Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Criminal Law is that branch or division of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for their punishment.
Crime is an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or commanding it.
Sources of Criminal Law
1. RPC
2. Special Penal Laws
3. Penal Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law
Common law crimes, known in the US and England, as the body of principles, usages and rules of action which do not rest for
their authority upon any expres s and positive declaration of the will of the legislature are not recognized in the Philippins.
Court decisions are not sources of criminal law.
The State has the authority, under its police power, to define and punish cromes and to law down the rules of criminal procedure.
Limitations on the power of the lawmaking body to enact penal legislation:
1. No passing of ex post facto law or bill of attainder
makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when done, and punishes
such an act;
changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed;
alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upol less or different testimony than the law
required at the time of the commission of the offense;
assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for
something which when done was lawful; and
deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection to which he has become entitle, such as the
protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty.
No bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial. Its essense is the substitution of a legislative
act for a judicial determination of guilty.
To give a law retroactive application to the prejudice of the accused is to mae it an ex post facto law.
2. Criminal laws must be of general application and must clearly define the acts and omissions punished as crimes.
Characteristic of Criminal Law
1. General Criminal law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in Philippine territory.
As a general rule, jurisdiction of civil courts is not affected by the military character of the accused.
Civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction with general courts-martial over soldiers of the AFP.
The RPC or other penal law is not applicable when a military court takes cognizance of the case.
The prosecution of an accused before a court-martial is a bar to another prosecution for the same
offense.
Foreign Merchant Ship an extension of the territory of the country to which it belongs to.
Direct Bribery
Indirect Bribery
Malversation
Falsification
should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title
One of Book Two of the RPC
Treason
3.
Espionage
Piracy
Prospective A penal law cannot make an act punishable in amanner in which it was not punishable when
committed.
whenever a new statute dealing with crime established conditions more lenient or favorable to the
accused, it can be given a retroactive effect.(when the new law is favorable to the accused)
where the offender is a habitual criminal under Rule 5, Article 62, RPC.(habitual
criminal)
Different effects of repeal on penal law
If the repeal makes the penalty lighter in the new law, the new law shall be applied, except
when the offender is habitual delinquent or when the new law is made not applicable to pending
action or existing causes of action.(exception, retroactive, favorable)
If the new law imposes a heavier penalty, the law in force at the time of commission of the
offense shall be applied.(General Law, no retroactive effect, not favorable)
If the new law totally repeals the existing law so that the act which was penalized under the
old law is no longer punishable, the crime is obliterated. (Exception, retroactive, favorable)
When the new law and the old law penalize the same offense, the offender can be tried under the old law.
When the repealing law fails to penalize the offense under the old law, the accused cannot be convicted under
the new law.
A persons erroneously accused and convicted under a repealsed statute may be punished under the repealing
statute.
A new law which omits anything contained in the old law dealing on the same subject, operates as a repeal of
anything not so included in the amendatory act.
Self-repealing law
Construction of penal laws
where the new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing
causes of action(express prohibition)
Penal laws are strictly construed against the Government and liberally in favor of the
accused. The rule that penal statutes should be strictly construed against the State may be invoked
only where the law is ambigous and there is doubt as to its interpretation.
In the construction or interpretation of the provision of the Revised Penal Code, the Spanish text is
controlling because it was approved by the Philippine Legislature in its Spanish text.
Article 1
The basis of criminal liablity is human free will and the purpose of the penalty is retribution.
That man is essentially a moral creature with an absolutely free will to choose between good and evil, thereby
placing more stress upon the effect or result of the felonious act than upon the man, the criminal himself.
It has endeavored to establish a mechanical and direct proportion between crime and penalty.
That man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon which constrains him to do wrong, in
spite of or contrary to his volition.
That crime is essentially a social and natural phenomenon, and as such, it cannot be treated and checked by
the application of abstract principles of law and jurisprudent nor by the imposition of a punishment, fixed and
determined a priori; but rather through the enforcement of individual measures in each particular case after a
through, personal and individual investigation conducted by a competent body of psychiatrists and social
scientists.
Article 2 The scope of the application of the provisions of the revised penal code.
Scope
Applicable within the territory of the Philippine Archipelago as defined in Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution
A Philippine vessel, although beyond three miles from the seashore, is considered part of the
national territory.
Any person who committed a crime on board a Philippine ship or airship while the same is outside of
the Philippine territory can be tried before our civil courts for violation of the Penal Code.
But when the Philippine vessel or aircraft is in the territory of a foreign country, the crime committed
on said vessel or aircraft is subject to the laws of that foreign country.
A Philippine vessel or aircraft must be understood as that which is registered in the Philippine
Bureau of Customs.
It is the registration of the vessel or aircraft in accordance with the laws of the Philippines, not the
citizenship of its owner, which makes it a Philippine ship or airship. A vessel or aircraft which is
unregistered or inlicensed does not come within the purview of paragraph No. 1 of Article 2.
should forge or counterfiet any coin or currency note of the Philippines or obligations and securities issued by
the Government of the Philippines;
should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into the Philippines of the obligations and securities
mentioned in the preceding number;
while being public officers or employees, should commit and offense in the exercise of their functions; or
should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book
Two of the RPC
Crimes punishable in the Philippines under Article 2 are cognizable by the Regional Trial Court in which the charge was
filed.
Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application
French rule such crimes are not triable in the courts of that country, unless their commission affects
the peace and security of the territory of the safety of the state is endangered.
English rule such crimes are triable in that country, unless they merely affect things within the vessel
or they refer to the internal management thereof. (Observed by the Philippines)
Crimes not involving a breach of public order committed on board a foreign merchant vessel in transit not triable by our
courts.
Article 3
Elements of felonies(API)
act must be understood any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the external
world, it being unnecessary that the same be actually produced, as the possibility of its production is
sufficient.
Acts, Overt = done openly, external (not internal), must have a direct connection
with the felony committed.
the act must be one which is defined the RPC as constituting a felony
the act must be external, because internal acts are beyond the sphere of penal law
omission is meant inaction, the failure to perform a positive duty which one is bound to do.
There must be a law requiring the doing or performance of an act.
the act or omission of the offender is malicious, has the intention to cause injury to another
When the offender, in performing an act or in incurring an omission, has the intention to do an injury to the
person, property, or right of another, such offender acts with malice. If the act or omission is punishable by the
RPC, he is liable for intentional felony.
An intentional felony is committed when the act is performed with deliberate intent, which must necessarily be
voluntary.
FREEDOM
INTELLIGENCE
INTENT
Intent presupposes the exercise of freedom and the use of intelligence
The existence of intent is shown by the overt acts of a person.
Criminal intent is presumed from the commission of an unlawful act.
But the presumption of criminal intent does not arise from the proof of the commission of an act which is not
unlawful.
Distinction between general intent and specific intent (Intent as an element of dolo is a general intent)
In felonies committed by dolus, the third element of voluntariness is a general intent; whereas, in
some particular felonies, proof of particular specific intent is required. (Specific Intent eg. Intent to
gain in theft, itent to kill in homicide)
There is no felony by dolo if there is no intent
When the accused is charged with intentional felony, absence of criminal intent is a defense.
Mistake of Fact
Mistake of fact is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused injury to
another. He is not, however, criminally liable, because he did not act with criminal intent.
that the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed
them to be;
that the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful;
that the mistake must be with no fault or carelessness on the part of the accused
In mistake of fact, the act done would have been lawful, had the facts been as the accused believed
them to be.
In mistake of fact, the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused.
Lack of intent to kill the deceased, because his intention was to kill another, does not relieve the
accused from criminal responsibility.
In mistake of fact, the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful.
No crime of resistance when there is a mistake of fact. (arrest by a peace officer)
When the accused is negligent, mistake of fact is not a defense.
Culpa = fault; no deliberate intent but there is imprudence(lack of skill) or negligence(lack of foresight)
An act performed without malice, but at the same time punishable, though in a lesser degree and with an equal
resultm an intermediate act which the Penal Code qualifies as imprudence or negligence.
A person who caused an injury, without intention to cause an evil, may be held liable for culpable
felony.
Requisites of Culpa(FII)
FREEDOM
INTELLIGENCE
A culpable felony, which is committed when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of
foresight or lack of skill, the act is also voluntary.
Criminal inent is replaced by negligence and imprudence in felonies committed by means of culpa.
The only difference between intentional felonies and culpable felonies is that, in the first, the offender acts with malice,
whereas, in the second, the offender acts without malice.
Reason why the act or omission in felonies must be voluntary
acts or omissions punished by law are always deemed voluntary, since man is a rational being.
In felonies by dolo, the act is performed with deliberate intent which must necessarily be voluntary; and in
felonies by culpa, the imprudence consists in voluntarily, but without malice, doung or failing to do an act from
which material injury results
Third class of crimes are those punished by special laws.
When the crime is punished by a special law, as a rule, intent to commit the crime us not necessary.
Intent to commit the crime means there must be criminal intent (mala in se)
Intent to perpetrate the act means it is enough that the prohibited act is done freely and consiously
(mala prohibita)
In those crimes punished by special laws, the act alone, irrespective of its motives, constitutes the offense.
When the doing of an act is prohibited by a special law, it is considered that the act is injurious to
public welfare and the doing of the prohibitaw act is the crime itself. (Good faith or absence of intent is
not a valid defense)
MALA IN SE are those so serious in their effects on society as to call for almost unanimous
condemnation of its members
MALA PROHIBITA are violations of mere rules of convenience designed to secure a more orderly
regulation of the affairs of society. Acts generally made criminal by special laws.
When the acts are inherently immoral, they are mala in se even if punished under special law.
Intent distinguished from motive
MOTIVE is the moving power which impels one to action for a definite result.
Motive is not an essential element of a crime, and hence, need not be proved for purposes of conviction
Where the identity of a person accused of having committed a crime is in dispute, the motive
that may have impelled its commission is very relevant.
Motive is important in ascertaining the truth between two antagonistic theories or versions of
killing.
Where the identification of the accused proceeds from an unreliable source and the testimony
is inconclusive and not free from doubt, evidence of motive is necessary.
Where there are no eyewitnesses to the crime, and where suspicion is likely to fall upon a
number of persons, motive is relevant and significant.
Generally, proof of motive is not necessary to pin a crime on the accused if the commission of the
crime has been proven and the evidence of identification is convincing.
Motive is essential only when there is doubt as to the indentity of the assilant. It is immaterial when
the accused has been positively identified.
Where the defendant admits the killing, it is no longer necessary to inquire into his motive for doing
the act.
Proof of motive is not indispensable where guilt is otherwise established by sufficient evidence.
While the question of motive is important to the person who committed the criminal at, yet when
there is no longer any doubt that the defendant was the culprit, it becomes unimportant to know the
exact reason or purpose for the commission of the crime.
Motive is established by the testimony of witnesses on the acts or statements of the accused before or
immediately after the commission of the offense.
But proof of motive alone is not sufficient to support a conviction.
Lack of motive may be an aid in showing the innocence of the accused.
Article 4
Criminal Liability
A person who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the consequences which may
naturally and logically result therefrom, whether foreseen or intended or not.
The act or omission should not be punished by a special law, because the offender violating a
special law may not have the intent to do an injury to another.
that an Intentional felony has been committed(If culpable, this article does not apply)
that the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural and logical consequence of
the felony committed by the offender.(Proximate cause)
Any person who creates in another's mind an immediate sense of danger, which causes the latter to do
something resulting in the latter's injuries, is liable for the resulting injuries.
The wrong done must be the direct, natural and logical consequence of felonious act.
The felony committed must be the proximate cause of the resulting injury.
Proximate cause is that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would have not occurred.
Active force that intervenes between the felony and the resulting injury
The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the resulting injury when:
there is an active force that intervened between the felony committed and the resulting injury, and
the active firce us a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused; or
the nervousness or temperament of the victim, as when a person dies in consequence of an internal
hemorrhage brought on by moving about against the doctor's orders, because of his nervous
condition due to the wound inflicted by the accused.
Causes which are inherent in the victim, such as (a) the victim not knowing how to swim, etc.
neglect of the victim or third person, such as the refusal by the injured party of medical attendance or
surgical operation, or the failure of the doctor to give anti-tetanus injection to the injured person.
Erroneous or unskilled medical or surgical treatment, as when the assault took place in an outlying
barrio where proper modern surgical service was not available.
that the victim at the time the physical injuries were inflicted was in normal health
If the consequences produced have resulted from a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the
criminal act, the offender is not responsible for such consequences.
Where the charge contained in the original information was for slight physical injuries because at that time the
fiscal believed that the wound suffered by the offended party would require medical attendance for a period of
only 8 days, but when the preliminary investigation was conducted, the justice of the peace found that the
wound would heal after a period of 30 days, the act which convereted the crime into a more serious one had
supervened after the filing of the original information and this supervening event can still be the subject of
amendment or of a new charge without necessarily placing the accused in double jeopardy.
Impossible Crimes
Inherent Impossibility
The commission of an impossible crime is indicative of criminal propensity or criminal tendency on the part of
the actor.
in committing an impossible crime, the offender inteds to commit a felony against persons
or felony against property
that the act was done with evil Intent
that its accomplishment is Inherently impossible, or that the means employed us either inadequate
or ineffectual
that the act performed should Not constitute a violation of another provision of the Revised
Penal Code
There is still Criminal Liability (Criminal Propensity)
In connection with acts which should be repressed but which are not covered by the law
the act committed by the accused appears not punishable by any law
the court must render the proper decision by dismissing the case and acquitting the accused
the judge must make a report to the Chief Executive through the Secretart of Justice
the penalty provided by law and which the court imposes for the crime committed appears to be
clearly excessive, because
the accused acted with lesser degree of malice
the judge should submit a statement to the Chief Executive through the Secretary of Justice
Executive clemency recommended for the wife who killed her husband
Executive clemency recommenedy because of the severity of the penalty of rape
The penalties are not excessive when inteded to enforce a public policy
the rampant lawlessness against property , person and the very security of the Government, directly traceable
in large measure to promiscuous carrying and use of powerful weapons, justify imprisonment which in normal
circumstances might appear excessive
Congress consider repressing profiteering that would take advantage of critical conditions
Courts have the duty to apply the penalty provided by law
Judge has the duty to apply the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court
Consumated Felony
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are
present.
Frustrated Felony
It is frustrated felony 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.
Elements(PPFI)
If he has performed all of the acts which should result in the consumation of the crime and
voluntarily desists from proceeding further, it can not be an attempt.
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts,
and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some
cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
In attempted felony, the offender never passes the subjective phase of the offense.
the offender Commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts
Overt Acts this element requires that the offender personally execute the
commission of the crime.
overt act is some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a
particular crime
such external acts have direct connection with the crime intended to be
committed(Overt Acts)
he Does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony
the Nonperformance of all acts of execution was due to cause or accident other than his
spontaneous desistance
Exception: Does not perform all acts of execution due to his own spontaneous
desistance; no criminal liability
Spontaneous Desistance
Absolves one from the crime he intended to commit NOT from the crime
actually committed before that desistance.
Overt act may not be by physical activity
An indeterminate offense is one where the purpose of the offender in performing an act is not certain. Its
nature in relation to its objective is ambiguous.
The intention of the accused must be viewed from the nature of the acts executed by him, and not from his
admission.
The desistance should be made before all the acts of execution are performed.
Subjective Phase
It is that portion of the acts constituting the crime, starting from the point where the offender
begins the commission of the crime to the point, where he has still control over his acts,
including their natural course.
Objective Phase
If the accussed is not stopped but continues until he performs the last act, it can either be
frustrated or consumated.
Difference between frustrated felony and attempted felony
In attempted felony, the offender merely commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts
and does not perform all the acts of execution.
Attempted or frustrated felony distinguished from impossible crime
in attempted or frustrated felony and impossible crime, the evil intent of the offender is not accomplished.
In impossible crime, the evil intent of the offender cannot be accomplished, while in attempted or frustrated
felony, the evil intent of the offender is possible of accomplishment
in impossible crime, the evil intent of the offender cannot be accomplished because it is inherently impossible
of accomplishment or because the means employed by the offender is inadequate or ineffectual; in attempted
or frustrated felony, what prevented its accomplishment is the intervention of certain cause or accident in which
the offender had no part.
How to determine whether the crime is only attempted, or frustrated, or it is consummated (NEM)
Internal Acts, such as mere ideas in the mind of a person, are not punishable even if, had they been carried
out, they would constitute a crime.
Mere intention producingno effect is no more a crime than a mere effect without the
intention is a crime
External Acts covers preparatory acts and acts of execution
Preparatory acts ordinarily are not punishable. Hence, proposal and conspiracy to commit a
felony, which are only preparatory acts, are not punishable, except when the law provideds for their
punishment in certain felonies.
But preparatory acts which are considered in themselves, by law, as independent crimes
are punishable.
Acts of Execution are punishable under the Revised Penal Code
The first stage of the acts of execution of a felony is attempted; the second stage, the
frustrated; and the last stage, the consummated.
Manner of Committing the crime
Slander
False Testimony
As a rule, there can be no attempt at a formal crime, because between the thought and the deed
there is no chain of acts that can be severed in any link.
Corruptionof minors
There is not attempted crime of treason, because the overt act in itself consummates the crime.
Felony by omission
There can be no attempted stage when the felony is by omission, because in this kind of felony the
offnder does not execute acts. He omits to perform an act which the law requires him to do.
Crimes requiring the intervention of two persons to commit them are consummated by mere agreement
Material Crimes must be done in three stages of execution or not in a single act or in one instant
Consummated Rape
Attempted Rape
Consummated Homicide
Frustrated Murder
Attempted Homicide
There is no attempted or frustrated impossible crime
In impossible crime, the person intending to commit and offense has already performed the acts for the
execution of the same, but, nevertheless the crime is not produced by reasons of the fact that the act intended
is by its nature one of impossible crime.
There is no frustrated impossible crime, because the acts performed by the offender are considered as
constituting a consummated offense.
Article 7
Light Felonies
Light Felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine
not exceeding 200 pesos, or both is provided.
Theft
Maliscious Mischief
General Rule
Light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated.
Exceptions
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. (Conspiracy is an accepted proposal.)
The essence of conspiracy is the unity of action and purpose. Its element, like the physical acts constituting the
crime itself, must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. When there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.
There is proposal when the person who was decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other
person or persons.(Proposal is before acceptance)
General Rule
Conspiracy and proposal to commit a crime are only preparatory acts, and the law regards them as
innocent or at least permissible
Exception
Treason
Coup d'etat
Rebellion
Sedition
If they commit the crime, they will be held liable for the crime and the conspiracy which they
had before committing the crime is only a manner of incurring criminal liability.
Conspiracy as a felony, distinguished from conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability.
When the conspiracy relates to a crime actually committed, it is not a felony but only a manner of
incurring criminal liability. The act of one is the act of all.
Even if the conspiracy relates to any of the crimes under the exception, but any of them is actually
committed, the conspiracy is not a separate offense; it is only a manner of incurring criminal liability.
When conspiracy is only a manner of incurring criminal liability, it is not punishable as a separate
offense.
Indications of conspiracy
When the defendants by their acts aimed at the same object, one performing one part and the other
performing another part so as to complete it, with a view to the attainment of the same object, and their
acts, though apparently independent, were in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of
personal association, concerened action and concurrence of sentiments, the court will be justified in
concluding that said defendants were engaged in a conspiracy.
The acts of the defendants must show a common design
It is fundamental for conspiracy to exist that there must be unity of purpose and unity in the execution
of the unlawful objective.
Period of time to afford opportunity for meditation and reflection, not required in conspiracy
Unlike in evident premeditation, where a sufficient period of time must elapse to afford full opportunity for
meditation and reflection and for the perpetrator to deliberate on the consequences of his intended deed,
conspiracy arises in the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the felony
and forthwith decide to pursue it.
Requisites of Conspiracy(TEA)
the agreement must refer to the commission of a crime. It must be an agreement to act,
to effect, to bring about, what has already been conceived and determined
The conspirators have made up their minds to commit the crime. There must be a
determination to commit the crime of treason, rebellion or sedition.
Direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy as long as the necessary requisites are fulfilled.
Exception to crime of one is crime of all.
Similar to the physical act constituting the crime itself, the elements of conspiracy must be proven
beyond reasonable doubt. Settled is the rule that to establish conspiracy, evidence of actual
cooperation rather than mere cognizance or approval of an illegal act is required.
What constitutes the felony of proposal to commit treason or rebellion is the making of proposal.
Proposal as an overt act of corruption of public officers
one who offers money to a public officer to induce him not to perform his duties, but the offer is rejected by the
public officer, is liable for attempted bribary.
Crimes in which conspiracy and proposal are punishable are against the security of the state or economic security
Reasons why conspiracy and proposal to commit a crime is punishable in crimes against external and internal security of
the State
In ordinary crimes, the State survives the victim, and the culprit cannot find in the success of his work any
impunity. Whereas, in crimes against the external and internal security of the State, if the culprit succeeds in
his criminal enterprise, he would obtain the power and therefore impunity for the crime committed.
Article 9
Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of there
periods are afflictive, in accordance with Article 25 of the RPC.
Reclusion Perpetua
Reclusion Temporal
Prision Mayor
Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximun period are
correctional, in accordance with the above mentioned article.
Prision Correccional
Arresto Mayor
Suspension
Destierro
Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not
exceeding 200 pesos, or both, is provided.
Article 10
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 provided the contrary.
The provision of the Revised Penal Code on penalties can not be applied to offenses punishable under special laws.
Where the special law adopted penalties from the Revised Penal Code, the rules for graduating penalties by degrees or
determining the proper period should be applied.
Offenses under special alws, not subject to the provisions of this Code relating to attempted and frustrated crimes.
Attempted or frustrated stage of the execution of an offense penalized by a speical law is not punishable,
unless the special law provides a penalty therefor.
The special law has to fix penalties for attempted and frustrated crime.
When a special law covers the mere attempt to commit the crime defined by it, the attempted stage us
punishable by the same penalty provided by that law.
Subsidiary Penalty
Civil Liability
Princple of Conspiracy
RPC, not suppletory when the penalties under the special law are different from those under the Revised Penal Code.
Aggravating circumstances cannot be appreciated, in offenses punished by special laws.
Special laws amending amending the RPC are subject to its provision.
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.
Provisions of the RPC not applicable.
Imputability is the quality by which an act may be ascribed to a person as its author or owner. It implies that the act
committed has been freely and consciously done and may, therefore, be put down to the doer as his very own.
Responsibility is the obligation of suffering the consequences of crime. It is the obligation of taking the penal and civil
consequences of the crime.
While an act may be imputable to a person, it may not necessarily mean that he would be responsible for the same.
Imputability distinguished from responsibility
While imputability implies that a deed may be imputed to a person, responsibility implies that the person must take the
consequences of such a deed.
Guilt is an element of responsibility, for a man cannot be made to answer for the consequences of a crime unless he is guilty.
Article 11
No crime committed
In justifying circumstances, the actor admits to the commission of the act but interposes a justifying
circumstance. He, therefore, has the burden of proving the existence of such circumstance.
Justifying Circumstances are those where the act of a person is said to be in accordance with law, so that such person is
deemed not to have transgressed the law and is free from both criminal and civil liability.
The person does not incur any criminal liability. Article 11 recognizes the acts of such persons as justified.
Such person are not criminals, as there is no crime committed.
The circumstances mentioned in Article 11 are matters of defense and it is incumbent upon the accused, in
order to avoid criminal liability, to prove the justifying circumstance claimed by him to the satisfaction of the
court.
Self Defense
Basis:
Life
Limb
Rights includes
Right to property
Well-entrenched is the rule that where the accused invokes self-defense, it is incumbent upon him to prove by
clear and convincing evidence that he indeed acted in defense of himself. He must rely on the strength of his
own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution.
Wounds/injuries on the victim would usually indicate whether self-defense is credible or not.
Wound/injuries on the accused are not determinative as the injuries on the victim.
Unlawful Aggression(Indispensable)
Unlawful aggression must exist at the time of the act constituting self-defense.
Lawful
Unlawful
An actual assault
Threat of an assault of an
The settled rule in jurisprudence is that when unlawful aggression ceases, the
defender no longer has the right to kill or even wound the former aggressor.
In order to justify homicide on the ground of self-defense, it is essential that the killing of
the deceased by the defendant be simultaneous with the attack made by the deceased, or
at least both acts succeeded each other without appreciable interval of time.
The unlawful aggression must come from the person who was attacked by the accused.
A public officer exceeding his authority may become an unlawful aggressor.
Improbability of the deceased being the aggressor belies the claim of self-defense.
The fact that the accused declined to give any statement when he surrendered to a
policeman is inconsistent with the plea of self-defense.
Physical fact may determine whether the accused acted in self-defense.
When the aggressor flees, unlawful aggression no longer exists.
Retreat to take more advantageous position.
Right to Chastity
Jaurigue incomplete
Right to Property
There is self-defense even if the aggressor used a toy pistol, provided the
accused believed it was a real gun.
Threat to inflict real injury as unlawful aggression.
Elements
Means used
Determined by
Weapons
If there were other means, he could coolly chose the less deadly
weapon to repel the assault
there may be other circumstances, such as the very violence of the attack
or a great disparity in the age or physical ability of the parties, which give
accused reasonable ground to apprehend danger of death or great bodily
harm and justify him in employing a deadly weapon in self-defense.
There must be a necessity of the course of action taken by the person making a defense,
and there be a necessity of the means used. Both must be reasonable.
The darkness of the night and the surprise which characterized the
assault considered.
When the aggresion is so sudden that there is no time life to the one
making a defense to determine what course of action to take.
The peace officer, in the performance of his duty, represents the law which he
must uphold. While the law on self-defense allows a private individual to prevent
or repel an aggression, the duty of a peace officer requires him to overcome his
opponent.
Private Individual vs Law enforcement Officer
The person defending himself must not have by his unjust conduct provoked the
aggression sought to be repelled or prevented.
When the person defending himself from the attack by another gave sufficient provocation
to the latter, the former is also to be blamed for having given cause for the aggression.
No provocation at all
Self-defense includes not only the defense of the person or body of the one assaulted but also that of his
rights, that is, those rights the enjoyment of which is protected by law.
Surrendering
Confession
Defense of Relatives
Spouse
Ascendants
Descendants
Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity in the same degrees
Unlawful aggression
Unlawful aggression can exist as a matter of fact and it can be made to depend upon the
In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making a defense had no
part therein(Lack of Provocation from the defending party)
The clause, in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, used in stating the
third requisite of the defense of relatives, does not mean that the relative defended should
give provocation to the aggressor.
There is still a legitimate defense of relative even of the relative being defended has given
provocation, provided that the one defending such relative has no part in the provocation.
That although the provocation prejudices the person who gave it, its effects do not reach
the defender who took no part therein, because the latter was prompted by some noble or
generous sentiment in protecting and saving a relative.
Requisites(URN)
Unlawful aggression
What one may do in his defense; another may do for him. Persons acting in defense of others are in the same
condition and upon the same planse as those who act in defense of themselves. The ordinary man would not
stand idly by and see his companion killed without attempting to save his life.
Any person not included in the enumeration of relatives mentioned in paragraph 2 of this article.
Paragraph 3 of Article 11 uses the phrase be not induced Hence, even if a person has a standing grudge
against the assailant, if he enters upon the defense of a stranger out of generous motive to save the stranger
from serious bodily harm or possible death, the third requisite of defense of stranger still exists. The third
requisite would be lacking if such person was prompted by his grudge against the assailant, because the
alleged defense of the stranger would be only a pretext.
Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which cause damage to another.
Requisites
The evil must actually exist. If the evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or
anticipated or may happen in the future, paragraph 4 of Article 11 is not applicable.
Exemptions
Negligence
No evil to be avoided
The greater evil should not be brought about by the negligence or impurdence of the actor
When the accused was not avoiding any evil,he cannot invoke the justifiying circumstance of avoidance of a
greater evil or injury.
The evil which brought about the greater evilmust not result from a violation of law by the actor.
Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.
Requisites
the accused acted in the performace of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office
the injury caused or the offense commited be the necessary consequences of the due
performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office
Prevaling jurisprudence is in favor of policemen and guards who shoot prisoners who attempt to
escape
Shooting an offender who refused to surrender is justified but shooting a thief who refused to be arrested is not
justified.
Fulfillment of duty to preven the escape of a prisoner is different from self-defense, because they are
based on different principles.
The public officer acting in the fulfillment of a duty may appear to be an aggressor but his aggression
Of right
The owner orlawful possesor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the
enjoyment and disposalthereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be
reasonable necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical
invasion or usurpation of his property.
Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose
Requisites
That the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful
He is not negligent
When the order is not for a lawful purpose, the subordinate who obeyed it is not criminally liable
The subordinate is not liable for carrying out an illegal oder of his superior, if he is not aware of the illegality of
the order and he is not negligent
Victim-survivors who are found by the court to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not
incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying
circumstances of self-defense under the RPC.
Exempting Circumstances
Definition
Exempting circumstances(non-imputability) are those grounds for exemption from punishment because there
is wanting in the agent of the crime any of the conditions which make the act voluntary or negligent.
Basis
The exemption from punishment is based on the complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent,
or on the absence of negligence on the part of the accused.
Article 12
In exempting circumstances the act does not result in criminal liability because the act is not voluntary or
negligent
There is absence of
Intelligence
Freedom of Action
Intent
Negligence
Technically, one who acts by virtue of any of the exempting circumstances commits a crime, although by the
complete absence of any of the conditions which constitute free will or voluntariness of the act, no criminal
liability arise
Burden of Proof
Any of the cicumstances mentioned in Article 12 is a matter of defense and the same must be proved by the
defendant to the satisfaction of the court.
An imbicle or an insane person, unless the later has acted during a lucid interval
Insane is not so exempt if it can be shown that the acted during a lucid interval. During lucid
interval, the insane acts with intelligence.
An insane person may have lucid intervals but an imbecile does not.
Imbecile he must be deprived completely of reason or discernment and freedom of the will
at the time of committing the crime.
Insanse complete deprivation of intelligence in the commission of the act or that the
accused acted without the least discernment
Crazy vs Insane
There is a vast difference between an insane person and one who has worked himself into a
frenzy of anger that fails to use reason or good judgement in what he does.
The fact that a person acts crazy is not conclusive that he is insane. The popular meaning of
the word crazy is not synonymous with the legal term insane, non compus mentis, unsound
mind, idiot or lunatic.
To constitute insanity, there must be complete deprivation of intelligence or that there be a total deprivation of
the freedom of the will.
Thus, mere abnormality of mental faculties is not enough, especially if the offender has not lost
consciousness of his act. At most, it is only a mitigating circumstance.
The court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons
afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the court.
But the court has no power to permit the insane person to leave the asylum without first obtaining the
opinion of the Director of Health that he may be released without danger.
The defense must prove that the accused was insane at the time of the commission of the crime,
because the presumption is always in favor of sanity.
Insanity at the time of the commission of the felony distinguished from insanity at the time of the trial
When a person was insane at the time of the commission of the felony, he is exempt from criminal
liability.
When he was sane at the time of the commission of the crime, but he becomes insane at the
time of the trial, he is liable criminally. The trial, however, will be suspended until the mental
capacity of the accused is restored to afford him a fair trial.
The law presumes that every person is of sound mind, in the absence of proof to the
contrary, the law always presumes all acts to be voluntary. It is impropert to presume that all
acts were executed unconsiously.
Evidence of insanity
The evidence of insanity must refer to the time preceding the act under prosecution
or to the very moent of its execution. If the evidence points to insanity subsequent
to the commission of the crime, the accused cannot be acquitted. He is presumed
to be sane when he commited it.
Insanity as a defense is a confession and avoidance and as such must be proved beyond reasonable
doubt. When the commission of the crime is established, and the defense of insanity is not made out
beyond a reasonable doubt, conviction follows.
a witness who has a rational basis to conclude that the accused was insane based on the
witness own perception of the accused
expert testimony
Thus, when a person is suffering from a form of psychosis, a type of dementia praecox, homicidal
attack is common, because of delusions that he is being interfered with sexually, or that his property
is being taken.
The unlawful act of the accused may be due to his mental disease or a mental defect, producing an
irresistible impulse, as when the accused has been deprived or has lost the power of his will which
would enable him to prevent himself from doing the act.
If it can be shown that he was not under the influence of an epileptic fit when he commited the
offense, he is not exempt from criminally liability.
Amenisa, in and of itself, is no defense to a criminal charge unless it is shown by competent proof
that the accused did not know the nature and quality of his action and that it was wrong.
Hypnotism
The exempting circumstance of insanity or imbecility is based on the complete absence of intelligence, an
element of voluntariness.
A person under nine years of age
RA 9433 raised the age of absolute irresponsibility from nine to fifteen years of age.
Under Section 6 of the said law, a child fifteen years of age or under at the time of the commission of
the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subject to an
intervention program as provided uder Section 20 under RA 9344.
RA 9344
New Concepts
A child fifteen years of age and under at the time of the commission of the
offense is exempt from criminal liability.
O/W
NGO
Barangay
Discernment is the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong.
It may be shown by
Conduct of offender
Attitude
Comportment
Children above fifteen but below eighteen years of age who acted without discrenment exempt from
criminal liability.
A minor under eighteen but above fifteen must have acted with discernment to incur
criminal liability. The minor is presumed to have acted without discrenment since the
phrase unless he/she acted with discrenment indicates an exception to the general rule
that a minor under 18 but above 15 has acted without discrenment.
Thus, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that a minor who is over 15 but under
18 years of age has acted with discrenment, in order for the minor not to be entitled to this
exempting circumstance.
The age of mitigated responsibility 15 years and 1 day to 18 years, the offender acting with
discrenment; over 70 years of age.
Hence, senility which is the age over 70 years, although said to be the second childhood,
is only a mitigated responsibility. It cannot be considered as similar to infancy which is
exempting.
Discernment means the capacity of the child at the time of the commission of the offense to understand the
differences between right and wrong and the consequences of the wrongful act.
The determination of discernment shall take into account the ability of a child to understand the moral and
psychological components of criminal responsibility and the consequences of the wrongful actl and whether a
child can be held responsible for essentially antisocial behavior.
Discernment relates to the moral significance that a person ascribes to the said act.
Conduct of offender
Presumption of Minority
The child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the presumption of minority and shall enjoy the rights of
a child in conflict with the law until proven to be eighteen years old or older at the time of the
commission of the offense.
In case of doubt as to the age of the child, it shall be resolved in his/her favor.
Determination of Age
Birth Certificate
Baptismal Certificate
Physical appearance
Other relevant evidence
Burden of Proof of Age
Any person allegin the age of the child in conflict with the law has the burden of proving
the age of such child.
If the age of the child is contested prior to the filing of the information in court, a case for
determination of age under summary proceeding may be filed before the Family Court
which shall render its decision within 24 hours from receipt of the appropriate pleadings of
all the parties.
The allegation of with intent to kill in the information is sufficient allegation of discernment.
The exempting circumstance in paragraph 3 of Article 12 is based also on the complete absence of
intelligence.
Imposable penalties
Restitution
Reparation
Indemnification
Counseling
Anger management
Problem solving
Values formation
Court
Fine
Mendicancy
Sniffing of Rugby
Elements
Striking another with a gun in self-defense, even if it fired and seriously injured the
assailant, is a lawful act
With due care
An accident is something that happens outside the sway of our will, and although it
comes about through some act of our will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly
foreseeable consequences.
For an accident to become an exempting circumstance, the act has to be lawful. The act of
firing a shotgun at another is not a lawful act.
It connotes the absence of criminal intent, Intent is a mental state, the existence of which is
shown by a person's overt acts.
Thus in determining whether an accident attended the incident, courts must take into account the dual
standards of lack of intent to kill and absence of fault or negligence.
Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force
Elements
Elements
That it promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary man would have
succumed to it.
Requisites
Duress as a valid defense should be based on real, imminent or reasonable fear for one's life or lim and should
not be speculative, fanciful or remote fear
In irresistible force, the offender uses violence or physical force to compel another person to commit
a crime; in uncomtrollable fear, the offender employs intimidation or threat in compelling another to
commit a crime.
The exempting circumstance in paragraph 6 of Article 12 is also based in the complete absence of freedom.
Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause.
Requisites
His failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause
Example:
Person A confessed to a Filipino priest that he and several other persons were in conspiracy against
the Government. Under Article 116, a Filipino citizen who knows of such conspiracy must report the
same to the governor or fiscal of the province where he resides. If the priest does not disclose and
make known the same to the proper authority, he is exempt from criminal liability, because under the
law, the priest cannot be compelled to reveal any information which he came to know by reason of
the confession made to him in his professional capacity.
Insuperable cause
The circumstance in paragraph 7 of Article 12 exempts the accused from criminal liability, because he acts
without intent, the third condition of voluntariness in intentional felony.
Intent presupposes the exercise of freedom and the use of intelligence. Hence, in paragraphs 1,2 and 3 of
Article 12, the imbecile, insane, or minor, not having intelligence, does not act with intent. The person acting
under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Article 12, not having freedom of action,
does not act with intent. In paragraph 4 of Article 12, it is specifically stated that the actor causes an injury by
mere accident without intention of causing it.
Distinction between justifying and exempting circumstances
In justifying circumstances, there is neither a crime nor a criminal. No civil liability, except in paragraph 4.
In exempting circumstances, there is a crime but no criminal liability. The act is not justified, but the actor is not
criminally liable.There is civil liability, except in paragraph 4 and 7 of Article 12.
Absolutory Cause
That the threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater than or at least equal to, that which he is
required to commit
Absolutory causes are those where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment
there is no penalty imposed.
Other absolutory causes
Article 6 The spontaneous desistance of the person who commenced the commission of a felony before he
could perform all acts of execution.
Article 124, last paragraph- The commission of a crime, or violent insanity or any other ailment requiring the
compulsory confinement of the patient in a hospital, shall be considered legal grounds for the detention of any
person.
Article 247, paragraph 1 and 2 Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances
Article 344, paragraph 4 marriage of the offended and offender party in SARA
Instigation is an absolutory cause
In instigation, the law enforcer conceives the commission of the crime and suggests to the accused who
adopts the idea and carries it into execution.
In instigation, a public officer or a private detective induces an innocent person to commit a crime and would
arrest him upon or after the commission of the crime by the latter.
A sound public policy requires that the courts shall condemn this practice (instigation) by directing the acquittal
of the accused.
In instigation, the crime would not have been committed if it were not for the inducement of the
instigator.
Such inducement must be of such nature that the instigator himself becomes a co-principal.
In instigation, it is necessary that the instigator is a public officer or one who is performing public
functions.
If the instigator is a private individual, both the instigator and the person instigated are criminally
liable.
Entrapment is not an absolutory cause
In entrapment, ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping or capturing the lawbreaker
in the execution of his criminal plan. The means of committing the crime originates from the mind of
the criminal.
Buy-bust operation
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which in recent years has been accepted as valid means
of arresting violators of Dangerous Drugs Law. It is commonly employed by police officers as an
effective way of apprehending law offenders in the act of commiting a crime. In a buy-bust operation,
the idea to commit a crime originates from the offender , without anybody inducing or prodding him to
commit the offense.
Instigation vs Entrapment
Instigator induces accused into commission of crime Ways and means are resorted to trap and capture
lawbreaker in the execution of the offense
There is neither instigation nor entrapment when the violation of the law is simply discovered.
Assurance of immunity by a public officer does not exempt a person from criminal liability.
Complete defense in criminal case
Any essential elements of the crime charged is not proven by the prosecution and the elements proved do not
constitute any crime.
Justifying circumstances
Exempting circumstances
Absolutory causes
Light felony is only attempted or frustrated, and is not against persons or properly (Article 7)
The crime of theft, swindling or maliscious mischief is commitetd against a relative(Article 332)
When only slight or less serious physical injuries are inflicted by the person who surprised his
spouse or daughter in the act of sexual intercourse with another persons (Article 247)
Marriage of the offender with the offended party when the crime committed is rape, abduction,
seduction, or acts of lasciviousness (Article 344)
Instigation
Prescription of Crimes
Pardon by the offended party before the institution of criminal action in crime against chastity