Criminal Law

I
PRESENTED BY: ATTY. JIM PETERICK G. SISON, RCRIM.,JD.,CCS.,MSCJ
(c)
CRIMINAL LAW
branch of division of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature and
provides for their punishment.
CRIME
act committed or omitted in violation of the law.
CLASSES OF INJURIES
As a general rule, an offense causes 2 classes of injuries:

1. Social Injury
- The first injury is the social injury produced by the criminal act which is
sought to be repaired thru the imposition of the corresponding penalty.

2. Personal Injury
- The second is the personal injury caused to the victim of the crime which
injury is sought to be compensated through indemnity which is civil in
nature.

Note: for every crime committed, it is more of an offense against the state rather than against
the private offended party.
Example:
A shot B. B sustained a fatal wound but he survived. Thereafter, B filed a
frustrated homicide case against A. The fiscal found probable cause. In the
information filed by the fiscal, the title is People of the Philippines vs A. The
trial continued and the judge found the accused is guilty beyond reasonable
doubt. The first penalty of the judge is imprisonment due to social injury.
Aside from this, A will pay a civil indemnity to B as personal injury.
Definition of Terms
There are three kinds of Crime:

1. Felony – Acts or omissions punished by the Revised Penal Code (RPC);

2. Offense – punished by a special law;
3. Acts/Infractions – punished by ordinances, local legislation;

*Note that all three are under the umbrella term of Crime.
Q: Who has the power to enact Penal Laws?
A: As a general Rule the Legislative Department has the power to enact
Laws. However, in case of emergency, president may issue a Penal Issuance
Order provided that there is a law granting it to the president.
Q: Is the power of Congress absolute?
A: No, there are limitations.
Limitations to the Power of Congress to enact Penal Laws:
1. Penal law must be General in application otherwise it would be violative of
the Equal Protection Clause;
2. Must not partake the nature of an ex post facto law – ex post facto law
makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was
innocent when done, and punishes such an act;
3. Not a Bill of Attainder – A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts
punishment without judicial trial;
4. Cannot impose cruel or excessive penalties or punishments
- e.g. congress cannot amend article 308-309 death, by saying that
henceforth that any who commit theft will be given death. This is
unusual punishment so it is prohibited.
Characteristics of Penal Laws
The following are the characteristics of penal laws;

1. Generality - Persons to whom criminal law shall apply;

2. Territoriality - Place where penal law shall be applied;
3. Prospectivity - Time when it shall apply
GENERALITY
 Penal laws shall be applied to all persons on being within the Philippine
territory whether they are Filipino Citizens or foreigners regardless of
any of their personal circumstances;
 Applicable to all so long as within the Philippines;
 Applies to non-citizens since while they are within the Philippines, they
are given protection in the same way that the government protects its
own citizen;
 Article 14 of the Civil Code – penal laws shall be binding on all those
who live or sojourn in the Philippines whether citizen or not;
Exceptions to the GENERALITY characteristic:
1. Generally Accepted Principles of PIL:

Heads of state, chief of state and other diplomatic heads such as ambassadors
and public ministers enjoys blanket immunity from the criminal jurisdiction
of the country where they are assigned. Since they are immune, they cannot
be arrested, prosecuted or punished. (Diplomatic Immunity from Suit);
Exceptions to the GENERALITY characteristic:
2. Laws of Preferential Application
Laws which exempt certain individuals from criminal prosecution such as
members of Congress are immune from libel, slander and defamation for
every speech made in the House of Congress during a regular or special
session.
TERRITORIALITY
Penal laws shall be applicable only within the Philippine jurisdiction
including its atmosphere, internal waters, etc;

General Rule:
Crimes committed outside the Philippine jurisdiction cannot be under
Philippine courts.

Exception:
Art. 2 of the Revised Penal Code provides situations where the extra-
territorial jurisdiction of the Revised Penal Code may be applied.
PROSPECTIVITY
Penal laws shall only be applied from the time of effectivity. It can be given
retroactive application if:

1. If penal laws are favorable to the accused provided that he is not a habitual
criminal; and

2. If the penal laws allow retroactivity;

Theories under the Revised Penal Code.
1. Classical Theory

1.1 Under the classical theory on which our penal code, is mainly based, the basis of criminal
activity is human free will;

- Man is essentially a moral creature which understands right from wrong;

- When he commits a criminal act , he voluntarily does the same, therefore, he shall be ready for
the consequences of his acts.

1.2 Purpose of penalty is Retribution;

- Evolves from the maxim “an eye for an eye.” therefore, for every crime committed, there is a
corresponding penalty based on the injury inflicted on the victim;
2. POSITIVIST THEORY
2.1 Basis of criminal liability is man’s social environment;

- “All men are born good, they only become evil due to the influence of the
community.”
- Crimes are a social phenomenon;

2.2. Purpose of penalty is for purposes of rehabilitation;

- Offender is a socially sick individual who need to be corrected not to be
punished;
3. Utilitarian/ Protective Theory;
Purpose of punishment is to protect the society from actual/potential wrong
doing.

Even in violation of special penal laws, wherein intent does not matter,
courts should see to it that punishment shall only be imposed to
actual/potential wrongdoers.
EQUIPOISE RULE
The "equipoise rule" is a concept that primarily applies to criminal law and
the burden of proof in certain legal systems. It pertains to the principle that if
the evidence in a criminal case is evenly balanced, or if there is an equal
amount of evidence both in favor of and against the defendant's guilt, then
the defendant should be given the benefit of the doubt and be acquitted.

In other words, if the prosecution cannot establish the guilt of the defendant
beyond a reasonable doubt and the evidence is in equipoise, the defendant
should not be found guilty.
IN DUBIO PRO REO (WHEN IN DOUBT,
RULE FOR THE ACCUSED)
"In dubio pro reo" is a Latin legal maxim that translates to "In doubt, for the
accused." This maxim embodies the principle that when there is doubt or
uncertainty in a criminal case, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the
accused or the defendant. In other words, if there is insufficient evidence to
establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused should be given the
benefit of the doubt and acquitted.
RULE OF LENITY
The "rule of lenity" is a legal principle that comes into play when
interpreting ambiguous or unclear criminal statutes. It states that if there is
ambiguity or uncertainty in a criminal law or statute, the courts should
interpret it in favor of the defendant. In other words, any ambiguity in the
language of a criminal statute should be resolved in a way that is most
favorable to the accused.

The rule of lenity serves as a safeguard against overly broad or vague

criminal laws that could potentially lead to unfair or arbitrary enforcement. It
reflects the principle that individuals should not be held criminally liable for
conduct that the law does not clearly prohibit.
FINALITY OF ACQUITTAL DOCTRINE
A judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable.
EXAMPLE:
Q: What if what has performed was a perverted/immoral act but there
is no law which punishes the said act. Can the person be prosecuted
in court?
A: No, “nullem crimen nulla poena sine lege” there is no crime when there is no law which punishes it.
Q: Are there common law crimes in the
Philippines?
A: NO. Common law crimes are principles, usages and use of action which the community considers as
condemnable even if there's no law that punishes it.

There are no common law crimes in the Philippines since the Philippines is a civil law country. Penal laws are
enacted. They do not evolve through time.
Article 1. Time when Act takes effect. — This Code shall take effect on the
first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-two.

RPC took effect on January 1, 1932.

RPC was passed into law on December 8, 1930.

Article 2.Application of its provisions. - Except as provided in the treaties
and laws of preferential application, the provisions of this Code shall be
enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago, including its
atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its
jurisdiction, against those who:

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;
Article 2.Application of its provisions
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.
EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION:

There are 5 instances where the Revised Penal Code shall take effect
outside the Philippine Territory:

1st: Those who should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or

airship.
Q: When is it a Philippine ship or airship?
A: If it’s registered in the Philippines and under the Philippine laws. Even if
totally or wholly owned by a Filipino citizen, if it is not registered in the
Philippines it cannot be considered as a Philippine ship/airship. It is only
upon registration that this aircraft/vessel can fly the Philippine flag.
Therefore, it is registration which is the operative act which makes it a
Philippine ship/airship.

This is a situation where a crime is committed on board a Philippine vessel

while it is outside Philippine territory but not in the territory of another
country.
Q: If a Philippine vessel is on waters of the
Philippines, and a crime was committed on board.
What country will have jurisdiction?
A- Philippines.
Q: What if that Philippine Vessel is on the high
seas or international waters and a crime was
committed on board the said Philippine Vessel.
What country will have jurisdiction over the said
crime?
1. A:Still the Philippines. Because of the extraterritorial application of the
RPC. It is the situation referred to as the 1st circumstance under paragraph 1
of Art. 2. It is the situation where the Philippine ship is outside the Philippine
territory but not in the territory of another country.
2nd: Those who 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.
3rd: Those who should be liable for acts connected with the introduction
into these islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the
presiding number.

Example:
X was in Japan. He counterfeited Philippine coins. He then introduced these
coins in to the Philippine Islands. Although the crime has been committed in
Japan, he can be held liable before Philippine courts. This is necessary in
order to maintain and preserve the financial circulation and financial
stability of the Philippines. Otherwise, no other country would be interested
in prosecuting him except the Philippines because it is only the Philippines
will be affected by the said counterfeiting of coins.
4th: Those who while being public officers or employees should commit
an offense in the exercise of their functions.

This refers to public officers or employees who are working in another

country, while they are working, they committed a crime. The crime
committed by this public officers or employees must be in connection with
the exercise of their functions.

If the crime they committed is not connected with the exercise of their
functions, then they should be prosecuted in the courts of the country where
they are assigned;
5th: Those who should commit any of the crimes against national
security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this
Code.

Crimes against National Security includes the following;

1. Treason;
2. Conspiracy/proposal to commit treason;
3. Misprision of treason;
4. Espionage;
5. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals;
If any of this crime is committed, even if it is done outside the Philippine
archipelago the offender can be prosecuted before the Philippine courts.

Crime committed against the Law of Nations include the following;

1. Piracy;
2. Qualified piracy;
3. Mutiny; and
4. Qualified mutiny

Likewise, if the crime committed is against the Law of Nations the said
offender can also be prosecuted before the Philippine courts.
Article 3. Definitions. - Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies
(delitos).

Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit (dolo) but also by means
of fault (culpa).

There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent and there is
fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of
foresight, or lack of skill.
Felonies
Felonies are acts or omissions punishable by the RPC. When the law says ‘by
law’, it means the RPC.
Acts
Acts refer to any body movement which has a direct connection to the felony intended to be
committed.

It is an external act, an overt act in connection with the felony intended to be committed.

Internal acts or mere criminal thoughts will never give rise to a crime;

Example;

A lust for his neighbor. Whenever the neighbor would pass by going to work, A would always look
at the neighbor. And for the whole day, he would think of the neighbor with nothing but lust. No
matter how criminal his thoughts are it will never give rise to a crime because it is merely an
internal unless he performs an external act or an overt act related to acts of lasciviousness or
attempted rape or rape. The law requires an act.
Omission
Omission is the failure of a person to perform an act or to do a duty which is required by law.

Example;
If a person found, any personal property on the street or on any place and he failed to deliver the
same to the owner or to the local authorities. Under Art.308 he becomes liable for theft.

Or if a person was driving his vehicle, then he bumped and hit another person. And instead of
helping that person, he increased his speed and left. It is a hit-and-run situation. Such fact that he
failed to lend help and assistance to that victim will aggravate his criminal liability under Art. 365.

So here, for failing to perform an act which is required by law to be done. He commits a felony. So
felonies are acts or omissions punishable by the RPC.
Kinds of Felonies
2 Kinds of felonies that are may be committed under Art. 3;

1. Deceit (Dolo);
2. Fault (Culpa).

DECEIT (DOLO)

Deceit (Dolo) or intentional felony exist when the act is done with deliberate intent.

An intentional felony is a voluntary act because it is committed by means of deliberate intent.

FAULT (CULPA)

Fault (culpa) or culpable felony exist when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight
or lack of skill;

Under Art. 365, a culpable felony is defined as one wherein the offender, although without malice or deliberate
intent caused an injury to another by the means of negligence or imprudence. Therefore, even a culpable felony is a
voluntary act.
INTENT
Intent is the use of a particular means to achieve the desired result;

You cannot see intent. It is an internal state of the mind;

Factors to Determine Intent

In the case of Rivera v. People (G.R. No. 166326, January 25, 2006), Court declared that evidence to prove intent to
kill in crimes against persons may consist of the following;

1. The means used by the malefactors;

2. The nature, location, and number of wounds sustained by the victim;
3. The conduct of the malefactors before, during, or immediately after the killing of the victim; and
4. The circumstances under which the crime was committed and the motives of the accused.
Kinds of Intent
There are 2 kinds of intent:

1. General Criminal Intent (GCI)- General Criminal Intent is conclusively presumed by law by the mere doing of
an act. The prosecution does not have the burden to prove it.

2. Specific Criminal Intent (SCI)- Specific Criminal Intent is just like an element, an ingredient of the
commission of the crime. Therefore, it must be proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
MOTIVE
Motive is the moving power which impels a person to do an act to achieve the desired result.

Q: How do you prove Motive?

A: Motive is proved by the testimony of the witnesses as to the acts or statements made by the
accused before or immediately after the commission of the crime.

Example:
Before the killing of A, a witness saw B threatening to kill A. Therefore, B would have the motive
because of his acts prior to the commission of the crime. Or right after the killing of A, a witness
saw B running away from the scene of the crime laughing saying “finally, I have my revenge”
there is the motive.

So here motive is established by the acts or statements made by the accused prior to or after the
commission of the crime but NOT DURING because in motive, there is no direct evidence. The
witness did not see how the crime was committed.
MISTAKE OF FACT
Mistake of Fact is the misapprehension of facts on the person who caused
injury to another.

If a person acted under mistake of fact, he is absolved of criminal liability

because he acted without criminal intent. That is, had the facts been as he
believed them to be, his act done would have been lawful and justifiable.
Elements of Mistake of Fact
Before one may be absolved of criminal liability for having acted under mistake of
fact, the following are elements:

1. That the act done would have been lawful and justifiable had the facts been what
the accused believed them to be - Had it been as he believed, the act performed
would’ve amounted to a justifying or exempting circumstance;

2. That the intention of the accused in doing the act must be lawful - The must be
ignited by a noble or lawful or justifiable intent;

3. That the mistake must be without fault, negligence, careless on the part of the
offender - The offender cannot be negligent in ascertaining the true facts of the case
and at the same time invoke mistake of fact.
Q: Can a crime be committed without criminal
intent?
A: YES. There are 2 instances wherein intent is not an essential element of a crime;

1. Culpable Felony
2. When the crime is in violation of special penal laws (Acts Mala Prohibita)
ACTS MALA PROHIBITA
Acts mala prohibita are acts which are only wrong because there is a law that
prohibits and penalizes it.

They are not inherently wrong.

Example;

Illegal possession of unlicensed firearms;

ACTS MALA IN SE
Acts mala in se are acts which are inherently evil or wrong per se, even if
there’s no law, it is evil.

Example;
Killing another, taking the thing of another.
 MALA IN SE MALA PROHIBITA
Inherently evil, wrong per se; Not inherently evil or wrong;

Criminal liability is based on the intent or morality of the Criminal liability is based on the mere doing of the
offender; prohibited
act;
Good faith or lack of criminal Good faith or lack of criminal
intent is a valid defense; intent is not a valid defense;

Modifying circumstances such as mitigating and Modifying circumstances such as mitigating and
aggravating are considered by the court in the imposition of aggravating are NOT considered by the court in the
penalty; imposition of penalty UNLESS otherwise
provided by Special Penal Law;

Degree of participation of the offender (principal, Degree of participation by the offender is NOT considered.
accomplice, or accessory) is considered in the imposition All perpetrators of the act are equally punished UNLESS
of the penalty; otherwise provided by the
Special Penal Law;

Stage (attempted, frustrated, or consummated) is taken The only stage considered is the consummated stage. No
into consideration in the imposition of the penalty; attempted or frustrated stage UNLESS otherwise provided
by the Special Penal Law;
NOTES:
**Not all acts punishable by special penal laws are mala
prohibita!! There are some special penal laws which
punish acts mala in se, e.g. plunder is a special penal law
yet the SC said plunder is malum in se. criminal intent
matters.
Art. 4. Criminal liability. — Criminal liability
shall be incurred:
By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done
be different from that which he intended.

By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons

or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment
or an account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
Proximate Cause Doctrine
Proximate Cause Doctrine states that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony (delito)
although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
Elements:
In the case of Garcia v. People (G.R. No. 171951, August 28, 2009), The
Supreme Court enumerated the following elements of proximate cause:

1. The intended act is a felonious act;

2. The resulting act is a felony;
3. The resulting act is the direct, natural and logical consequence of the
felonious act of the offender;
Example;
A bus was going to Quezon, suddenly 4 men boarded a bus, 2 man
seated at front seats and the other 2 seated at back. While they were
traversing a zigzag portion on the road, the 4 men stood up and
announced a hold up. One passenger was so afraid of the robber as he
had a previous experience of robbers. He was so afraid that he
opened a window and he jumped out of a window, he fell on a cliff
and he died.
Q: Are the robbers liable for the death of the passenger?
A: Yes. The robbers in announcing a holdup are committing a felonious act.

The resulting act was a felony, the resulting felony was the direct, natural and
logical consequence of the felonious act of the offenders. Were it not for the
robbers announcing a hold up, there would be no fear on the mind of the
passenger. But because of the announcement, there was fear on the mind of
passenger and by reason of that fear, he made risk that caused his death. The
robbers are liable for robbery with homicide because they are liable for the
death of the passenger.
3 SITUATIONS WHEREIN A PERSON BECOMES CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR THE
RESULTING FELONY ALTHOUGH DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH HE
INTENDED:

1. Abberatio Ictus (Mistake in the blow)

2. Error in Personae (Mistake in the identity);
3. Praeter intentionem;
ABERRATIO ICTUS
Aberratio Ictus is a situation wherein the offender directed a blow at
his intended victim but because of poor aim, the blow landed on
another victim.
ERROR IN PERSONAE
Error in Personae is a situation wherein the victim actually received the
bullet but he was mistaken to be the intended victim. The intended victim
was not at the scene of the crime.
PRATER INTENTIONEM
Praeter intentionem occurs when the consequence went beyond the intention or when
the injurious result is greater than that intended.

Praeter Intetionem is a situation wherein the offender directed the blow at his actual
victim, the victim received the blow. However, the injurious result is far greater than
what is intended by the victim.
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME DOCTRINE
Impossible Crime is committed by any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or
property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the employment of
inadequate or ineffectual means.
KINDS OF INHERENTLY IMPOSSIBILITY
According to jurisprudence, there are two kinds of inherent impossibility;

1. Legal Impossibility;
2. Physical Impossibility;
Legal Impossibility
There is legal impossibility when all the intended acts even if
committed would not have amounted to a crime.

Example;
X saw his enemy Y lying on a bench. He went to Y and stabbed Y 10 times
not knowing that Y had already long been dead for 2 hours due to a heart
attack. Even if X performed all the acts amounting to murder, still murder
would not arise which is a crime against persons because the victim is
already deceased. He is no longer a person in the eyes of criminal law.
Therefore there is Impossible Cime and what we have is legal impossibility.
Physical Impossibility
Physical or Factual Impossibility exist when an extraneous circumstance unknown to
the offender prevented the consignation of the crime. Here, there are circumstances
unknown to the offender, the inadequate control of the offender which prevented the
consignation of the crime.

Example:
A person placed his hands inside the pocket of the polo of another, intended to get the
wallet of the said person but the pocket was empty. It is an IC. Extraneous
Circumstances unknown to the offender prevented the consignation of the crime.
Unknown to him the wallet was not inside his pocket. It is an IC because it would have
amounted to theft, a crime against property.
Art. 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed
but which are not covered by the law, and in cases of excessive penalties.

Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to repress and
which is not punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall report to
the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons which induce the
court to believe that said act should be made the subject of legislation.

In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department
of Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper, without suspending the execution
of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result
in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of
malice and the injury caused by the offense.
NOTE: There are no common law crimes in the Philippines.
Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted
felonies.
— Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.

A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment
are present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which
would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason
of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.

There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly or over
acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of
some cause or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance.
2 Phases in the Commission of the crime
2 Phases in the Commission of the crime

There are always 2 phases in the commission of the crime;

1. Subjective phase;
2. Objective phase;

Subjective Phase
The subjective phase is the portion in the commission of the act wherein the offender commences the commission of
the crime after the time that he still has control over his acts.

He may or may not proceed in the commission of the crime. He still has control over his acts

Objective Phase
From the moment the offender loses control over his acts, it is already in the objective phase of the commission of
the crime.
Stages in the Development of the Crime
The following are the stages in the development of a crime;
1. Internal Acts;
2. External Act;

Internal Acts
Internal acts are not punishable. Mere criminal thoughts will never give rise to criminal liability. There must be an
external act.

External Act
External Act are acts which includes preparatory acts and acts of execution. As a rule, preparatory Acts are not yet
punishable because they are not yet connected to a particular felony.
ACTS OF EXECUTION
Acts of Execution is the actual act of committing the crime. We have 3 stages;
1. Attempted;
2. Frustrated; and
3. Consummated;
ATTEMPTED STAGE
The offender is still in the subjective phase, the offender has still control over his acts, he may proceed in the
commission of the crime or he may desist.

The moment he desist on his own spontaneous desistance then he will no longer be held criminally liable.
ATTEMPTED STAGE
Elements;
The following are the elements of attempted felony;
1. The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt
act;
2. That he does not perform all acts of execution that would have produced
the felony;
3. That his act was not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance;
4. That he was not able to perform all acts of execution by reason of some
cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance;
Directly By Overt Acts

Directly by Overt Acts means that the Overt Acts performed by the offender
must be directly connected to the intended felony.

The attempted felony that is punished by law is one which is directly

connected to the overt act performed by the offender although he has
admitted the crime.
Example;
X won the lottery. X put the lottery money in a safe in his house. Y wanted to steal the
lottery money in X’s house. On that night, Y went to the house of X. In order to enter
the house, Y removed the jalousies of the window of X’s house. When Y was about to
enter the house of X, a barangay tanod saw Y. Thereafter, Y was apprehended by the
barangay tanod before he could enter X’s house. Y was charged with attempted
robbery.

Q: Should X be convicted of attempted robbery?

A: NO. The act of Y in removing the jalousie window of X is not directly connected to
the act of robbery. The act of removing the jalousies of the window will not necessarily
ripen in to the crime of robbery because once inside, Y may rape, may kill, may rob,
etc.
Q: What is the liability of X, if any?
A: X is liable only for attempted trespass to dwelling. Removing the jalousie
of the window is an overt act directly connected to trespass to dwelling. It
will necessarily ripen into the crime of trespass to dwelling. However,
because the barangay tanod apprehended Y before he could enter the house
of X, he did not perform all the acts of execution by reason or some accident
other than his own spontaneous desistance.
Poeple vs. Lamahag (G.R. No. L-43530, August 3, 1935)

A person intending to rob a store made an opening on the wall of the store
sufficient for his body to enter. His intention was to rob. Before he could
enter, he was already apprehended.
Q: Can he be liable of attempted robbery?

A: NO. Because his OA of making an opening on the wall of the store is not an overt
act directly connected to robbery. It is only an overt act directly connected to
trespassing. Hence, he can only be held liable for attempted trespassing.

Although his intention was to commit robbery, once inside he may rob, he may rape, he
may kill, he may injure the owner of the store. Therefore, it is not an act directly
connected to robbery.
Example;

X and Y were fighting. In the course of the fight, X pulled out a gun. Upon seeing this, Y ran away from X. With
intent to kill, X aimed the gun towards Y and pulled the trigger. At the last minute, Y evaded the bullet.
Q: Is X liable for any crime?

A: YES. The crime committed was attempted homicide or murder as the case may be.
Even if the victim was not hit, since the act of discharging the firearm was with intent
to kill the victim, it was already in the attempted stage. Such act of firing the fire arm
was already an OA directly connected to the act of homicide or murder as the case may
be.
Example;
In the same problem, X aimed the gun towards Y and pulled the trigger. Y was hit in
the right shoulder. Y safely got away. Upon medical examination, the doctor said that
Y’s wound will heal within 5 days.

Q: What crime was committed by X against Y?

A: X is liable for attempted homicide or murder as the case may be. The wound
sustained was not fatal or not mortal. It requires another act for the crime to be
consummated. No one would die by a non- mortal or non-fatal wound.
Example;
X and Y are enemies. In one instance, X saw Y outside his house. Angered, X took his
gun out of his house. X took aim at Y and pulled the trigger of the gun. However, the
gun did not fire the shot. X pulled the trigger again, yet no bullet came out. Upon
inspection, X found out that the gun was not loaded with bullets.

Q: What crime did X commit, if any?

A: X is liable for an impossible crime. Had the gun been loaded with bullets, X would
have committed the crime of murder. However, because the gun had no bullets, it is
inherently impossible to commit the crime of murder in any circumstance.
FRUSTRATED STAGE
Elements:

In the case of People v. Badriago (G.R. No. 183566, May 8, 2009) the Supreme Court
gave the elements of frustrated homicide;
1. The offender performs all the acts of executions;
2. All the acts performed would produce the felony as a consequence;
3. Felony is not produced;
4. By reason of cause or accident other than the will of the perpetrator.
MATERIAL CRIMES
Material crimes are crimes which admits stages of attempted, frustrated,
and consummated.
FORMAL CRIMES
Formal crimes are crimes which does not admit any stages. It only punishes a
consummated stage.

The following are considered formal crimes;

1. Physical injuries;
2. Slander;
3. Adultery;
Art. 7. When light felonies are punishable. — Light felonies are punishable
only when they have been consummated, with the exception of those
committed against person or property.
The following are light felonies;
1. Slight Physical Injuries; (Art. 266)
2. Theft; (Art. 309, Par. 7 and 8)
3. Alteration of boundary marks; (Art. 313)
4. Malicious Mischief; (Art. 328, par. 3, Art. 329, par. 3)
5. Intriguing against honor;

As a rule, light felonies are punishable only when they are on their consummated stage. Unless the crime is
committed against person or property
Q: Why are attempted and frustrated felonies not
punishable?
A: Light felonies produces such light, such insignificant, moral and material
injuries. If they are not consummated, the wrong done is so slight that there
is no need of providing a penalty at all.
Q: What is the reason for the exception?
A: The commission of felonies against persons or property presupposes in the offender
moral depravity.
Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony.

Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in
which the law specially provides a penalty therefor.

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement

concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.

There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony
proposes its execution to some other person or persons.
CONSPIRACY AS A CRIME
If conspiracy or proposal to commit a crime are provided in penalties by law, it is not necessary
that there be an overt act committed. The mere act of conspiring or proposing will already give rise
to a crime.

The following are conspiracies as a crime;

1. Conspiracy to commit treason;
2. Conspiracy to commit rebellion;
3. Conspiracy to commit sedition;
4. Conspiracy to commit terrorism; (Special Penal Laws)

It is not necessary that there be overt acts. They are punishable acts by themselves.
Example;
A, B, C, D, and E come to an agreement to take up arms and overthrow the government and stir public uprising.
They already bought guns and other pieces of equipment. However, before they could execute their plan, they were
apprehended.

Q: Are A, B, C, D, and E criminally liable?

A: YES. They were liable for the crime of conspiracy to commit rebellion. Even though they were not able to
execute their plan, conspiring to overthrow the government is already a felony which makes them criminally liable.
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 Art. 25 of this Code.

Less Grave Felonies

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
Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which a penalty of arrest menor or a fine not
exceeding 200 pesos or both; is provided.

3 kinds of felonies according to severity

1. Grave felonies;
2. Less grave felonies;
3. Light felonies;
Art. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of
this Code.
— Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not
subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws,
unless the latter should specially provide the contrary.
Example;
What if a person convicted of a violation of a SPL? A issued a check to B for payment of an
obligation. B deposited but the check bounced. Notice of dishonor was sent. After the trial on the
merits, A was found guilty of the violation of BP 22 beyond reasonable doubt. Fine and payment of
the value of the check. The court said in case of non payment of the fine, the said convict shall
suffer subsidiary imprisonment.

Q: Can a person who violated a SPL and was imposed with fine be made to suffer subsidiary
imprisonment in case of non payment of fine?
A: YES. There is no provision in B.P. 22 prohibiting the application of the Revised Penal Code,
then the RPC shall apply suppletorily or supplementarily to the provisions of Special Penal Law
unless the Special Penal Law provides otherwise.
Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. — The following do not incur any criminal
liability:
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. Anyone 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.
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFECT THE
LIABILITY OF THE OFFENDER
The following circumstances affects the criminal liability of the offender;

1. Justifying circumstances; (Art. 11)

2. Exempting circumstances; (Art. 12)
3. Mitigating Circumstances; (Art. 13)
4. Aggravating Circumstances; (Art. 14)
5. Alternative Circumstances; (Art. 15)
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
Justifying circumstances are those where the acts of the actor are in
accordance with the law, thus he incurs no criminal liability. Since there is no
crime, there is no criminal and civil liability.
Effect of Invoking Justifying Circumstance
The moment the offender or the accused invokes any of the acts amounting
to justifying circumstance, he is in effect admitting the commission of the
crime. But he wanted to evade criminal liability by invoking justifying
circumstances.
SELF-DEFENSE

Self-defense is not limited to one’s life. The following is the scope of

self-defense;
1. Defense of life;
2. Defense of honor or chastity;
3. Defense of property provided that it is coupled with an attack on
the person entrusted with the said property;
Elements of Self-defense
The following are the elements of self-defense;
1. Unlawful Aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
himself.
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
Unlawful Aggression is an attack with physical force or with a weapon as to
cause injury or danger to life or personal safety. Unlawful aggression must
come from the victim.

Unlawful aggression I the primordial requisite which must at all times be

present. When unlawful aggression is absent, there is no self- defense
whether complete or incomplete.
Elements of unlawful aggression

In the case of People v. Dulin (G.R. No. 171284, June 29, 2015), the
Supreme Court provided the elements of unlawful aggression;
1. There must be physical or material attack or assault;
2. The attack or assault must be actual or at least imminent;
3. The attack or assault must be unlawful;
Kinds of Unlawful Aggression
The Supreme Court held that there are two kinds of unlawful aggression;

1. Actual or Material Unlawful Aggression;

2. Imminent Unlawful Aggression;

Actual or material unlawful Aggression means an attack with physical force or with a weapon, an offensive act
that positively determines the intent of the aggressor to cause the injury.

Imminent unlawful aggression means an attack that is impending or at the point of happening; it must not consist
in a mere threatening attitude, nor must it be merely imaginary, but must be offensive and positively strong
REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE MEANS
EMPLOYED TO PREVENT OR REPEL IT.
When you say reasonable necessity, what the law requires is rational equality
or rational equivalence as determined by the emergency. Rational is the
means employed. Rationally necessary to prevent or repel it.

Reasonable necessity does not necessarily mean that when the aggressor
makes use of a bolo, the person defending must also make use of a bolo.
Factors of Reasonable Necessity
Factors to be considered in order to be said that the means employed is rationally
necessary are the following;

1. Nature and the number of the weapon used by the aggressor;

2. Physical condition, size, weight and other personal circumstances of the
aggressor versus that of the person defending himself;
3. Place and location of the assault;

All of these would determine if the means employed of the person defending himself is
reasonably necessary to prevent or repel the aggression.
LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION
There must be lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself.
 
Sufficient Provocation

Sufficient Provocation refers to an act which is adequate to stir a person to do the

wrongful act and when it is proportionate to the gravity of the act.
Stand Ground When in the Right
The reason behind self-defense stand ground when in the right. Stand
ground in the right means that where the said accused is where he should
be and his assailant is fast approaching, the law does not require him to
retreat because the moment he retreats he runs the risk of being stabbed at
the back.
DEFENSE OF A RELATIVE
Elements

The following are the elements of defense of a relative;

1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
3. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making the
defense had no part therein;

Even if the relative, who was defended by the offender, was the one
provoked the offended party, the offender should took no part in the
provocation in said situation so as to justify the defense of a relative.
DEFENSE OF A STRANGER
The following are the elements of defense of a stranger;
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack;
3. The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or motive;

The 3rd element requires that the said offender must be disinterested and not
induced by any other motive, otherwise, defense of a stranger will not lie.
STATE OF NECESSITY
As a rule, it is noted that justifying circumstances are exempt from criminal as well as
civil liability. However, this paragraph of Article 11 is an exception when it comes to
civil liability. Although he is not criminally liable, he is civilly liable;

Civil liability is born not only by the accused, but all those people who benefitted in
this state of emergence. Under Art. 101 of the RPC, “In cases falling within subdivision
4 of Art 11, the persons for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civilly
liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have received.
Elements

The following are the elements of state of necessity;

1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
2. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
3. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
Example;
A pregnant woman met an accident. She was immediately brought to the hospital. Because of the
said dire situation, the doctor who was in charge of the pregnant woman has to make a decision,
that is to save only one life, either the life of the woman or the baby that she is carrying. The doctor
chose to save the life of the woman. Because of that, the fetus died. Prosecuted for abortion, the
doctor invoked the doctrine of state of necessity.

Q: Is the doctor liable for abortion?

A: NO. The elements of state of necessity are all present. The evil sought to be avoided actually
exist because the life of the baby and the mother is in danger. 2ND, the injury (death of the
pregnant woman) is greater than that of the death of the fetus. Lastly, there was no other less
practical or harmful means of preventing it. The situation was an emergency. The woman had no
relatives with her so the doctor has to decide immediately—either to save the life of the mother or
the fetus. Therefore, the doctor should be absolved from criminal liability.
Example;
What if on a taxi a family was on board. Said taxi was traversing ESDA during night time.
Suddenly, without any warning, a truck appeared in front of him. If he would go forward, he would
be hitting the buses. If he swerved to the right, he would be hitting bystanders. If he swerved to the
left, he would hit a store. So, the taxi driver chose to swerve to the left, hit the store thereby
causing damage. Prosecuted for reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property, the taxi
driver invoked the 4th justifying circumstances.

Q: Is the taxi criminally liable for reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property?
A: NO. The elements are all present. 1st, the evil sought to be avoided actually exist because there
was a collision. 2nd, the injury feared (death) was greater than that done. Lastly, there was no other
practical and less harmful means of preventing it. Aside from these 3 requisites stated by the law, it
should be added that the necessity must not be due to the negligence or violation of the law by the
actor. In this case, there was a warning to the taxi driver not to enter the street, yet he proceeded. It
is through his negligence that caused the state of necessity; therefore, he is criminally and civilly
liable.
FULFILMENT OF A DUTY OR IN A LAWFUL
EXERCISE OF A RIGHT OR OFFICE
Elements:
The following are the elements of fulfillment of a duty or in a lawful exercise of office;
1. Accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office;
2. Injury caused or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the
lawful exercise of such right or office;
OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED BY A SUPERIOR FOR SOME LAWFUL
PURPOSE.

Elements

The following are the elements;

1. An order has been issued by a superior;
2. Such order must be for some lawful purpose;
3. Means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful;
Example;
X was convicted by final judgment for the crime of homicide. When X was about to be transferred
to a maximum security prison, he suddenly escaped. Police officer Y was ordered by the jail
warden to retrieve X. Y thereafter pursued X. Knowing that he was being pursued, X went to a
market and grabbed a 5 year old child as hostage. X pointed a knife towards the neck of the child,
and he told Y not to pursue him, otherwise he will kill the child. However the child cried. The
crying child started to annoy X to the point that he was about to kill the child. However, sensing
that X was about to stab the child. X fired a shot towards X. X suffered a mortal wound and
thereafter died. Y was charged with homicide.

Q: What defenses can Y utilize?

A: Y can make us of the justifying circumstance of performance of fulfillment of a duty or in a
lawful exercise of office. As a police officer, Y acted in the performance of his duty in pursing X,
an escaped

convict. Likewise, the injury caused to X was the necessary consequence of the fulfillment of Y’s
duties, otherwise X will kill the child. Y can also use the justifying circumstance of defense of
stranger.
BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME
Battered Woman Syndrome refers to a scientifically defined pattern of
psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering
relationships as a result of cumulative abuse.
Battered Woman
Anti-Violence against Women and their Children Act of 2004 (R.A. 9262)
defines battered woman as a woman who is repeatedly subjected to any
forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man in order to coerce her
to do something he wants her to do without concern for her rights.

Battered women include wives or women in any form of intimate

relationship with men. Furthermore, in order to be classified as a battered
woman, the couple must go through the battering cycle at least twice.
Cycle of violence
In the case of People v. Genosa (G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004) the
Supreme Court held that the battered woman syndrome is characterized by
the so-called cycle of violence, which has three phases;
1. The tension-building phase;
2. The acute battering incident; and
3. The tranquil, loving (or, at least, nonviolent) phase.
Tension Building Phase
During the tension-building phase, minor battering occurs -- it could be
verbal or slight physical abuse or another form of hostile behavior. The
woman usually tries to pacify the batterer through a show of kind, nurturing
behavior; or by simply staying out of his way.

All the woman wants is to prevent the escalation of the violence exhibited by
the batterer. This wish, however, proves to be double- edged, because her
placatory and passive behavior legitimizes his belief that he has the right to
abuse her in the first place.
Acute Battering Incident
The acute battering incident is said to be characterized by brutality,
destructiveness and, sometimes, death. At this stage, the woman has a sense
of detachment from the attack and the terrible pain, although she may later
clearly remember every detail.

Her apparent passivity in the face of acute violence may be rationalized thus:
the batterer is almost always much stronger physically, and she knows from
her past painful experience that it is futile to fight back. Acute battering
incidents are often very savage and out of control, such that innocent
bystanders or intervenors are likely to get hurt.
Tranquil or Loving Phase
During this tranquil period, the couple experience profound relief. On the one hand, the
batterer may show a tender and nurturing behavior towards his partner. He knows that
he has been viciously cruel and tries to make up for it, begging for her forgiveness and
promising never to beat her again.

On the other hand, the battered woman also tries to convince herself that the battery
will never happen again; that her partner will change for the better; and that this good,
gentle and caring man is the real person whom she loves.
No Criminal Liability and Civil Liability

Battered Woman Syndrome is akin to akin to justifying. It is even better that self-
defense because in self-defense, you have to prove that the elements are present.
However, in battered woman syndrome, what should be proven is that the wife is
suffering from battered woman syndrome. It is through the expert testimony of the
psychiatrist who will prove that the wife is suffering from battered woman syndrome.
If this is proven, she is absolved from criminal and civil liability.