive Secretary)
○ It has a chilling effect on freedom of expression and freedom of speech.
■ Remember that since terrorism is punished by life imprisonment under Section 4,
then it is a non-bailable offense.
■ It allows for law enforcers to take an "arrest now, explain later" approach in the
application of the ATA where the burden is now shifted to the accused to explain
his intent which is a chilling effect to freedom of expression, freedom of speech,
and freedom of press.
CALLEJA VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

G.R. No. 252578, December 7, 2021, J. Carandang
Elements of 3rd Paragraph of Section 10 of R.A. No. 11479:

1. Voluntarily and knowingly join an organization, association, or group;
2. Have knowledge that the organization, association, or group is:
a. Proscribed under Section 26 of R.A. No. 11479;
b. Designated by the United Nations Security Council; or
c. Organized for the purpose of engaging in terrorism.
● The third instance is impermissibly vague.

● In the context of penalizing a person's alleged membership in a terrorist organization,
association, or group, there is nothing in R.A. No. 11479 which provides rules or
guidelines to determine and verify the nature of said organization, association, or
group as one organized for the purpose of engaging in terrorism.
● The charges under this instance would be very easy to fabricate, since the lack of
standards may give law enforcers free rein in determining which groups are so-called
organized for the purpose of engaging in terrorism.
● In the discussion of elements of 3rd Paragraph of Section 10, 2 (a) and (b) are valid and
constitutional as per the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
○ 2 (c) is invalid and unconstitutional, because there is no standard by which an
organization can be determined one engaged in terrorism.
■ Unlike in 2(a) there is a standard which is Section 26 of R.A. No. 11479.
■ For 2(b), there is also a standard which is the designation made by the United
Nations Security Council which follows certain guidelines on when you can declare

that an organization, association or group is classified a Terrorist organization,
association or group.
■ However, in 2 (c), there is no standard for the police officers which gives them
unbridled discretion to determine what are the organizations, associations, or
groups that are engaged in terrorism.
CASE PROBLEM:
AAA, a Filipino, and BBB, a Dutch National, contracted marriage in Holland in 1990.
Years later, they were blessed with a son named CCC. Unfortunately, their marriage
bond ended in 1995 by virtue of a divorce decree issued by the appropriate Court of
Holland. Thereafter, AAA and her son came home to Cebu City. According to AAA, BBB
made a promise to provide monthly support to their son. However, since the arrival of
AAA and her son in the Philippines, BBB never gave support to CCC. Not long
thereafter, BBB came to the Philippines and remarried in Cebu, and since then, have
been residing thereat.
AAA, through her counsel, sent a letter demanding for support from BBB. However,
BBB refused to receive the letter. This prompted AAA to file a criminal complaint
against BBB for violation of R.A. No. 9262 for the latter's unjust refusal to support his
minor child with AAA. BBB argued that he is not liable since under the laws of the
Netherlands, he is not obliged to provide support.
Rule on the contention of BBB.
SUGGESTED ANS:
The contention of BBB that he is not liable since under the laws of the Netherlands, he is
not obliged to provide support does not have merit.
The Generality Principle of Criminal Law provides that penal laws and those of public
security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live and sojourn in Philippine territory.
In this case, the acts of BBB in refusing to support CCC, his child with AAA, were committed
in the Philippines as all of the parties herein are residents of Cebu City. Thus, R.A. No. 9262
applies to BBB, notwithstanding his Dutch nationality. Furthermore, BBB's obligation to
provide support to CCC is still duly enforceable in the Philippines because it would be of
great injustice to the child to be denied financial support when the latter is entitled thereto.
Therefore, the contention of BBB does not have merit. (Del Socorro v. Van Wilsen G.R. No.
1973707, December 10, 2014, J. Peralta)
● Atty Juanico’s topnotch tip: In the suggested answer, not only did I answer that the
statement is wrong I also provided what is his contention.

○ For the second paragraph, it is a codal provision but I did not specify what codal it is.
■ You can ace the Bar examinations or pass it without citing the section or article
number as long as your citation is accurate, correct, and relevant.
○ In the application paragraph, I even specified what portion of the Philippine territory is
in this problem. I also specified who is the minor child (CCC) in this case.
DEL SOCORRO VS. VAN WILSEN

G.R. No. 1973707, December 10, 2014, J. Peralta
Even if the laws of the Netherlands neither enforce a parent's obligation to support his child
nor penalize the noncompliance therewith, such obligation is still duly enforceable in the
Philippines because it would be of great injustice to the child to be denied of financial
support when the latter is entitled thereto.
● This case problem is patterned after Del Socorro v. Van Wilsen.

○ You have to remember that this case is a landmark case that can be asked not only in
Criminal law but also Civil Law such as Persons and Family Relations. It also can be
asked in Remedial law.
■ This case has a lot of issues not only about the generality principle of territoriality
principle, you also have the doctrine of processual presumption under the rules on
evidence on how to establish the existence of foreign laws.
■ If you have time, I suggest that you read Del Socorro v. Van Wilsem in full text.
GENERALITY PRINCIPLE OF CRIMINAL LAW; EXCEPTIONS
EXCEPTIONS TO GENERALITY PRINCIPLE
a. Sovereigns and Heads of State

b. Charges d’affaires
c. Ambassadors
d. Ministers Plenipotentiary
e. Ministers Residents
● As mentioned earlier, the generality principle is not absolute.

○ What are exceptions to the generality principle such that even if the person is within
the Philippine territory, they are not subject to the Philippine penal laws [SCAM²]
■ Sovereigns and Heads of State
■ Charges d’affaires
■ Ambassadors
■ Ministers Plenipotentiary
■ Ministers Residents

● Atty Juanico’s topnotch tip: Always think of keywords when you memorize
enumerations. Here, the word is SCAM².
○ Note that the enumeration does not include consuls because they are not political
representatives of the States they represent. They are merely economic
representatives and do not enjoy immunity from criminal prosecutions.
CASE PROBLEM:
X was convicted of the crime of estafa by the trial court involving trust receipts worth
P8,000.00. At that time, the penalty for estafa is prision correccional in its medium
and maximum periods, if the value of the thing is more than P6,000 pesos but does
not exceed P12.000 pesos. As such, the trial court imposed the said penalty.
Thereafter, X filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals (CA). During that time,
Republic Act No. 10951 was enacted. It provides if the amount involved in estafa does
not exceed P40,000, the penalty is arresto mayor. Nevertheless, the CA affirmed in
toto the decision of the trial court. Is the CA correct?
SUGGESTED ANS:
The CA is not correct in affirming the decision of the trial court in toto. It is settled in
Criminal Law that a penal law can be given a retroactive effect if it is favorable to the
accused, unless the latter is a habitual delinquent.
Here, there is no showing that X is a habitual delinquent. As such, the favorable provisions
of Republic Act No. 10951 which provide for a lighter penalty that is arresto mayor, must be
applied to X.
Therefore, the CA is not correct (Barlin v. People, G.R. No. 207418, June 23, 2021).
● Since we mentioned R.A. No. 10951, let us discuss its salient provisions. After all this is
included in your Bar Syllabus.
○ Atty Juanico’s topnotch tip: As mentioned earlier, one of my tips to ace the Bar
Examinations is to master the Bar Syllabus even the special laws mentioned therein.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10951
ART. 9. Grave Felonies, Less Grave Felonies And Light Felonies.- Grave felonies are those to
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 Forty thousand pesos (P40,000) or both is provided.
● You have R.A. No. 10951 which updated the valuations in the Revised Penal Code.
○ As you recall, the RPC was enacted a long time ago and the figures stated therein no
longer reflect the value of money that we have.
○ Thus it updated the valuation Light felonies which are those infractions of law for the
commission of which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding Forty
thousand pesos (P40,000) or both is provided.
■ Not exceeding Forty thousand pesos (P40,000) means pasok sa banga yung
P40,000 pero pag lumagpas na kahit single centavo, hindi na siya light felony.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10951
ART. 26. When Afflictive, Correctional, Or Light Penalty.- A fine, whether imposed as a single
or as an alternative penalty, shall be considered an afflictive penalty, if it exceeds One
million two hundred thousand pesos (P1, 200, 000); a correctional penalty, if it does not
exceed One million two hundred thousand pesos (P1, 200, 000) but is not less than Forty
thousand pesos (P40, 000); and a light penalty, if be less than Forty thousand pesos (P40,
000).
● Why am I highlighting that Light felonies should not exceed P40,000?

○ R.A. No. 10951 also updated the valuation in cases of light penalties which is different
from light felonies.
○ Light penalties - less than Forty thousand pesos (P40, 000).
■ Light penalties are P39,999.99 below.
PEOPLE VS. DALAGUET

G.R. No. 249414 | July 27, 2022 | J. M.V. Lopez
● Notably, the new law increased the minimum term of indeterminate penalty imposed
upon the accused-appellant: from prisión mayor medium to reclusion temporal
minimum.
● The retroactive application of R.A. No. 11648 will thus result into a higher minimum term
of the indeterminate penalty.
● Considering that the new penalty has a higher minimum term, it is more burdensome
to the accused-appellant as it will take him a longer period of time to serve the
minimum of the indeterminate sentence before he becomes eligible for a review of his
parole case.
● People v Dalaguet applied the general rule of prospectivity.

○ Penal law may not be given retroactive effect especially if it is not favorable to the
accused. It would make the offense more burdensome to the accused.
○ In this case the law involved is R.A. No. 11648 or Anti-Rape law.
■ According to the Supreme Court, if you were to give the Anti-Rape law a
retroactive effect, it will result into a higher minimum term of the indeterminate
penalty.
■ Dahil mas mataas yung minimum term, it will require a longer period of time for
the accused to be eligible for Parole. Since it is burdensome, it cannot be given a
retroactive effect.
■ Hence, the general rule of prospectivity is applicable and you will apply the law
after its effectivity.
PRO REO PRINCIPLE AND INTERPRETATION OF PENAL LAWS
CASE PROBLEM:
In a criminal case for bigamy, is the accused required to procure a judicial declaration
of nullity of marriage before he can invoke his void ab initio marriage as a defense?
SUGGESTED ANS:
No, the accused is not required to procure a judicial declaration of nullity of marriage before
he can invoke his void ab initio marriage as a defense in a criminal case for bigamy.
The fundamental principle in interpreting criminal laws is to resolve all doubts in favor of
the accused. In dubio pro reo. When in doubt, rule for the accused. This is in consonance
with the constitutional guarantee that the accused shall be presumed innocent unless and
until his guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt.
To require the accused in a criminal case for bigamy to procure first a judicial declaration of
nullity of marriage before he can invoke his void marriage as a defense is an interpretation
liberally in favor of the state, and not in favor of the accused.
● This case is patterned in Pulido v. People of the Philippines.
PULIDO V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

GR No. 220149 | July 27, 2021
Article 40. The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of
remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void.
Nothing in Article 40 mentions the effect thereof on the criminal liability of the accused in
bigamy cases.

● In Pulido v People of the Philippines, the provision in the family code, which requires a
judicial declaration of absolute nullity of marriage, is only applicable for purposes of
remarrying, not as a defense in a criminal action for bigamy.
JAMES IENT V. TULLETT PREBON (PHILIPPINES) INC.

GR. No. 189158, January 11, 2017, Leonardo-de Castro, J.
There are two companies wherein the officers of one company were pirated by an opposing
company. They were pirated and they were hired by the opposing company. Because of
that, the officers were charged with the violation of the Corporation Code, particularly the
provision on loyalty of corporate officers. Corporate officers and directors owe a fiduciary
duty to the corporation, so they cannot engage in double dealings. Since they were pirated
and hired by a competitor company, the officers were being charged under that provision
of the corporation code in relation to the general penal clause of the Corporation Code.
The Supreme Court ruled that they cannot be held criminally liable under the general
penal clause of the Corporation Code.
The provision of the Corporation Code requiring fiduciary loyalty is not penal in character.
Although it is a violation of the Corporation Code that you switched companies, it is not
criminal in character but merely administrative.
Although the general penal clause provides that “any violation thereof shall be meted with
a fine and/or imprisonment at the discussion of the court” still, that phrase, “any violation of
the provision of the Corporation Code” should not be interpreted to literally mean every and
all violations of all sections of the Corporation Code. That will be a construction that is
liberally in favor of the state, in violation of the Doctrine of Pro Reo. You have to construe
that penal clause in favor or liberally in favor of the accused.
● When do you apply the General Penal Clause? After all it provides that any violation of the
Corporation Code shall be punished by imprisonment or fine as determined or discretion
of the Court?
○ The Supreme Court held that a particular provision must expressly provide or state
violation thereof shall be penal in character.
■ Perfect Example: In case a corporation prohibits a stockholder from inspecting the
corporate books and records of the corporation during reasonable hours. It is
expressly stated that violations thereof would be criminal in character under the
General Penal Clause
■ In the provision of loyalty by the officers, it does not expressly state that the
violation is criminal in character and the officers here are acquitted.

CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS TO CRIMINAL LAW
CASE PROBLEM:
Dr. Hay Naku is a famous doctor, Dr. Hay Naku has developed a habit of videotaping
his sexual congress with female celebrities without the knowledge and consent of the
latter. Sometime in 2009, the videotapes were accidentally released on the internet.
This caused an uproar among the female celebrities, their fans and religious and civic
groups. This prompted Congress to conduct an inquiry in aid of legislation. As a
consequence of which, Congress enacted in 2010 the Anti-Voyeurism Act which
prohibits the act of taking photo or video coverage of a person performing a sexual
act or any similar activity. Is Dr. Hay Naku liable for violating the Anti-Voyeurism Act?
SUGGESTED ANS:
Dr. Hay Naku is not criminally liable for violating the Anti-Voyeurism Act.
Under the Constitution, an ex post facto law is one which makes criminal an act done
before the passage of the law was innocent when done, and punishes such an act.
Here, the act of Dr. Hay Naku in videotaping his sexual congress with female celebrities
without knowledge and consent of the latter, was committed before the passage of the
Anti-Voyeurism Act.
Thus, Dr. Hay Naku is not criminally liable for the said offense.
LANDMARK CASES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS TO CRIMINAL LAW
GARCIA VS. DRILON

GR No. 179267, June 25, 2013
The Supreme Court upheld the validity and constitutionality of R.A. 9262 or the
Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act.
The accused in this case argued that there is a violation of the equal protection clause.
However, the Supreme Court held that there is none because all the requisites of a valid
classification under the equal protection clause are present. Such that in order for valid
classification it must (1) rest on substantial distinctions, (2) be germane to the purpose of
the law, (3) not be limited to existing conditions only, and (4) apply equally to all members
of the same class.

In this case, all of these are present in R.A. 9262 because it applies to all females in general,
with no particular group of females. It is also germane to the purpose where females as a
group need protection because of studies and statistics as discussed in Garcia v Drilon.
Another issue discussed is the validity and constitutionality of R.A. 9262 insofar as due
process clause. According to the accused, there is a violation of due process clause
particularly to the issuance of temporary protection order and barangay protection order as
they are issued ex parte (without knowledge or consent of respondent).
The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard which according to the accused
was denied thereof. The Supreme Court held that the contention is wrong because the
mentioned protection orders were temporary in character and in order for these protection
orders to become permanent in character, that is the time the Courts gives notice to the
respondent and are given opportunity to be heard.
The Supreme Court also said that this is not the first time that a particular order is issued ex
parte. There are Attachments (from Rules of Court) which can be issued ex parte as long as
it is issued simultaneously with summons.
ECHEGARAY VS. PEOPLE

GR no.. 132601, October 12, 1998
The Supreme Court ruled that lethal injection is not a cruel and inhumane punishment.
What constitutes cruel and inhumane punishment? Is the death penalty cruel and
inhumane punishment?
According to the Supreme Court, the death penalty per se is not cruel. What makes death
penalty cruel is if it involves lingering death or if it involves torture. In which case, that is not
allowed under the Constitution.
CRIMINAL LIABILITIES AND FELONIES
CASE PROBLEM:
A traffic altercation happened between Mr. X and Mr. Y because the traffic altercation
was really heated. Mr. X drew his gun from his and fired successive shots at Mr. Y, who
sped off with his motorcycle to flee. In the meantime, ABC was flying a kite in the area
at that time. ABC fell to the ground upon being hit by one of the bullets fired by Mr. X.

Upon seeing ABC sprawled on the ground, Mr. X stopped, left his motorcycle, and ran
away. ABC died. The trial court convicted Mr. X of the crime of homicide insofar as
ABC is concerned. On appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled that MR. X’s liability insofar
as ABC is concerned is only reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. Which court is
correct?
SUGGESTED ANS:
The trial court is correct. Under the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is incurred by any
person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that
which is intended. The author of the felony shall be criminally liable for the direct, natural,
and logical consequence thereof, whether intended or not.
In this case, Mr. X was committing a felony when he fired successive shots at Mr. Y. The
death of A.B.C. is the direct natural and logical consequence of this felonious act.of Mr. X. As
such, Mr. X is criminally liable for an intentional felony.
Thus, the trial court is correct.
● The keyword here is intended. Thus, aberratio ictus only relates to intentional felonies.
This is a perfect illustration of aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow. Intent does not
apply to culpa. The jurisprudence where the accused is liable for reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide is very wrong. Mr. X was committing a felony when he was firing
successive shots. You use the same concepts in the second paragraph to the third
paragraph. Showing intentional felony and thus the trial court is correct in this case.
CRUZ VS. PEOPLE

GR No 216642, September 8, 2020
In this case the Supreme Court ruled that a finding of dolo or malice on the part of Cruz is
simply incompatible with criminal negligence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code
which defines reckless imprudence as that which consists in voluntary, but without malice,
doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable
lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act. Thus,
it was erroneous to characterize Torralba’s death as one resulting from reckless
imprudence.
ARTICLE 4(1) OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE
PEOPLE VS. OANIS

GR No. 47722, July 27, 1943.

This is an old case but this is still a landmark case relevant and applicable up to this date.
So, what happened in this case? In this case, the offenders who are police authorities were
looking for a notorious criminal named Balagtas. When they saw a sleeping man, who
matched the description of Balagtas they immediately killed that person. How was the
sleeping person located? The position he was sleeping in, he was facing against the wall.
The police did not actually see his face, only his back. And yet, the police officers
immediately fired upon that sleeping person. As it turns out, that person was not Balagtas
but a different one. This is a classic example of error in personae or mistake in identity.
According to the Supreme Court, the offenders or the police officers are criminally liable in
this case under Article 4(1) of the Revised Penal Code. Because when they fired upon this
sleeping person, they were committing a felony. That is murder and they are all liable for
the direct, logical, and natural consequences of their actions even if not intended, even if
that person is not the intended one.
URBANO VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

GR No. 182750, January 20, 2009.
So what happened in this case? The keyword in this case is lucky punch. The accused
delivered a lucky punch on the victim with the intention of just hurting the victim because
“nabadtrip o nainis siya sa kausap niya.” But because that lucky punch was very strong, it
resulted to the death of the victim. This is a classic example of praeter intentionem or lack
of intent to commit so grave a wrong as to that which is committed. So, even if he has no
intent to kill that person he is still criminally liable for the death of the victim under Article
4(1) of the Revised Penal Code.Because at the time that he punched the victim in the face
he was committing a felony i.e., physical injuries. So, he is criminally liable for the direct,
logical, and natural consequences of his action even though not intended. So, even he did
not intend to kill the victim he is criminally liable for homicide and he is entitled to
mitigating circumstance because as we will discuss later on praeter intentionem is
considered as an ordinary mitigating circumstance.
Here's another landmark under Article 4(1) case of Urbano vs. IAC, GR No. 72964, January 7,
1988. What happened in this case of Urbano? There was a hacking incident. After several
days, weeks, the victim who was hacked returned to the farm and then he worked there
and because the farm has mud, it has dirt, he contracted tetanus virus, as a consequence of
which he died. But according to the Supreme Court, the act of the victim going to the farm
and getting the tetanus virus is an efficient intervening cause and thus, he is not criminally
liable for the death of the victim only for the physical injuries that the victim sustained.
URBANO VS. IAC

GR No. 72964, January 7, 1988.

What happened in this case of Urbano? There was a hacking incident. After several days,
weeks, the victim who was hacked returned to the farm and then he worked there and
because the farm has mud, it has dirt, he contracted tetanus virus, as a consequence of
which he died. But according to the Supreme Court, the act of the victim going to the farm
and getting the tetanus virus is an efficient intervening cause and thus, he is not criminally
liable for the death of the victim only for the physical injuries that the victim sustained.
US VS. VALDEZ
GR No. 16486, March 22, 1921.
So this is a landmark case under Article 4(1) of the RPC. What happened in this case? If you
will recall, this case involves a hold-up incident. “Nag declare ng holdap sa barko so natakot
under biktima so of course tumakbo siya, tumalon siya sa bangka. Eh, hindi siya marunong
lumangoy. So, nalunod siya.Namatay siya.” According to the Supreme Court, the offender is
criminally liable although he main intent is to rob, he is liable for the death of the victim as
well. Because, he created a mental state of fear in the mind of the victim for which he is
criminally liable. So, under Article 4 he was committing a felony when he declared a
hold-up – so he was committing robbery and he is liable for all the direct, natural, logical
consequences of his action i.e., the death of the victim on the account of his failure or lack
of knowledge to swim even though not intended.
US VS. AH CHONG
GR No. 5272, March 19, 1910.
Ah Chong was sleeping and at the time there were a lot of lawless elements in the area. Ah
Chong was a chef so he had a knife used in his work and to protect himself he hid a knife
under his pillow. He had a roommate and “yung pintuan sa kwarto ni Ah Chong” the lock
was broken. To lock the door, he used a chair. He placed a chair on the door to keep it
locked and then someone was trying to force his way in the room. So, Ah Chong who at the
time was sleeping was awaken by the noise of the door, by the banging of the door. Ah
Chong asked several times “Who are you?”, “Identify yourself.” but that person did not
speak and he barged his was into the room. As a consequence of which the chair flew and
hit Ah Chong. So when Ah Chong was hit his instant reaction was to protect himself and
use the knife hidden in his pillow to stab the intruder. As it turns out, the intruder was his
roommate. According to the Supreme Court, this is a classic example of mistake of fact.
Right? So, facts as the accused believed them to be, it would be an instance of self defense.
There was also no negligence on the part of Ah Chong because he asked for several times,
“Who are you?” and “Identify yourself.” Unlike in the case that we discussed earlier, wherein
the offender said every opportunity to determine and to ascertain the identity of the
sleeping person. In the case of Ah Chong, he was not negligent, he asked for several times,

“Sino ka? Who are you?” “Identify yourself.” but the person did not respond, did not answer
and there was also lack of criminal intent on the part of Ah Chong because he was trying
to protect himself. So, in that case, all of the requisites for mistake of fact are present so Ah
Chong, was acquitted by the Supreme Court.
CULPA
JASON IVLER VS. HON. MODESTO-SAN PEDRO

GR No. 172716, November 17, 2010.
This involves a vehicular accident because Jason Ivler is driving his car in a reckless manner.
Now, two sets of information have been filed against Jason Ivler. The first information was
for reckless imprudence resulting in physical injuries. The other one was reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide. So, Jason Ivler entered the plea of guilt in the lesser
offense of reckless imprudence resulting in physical injuries. When he was being arraigned
for the second information, reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, he filed a motion to
quash on the ground of double jeopardy. According to the Supreme Court, that is correct
because there is a single act in this case and that single action should be punished in one
information. It cannot be filed under two sets of information.
BATACLAN VS. MEDINA

GR No. L-1-126, October 22, 1957.
This is a landmark case although it is not the criminal offense that involves negligence
which you encountered in your transpo law or quasi-delict cases. “Eto yung bus na
sumabog yung gulong tapos umikot-ikot yung bus tapos may mga marites na pumunta at
dahil walang kuryente sa lugar'' they were using a torch “dumating sila” with the torch
there already was a leak of fuel of the vehicle. Nag contact yung fuel doon sa torch so
sumabog ngayon yung bus, may mga namatay. According to the Supreme Court, this
illustrates the proximate cause doctrine. Although this is not a criminal offense, it is very
important to remember this case because in this case the Supreme Court laid down the
definition of proximate cause.
● What is proximate cause? The cause which in its continuous and unbroken sequence
produces the injury without which the result would not have occurred.
● So in this case, what is the proximate cause? It is the negligence of the bus company
in not ensuring that the tires are properly working. Yung torch ng mga marites, that is
not the proximate cause but the immediate cause. So who is liable in this case? The
one causing the proximate cause so, it is the bus company’s negligence not the torch
of the bystanders.

CASE PROBLEM:
One evening, Batman and Robbin left the flea market and went to the house of
Harley. When they reached Harley’s house, Robbin asked Harley for a cigarette lighter.
After Harley gave Robbin the lighter, the latter struck Harley on the nape with a piece
of firewood. Robbin then took a bolo and hacked Harley’s body on the side. Harley lost
consciousness and as he laid motionless on the ground. Batman stabbed him twice in
the chest using a knife. Harley died.
During trial, Batman argued that he is only liable for an impossible crime. Batman
contended that is was legally impossible for him to kill Harley as the latter was
already dead when he stabbed her. This was evidenced by the fact that Harley lost
consciousness and laid motionless on the ground when Batman stabbed him.
Rule on the contention of Batman.
SUGGESTED ANS:
According to the Supreme Court, Batman’s contention that he is only liable for an
impossible crime is not tenable. Under the Revised Penal Code, one of the requisites for an
impossible crime is its accomplishment is inherently impossible on account of legal
impossibility.
In this case, the opinion of Harley’s death was arrived at by merely looking at the latter’s
motionless body. No other act was done to ascertain this, such as checking of Harley’s
pulse, heartbeat, or breathing.
Thus, Batman’s contention that he is only liable for an impossible crime is not tenable.
PEOPLE VS. CALLAO

GR No. 228945, March 14, 2018.
Granting for the sake of argument that it was Robbin who killed Harley, Batman is still
liable for murder because of conspiracy. It is settled in Criminal Law that conspiracy exists
when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony
and decide to commit it. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. In this case, conspiracy
is evident from the series of acts of Batman and robin, which, when taken together, reveal a
commonality and unity of criminal design that is to kill Harley.
Finally, the crime is murder because it is qualified by treachery. At the time of the sudden
attack, Harley was not in a position to defend himself and the fact that Batman and
Robbin armed themselves with deadly weapons means that they consciously adopted the
means, method, and form of attack.
● Aside from the issue of impossible crime, the Supreme Court also discussed the

concept of conspiracy. Granting for the sake of argument, assuming arguendo, that
Harley, the victim, was already dead at the time of stabbing of Batman there is
conspiracy in this case. The act of one is the act of all. So, no matter how slight the
participation is since he acted in conspiracy with Robin, he is equally liable as that of
Robin who was the one who delivered the fatal blow to the victim.
● Again, in conspiracy the act of one is the act of all. And it is not required or it is not
necessary that there must be actual proof that the offenders had a predetermined
agreement to commit the offense. As long as the actions of the offenders show or
reveal a commonality or unity of criminal design then conspiracy exist. So, the
keyword there is unity of criminal design. I hope that is clear.
LANDMARK CASES ON ARTICLE 4(2) OR IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
INTOD VS. COURT OF APPEALS

GR No. 103119, October 21, 1992.
In this case, the offenders wanted to kill the victim, So they went to the house of the victim
with the use of guns, the use of rifles, they fired on the house of the victim thinking that the
victim was inside the house but as it turns out the victim was not there. According to the
Supreme Court, they are not liable for the death of the victim on the attempted stage
rather, they are only liable for an impossible crime. Because no matter how many times
they commit the act, the crime will not be consummated. So, all the requisites of the
impossible crime according to the Supreme Court are present. 1) It is a crime against
persons, 2) the act was committed with evil intent – the intent to kill the victim, 3) the crime
is impossible to happen in the account of physical impossibility because of the
circumstance unknown to the offenders – which was the fact that the victim was not inside
his house.
● In this case, the Supreme Court forgot the fourth element and that does not amount
to any other violation of the RPC. A lot of legal luminaries, a lot of lecturers are of the
opinion that the Supreme Court committed a mistake in this case because they
missed the fourth element of impossible crime. They must not amount to any other
violation in the RPC. According to some legal luminaries, the act of firing upon the
house amounts to malicious mischief because it destroyed the house. But, don't
commit the mistake in the bar exam wherein you will disagree with the ruling of the
SC. If you encounter a problem that is very similar with the facts of the case of the
Intod, then just stick with the ruling. You don't disagree with the ruling of the SC
during the bar examinations.
JACINTO VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

GR No. 162540, July 30, 2009.

In this case, the accused stole money from Megaphone, he was a collecting agent of
Megaphone and so one of his collections was in the form of a check. He stole that but when
he deposited the check, the check bounced on account of insufficient funds.
According to the SC, that only constitutes an impossible crime. 1) It is a crime against
property because it amounts to theft; 2) It was committed with evil intent because the
employee wanted to appropriate for himself that money that does not belong to him; 3)
Can be accomplished on account of legal impossibility because the check bounced and it
did not amount to any other violation of the RPC because the act of stealing a worthless
check does not amount to crime because a worthless check does not have value. So all of
the requisites of impossible crime are present in this case. Here, the accused was criminally
liable for an impossible crime.
CASE PROBLEM:
During the trial, the defense solely presented the accused who testified that he
cannot commit the crime of rape because he could no longer have an erection due to
his old age (i.e., 67 years old) at the time of the rape, and considering the cyst near his
inner thigh. Is the defense tenable?
SUGGESTED ANS:
No, the defense is not tenable. It is settled that the crime of rape is deemed consummated
even when the man’s penis merely enters or comes into contact to the labia or lips of the
female organ. Full penetration is NOT necessary (People vs. XXX, GR No. 257276, February
28, 2022). Furthermore, the accused did not present documentary evidence such as a
medical certificate attesting to the physical impossibility of his having an erection and
incapacity of raping the victim (People vs. ZZZ, GR No. 232329, April 28, 2021).
CASE PROBLEM: (ART 6 OF THE RPC - STAGES OF EXECUTION)

Sec. 4 of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 provides that the crime of Terrorism is
punishable regardless of the stage of execution. AAA et al. argued before the Supreme
Court that the said provision is void for being vague as the mere thought or inception
of an idea in a person is criminalized to be already an act of Terrorism. Rule on the
contention.
SUGGESTED ANS:
The contention does not have merit. No law can punish a man for what he thinks, imagines,
or creates in his mind. Mental acts are not punishable even if they would constitute a crime
had they been carried out. Mere intention producing no effect can never be a crime. It lacks
actus reus + mens rea.

Since Section 4 is an enumeration of acts constituting Terrorism, then the phrase
“regardless of the stage of execution” that immediately follows can only refer to “external
acts” and specifically, the acts of execution, such as, for example, flying airplanes into
towers, bombing churches and taking hostages. The assailed phrase itself is not vague. The
3 stages of execution – attempted, frustrated and consummated are defined under Art. 6 of
the RPC. Art. 10 of the RPC provides that it shall have supplementary effect to special penal
laws, such as the Anti-Terrorism Act. (Calleja vs. Executive Secretary, GR No. 252578,
December 7, 2021, J. Carandang).
LANDMARK CASES ON ARTICLE 6
PEOPLE VS. LAMAHANG

GR No. L-43530, August 3, 1935
In this case, the accused Lamahang, was trying to enter a store. Ang pagsara ng tindahan
ay plywood lang. And the accused was in the process of removing that plywood when he
was apprehended by the police authorities. According to the SC, he cannot be liable for
attempted robbery, instead he is only liable for attempted trespass to dwelling and why is
that because according to the SC, this involves an indeterminate offense, wherein the
intention of the offender is ambiguous, and you have to remember as discussed earlier, we
have the principle of pro reo, whenever there is doubt on ambiguity, we have to rule in favor
of the accused. So once inside, Lamahang can possibly kill the person inside. Once inside,
he can rob. Once inside, it’s possible that he might rape the victim found inside that house.
In other words, his actions are ambiguous in character and that doubt or ambiguity has to
be resolved in his favor and thus he’s only liable for attempted trespass to dwelling. This
concept of indeterminate offense was reiterated in the case of Chito Valeros vs. People.
CHITO VALEROS VS. PEOPLE

GR No. 138033, February 22, 2006
In this case, the victim, the female victim was sleeping inside their dorm, wherein Chito
Valeros suddenly entered the same, put his body on top of the female victim and with the
use of a cloth, soaked with chloroform, placed that on the mouth of the victim. The victim
was awakened and realizing that what was placed on the cloth was chemical, because she
was a med student at the time, and she knows for a fact that if she will continue to inhale
that chemical, she will lose consciousness so she immediately grabbed the aggressor’s
balls and then as a consequence of which, the aggressor was not able to continue with his
intended offense. So according to the SC, the accused in such case is not criminally liable
for attempted rape because it’s possible that once the victim loses her consciousness, it’s
possible that the accused will rob the victim, it’s possible that he will kill the victim, it’s

possible that he will hurt the victim. So, that ambiguity or that doubt has to be resolved in
his favor. Nevertheless, the SC ruled that he’s criminally liable for unjust vexation because of
the act of placing himself on top of the victim and putting a cloth soaked with chemicals
on the face of the victim, that intends to annoy, harass or unduly vex the victim.
VALENZUELA VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G. R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007
In this landmark case, the Supreme court ruled that there is no crime of frustrated theft.
Valenzuela, the accused in this case, went to SM North EDSA when he stole boxes of Tide
detergents. When he went outside the grocery of SM North EDSA, obviously the security
guards were asking for the official receipt, which is the standard operating procedure when
you’re exiting a grocery. But Valenzuela was not able to present the official receipt of Tide
detergent and he immediately ran away but he was eventually arrested.
When the case reached the Supreme Court, Valenzuela argued that he was only liable for
frustrated theft because according to Valenzuela he was not able to freely dispose of the
things stolen and had no opportunity whatsoever to use the Tide detergent. Hindi niya
nagamit panglaba. But according to the Supreme Court, that contention is wrong. There’s
no such thing as frustrated theft and the requirement that the offender must be able to
freely dispose of the things stolen is not found in the law.
According to the Supreme Court, what are the elements of the crime of theft, we have
only the following:
1. That there must be unlawful taking of personal property belonging to another;
2. It must be with intent to gain;
3. The unlawful taking must be without the knowledge or consent of the owner of the
personal property; and
4. There must be no violence or intimidation of persons or force upon things.
Thus, the requirement that the offender must be able to freely dispose of the things stolen
is not found in the law.
PEOPLE VS. ORITA

G.R. No. 88724; April 3, 1990
The Supreme Court ruled that there is no frustrated rape because the slightest penetration
of the male gemitalia on the female genitalia already consummates the crime of rape.

These cases are very important, especially if you encounter a problem in the bar
examinations and the victim in that problem did not die. Say the victim in the problem did
not die, how would you know if the crime committed is physical injuries or is attempted or
frustrated homicide or murder as the case may be. Obviously, you cannot just say “as the case
may be” in the bar examinations because you’re expected already to give a categorical
answer. If you’re just a 1st year law student, then that’s allowed. But, since you’re taking the
bar examinations already, you have to identify if that’s an attempted, frustrated stage or just
physical injuries.
MARTINEZ VS. CA
G.R. No. 168827; April 13, 2007
In the case of Martinez vs Court of Appeals, the person, the accused, tried to kill the victim
but the victim did not die. So the Supreme Court ruled that to determine whether it is
physical injuries or attempted or frustrated homicide or murder, you have to look into the
presence of intent to kill. An intent to kill being a state of mind is manifested by some
circumstances. And these circumstances are taken into consideration in determining the
intent to kill. These circumstances are:
1. the nature and location of the wounds sustained by the victim,
2. the nature and number of weapons used,
3. the words uttered before, during, or after the execution of the offense, and
4. the motive of the accused.
As to the nature and location of the wounds sustained by the victim

If the wounds sustained by the victim are in the hands or the legs, those wounds are
not fatal in character and will negate the intent to kill. But if the wounds are located
in the chest or head, such that these wounds are fatal in character then that would
indicate intent to kill.
As to the nature and number of weapons used

If the victim was attacked with a deadly weapon or when the offender armed
himself with a deadly weapon, that would indicate intent to kill. In this case, the
accused armed himself with a 14-inch bolo and even hid that bolo inside an
envelope that would indicate his intention to kill the victim. The fact that he
deliberately armed himself with a bladed weapon indicates intent to kill.
As to the words uttered before, during, or after the execution of the offense
Here, the accused said “papatayin kita'' in Ilocano. Therefore, that would indicate the
presence of intent to kill.
As to the motive of the accused

It also determined the intent to kill. Motive alone is not sufficient to establish intent
to kill but motive may be considered as one of the circumstances in determining
the presence of intent to kill. In this case, the accused had motive to kill the victim
because of jealousy.
INTENT TO KILL
● If there is intent to kill, the answer would be attempted or frustrated homicide or
murder, as the case may be
● If there is no intent to kill, then it is just physical injuries.
PEOPLE VS. TRINIDAD

G.R. No. 79123-25; January 9, 1989
The case of People vs. Trinidad discussed the steps to determine whether the crime
committed is in its attempted or frustrated stage and if it's murder or homicide..
In this case, the accused attacked the victim. Naghabulan sila. And eventually, the victim
was able to ran away but when he rode the jeepney, umupo sa harapan yung victim, in a
classic television show, when the victim saw the mirror in the jeepney, he saw the accused.
Kamalas-malasan niya yung sinakyan niyang jeepney, nandun si accused so
naghabulan ulit sila. The accused fired on the victim and hit the latter on the thigh.
According to the Supreme Court, that is only on the attempted stage. Why? Because the
wound was not fatal.
● If there is intent to kill and the wound is not fatal, it is only in the attempted stage.
Attempted homicide or murder as the case may be.
● If the wound is fatal, then it is in the frustrated stage. Why? Because if the wound is
fatal, then the offender has performed all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony that is murder or homicide as the case may be. But because of a
cause independent of the will of the perpetrator, like timely medical assistance, the
death did not occur. As opposed to when the wound is not fatal then that just
means that the perpetrator has just commenced the felony directly by over atcs but
did not perform all the acts of execution because the non-fatal wound does not
necessarily result in the death of the victim.
To summarize, when you are confronted with a problem where there is an attack on the
victim and he did not die, you determine first whether there is intent to kill.
● If there is intent to kill, attempted or frustrated homicide or murder, as the case may
be.
● If there is no intent to kill, physical injuries.
Second, if there is intent to kill, determine whether it’s in the attempted or frustrated stage.

● If the wound is not fatal, then it’s in the attempted stage.
● If the wound is fatal, then it’s in the frustrated stage
Third, to determine whether it is homicide or murder, determine the existence or presence

of a qualifying aggravating circumstance.
CASE PROBLEM:
Azula, Lee, and Mai, all armed with knives, forcibly went inside the house of Aang,
Katara, and Zuko, who at that time were having dinner. Azula, Lee, and Mai
announced a hold-up. After getting P50,000.00 from the cabinet of Aang, Azula
stabbed him which caused his death. On the other hand, Lee stabbed Katara which
also caused her instantaneous death. Meanwhile, Mai stabbed Zuko in the chest, who
fortunately survived because of the timely medical attention which the latter
received. Azula, Lee, and Mai were arrested the following day. The prosecutor charged
them with Robbery with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide. Is the prosecutor correct?
SUGGESTED ANS:
No, the prosecutor is not correct in charging Azula, Lee, and Mai with the crime of Robbery
with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide.
According to the Supreme Court, there is no special complex crime of robbery with
homicide and frustrated homicide. The offense should have been designated as robbery
with homicide alone, regardless of the number of homicides or injuries committed. The
term "homicide" in paragraph 1 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code is used in its
generic sense, that is, any act that results in death. Any other act producing injuries short of
death is integrated in the homicide committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery.
Therefore, the prosecutor should have filed a criminal information for the special complex
crime of robbery with homicide.
Notes/Tips for answering Bar Qs:

● When you are confronted with a problem wherein that problem has several
characters, you need to take down notes. In this case, Azula stabbed Aang and it
caused the death of Aang. So put a crossmark to Aang (A A+) that would indicate his
death. On the other hand, Lee stabbed Katara (L K+) which caused her spontaneous
death. Meanwhile, Mai stabbed Zuko (M Z/) who fortunately survived.
● Here, the injuries sustained by Zuko are already embraced with the generic term
homicide and that doctrine is embodied in the case of People v. Labuguen.
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE

PEOPLE VS. LABUGUEN
G.R. No. 223103, February 24, 2020
Elements Crime of Robbery with Homicide:

(1) The taking of personal property belonging to another;
(2) With intent to gain;
(3) With the use of violence or intimidation against a person; and
(4) On the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in the
generic sense, was committed.
Here are the basic components/elements which are also present in cases of theft or taking
of personal property belonging to another, without the knowledge or consent of the latter,
with intent to gain. And this time, the qualifying circumstance or element that
differentiates robbery from theft is, violence against or intimidation of persons. And what
makes it a special complex crime of robbery with homicide is the fourth element which is -
On the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in the generic
sense, was committed.
A conviction needs certainty that the robbery is the central purpose and objective of the
malefactor and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. Regardless of the time when
the killing happened, whether before, during or after the robbery, it is already a special
complex crime of robbery with homicide. The intent to rob must precede the taking of
human life but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery. It also applies even
if the victim of robbery is different from that of the homicide as long as it is on the occasion
or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide was committed.
CASE PROBLEM:
One night, AAA was walking towards her boarding house after attending a birthday
party when Jeffrey Dahmer suddenly pulled her and pushed her to the ground.
Thereafter, he pointed a knife at her side and declared a hold-up. Jeffrey Dahmer
forcibly took her cellphone, as well as her wallet containing cash. Jeffrey Dahmer then
brought her inside a public restroom along a narrow alley. While pointing his knife at
her, he removed his shorts and briefs. AAA tried to escape but was unsuccessful. At
knifepoint, Jeffrey Dahmer removed her clothes and underwear, kissed her breast and
vagina, then inserted his penis into her vagina. Afterwards, Jeffrey Dahmer put on his
clothes and told AAA not to leave the restroom until he was gone, or he would kill her.
The following day, AAA chanced upon Jeffrey Dahmer standing by the entrance of the
grocery store where she was working. Out of fear, the victim immediately returned to
her post. When she noticed that Jeffrey Dahmer was no longer at the entrance of the
grocery store, she decided to go out to buy her lunch. However, Jeffrey Dahmer

suddenly approached her. When he eventually caught up with her, he held her hand
and told her that he would kill her the next time he saw her.
What is/are the crime/s committed by Jeffrey Dahmer?
SUGGESTED ANS:
Jeffrey Dahmer is liable for the special complex crime of Robbery with Rape and Grave
Threats.
The elements of the Special Complex Crime of Robbery with Rape are as follows: (1) the
taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons; (2)
the property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or
animus lucrandi; and (4) the robbery is accompanied by Rape.
In this case, all of the elements are present when Jeffrey Dahmer, while armed with a knife,
forcibly took AAA's cellular phone and wallet and the same was accompanied with rape
when Jeffrey Dahmer had carnal knowledge with AAA, against her will.
Jeffrey Dahmer is also liable for Grave Threats because his threat to kill AAA is a wrong on
the person amounting to, at the very least, homicide under the Revised Penal Code. The
felony of Grave Threats was consummated the moment AAA heard Jeffrey Dahmer uttered
his threatening remarks.
Therefore, Jeffrey Dahmer is liable for the special complex crime of Robbery with Rape and
Grave Threats.
Notes/Tips for answering Bar Qs:

● Always state the elements and apply each element to the facts of the problem. Your
answer will be very long but that is the only way that you will state your answer correctly.
● Also specify or identify crimes punishable under the special laws if there is any. Say for
example, a crime was committed by a public officer under the RPC and also the special
penal laws. Take not if it is only generic in character. If it is a particular offense, if what was
being asked is one offense or one crime, then do not give something that was not asked.
Just limit yourself to that particular issue. But if the question is generic like in this case
problem, then you have to specify all the crimes committed by the offender.
● If there are multiple crimes or offenses committed, discuss it separately. Say for example,
there are 2 crimes committed then discuss the first crime in a separate paragraph and
the other different crime or offense in another paragraph. Do not combine to have a
good presentation of answers. Do not forget to use the ALAC Format.
PEOPLE VS. BUEZA

G.R. No. 242513, November 18, 2020
The Supreme Court reiterated the rule that the absence of hymenal laceration does not
exclude the existence of consummated rape.
GR: The slightest penetration of the male genitalia of the female genitalia already
consummates the crime fo rape. Neither does the lack of semen belie sexual abuse as it is
equally settled that the absence of sperm samples in the vagina of the victim does not
negate rape, because the presence of spermatozoa is not an element thereof.
CASE PROBLEM:
One morning, AAA asked permission from her mother, BBB, to go with Juan Dela Cruz
to visit a friend in a nearby town. BBB did not allow AAA to go with Juan Dela Cruz
but, thereafter, she noticed that her daughter was no longer in house.
At around 5:30 P.M., Maritess was fetching water in the community pump when she
noticed AAA in the company of Juan. Maritess observed that AAA was wearing a
black striped t-shirt and floral shorts while Juan was wearing a white t-shirt, maong
pants, and carrying a dark blue bag. While fetching water, Maritess overheard Juan
inviting AAA to go with him somewhere in the nearby mountain, but AAA declined
because her mother might get angry. After Maritess finished fetching water, she left
the place leaving Juan and AAA still conversing with each other.
At around 5:30 P.M., Maritess was fetching water in the community pump when she
noticed AAA in the company of Juan. Maritess observed that AAA was wearing a
black striped t-shirt and floral shorts while Juan was wearing a white t-shirt, maong
pants, and carrying a dark blue bag. While fetching water, Maritess overheard Juan
inviting AAA to go with him somewhere in the nearby mountain, but AAA declined
because her mother might get angry. After Maritess finished fetching water, she left
the place leaving Juan and AAA still conversing with each other.
at 8 P.M. of the same day, BBB got worried when she noticed that AAA was still not
home. BBB went out to look for AAA but to no avail. BBB nevertheless saw in an
abandoned house near the mountains the black striped t-shirt and floral shorts of
AAA together with a white t-shirt, maong pants, and a dark blue bag.
Several days thereafter, the authorities saw the dead body of AAA in a pond near the
rice field. According to the post-mortem examination of AAA's body, she had
lacerations on her private parts and that she recently lost her virginity.
If you were the prosecutor handling this case, what case are you going to file against
Juan Dela Cruz?

SUGGESTED ANS:
If I were the prosecutor, I will file a case of Special Complex Crime of Rape with Homicide
against Juan Dela Cruz.
Under the Revised Penal Code, the elements of the special complex crime of Rape with
Homicide are: (1) The accused had carnal knowledge of a woman; (2) The carnal knowledge
of a woman was achieved by means of force, threat or intimidation; and (3) By reason or on
occasion of such carnal knowledge, homicide was committed.
In this case, there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence showing that Juan Dela Cruz
had carnal knowledge of AAA by means of force, threat, or intimidation and on the
occasion of such carnal knowledge, AAA was killed.
Therefore, I will file a case of Special Complex Crime of Rape with Homicide against Juan
Dela Cruz.
PEOPLE VS. VILLEGAS, JR.

G.R. No. 218210, October 9, 2019
It is a known criminal law concept that rape with homicide is a special complex crime or
two or more crimes that the law treats as a single indivisible and unique offense for being
the product of a single criminal impulse.
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME OF KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION WITH

HOMICIDE
Article 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. - Any private individual who shall
kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death:
XXX
When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is raped, or is
subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed.
TAKE NOTE:
● In cases of Rape with Homicide or Robbery with Homicide, by reason or on occasion of
such offense, homicide or rape is committed. Here, it is possible that the victim of rape
or robbery or rape is different from that in homicide.
● On the other hand, in special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal
detention, the victim of kidnapping and serious illegal detention should also be the
same victim in homicide or rape.

LANDMARK CASES ON COMPLEX CRIMES
Complex Crimes
Article 48 of the revised Penal Code defines complex crimes as offenses composed of several
offenses but considered as a single indivisible offense.
PEOPLE VS. NELMIDA

G. R. No. 184500, September 11, 2012
If the weapon used by the offenders are armalite, the tendency is that when you pull the
trigger, there will be several bullets that will come out from that armalite. According to SC,
if there were several people killed or knock out of those several bullets, it will not be
considered as a complex crime as opposed to a single bullet killing two or more people in
which case it will fall into the first type of a complex crime – compound crime to be exact
about it, it is a single crime that creates grave or less grave felonies. So, if there are several
bullets, killing several people, it is not a complex crime but a compound crime.
PEOPLE VS. HERNANDEZ

G.R. Nos. L-6025-26, July 18, 1956
This case involves rebellion. Here, the Supreme Court ruled that if the crimes of murder,
arson were motivated by the rebellious purpose of the rebels, then it will be considered as
absorbed in the crime of rebellion, it will not be considered as a separate offense. However
if the rebels were motivated by some purpose such as personal motive, pinatay niya yung
isang tao dahil nagseselos siya because inagaw niya yung nobya niya, in which case it will
be treated as a separate offense, and it will not be absorbed in the crime of rebellion.
BATULANON VS. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 139857, September 15, 2006
The SC ruled that there is no complex crime of estafa through falsification of private
document, there is estafa in falsification of document, there is estafa through falsification of
public document, there is estafa through falsification of commercial document, but there is
no estafa through falsification of private document. Because estafa requires damage and
the same goes to falsification of private documents. Here, there are common elements,
particularly damage. So in this case, there is no complex crime proper of estafa through
falsification of private documents.
LANDMARK CASES ON DELITO CONTINUADO

SANTIAGO VS. GARCHITORENA
G.R. No. 109266, December 2, 1993
In this landmark case, the former senator, the late Mirriam Defensor Santiago, when she
was working as the Head of Bureau of Immigration, she was charged with violation of
Republic Act 1319, particularly Sec.3 (E) because allegedly she favored thirty two (32) aliens
in entering here in the Philippines. Now, thirty two (32) information were filed against her
but according to SC, this thirty two cases of information must be consolidated in a single
information because granting for the said argument that Santiago committed the same
offense, Santiago favored this thirty two (32) aliens. According to the SC, this was motivated
by a single impulse, there was a single stroke of a pen, thus there should only be one
information filed against her.
PEOPLE VS. TUMLOS

G.R. No. L-46428, April 13, 1939
In this landmark case, it is also cited as a classic example of Delito Continuado. In this case
the offender stalked cows belonging to different people, on a single occasion, on a single
place, so according to the SC, that single act of the offender, although there were several
victims because the cows belongs to different owners, that is motivated by a single criminal
impulse and thus only one set of information must be filed against the accused.
CONSPIRACY
CONSPIRACY, DEFINED.
It exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it.
KINDS OF CONSPIRACY
So, what are the different kinds of conspiracy?
1. Express Conspiracy - wherein the accused have predetermined agreement to
commit the offense, but as mentioned earlier, it is not necessary that there is always
proof that the accused convened and agreed to commit a particular offense because
that is very impossible to prove, okay? No prosecution can prove that fact, most of the
time that agreement was made in secrecy, so there would be no evidence proving the
same.
2. Implied Conspiracy - here there is conspiracy when the offenders act towards the
same criminal design, if the offenders acted in unison towards the same criminal
design even if there is no proof of predetermined agreement between the parties,
between the offenders, the conspiracy will still be considered.

3. Wheel Conspiracy - which is a form of multiple conspiracy. So what is this wheel
conspiracy? When there is a person in the middle of the circle called the hub, and the
hub deals people individually to various persons called the spokes, this is best
illustrated in the case of plunder, wherein the main plunderer is in the middle of the
circle and he deals individually on various persons to amass ill-gotten wealth
amounting to Fifty Million Pesos (Php 50,000,000.00). For example, the public officer
would deal with the NGO to amass, let's say thirty million pesos (Php 30,000,000.00)
and he will deal with another contractor this time in the amount of thirty million pesos
(Php 30,000,000.00) exceeding Fifty Million Pesos (Php 50,000,000.00) already and he
deals to another entity to amass ill-gotten wealth amounting to Twenty Million Pesos
(Php 20,000,000.00) and so on and so forth, so the NGO does not have any
relationship with the contractor, but they all deal with the single person who is in the
middle of the circle called the hub. so that is the concept of wheel conspiracy.
4. Chain Conspiracy - it exist wherein there is series of transactions making the business
world, so there is a supplier of raw materials and these supplier of raw materials will
give to the supplier or the wholesaler, who then will distribute it to the retailers and
ultimately to the consumers, this chain conspiracy usually exist in dealing with
dangerous drugs. For example there is a supplier of chemicals, he will give it to the
drug lord who is the wholesaler, and he will distribute it to the peddlers of the street
after producing it to shabu, and then the shabu will be consumed by the drug
dependent individuals. That is the perfect example of Chain Conspiracy.
PEOPLE VS. MONTEALEGRE

G.R. No. L67948, 31 May 1998
Conspiracy need not be established by direct proof as it can be inferred from the acts of the
appellants. It is enough that, at the time the offense was committed, participants had the
same purpose and were united in its execution; as may be inferred from the attendant
circumstances.
The accused-appellant was correctly considered a co-principal for having collaborated with
Capalad in the killing of the police officer. The two (2) acted in concert with Capalad
actually stabbing Camantigue seven (7) times and the accused-appellant holding on to the
victim's hands to prevent him from drawing his pistol and defending himself.
While it is true that the accused-appellant did not himself commit the act of stabbing, he
was nonetheless equally guilty thereof for having prevented Camantigue from resisting the
attack against him. The accused-appellant was a principal by indispensable cooperation.
Complex crime of murder, as qualified by treachery, with assault upon a person in authority.

● So as mentioned, conspiracy does not need to be established with proof that there is a
predetermined agreement between the parties, it can be implied from the acts of the
offenders towards the same criminal design. So what happened in this case? Here the
two accused acted in concert towards the same criminal design of killing Camantigue,
because they held Camantigue in the arms and the accused then stabbed the victim, the
holding of the victim prevented the victim from drawing his pistol and from defending
himself because he was a police officer.
● So according to the Supreme Court, there is a conspiracy and the crime committed in
this case is the complex crime of murder, with assault upon a person in authority. See the
lesson in this case is a moral lesson that you need to remember from this case aside from
conspiracy is the fact that direct assault is always a complex crime because when you
commit direct assault and there is a resulting offense, like for example the death of a
person in authority that will always result in complex crime because the single act of
attacking the person in authority resulting in two or more grave or less grave felonies.
INSTANCES WHEREIN THE LAW PROVIDES THAT CONSPIRACY IN ITSELF IS ALREADY

AN OFFENSE
Now, the general rule in conspiracy is that conspiracy alone is not an offense, but there are
instances wherein the law provides that conspiracy in itself is already an offense and these
are those instances, the same holds true for proposal, so proposal exist when a person who
has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons. Now
proposal alone is not an offense but there are certain exceptional cases wherein the law
penalizes proposal alone so these are the instances:
● Conspiracy to Commit Treason
● Proposal to Commit Treason
● Conspiracy to Commit Rebellion
● Proposal to Commit Rebellion
● Conspiracy to Commit Coup d'etat
● Proposal to Commit Coup d'etat
● Conspiracy to Commit Sedition
But take note that there is no Proposal to Commit Sedition. Again, there is no crime of
proposal to commit sedition, only conspiracy to commit sedition.
ARTICLE 11 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE (JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES)
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following
circumstances concur; First. Unlawful aggression. Second. Reasonable necessity of the
means employed to prevent or repel it. Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part
of the person defending himself.
2. Any one who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants,

descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives by
affinity in the same degrees and those consanguinity within the fourth civil degree,
provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding
circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the revocation was given by
the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first
and second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this Article are present
and that the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil
motive.
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act which causes damage
to another, provided that the following requisites are present; First. That the evil sought
to be avoided actually exists; Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done
to avoid it; Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing
it.
5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or
office.
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful
purpose.
● Just take note that in paragraph 5 there are two (2) justifying circumstances, we have the
fulfillment of a duty and a separate justifying circumstance of lawful exercise of a right or
office.
CASE PROBLEM:
Naruto, a tricycle driver, unloaded his passengers in front of Hokage National High
School. While Naruto was giving his passengers their change, Sasuke alighted from
his own tricycle armed with a kitchen knife. Without warning, Sasuke grabbed
Naruto's shoulder and stabbed the latter twice in rapid successive motions near the
art. Naruto got off his tricycle and tried to run away, it Sasuke pursued him. When
Naruto collapsed on the road, Sasuke took this as an opportunity to stab the former
one more time. Sasuke left thereafter. Naruto was then taken by bystanders to a
hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival. During trial, Sasuke interposed
self-defense. According to Sasuke, he was plying his tricycle when he saw the Naruto
on the other side of the road pointing and cursing at him. Rule on the contention of
Sasuke.
SUGGESTED ANS:
The contention of self-defense as raised by Sasuke does not have merit.

The Supreme Court has ruled that unlawful aggression is a condition precedent for
self-defense. Unlawful aggression refers to an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to
inflict real and imminent injury upon a person
In this case, there is no unlawful aggression on the part of Naruto because he did not
commit an actual physical assault upon Sasuke. he pointing and cursing by Naruto do not
amount to a threat to inflict real and imminent injury upon Sasuke.
Therefore, the contention of Sasuke does not have merit.
● The contention of self-defense as raised by Sasuke does not have merit.

● Second Paragraph, the law.
○ The Supreme Court has ruled that unlawful aggression is a condition precedent for
self-defense. Unlawful aggression refers to an actual physical assault, or at least a
threat to inflict real and imminent injury upon a person. In this case, the only missing
element is unlawful aggression. That's why it's the only case I mentioned.
■ I no longer mentioned the two other requisite of self-defense those are: (2)
reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel the attack or aggression,
and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself,
so only the unlawful aggression is the only missing in this case, that is why it's the
only element that I am going to mention.
● Third Paragraph, the application.
○ In this case, there is no unlawful aggression on the part of Naruto because he did not
commit an actual physical assault upon Sasuke.
○ The pointing and cursing by Naruto do not amount to a threat to inflict real and
imminent injury upon Sasuke.
● Therefore, (you end with a conclusion)
○ The contention of Sasuke does not have merit.
PEOPLE VS BAGABAY
G.R. No. 236297, October 17, 2018
The Supreme Court reiterated the requisites of Self-Defense as mentioned earlier we

have:
1. Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim (which is a condition sine qua non);
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression
(take note that the law requires reasonable necessity and does not require
mathematical equivalence such that a person is armed, the person defending
himself must also be armed, but it only requires the rational equivalence,
mathematical equivalence are not required only rational equivalence);

3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense.
(take note that it is sufficient provocation, and not provocation, because if it lacks
sufficient provocation, then it is not present.)
QUESTION:
What is the effect if the accused pleads self-defense?
SUGGESTED ANS:
In involving self-defense, the burden of evidence is shifted and the accused claiming
self-defense must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the
prosecution
Self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated when uncorroborated by independent and

competent evidence or when it is extremely doubtful by itself.
● Well, jurisprudence has settled that once the accused invokes self-defense, the burden of
evidence is now shifted to the accused , so ordinarily, it's the prosecution to present
evidence first to establish to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. But
the moment that the accused invokes self defense, there can be a reverse trial and the
accused must now rely on the strength of his own evidence and he must be able to
establish all the requisite of self-defense in the revised penal code. And once the accused
fails to prove the element of self defense, it will automatically be resolved into his
conviction.
ABSOLUTORY CAUSES/CIRCUMSTANCES
ARTICLE 247: DEATH OR PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLICTED UNDER EXCEPTIONAL

CIRCUMSTANCES
Any legally married person who, having surprised his spouse in the act of committing
sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or
immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the
penalty of destierro. If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he shall
be exempt from punishment. XXX XXX XXX"
CASE PROBLEM:
Mario surprises his wife, Maria, having sexual intercourse with Juan, her paramour. If
Mario, the husband, shoots his wife but misses her and, instead, hits someone outside
the room who dies, is Mario criminally liable? What do you think is the answer?
SUGGESTED ANS:

Class, please take note of this problem, I have a 99.99% hunch that this will be asked in the
bar examinations, so the answer in this case lies in the case of People vs. Abarca, wherein
the Supreme Court ruled that the accused was not committing a felony when he
discharged his rifle upon the deceased, the deceased refers to the paramour, because this
death falls under the Exceptional Circumstances which we flashed earlier in the screen,
Article 247 of RPC, nevertheless it cannot be said that insofar as the bystanders are
concerned is free from criminal liability. So he may not be held liable for frustrated murder
for the injuries suffered by the innocent bystanders, but the Supreme Court held him liable
under Article 365, RPC, Less serious physical injuries through simple imprudence or
negligence. Because he was negligent when he was firing the gun. It was because of this
poor aim, that the innocent bystanders sustained injuries. Since it does not fall under
Article 4, Par. 1, RPC because there was no criminal intent on the part of the offender, he
was not committing a felony by the time he was discharging his firearm because this falls
under Article 247, RPC. But nevertheless, there is criminal liability for less serious physical
injuries through simple imprudence or negligence for the injuries sustained by the
bystanders under Article 365, RPC. So please take note of that, that is very important.
LANDMARK CASES ON ABSOLUTORY CAUSES
PEOPLE VS. GENOSA

G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004
“Battered Woman Syndrome”
In this case the SC ruled that in order for a Battered Woman Syndrome to be applicable
there must be proof showing that the female victim underwent a cycle of violence at least
twice. SO what is the cycle of Violence?
The first stage is the Tension Building Phase, so in this phase, there is a tension between
the parties, usually it involves heated exchange of words between the parties, followed by
the acute battering stage wherein it is marked by extreme violence and sometimes can
even lead to the death of the female victim, and lastly we have the tranquil loving phase,
wherein the violence has already ended and the female victim is of the impression that the
said act of violence will never happen again and that the person that she truly loves is
someone that is not capable of doing that act of violence, so again in order for Battered
Woman Syndrome, there must be proof that the female victim underwent the cycle of
violence at least twice.
INTESTATE ESTATE OF MANOLITA GONZALES VS. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 181409, 11 February 2010

In this case, the son in law of the late, Manolita Gonzales, William Sato, presented a
document to Manolita Gonzales at the time when she was already frail, old and end of life,
according to William Sato, the son in law, "La la, Ma ma, pirmahan mo itong dokumentong
ito, itong dokumentong ito, about lang ito sa taxes ng property mo sa Tagaytay." So,
Manolita Gonzales affixed her thumb mark on that document, thinking that that
document is about taxes only, but in truth and in fact it was a special power of attorney
authorizing william sato to sell the property located in Tagaytay, which in fact he was able
to sell later on. Now, when he was charged, William Sato invoked Article 332, an absolutory
cause under the RPC, according to Sato, he is not criminally liable because he is the son in
law, and that there is no criminal liability but only civil liability under these provision on the
Revised Penal Code.
ARTICLE 332. PERSONS EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY

No criminal, but only civil liability, shall result from the commission of the crime of
theft, swindling or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by the following
persons:
1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line.
2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased
spouse before the same shall have passed into the possession of another; and
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together.
The exemption established by this article shall not be applicable to strangers participating
in the commission of the crime.
● But the Supreme Court held that the defense of William Sato is not tenable. According to
SC, that defense is not meritorious, why?
○ Because Art. 332, RPC only applies to three (3) crimes, theft, swindling, and malicious
mischief. In this case the Supreme Court ruled that the defense is not valid and that
the crime committed is a complex crime of Estafa through falsification of a public
document. Because it was on the basis of that spurious document which was
notarized that Mr. William Sato was able to defraud the late Manolita Gonzales. So it
was a complex crime proper of Estafa through Falsification of a Public Document and
Article 332 only applies to simple Estafa. I hope that is clear.
Let's move on to the Exempting Circumstance we have Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code,
please take note of the enumeration and take note of the modification with respect to the
age of majority under the Juvenile and Justice Welfare Act.
ARTICLE 12. CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY.

The following are exempt from criminal liability:
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.
● When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law
defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his confinement in one of the
hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not
be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same
court.
2. A person under nine years of age.
3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has acted with
discernment, in which case, such minor shall be proceeded against in accordance
with the provisions of Art. 80 of this Code.
● When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in
conformably with the provisions of this and the preceding paragraph, shall
commit him to the care and custody of his family who shall be charged with
his surveillance and education otherwise, he shall be committed to the care
of some institution or person mentioned in said Art. 80.
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by
mere accident without fault or intention of causing it.
5. Any person who acts under the compulsion of irresistible force.
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or
greater injury.
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some
lawful insuperable cause.
HELD ILLNESS SUPREME COURT CASES
✔ Schizophrenia Verdadero v. People, G.R. No. 216021
X Schizophrenia People v. Rafanan, G.R. No. L-54135; People v.

Madarang, G.R. No. 132319
✔ Somnambulism People v. Taneo, G.R. No. L-37673
X Craziness People v. Opuran, G.R. No. 147674

X Feeblemindedness People v. Formigiones, G.R. No. L-3246
X Stroke People v. Dungo, G.R. No. 89420
X Pedophilia People v. Diaz, G.R. No. 130210
X Kleptomania Justice Regalado
● Let's discuss some illnesses, which according to various cases by the Supreme Court
may or may not be considered as insanity for purposes of exempting circumstances.
○ We have Schizophrenia, there are cases wherein the Supreme Court ruled that this
does not amount to insanity like in the case of Rafanan and Madarang.
○ However in the case of Verdadero, because in this case there was proof that the
accused was really suffering from schizophrenia at the time and immediately after the
commission of the criminal offense. For Verdadero, what's important here is that
schizophrenia is an illness that amounts to insanity for purposes of exempting
circumstances because there was proof showing that the accused was suffering from
schizophrenia at the time of the commission of the offense and immediately
preceding the same.
■ Unlike in Rafanan and Madarang, wherein schizophrenia was diagnosed after the
commission of the offense.
○ Same goes true with Somnambulism or Sleep-Walking, wherein the person was
completely deprived not only of his mental faculties but also his freedom of action,
unlike in the cases of craziness, feeble-mindedness, stroke, pedophilia, wherein the
person was not completely deprived of his mental faculties, there was dimunition of
his mental faculties but does not completely deprived him or her of the same.
○ So, according to Justice Regalado, in cases of theft, kleptomania is also not an illness
that exempts a person from criminal liability he is still in the presence of his mental
faculties, in fact he can be a productive member of the society. So even if he is
suffering from the mental illness of Kleptomania, he or she still has in his possession
his or her mental faculties. That's why it will not amount to insanity for purposes of
exempting circumstances.
CASE PROBLEM:
Lito, a minor, was bullied by Brutus, his classmate. Having had enough, Lito got the
key to the safe where his father kept his unlicensed pistol and took the weapon.
Knowing that Brutus usually hung out at a nearby abandoned building after class,
Lito went ahead and hid while waiting for Brutus. When Lito was convinced that
Brutus was alone, he shot Brutus, who died on the spot. Lito then hid the gun in one of
the empty containers. When prosecuted for murder, Lito argued that he is exempt
from criminal liability because at the time of the shooting, he was fifteen years and
one month old. If you were the Judge in this case, how will you handle this case?

SUGGESTED ANS:
If I were the judge, I would rule that Lito is not exempt from criminal liability. Under the
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, a child in conflict with the law with an age of more than 15
years of age and who acted with discernment shall be criminally liable. According to the
Supreme Court, discernment refers to the ability of a person to know the consequences of
his actions, whether it is right or wrong.
In this case, Lito is more than 15 years of age. He also acted with discernment because he
deliberately adopted the means and methods in killing Brutus, indicating that he knows
the consequences of his actions.
Thus, Lito is not exempt from criminal liability.
There are instances, like this case, when you need to use codal and jurisprudence at the same
time. In this case, you define discernment by going into jurisprudence.
● When the accused informs the victim “do not report this to the authorities” that indicates
that the child in conflict with the law understands the nature of his acts.
PEOPLE V. ARPON
G.R. No. 183563, December 14, 2011
Had the trial court correctly appreciated in favor of the accused-appellant the circumstance
of his minority, the latter would have been entitled to a suspension of sentence for the
second and third counts of rape under Section 38 of Republic Act No. 9344.
Be that as it may, the suspension of sentence may no longer be applied in the instant case
given the accused-appellant is not about 29 years of age and Section 40 of the Republic
Act 9344 puts a limit to the application a suspended sentence, namely, when the child
reacher a maximum age of 21.
Nonetheless, the disposition set forth under Section 51 of Republic Act No. 9344 is
warranted in the instant case, to wit:
SEC. 51. Confinement of Convicted Children in Agricultural Camps and other Training
Facilities. – A child in conflict with the law may, after conviction and upon order of the
court, be made to serve his/her sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular penal
institution, in an agricultural camp and other training facilities that may be established,
maintained, supervised and controlled by the BUCOR, in coordination with the DSWD.
SEC. 38. Automatic Suspension of Sentence. – Once the child who is under eighteen (18)
years of age at the time of the commission of the offense is found guilty of the offense
charged, the court shall determine and ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted

from the offense committed. However, instead of pronouncing the judgment of conviction,
the court shall place the child in conflict with the law under suspended sentence, without
need of application: Provided, however, That suspension of sentence shall still be applied
even if the juvenile is already eighteen years (18) of age or more at the time of the
pronouncement of his/her guilt.
SEC. 40. Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law to Court. – If the court finds that the
objective of the disposition measures imposed upon the child in conflict with the law have
not been fulfilled, or if the child in conflict with the law has willfully failed to comply with the
conditions of his/her disposition or rehabilitation program, the child in conflict with the law
shall be brought before the court for execution of judgment.
If said child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen (18) years of age while under
suspended sentence, the court shall determine whether to discharge the child in accordance
with this Act, to order execution of sentence, or to extend the suspended sentence for a
certain specified period or until the child reaches the maximum age of twenty-one (21) years.
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE AND UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR
As to nature: Violence/Physical Force As to nature: Intimidation or threat
● Directed against the accuse only ● May be directed against 3rd persons
● Lesser degree than the damage caused ○ Example: I will kill your spouse.
by the accused ● Evil is greater or at least equal to the
damage caused to avoid it.
QUESTION:
Can there be accidental self-defense?
SUGGESTED ANS:
No, there can not be accidental self-defense.
According to the Supreme Court, self-defense necessarily implies a deliberate and positive
overt act of the accused to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression of another with the use
of reasonable means. The accused has freedom of action. He is aware of the consequences
of his deliberate means.

On the other hand, the basis of exempting circumstances under Article 12 of the RPC is the
complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or absence of negligence on
the part of the accused. An accident is a fortuitous circumstance, event or happening; an
event happening wholly or partly through humanagency, and an event which under the
circumstances is unusual or unexpected by the person to whom it happens. (Noe Toledo v.
People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 158057, September 24, 2004)
VIICKY TY V. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 149275, September 27, 2004
In this case, Vicky Ty issued checks as payment of hospital bills of her mother who needed
urgent medical attendance. According to Ty, she issued those because she was afraid of
mother dying. Eventually, these checks bounced. Vicky Ty was sued for violation of BP 22.
She raised the defense of uncontrollable fear. The Supreme Court found that the defense is
not meritorious because the same requires that it must be actual or imminent, not
speculative in character. Fear that mother might die is speculative in character. There are
other ways to pay the hospital bills of her mother.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
KINDS OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
ORDINARY MITIGATING PRIVILEGED MITIGATING
● Can be offset by generic aggravating ● Cannot be offset by generic aggravating

circumstance circumstance
● Has the effect of lowering the penalty by ● as the effect of lowering the penalty by
period degrees
● Does not apply when the penalty is ● Applies when the penalty is single
single indivisible. indivisible.
Article 13. Mitigating circumstances. - The following are mitigating circumstances;
1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify
or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant.
2. That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over seventy years. In the case of
the minor, he shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80.
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately
preceded the act.

5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the
one committing the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, or relatives by affinity
within the same degrees.
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced
passion or obfuscation.
7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his
agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the
presentation of the evidence for the prosecution;
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect
which thus restricts his means of action, defense, or communications with his fellow
beings.
9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the
offender without however depriving him of the consciousness of his acts.
10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous to those above
mentioned.
LANDMARK CASES iN MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
PEOPLE VS. ULEP

G.R. No. 132547; September 20, 2000
If the majority of the requisites are present, it's a privileged mitigating circumstance. If one
of three is present, it is only an ordinary mitigating circumstance which has an effect of
lowering by period.
What if the justifying circumstance only has 2 requirements such as the performance
of lawful duty?
○ The presence of one out of two already constitutes a majority, thus
amounting to privileged mitigating circumstances.
CANTA VS. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 140937, February 28, 2001
There was a theft of cattle. Before the case can be prosecuted, the offender already
returned the cattle. That is already analogous to voluntary surrender. The return will not
exonerate from criminal liability as theft is already consummated, but will constitute a
mitigating circumference.
PEOPLE VS. GELAVER

G.R. No. 95357, June 9, 1993.

In order for passion and obfuscation to be appreciated, the Supreme Court ruled that there
must be no lapse of time from commission of the act and the cause of passion and
obfuscation.
PASSION OBFUSCATION
● Directed against the person committing ● Relatives mentioned in the kaw

the felony only. ● Grave offense
● Need not be grave offense ● Proximate
● Immediate
○ It still allows a lapse of time. There is
an erroneous translation in the
translation from spanish to english.
The Spanish text of the RPC uses the
word 'proxima', which was translated
to 'immediate' instead of 'proximate'
in English. The Supreme Court states
that the Spanish text is controlling
over the English text.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
KINDS OF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

1. GENERIC - Those circumstances which are applicable to all crimes.
2. INHERENT - Constitutive elements of the offense committed. It will no longer serve to
aggravate the penalty in the offense committed.
3. QUALIFYING - Changes the nature of the offense. For example, killing attended by
treachery changes the crime from homicide to murder.
4. SPECIFIC - Applies to certain types of felony. For example, the disregard of age, rank or
sex.
5. SPECIAL - It has the effect of increasing the penalty to a maximum period. For
example, the offender takes advantage of public position.
CASE PROBLEM:
One day, security guards John Monito Tagle, Ronald Pascua, and Isditro Magpusao
were on duty at an office located in Valenzuela City. At that time, they had just
finished eating and Pascua was washing dishes.
A few moments later, Tagle heard a knock on the door of the office. He opened the
door and saw Alegre, who was also a security guard threat. Tagle asked Alegre what

he was doing there and the latter replied that he just dropped by to ask how they
were and to know if he could already report for duty. Tagle infomed Alegre to report to
the operations manager and he subsequently let him in.
Alegre then told Tale that Pascua had been saying bad things about him. Tagle
cautioned him to keep quiet as Pascua was just washing the dishes inside. However,
Pascua overheard their conversation and asked Alegre what he was saying. Alegre
then started cursing at Pascua and a heated exchange ensued between them. Tagle
tried to pacify them. However, Alegre continued to shout and curse at Pascua, who
did not back down and also shouted expletives against Alegre.
Afterwards, Alegre motioned to his waist area and drew his gun. Pascua told Alegre,
“Wag mo akong daanin sagnyan,” but Alegre pulled the trigger and shot him on the
neck. When Pascua dropped to the ground, Alegre approached him, almost kneeled
on top of him, and proceeded to shoot him on the head. Is there treachery in this
case?
SUGGESTED ANS:
There is no treachery in this case.
One of the requisites of the treachery is that the means, methods, and forms of execution
were deliberately and consciously adopted by the assailant. According to the Supreme
Court, chance encounters, impulse killing or crimes committed at the spur of the moment
or preceded by heated altercations are generally not attended by treachery.
In this case, the killing by Alegre of Pascua happened at the spur of the moment, which
was preceded by a heated altercation. As such, it cannot be said that Alegre deliberately
adopted the means, methods, and forms of execution. Therefore, there is no treachery in
this case.
Question: Can a kariton be considered as a dwelling for purposes of aggravating

circumstance?
Answer: If I remember correctly, according to the Supreme Court, the ultimate test of
dwelling is whether or not it is used as a place of rest. If the Kariton is a place of rest, it may be
considered as dwelling for the purposes of aggravating circumstances.
● Example of answer: Yes, the kariton can be considered as dwelling for purposes of
aggravating circumstances. The Supreme Court has held that dwelling refers to a place
of rest. Here, the kariton is the place of rest of Mr. A, thus, it can be considered as dwelling
for purposes of aggravating circumstances.
● Note that there is no decided case on this matter yet.

● The important part is the legal basis and the manner of presenting the answer in a bar
examination.

02-SBCA-CBO-BAR-LECTURE-NOTES-2024-Criminal-Law-1-Atty.-Lyan-Juanico

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

02-SBCA-CBO-BAR-LECTURE-NOTES-2024-Criminal-Law-1-Atty.-Lyan-Juanico

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BAR LECTURE SERIES OF 2024

SCRIBES TEAM: PAMELA PAEZ| ZEPHRES BADILLA | JUDDTED CABELTES | HANNAH

11 Tips on How to Ace the Bar

THEORIES IN CRIMINAL LAW

SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG-CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS | 1

According to jurisprudence, Utilitarian Theory provides that the primary function of

MAGNO VS. COURT OF APPEALS

CLASSICAL THEORY VS. POSITIVIST THEORY

CLASSICAL THEORY POSITIVIST THEORY

SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG-CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS | 2

What do Philippine penal laws apply?

MALA IN SE VS. MALA PROHIBITA

MALA IN SE MALA PROHIBITA

SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG-CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS | 3

Therefore, the contention of SNM and its members is wrong.

SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG-CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS | 4

PEOPLE V. PALMA GIL - ROFLO

SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG-CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS | 5

LANDMARK CASES ON MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA

ISMAEL VS. PEOPLE

SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG-CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS | 6

ACHARON VS. PEOPLE

BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW

Basic Characteristics of Criminal Law

SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG-CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS | 7

Hence, the motion to quash should not be granted.

ARTICLE 2 OF REVISED PENAL CODE

1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;

EXCEPTIONS TO THE TERRITORIALITY PRINCIPLE

1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;

SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG-CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS | 8

A, B, C, and D cannot be prosecuted of conspiracy to commit rebellion before Philippine

Thus, A, B, C, and D cannot be prosecuted before Philippine courts.

SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG-CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS | 9

CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY

CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY

SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG-CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS | 10

Thus, A, B, C, and D can be prosecuted before Philippine courts.

ANTI-TERRORISM ACT OF 2020

SECTION 4 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 11479

SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG-CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS | 11

CALLEJA VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG-CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS | 12

CALLEJA VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

Elements of 3rd Paragraph of Section 10 of R.A. No. 11479:

● The third instance is impermissibly vague.

SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG-CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS | 13

Rule on the contention of BBB.

SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG-CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS | 14

DEL SOCORRO VS. VAN WILSEN

● This case problem is patterned after Del Socorro v. Van Wilsen.

GENERALITY PRINCIPLE OF CRIMINAL LAW; EXCEPTIONS

EXCEPTIONS TO GENERALITY PRINCIPLE

a. Sovereigns and Heads of State

● As mentioned earlier, the generality principle is not absolute.

SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG-CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS | 15

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10951

SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG-CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS | 16

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10951

● Why am I highlighting that Light felonies should not exceed P40,000?

PEOPLE VS. DALAGUET

● People v Dalaguet applied the general rule of prospectivity.

SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG-CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS | 17

PRO REO PRINCIPLE AND INTERPRETATION OF PENAL LAWS