Fundamental

Principles of
Criminal Law
Intended Learning Outcome.

• To learn the fundamental principles of

criminal law;
• To have a basic foundation on criminal
law as subsequent topics are taken up.
Criminal law, defined.
• Defines crimes;
• Treats of their nature;
• Provides for penalties.
Inherent right.
• The power to define crimes and prescribe their corresponding
penalties is legislative in nature and inherent in the sovereign
power of the state to maintain social order as an aspect of
police power.
• People v. Siton y Sacil, G.R. No. 169364, September 18, 2009.

• It should be noted that while the SC upheld the constitutionality of the provision
punishing Vagrancy as a crime, the said offense was actually decriminalized by RA 10158
in 2011.
Statutory in character.
• …would partake of a prolixity of a
legal code, and could scarcely be
embraced by the human mind. It
would probably never be understood
by the public.
• People v. Santiago, G.R. No. L-17584,
March 8, 1922.
Sources of criminal law
• Revised Penal Code.
• Special Laws passed by the legislature.
• Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law.

• No act constitutes a crime here unless it is made so by law.

• U.S. v. Taylor, G.R. No. 9726, December 8, 1914.
Are court decisions and circulars
sources of criminal law?

• “SC Admin. Circular No. 12-2000 is not a

penal law; hence, Article 22 of the
Revised Penal Code is not applicable.”
• Norma De Joya, vs. The Jail Warden of
Batangas City, G.R. Nos. 159418-19, Dec 10,
2003.
Limits (1987 Constitution)
• Ex post facto law (Art. III, Sec.
22).
• Due process (Art. III, Sec. 14[1].
• Speedy disposition of cases
• Right to bail
• Presumption of innocence
• Self-incrimination
• Double jeopardy
Limits (Statutory)
• Presumption of innocence
• Informed of the nature and cause of
accusation
• To be present and defend in person
• To testify in his own behalf
• Self incrimination
• To confront/cross-examine
Jurisdiction in criminal cases.
Jurisdiction – power to hear and decide a controversy.

In criminal cases:
1. Place/venue;
2. Nature of the crime;
3. Person committing the crime.
Characteristics of criminal law

• General
• Territorial
• Prospective
1. General
• Criminal law is binding on all
persons who live or sojourn within
its jurisdiction.
• Citizen or a foreigner.
• Civilian or military personnel.
Jurisdiction
Civil courts have concurrent
jurisdiction over military
personnel with Courts martial.

Even in times of war as long

as the civil courts are still
functioning.
Coup d’etat and Mutiny.
• RA 7055
• GR – AFP, persons subject to military law, who
commit crimes or offenses penalized under the
Revised Penal Code, other special penal laws, or
local ordinances - civil court.
• Ex – Service connected offenses – military court
• Ex to Ex – President, interest of justice – civil
court
• Gonzales vs. Abaya, G.R. No. 164007, August 10,
2006
Exceptions; generality.
• Treaties;
• Laws of preferential application;
• Sovereigns, Chiefs of State, Ambassadors,
Ministers plenipotentiary, ministers residents and
charges d’affaires.

Consuls being commercial representatives have

no such immunity.
2. Territorial
• Criminal law is applicable only with
respect to acts committed within
Philippine territory.
• Philippine territory – archipelagic
doctrine
Exceptions
Article 2 of the RPC
1. Philippine ship or airship;
2. Forge or counterfeit coins, currency notes, obligations or
securities;
3. Introduction of items in no. 2 into the Phils;
4. Public officers or employees/in the exercise of their functions;
5. Crimes against national security/law of nations.
3. Prospective
• A penal law cannot make an act punishable
in a manner in which it was not punishable
when committed.
• The maxim ignorance of the law… is not
applicable as no there is no law to be
ignorant of.
Exception
• When the new law is favorable to the
accused.
• Not applicable:
1) Express prohibition;
2) Habitual criminal
Construction of penal laws
• Against the Government and in favor of
the accused.
• Spanish text is controlling.
• Only in case of ambiguity.
Art. 2. Extent of application
1. Philippine ship or airship;
2. Forge or counterfeit coins, currency notes, obligations or
securities;
3. Introduction of items in no. 2 into the Phils;
4. Public officers or employees/in the exercise of their functions;
5. National security/law of nations.
When committed on a Philippine
ship or airship.

• A person who commits an offense on board a

Philippine ship or airship while the same is outside
Philippine territory can be tried by our courts.
• The ship or airship must be in international
waters.
Forges or counterfeits any coin or currency
note, obligations and securities.

• Making false or counterfeit coins

(Art. 163)
• Forges treasury or bank notes or
other obligations and security (Art.
166)
A public officer/employee, offense in the
exercise of his functions.

• Direct bribery (Art. 210);

• Indirect bribery (Art. 211);
• Frauds against the public treasury (Art. 213);
• Possession of prohibited interest (Art. 216);
• Malversation (Art. 217);
• Falsification (Art. 171)
Crimes against the national security
and the law of nations

• Treason (Art. 114)

• Espionage (Art. 117)

• Piracy (Art. 122)

Foreign merchant ships
• An extension of the territory of the
country to which it belongs.
• In the case of THE UNITED STATES vs.
H. N. BULL, 1910 January 15, G.R. No.
5270, the Court ruled that a continuing
crime on board a foreign merchant
ship sailing to the Phils. is triable by
our courts.
When a crime is committed on board a
foreign merchant ship
• International waters - NOT triable in our
courts, an extension of the territory of the
country to which the ship belongs.
• Territorial waters - TRIABLE in our courts
unless –
1) merely affect things within the vessel or
2) they refer to the internal management
thereof. (English rule)
English vs. French
• English rule – TRIABLE unless
they merely affect things w/in
vessel or refer to internal
management thereof.

French rule – NOT TRIABLE unless

it affects peace and security of the
territory.
Example of English rule.
• Possession of opium.
• If FMV is in transit – not triable.
• If Phil is destination – triable.
• Smoking opium – triable regardless.
• Opium is landed on Phil soil – triable
regardless

*See Pp vs Wong Cheng ,Pp vs Look Chaw & Pp vs. Ah

Sing.
Art. 3. Felonies
• Felony is the technical term for violations of
the RPC.
• Elements:
• Act or omission;
• Punishable by the RPC;
• There is dolo or culpa;
Act or omission
• Act pertains to “any bodily
movement tending to produce
some effect in the external
world.”
• Pp vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 80762,
Mar. 19, 1990
Acts
• Overt – done openly, external
(not internal), must have a
direct connection with the
felony committed.
Omission
• “Mere passive presence at the scene of
another's crime, mere silence and failure
to give the alarm, without evidence of
agreement or conspiracy, do not
constitute the cooperation …”
• Pp vs. Silvestre, December 14, 1931, G.R.
No. 35748
• There must be a law punishing such
inaction or failure.
Felonies
• Dolo – deceit/malice;
deliberate intent
• Culpa – fault; no deliberate
intent but there is:
• Negligence; or
• Imprudence.

* Must be voluntary
Requisites of Dolo
1. Freedom – No freedom = not voluntary
2. Intelligence – discern morality of act
3. Intent – to commit the felony
Intent
• Being a state of mind intent is hard
to prove.
• Criminal intent is presumed from
the commission of an unlawful act.
General intent vs. Specific intent
• Intent as an element of dolo is
a general intent.
• Specific intent, e.g., intent to
gain in theft and robbery,
intent to kill in homicide and
murder.
Mistake of fact
• Misapprehension of facts by
the person who causes injury
to another.
• No criminal liability on the
part of the actor because of
the absence of criminal intent.
Mistake of fact; requisites
• Act is lawful had the facts been as
the accused believed them to be.
• Intention of accused is lawful.
• No fault or carelessness.
Negates criminal intent.
• …the act committed to have
proceeded from no sort of evil
in the mind necessarily relieves
the actor from criminal liability,
provided always there is no
fault or negligence on his
part…
• U.S. v. Ah Chong, G.R. No. 5272,
March 19, 1910.
No fault or negligence.
• In the instant case, appellants, …,
found no circumstances whatsoever
which would press them to immediate
action.
• And a peace officer cannot claim
exemption from criminal liability if he
uses unnecessary force or violence in
making an arrest.
• Pp vs. Oanis, July 27, 1943, G.R. No.
47722
Requisites.
• A proper invocation of this defense
requires:
a) that the mistake be honest and reasonable;
b) that it be a matter of fact; and
c) that it negate the culpability required to
commit the crime or the existence of the
mental state which the statute prescribes
with respect to an element of the offense.
(People v. Gervero, G.R. No. 206725, July
11, 2018.)
Mistake of fact vs. Mistake of law
• Mistake of fact – which could be a basis for the
defense of good faith in a bigamy case,
• Mistake of law – which does not excuse a
person, even a lay person, from liability.
• DIEGO vs CASTILLO, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1673, Aug
11, 2004)
Good faith is a good defense
In intentional felonies absence of intent is a defense, the
accused is not liable for intentional felony but may be liable for
culpable felony.
Requisites of Culpa
• Freedom;
• Intelligence;
• Imprudence, Negligence, Lack of
foresight or Lack of skill.
Culpa - no intent to cause injury
• Culpable felonies involve those
wrongs done as a result of an
act performed without malice
or criminal design.
• Villareal v. People, G.R. No.
151258, December 1, 2014.
Special Penal Laws (SPL)
• Intent to commit the crime is not
required, it is sufficient if the
accused had intent to perpetrate
the act.
• It is sufficient that the prohibited
act is done freely or voluntarily.
• Drugs;
• Firearms;
• Gambling
Basis
• The legislature has pronounced that
the performance of the prohibited
act is injurious to public welfare and
the doing of the prohibited act is
the crime itself.
• Good faith or absence of intent is
NOT a valid defense.
Mala in se & Mala prohibita
• Mala in se – wrong from
their very nature.
• Mala prohibita - wrong
because it is specifically
prohibited.
Intent to commit vs. Intent to
perpetrate.
• …a person morally quite innocent and
with every intention of being a law-
abiding citizen becomes a criminal,
and liable to criminal penalties, if he
does an act prohibited by these
statutes.
• Matalam v. People, G.R. Nos. 221849-50
(Resolution), April 4, 2016.
Motive and Intent
• Motive – moving power that impels one to action for
a definite result.
• Intent – purpose to use a particular means to effect
such result.
• Motive is not an essential element of a crime and
hence the prosecution need not prove the same.
• People v. Arpon y Ponferrada, G.R. No. 229859, June 10,
2019.
Motive not a requisite
• Motive is not an essential element.
• Motive alone is NOT sufficient to sustain a
conviction.
• Motive may be considered when:
1) Doubt as to the identity of the accused;
2) Two antagonistic versions;
3) No eyewitnesses;
4) Circumstantial evidence.
Art. 4. Criminal Liability
• Criminal liability is incurred:
1) Committing a felony although
the wrongful act done is
different from what he
intended;
2) Impossible crime.
Rule on criminal liability
• A person who commits an intentional
felony is responsible for all the
consequences that may naturally and
logically result therefrom, whether
foreseen or intended or not.
Intentional felony
• Applies only to intentional (dolo) felonies.
• “… different from that which he intended.”
• Does not apply to unintentional (culpa)
felonies.
Committing a felony
• If the person is not committing a felony, the article is not
applicable.
• Bindoy – trying to retain a bolo that was taken from the owner.
• Villanueva – snatching a bolo because of curiosity.
“… different from that which he
intended.”
• Mistake in the identity – error in personae
• Mistake in the blow – aberratio ictus
• Injurious result is greater than that intended – praeter
intentionem

• In all three cases, the perpetrator is liable for all the natural and
logical consequence that may result from the unlawful act,
whether foreseen or not.
Mistake in identity
A intended to kill B;
A mistakes C for B (darkness);
A shoots C killing him.

A is liable for the death of C, since C’s death is the direct, natural
and logical consequence of his felonious act (shooting)
Mistake in the blow
X intended to kill Y;
X shoots at Y;
X hits Z (poor aim) killing him.

X is liable for the death of Z, since Z’s

death is the direct, natural and
logical consequence of his felonious
act (shooting Z) X is also liable for
the attempt on Y.
Injurious result is greater than that
intended
• A punches B once (no intent to kill);
• B falls to the ground hitting his head on the
pavement;
• B dies as a result of the injuries to his head.

• A is liable for the death of B, since B’s falling

to the ground and hitting his head on
pavement is the direct, natural and logical
consequence of his felonious act (punching)
Proximate cause.
• It was clearly the direct
consequence of defendants
felonious act, and the fact that the
defendant did not intend to cause
so great an injury does not relieve
him from the consequence of his
unlawful act
• Pp vs. Cagoco, G.R. No. 38511,
October 06, 1933
“Direct, natural and logical”
• a person who threatens or pursues another with a knife and
causes the latter to jump to the river in order to avoid him and
drowns as he did not know how to swim, is liable for the
intentional death of that person. (US vs. Valdez, 41 Phil 497)
• if the victim had a delicate constitution as he was suffering from
tuberculosis and died as a result from the fist blows, the person
who delivered the said blows is liable for the death. (Pp vs.
Illustre, 54 Phil 594)
Cause x4.
• Petitioner committed an unlawful act by
punching Lucrecio, … and even if he did
not intend to cause the death of Lucrecio,
he must be held guilty beyond reasonable
doubt for killing him … He who is the
cause of the cause is the cause of the evil
caused.
• Seguritan vs Pp, GR No. 172896, April 19,
2010
Refusal of or Unskillful Medical
treatment
• where the victim refuses to submit
to surgical operation, the person
who caused the injuries is still liable
as a person is not obliged to submit
to a surgical operation to relieve
the accused from the natural or
ordinary results of his crime.
• US vs. Marasigan, 27 Phil 504
Proximate cause
• 'that cause, which, in natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by
any efficient intervening cause,
produces the injury, and without
which the result would not have
occurred.'
• Vda. de bataclan, vs. Medina, G.R.
No. L-10126, October 22, 1957
A person is NOT liable for all the
possible consequences of his act.
• And there is authority that if
the consequences resulted
from a distinct act or fact
absolutely foreign from the
criminal act, the offender is not
responsible for such
consequences.
• Pp vs. MARCO, G.R. Nos. L-
28324-5, May 19, 1978.
Efficient intervening cause
• Active force that intervenes between the felony and the
resulting injury;
• The active force must be a distinct act; or
• A fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act;
• The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim
Efficient intervening cause.
• … the infection of the wound by
tetanus was an efficient intervening
cause later or between the time
Javier was wounded to the time of
his death. The infection was,
therefore, distinct and foreign to the
crime.
• Pp vs Villacorta, GR No. 186412,
September 7, 2011
Impossible Crimes
• Inherent impossibility
• Employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means.
Requisites of an impossible crime:
1. Persons or property.
2. Evil intent.
3. Inherently impossible/means employed is inadequate or
ineffectual.
4. Should not constitute another violation of the RPC.
Against persons or property
• Crimes against persons:
• Murder, homicide, physical injuries,
rape, etc.
• Crimes against property:
• Robbery, theft, estafa, etc.

• Kidnapping/serious illegal detention is

a crime against liberty.
Evil intent
• There must be intent to injure
another. (Criminal Propensity)
 Factual vs. Legal
• Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts, even if
completed, would not amount to a crime.
• Trying to kill a person who is already dead.
• On the other hand, factual impossibility occurs when extraneous
circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control
prevent the consummation of the intended crime.
• Shooting up a house intending to kill the occupant who is not inside
the said house.
• (People v. Callao y Marcelino, G.R. No. 228945, March 14, 2018)
Physical and legal impossibility.
• Furthermore, the phrase "inherent
impossibility" that is found in Article
4(2) of the Revised Penal Code makes
no distinction between factual or
physical impossibility and legal
impossibility.
• Intod vs. Pp, G.R. No. 103119, Oct. 21,
1992
Inadequate or ineffectual means
• Inadequate, e.g., when the poison used is
too small a quantity to cause death.
• The quantity should not cause the slightest
injury.
• Ineffectual, e.g., using sugar or salt
mistaking it for arsenic.
Art. 5. Duty of judge when situation not
covered by law.
• Act is not punished by law - must
render a decision according to the
law .
• The first and fundamental duty of the
courts is merely to apply the law "as
they find it, not as they like it to be.“
• (Gonzales v. Abaya)
• Excessive penalties – must not
suspend the execution of sentence.
Alternative penalties not allowed
• There is nothing in the law which permits
courts to impose sentences in the
alternative.
• … he cannot impose both in the
alternative.
• “He must fix positively and with certainty the
particular penalty.”
• Abellana vs Pp, GR No. 174654, August 17, 2011
Art. 6. Stages of Execution
• Consummated
• Frustrated
• Attempted
Consummated
• All elements necessary
for its execution AND
accomplishment are
present.
Frustrated
• Offender performs all the acts of execution
that would produce the felony but does not
produce it by reason of causes independent
of the will of the perpetrator.
Attempted
• Offender commences the commission of
the felony directly by overt acts, and does
not perform all the acts of execution which
should produce the felony by reason of
some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance.
Development of a crime
1st Internal acts – not punishable
2nd External acts:
a) Preparatory acts – generally not punishable;
b) Acts of execution - punishable.
Attempted stage, elements
• Commences the commission of the felony directly
by overt acts.
• Does not perform all the acts of execution which
should produce the felony.
• Acts are not stopped by his own spontaneous
desistance.
• Due to a cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance.
Overt acts
• External acts;
• Direct connection with the crime
intended to be committed.
• “The overt acts must have an
immediate and necessary relation to
the offense.”
• Viada
Equivocal vs. Unequivocal
• Drawing a pistol or raising a bolo are
equivocal acts.
• Drawing a pistol, aiming the same at
the victim and, with intent to kill,
discharge the firearm at the victim is
are overt acts of homicide.
Objective is clear.
• …objective be known and established,
• … such nature that they themselves should
obviously disclose the criminal objective
necessarily intended,
• Pp vs. Lamahang, G.R. No. 43530, August 03, 1935
“Directly by overt acts”
• This element requires that the
offender personally execute the
commission of the crime.
Causal relation.
• … the intention to commit a particular crime, more than a mere
planning or preparation,
• …must have a causal relation to the intended crime. In the
words of Viada, the overt acts must have an immediate and
necessary relation to the offense.
• Pp vs. Lizada, G.R. No. 143468-71, Jan 24, 2003
Does not perform all acts of execution
• If the offender has performed all acts of execution -
consummated stage or frustrated stage.
• If there is still something else to be done - attempted stage.
“By reason of some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance.”
• Does not perform all acts of execution
due to his own spontaneous
desistance – no criminal liability.
• It is a reward for those “having one
foot on the verge of crime, heed the
call of their conscience and return to
the path of righteousness.”
Spontaneous desistance
• Absolves one from the crime he
intended to commit NOT from
the crime actually committed
before the desistance.
Frustrated stage
• Offender performs all acts of execution.
• All the acts performed would produce the felony as a
consequence.
• The felony is not produced.
• By reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator.
Performs all acts of execution
Nothing is left to be done by
the offender because he has
performed the last act
necessary to produce the
crime.
Fatal wound.
• "The crucial point to consider is the nature of the wound
inflicted which must be supported by independent proof
showing that the wound inflicted was sufficient to cause the
victim's death without timely medical intervention."
• Beler y Sualivido v. People, G.R. No. 244191 (Notice), June 3, 2019.
Frustrated and attempted distinguished
Frustrated - there is no intervention of a foreign or extraneous
cause or agency between the beginning of the commission of
the crime and the moment when all of the acts have been
performed which should result in the consummated crime
Attempted - there is such intervention and the offender does not
arrive at the point of performing all of the acts which should
produce the crime.
Subjective phase
• The subjective phase is that
portion of the acts constituting the
crime included between the act
which begins the commission of
the crime and the last act
performed by the offender which,
with the prior acts, should result
in the consummated crime.
Belief of the offender
• “…this Court has held that it is not
necessary that the accused actually
commit all the acts of execution
necessary to produce the death of
his victim, but that it is sufficient
that he believes that he has
committed all said acts.”
• PP vs. SY PIO, G.R. No. L-5848, April
30, 1954
Belief of the offender.
• The murder should be regarded as frustrated because the
offenders performed all of the acts of execution which should
precede the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless,
did not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will
of the perpetrators; in this instance, the playing possum by
Magbual.
• Pp vs Dagman, G.R. No. 23133, August 20, 1925
Outside cause.
• “A crime cannot be held to be attempted unless the offender,
after beginning the commission of the crime by overt acts, is
prevented, against his will, by some outside cause from
performing all of the acts which should produce the crime.”
• US vs. EDUAVE, G.R. No. 12155, February 02, 1917 .
By reason of causes independent of the
will of the perpetrator.
Felony NOT produced – causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator.

Eduave – “A deadly weapon was used. The blow was directed

toward a vital part of the body. The aggressor stated his purpose
to kill, thought he had killed, and threw the body into the bushes.
When he gave himself up he declared that he had killed the
complainant.”

Dagman – “…playing possum by Magbual.”

Subjective phase.
• Attempted stage – offender never leaves the
subjective phase.
• Frustrated stage – offender passes the
subjective phase.
Attempted or Frustrated Homicide
• In Palaganas v. People, we ruled that when the accused
intended to kill his victim, as shown by his use of a deadly
weapon and the wounds he inflicted, but the victim did not die
because of timely medical assistance, the crime is frustrated
murder or frustrated homicide. If the victim’s wounds are not
fatal, the crime is only attempted murder or attempted
homicide.
• Colinares vs Pp, GR No. 182748, December 13, 2011)
Attempted/Frustrated Homicide vs
Physical Injuries.
• In attempted or frustrated homicide -
intent to kill.
• Physical injuries - no intent to kill.
• Roque vs People, GR No. 193169, 6 April
2015.
Consummated stage
All the elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present.
Factors
• The nature of the offense.
• The elements constituting the felony.
• The manner of committing the same.
Nature of the offense
Arson
- if any part of the structure is burned
(consummated)
- if the fire is started but no part of the
structure is burned (frustrated)
- if no fire has been even started
(attempted)
Elements of the offense
• Theft – gaining possession of the item
consummates the felony.
• There is no frustrated theft. Valenzuela
vs. Pp, GR No. 1160188, June 21, 2007
Manner of committing the crime
Formal crimes – slander and false
testimony
Mere attempt or proposal – flight to
enemy’s country (attempt) and
corruption of minor (proposal)
Material crimes – rape, homicide or
murder
Murder.
• Victoriano Pacaña's conviction must
stand. The killing of a person with the
attendant qualifying circumstances,
such as treachery, constitutes murder
in its consummated stage.
• People v. Pacaña, G.R. Nos. 97472-73,
November 20, 2000.
Consummated Rape.
• As correctly held by the courts a quo, the slightest penetration
of the labia of the female victim's genitalia consummates the
crime of rape.
• People v. XXX, G.R. No. 225793, August 14, 2019.
Frustrated Rape….ist?
• As the evolving case law on rape stands,
therefore, rape in its frustrated stage is
a physical impossibility,
• Cruz y Bartolome v. People, G.R. No.
166441, October 8, 2014.
Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal
• Conspiracy exists when two or more
persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it.
• There is proposal when the person
who has decided to commit a felony
proposes its execution to some other
person or persons.
No criminal liability
“… are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially
provides a penalty therefor.” (Art. 8, par. 1, RPC)

• Art. 115. Conspiracy to commit treason

• Art. 136. Conspiracy to commit coup d’etat, rebellion or
insurrection.
• Art. 141. Conspiracy to commit sedition.
Crime vs. Manner of incurring liability
• Treason, coup d’etat, sedition is actually
committed – conspiracy is no longer a
crime but a manner of incurring criminal
liability.
Conspiracy
• The essence of conspiracy is the unity
of action and purpose. Its elements,
like the physical acts constituting the
crime itself, must be proved beyond
reasonable doubt.
• Quidet vs Pp, GR No. 170289, April 8,
2010
Requisites
• Two or more persons come to an agreement
• The agreement concerns the commission of a felony
• That the execution of the felony be decided upon.
Indications of conspiracy
• …towards the accomplishment of the
same unlawful object, each doing a part
so that their acts,
• …though apparently independent, were
in fact connected and cooperative
• …indicating closeness of personal
association and a concurrence of
sentiment, conspiracy may be inferred.
• Pp vs Aleta, GR No. 179708, Apr 16, 2009
One and the same purpose.
• …simultaneousness does not of itself demonstrate the
concurrence of will or unity of action and purpose which are the
bases of the responsibility of the assailants. What is
determinative is proof establishing that the accused were
animated by one and the same purpose.
• Quidet vs Pp, GR No. 170289, April 8, 2010
Direct proof not required
• Direct proof of conspiracy is rarely
found; circumstantial evidence is
often resorted to in order to prove
its existence.
• Pp vs. Amodia, GR No. 173791, Apr 7,
2009.
Amodia
• An accused participates as a conspirator
if he or she has performed some overt
act as a direct or indirect contribution in
the execution of the crime planned to be
committed.
• Active participation;
• Moral assistance by being present; or
• Exercising moral ascendancy.
Unity of purpose.
• Conspiracy is a unity of purpose and intention in the
commission of a crime. Where conspiracy is established, the
precise modality or extent of participation of each individual
conspirator becomes secondary since the act of one is the act
of all. The degree of actual participation in the commission of
the crime is immaterial.
• Pp vs Muit, GR No. 181043, Oct 8, 2008.
“even if not all the parties committed
the same act,”
• A conspiracy exists even if not all the
parties committed the same act, but …
indicated unity of purpose in
accomplishing a criminal design.
Moreover… conspiracy may be proven
by circumstantial evidence.
• Pp vs Malibiran, GR No. 178301, Apr 24,
2009
Conspirators.
Ngano na • …he need not even take
Robbery Ambot lang
with
part in every act or need uroy…
Rape man not even know the exact
ni!!! part to be performed by
the others in the
execution of
the conspiracy.
• Pp vs Evangelio, GR No.
181902, August 31, 2011
All conspirators would be equally
liable
• “…once conspiracy is established between several accused in
the commission of the crime of robbery, they would all be
equally culpable for the rape committed by anyone of them on
the occasion of the robbery, unless anyone of them proves that
he endeavored to prevent the others from committing rape.”
(Evangelio)
No conspiracy – separate and
individual responsibility
• In the absence of conspiracy, the
liability of the defendants is separate
and individual, each is liable for his
own acts,
• (Quidet)
Two different crimes
• Their acts did not reveal a unity of purpose that is to kill
Pasion. Bokingco had already killed Pasion even before he
sought Col. Their moves were not coordinated because while
Bokingco was killing Pasion because of his pent-up
anger, Col was attempting to rob the pawnshop.
• Pp vs Bokingo, GR No. 187536, August 10, 2011
Proposal
Requisites of proposal.
1. A person has decided to commit a felony
2. He proposes its execution to some other person or persons.

Art. 115. Proposal to commit treason.

Art. 136. Proposal to commit coup d’etat, rebellion or
insurrection.
The crime must not be committed
If the crime is actually committed proposal
becomes a manner of incurring liability, i.e.,
principal by inducement.

Acceptance of the proposal is not necessary.

Art. 9. Gravity of Felonies
• Grave Felonies
• Less Grave Felonies
• Light Felonies
Grave felonies
• Capital punishment (death)
• Penalties which in any of its period is afflictive.
Afflictive (Art. 25) -
- Reclusion perpetua
- Reclusion temporal
- Permanent/Temporary absolute
disqualification
- Permanent/Temporary special disqualification
- Prision mayor
Less Grave Felonies
• Punishment which in their maximum is correctional.
Correctional penalties (Art. 25)
- Prision correccional
- Arresto mayor
- Suspension
- Destierro
Light Felonies
• Arresto menor
• Fine not exceeding P40,000.00 or both

Felony – Fine of P40,000.00, is a light felony.

*Art. 26 classifies fines as a penalty. (Fine is a light penalty if it is

less than P40,000.00)
Art. 10.
1st clause. The RPC is not intended to
supersede SPL’s.

2nd clause. The RPC is supplementary

to special laws, unless the special law
provides otherwise.
RPC may supplement SPL.
• Hence, legal principles developed from the Penal Code may be
applied in a supplementary capacity to crimes punished under
special laws, such as R.A. No. 9262, in which the special law is
silent on a particular matter.
• Go-Tan vs Spouses Tan, G.R. No. 168852, September 30, 2008
Provisions of the RPC not applicable.
Art. 71 of the RPC – scale of penalties.
Special laws.
- punishes only consummated acts.
- no definition of accessories or accomplices.
- no formula for graduation of penalties.
- terms, i.e., penalties are not the same.
- mitigating/aggravating circumstances cannot be considered,
no graduation of penalties.