TOPICS COVERED:

A. Fundamental and General Principles in Criminal Law

a. Definition of Criminal Law
i. Mala in Se and Mala Prohibita (Anna)

b. Applicability and Effectivity of the Penal Code

i. Generality (Gie)

Question. Indicate if the persons enumerated below were exempt from the operation of
our criminal laws by virtue of the principles of public international law.
1. Sovereigns and other chiefs of state.
2. Ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, ministers resident, and charges
d'affaires.
3. Consuls, vice-consuls and other commercial representatives of foreign nations.

Suggested Answer. Only those under 1 and 2 were exempt from the operation of our
criminal laws.

It is a well-established principle of international law that diplomatic representatives, such

as ambassadors or public ministers and their official retinue, possess immunity from the
criminal jurisdiction of the country of their sojourn and cannot be sued, arrested or
punished by the law of that country. (II Hyde, International Law, 2nd Ed., 1266)

It is well-settled that a consul is not entitled to the privileges and immunities of an

ambassador or minister, but is subject to the laws and regulations of the country to which
he is accredited. (Schneckenburger vs. Moran, 63 Phil. 250)

In the absence of a treaty to the contrary, a consul is not exempt from criminal
prosecution for violations of the laws of the country where he resides. Consuls, vice-
consuls and other commercial representatives of foreign nations do not possess the
status of, and cannot claim the privileges and immunities accorded to ambassadors and
ministers. (Wheaton, International Law, Sec. 249)

Source. As cited in Reyes, L. (2017). The Revised Penal Code, 19e., p.13

Question. On November 10, 2018, in his routine inspection of mallgoers’ baggage, Juan
Dela Cruz, a security guard of MS Malls in Quezon City found in the possession of a
certain William Smith a rimfire handgun. Smith was an American citizen on vacation in
the Philippines. Later, it was determined that the handgun was unlicensed. Smith was
then charged with the crime of illegal possession of firearms.

Smith contended that being an American citizen, he cannot be prosecuted for, much less
convicted of, the crime of illegal possession of firearms, because it is a constitutional right
of the citizens of the United States of America "to keep and bear arms" without any need
of applying and securing a government license therefor. Is Smith’s contention correct?
 Suggested Answer. No. "The Philippines is a sovereign state with the obligation and the
right of every government to uphold its laws and maintain order within its domain, and
with the general jurisdiction to punish persons for offenses committed within its territory,
regardless of the nationality of the offender. (Salonga and Yap, Public International Law,
p. 169) No foreigner enjoys in this country extra-territorial right to be exempted from its
laws and jurisdiction, with the exception of heads of states and diplomatic representatives
who, by virtue of the customary law of nations, are not subject to the Philippine territorial
jurisdiction." (People vs. Galacgac, C.A., 54 O.G. 1027)

Source. As cited in Reyes, L. (2017). The Revised Penal Code, 19e., pp. 6-7

ii. Territoriality (Sale)

QUESTION: Bull, the master of a steamship, carried, transported and brought into the
port & city of Manila, aboard said vessel, cattle & carabaos, without providing suitable
means for securing said animals while in transit. Many of said animals were tossed upon
the decks of hold of said vessels, cruelly wounded, bruised & killed. All these acts are
contrary to the provisions of Acts No. 55 & No. 275 of the Phil. Commission. Does the
Philippine trial court have jurisdiction to hear and decide the case?

Suggested answer: Yes, the Philippine courts has jurisdiction to hear and decide this
case. When the vessel came within 3 miles of the entrance to Manila Bay, it was within
territorial waters. Offense committed on board a foreign merchant vessel while on
Philippine waters is triable before our court. The offense of Bull, master of the said
vessel, was a violation of the criminal law of the country into whose port he came. Hence,
the courts of the Phil. Islands has jurisdiction over the offense of Bull and can decide on
the case. US v Bull (G.R. No. L-5270. January 15, 1910)

QUESTION: What are the differences between the French Rule and English Rule?
Suggested Answer: In French Rule, the flag country has jurisdiction over crimes
committed within the vessel, except if the crime disturbs the peace and order of the host
country. In English Rule, the host country has jurisdiction over all crimes committed on
the vessel unless they involve mere internal management of the vessel. As cited in
Reyes, L. (2017)

iii. Prospectivity (Gie)

Question. The accused was prosecuted for neglecting to make a return of the sales of
newspapers and magazines within the time prescribed by certain sections of the Revised
Administrative Code. Said sections of the Revised Administrative Code (RAC) were
repealed by the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) which does not require the
making of return of sales of newspapers and magazines. Can the accused still be
prosecuted under the RAC? Under the NIRC?

Suggested Answer. No. The accused can no longer be prosecuted either under the RAC
or the NIRC. The court loses jurisdiction where the repealing law wholly fails to penalize
the act denned and penalized as an offense in the old law. The accused, charged with
violations of the old law prior to the repeal, cannot be legally prosecuted after such
repeal.
 The provisions of said sections of the Revised Administrative Code were not reenacted,
even substantially, in the National Internal Revenue Code. (People vs. Sindiong and
Pastor [77 Phil. 1000])

Source. As cited in Reyes, L. (2017). The Revised Penal Code, 19e., p. 16

B. Felonies
a. Criminal Liabilities and Felonies
i. Classifications of felonies (Ruth)

Question:
What are the classifications of felonies according to the means by which they are
committed?

Suggested Answer:
Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code classifies felonies, according to the means by which
they are committed, into (1) intentional felonies, and (2) culpable felonies.

In intentional felonies, the act or omission of the offender is malicious. In the language of
Article 3, the act is performed with deliberate intent (with malice). The offender, in
performing the act or in incurring the omission, has the intention to cause an injury to
another. In culpable felonies, the act or omission of the offender is not malicious. The
injury caused by the offender to another person is "unintentional, it being simply the
incident of another act performed without malice." (People vs. Sara, 55 Phil. 939) As
stated in Article 3, the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight
or lack of skill.

Source: As cited in Reyes, L. (2017).

ii. Elements of criminal liability (Ruth)

Question:
How is criminal liability incurred?

Suggested Answer:
Criminal liability is incurred either by (1) any person committing a felony, although the
wrongful act be different from that which he intended or (2) 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.

Question:
Liana, immensely pressured by her parents with her law studies, decided to jump out of
the window of her condominium unit from the 25th floor. Instead of hitting the pavement,
she accidentally hit and killed a man who happened to be passing by the minute she
jumped out of the window. Liana survived. Will she be liable for the death of the man?
 Suggested Answer:
Liana, in attempting a suicide, jumped out of the window to kill herself, but when she
dropped to the ground she fell on a man who died as a consequence, Liana is not
criminally liable for intentional homicide. Liana was not committing a felony when she
attempted a suicide.

Source: As cited in Reyes, L. (2017).

iii. Impossible crime (Ruth)

Question:
What are the requisites of an impossible crime?

Suggested Answer:
Article 4, Paragraph 2 of the RPC defines an impossible crime. For an act to be
considered as an impossible crime, (1) it would have been an offense committed against
persons or property, (2) it must have evil intent, (3) accomplishment is inherently
impossible, or that the means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual.

Question:
Sam, who wanted to kill Gabriel, looked for him. When Sam saw Gabriel, he found out
that Gabriel was already dead. To satisfy his grudge, Sam stabbed Gabriel in his breast
three times with a knife. Is this an impossible crime?

Suggested Answer:
No, because Sam knew that Gabriel was already dead when he stabbed the lifeless
body. There was no evil intent on the part of Sam, because he knew that he could not
cause an injury to Gabriel. Even subjectively, he was not a criminal.

Source: As cited in Reyes, L. (2017).

iv. Stages of execution (Sale)

QUESTION: When is a felony frustrated?

Suggested Answer: A felony 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. As cited in
Reyes, L. (2017)

QUESTION: When is there an attempted felony?

Suggested Answer: There is an attempted felony 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 some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance. As cited in Reyes, L. (2017)
 QUESTION: Doctor poisons wife but immediately administers to her an adequate
antidote. Is the doctor guilty of frustrated parricide?

Suggested Answer: No, the doctor is not guilty of frustrated parricide. One of the
elements of frustrated felony is that the crime is not produced due to causes independent
of the will of the perpetrator. This particular element is missing in this case as the crime is
stopped because of the doctor’s own will of administering the antidote. As cited in Reyes,
L. (2017)

v. Continuing crimes (Gie)

Question. What is a continued crime?

Suggested Answer. A continued (continuous or continuing) crime is defined as a single

crime, consisting of a series of acts but all arising from one criminal resolution. Although
there is a series of acts, there is only one crime committed; hence, only one penalty shall
be imposed.

Source. People vs. De Leon (G.R. No. 179943. June 26, 2009)

Question. On May 9, 2016, Mary was charged with a criminal case for violating Section
3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act. She allegedly committed the crime by approving the application for
legalization of “aliens”, giving them indirect benefits and advantages. It was further
alleged that the said “aliens” were “unqualified” to enjoy the benefits of the Alien
Legalization Program.

Mary’s counsel filed a motion for a bill of particulars as the information against her lacked
a list of the said favored aliens. It was contended that unless they were furnished with the
names and identities of the aliens, they could not properly plead and prepare for trial.

On September 6, 2017, the prosecution filed a motion to admit the 25 Amended

Informations. The 25 Amended Informations reproduced verbatim the allegation of the
original information, except that instead of the word “aliens” in the original information
each amended information states the name of the individual whose stay was legalized.
The Amended Informations aver that the offenses were committed on the same period of
time, i.e., on or about October 5, 2015.

Should the Court admit the 25 Amended Informations?

Suggested Answer. No. Technically, there was only one crime that was committed in
Mary's case, and hence, there should only be one information to be filed against her.

The 25 Amended Informations charge what is known as delito continuado or “continued

crime” and sometimes referred to as “continuous crime.”
 For delito continuado to exist there should be a plurality of acts performed during a period
of time; unity of penal provision violated; and unity of criminal intent or purpose, which
means that two or more violations of the same penal provisions are united in one and the
same intent or resolution leading to the perpetration of the same criminal purpose or aim.

In appearance, a delito continuado consists of several crimes but in reality, there is only
one crime in the mind of the perpetrator.

It is one such offense consisting of a series of acts arising from one criminal intent or
resolution.

Applying the concept of delito continuado, the following were treated as constituting only
one offense:
1. The theft of 13 cows belonging to two different owners committed by the accused
at the same place and at the same period of time (People v. Tumlos, 67 Phil. 320
[1939]).
2. The theft of six roosters belonging to two different owners from the same coop
and at the same period of time (People v. Jaranillo, 55 SCRA 563 [1974]).
3. The theft of two roosters in the same place and on the same occasion (People v.
De Leon, 49 Phil. 437 [1926]).
4. The illegal charging of fees for services rendered by a lawyer every time he
collects veteran's benefits on behalf of a client, who agreed that the attorney's
fees shall be paid out of said benefits (People v. Sabbun, 10 SCRA 156 [1964]).
The collections of the legal fees were impelled by the same motive, that of
collecting fees for services rendered, and all acts of collection were made under
the same criminal impulse (People v. Lawas, 97 Phil. 975 [1955]).

Under Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code, the Code shall be supplementary to special
laws, unless the latter provide the contrary. Hence, legal principles developed from the
Penal Code may be applied in a supplementary capacity to crimes punished under
special laws.

Source. Santiago vs. Garchitorena (G.R. No. 109266. December 2, 1993.)

vi. Complex crimes and composite crimes (Anna)

Vi. Complex crimes and composite crimes
Q: Sabelino, Baguio and Pacanot were on their way home when Maghanoy, without warning
opened fire at them. They fell, Baguio and Pacanot died. By sheer luck, Sabelino was hit only in
the left thigh. What is the crime committed by Maghanoy? Explain.
A: Maghanoy committed the complex crime of double murder and frustrated murder. The deaths
of Baguio and Pacanot and the wounding of Sabelino were the result of one single act of
Maghanoy. Compound crime results when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less
grave felony. (People v Maghanoy, 180 SCRA 111, December 15, 1989)

Q: Vicente was with her two (2) year old granddaughter, Maureen, at the terrace of their house
when Umawid suddenly appeared and started attacking Vicente with a panabas with neither
reason nor provocation. While Vicente was able to evade Umawid’s blows, the latter nevertheless
hit Maureen on her abdomen, causing her instantaneous death. How many crimes were
committed by Umawid? Explain.
A: Umawid is liable for the complex crime of attempted murder with murder. Umawid’s single
deed resulted in the: (a) attempted murder of Vicente and (b) consummated murder of Maureen.
This is classified as delito compuesto, a form of complex crime defined under Article 48 of the
RPC since the single act of Umawid resulted in two (2) or more grave or less grave felonies. It is
murder even if it was not shown that Umawid consciously employed treachery so as to insure the
death of Maureen, who was then just two (2) years old at the time, but is settled that the killing by
an adult of a minor child is treacherous (People v Umawid, 725 SCRA 597, June 9 2014)

I. Mala in se and Mala Prohibita

Q: What are mala in se crimes? When do you consider crimes as mala prohibita?
A: Mala in se crimes are those which are wrong per se even without a law punishing the act.
Criminal intent is required in this kind of crime. Such being the case, good faith is a defense. Mala
prohibita crimes are those where the acts are illegal because of the law prohibiting them. Mere
violation of the law consummates the crime. Criminal intent is not required in this kind of crimes;
hence, good faith is not a defense.
Q: Joseph Ejercito Estrada was prosecuted for plunder penalized by RA 7080 as amended by RA
7659. One of the issues raised by him is that plunder was classified as malum prohibitum by
Congress and thus the law abolishes the element of mens rea in crimes. Is plunder malum
prohibitum?
A: The crime of plunder is malum in se. It is not a malum prohibitum. When Congress declared
plunder as a heinous crime in 1993, it resolved that the crime of plunder be considered mala in se
and it does not matter that such act is punished in a special law especially since the predicate
crimes of plunder are mainly mala in se. Accordingly, mens rea is an element of the crime. This
can be seen from the fact that the degree of criminal responsibility of the offender is determined
by his criminal intent (Estrada v Sandiganbayan, 369 SCRA 394, November 19, 2001)

Q: The Sangguniang Bayan of Leyte enacted its 2001 appropriation ordinance. The ordinance
allocated P100,000.00 for the Supplemental Feeding Program (SFP) and P113,957.64 for the
Core Shelter Assistance Program (CSAP). The SFP rationed food to malnourished children while
the CSAP fund was for the provision of construction materials to indigent calamity victims with
which to rebuild their homes. The beneficiaries provided the labor needed for construction. When
the construction for the calamity was 70% done, the beneficiaries stopped building their homes
for the reason that they had to find food for their families. This worried the head of the CSAP.
Mayor Ysidoro, upon request of the head of CSAP, approved the release and signed the
withdrawal slip for four sacks of rice and two boxes of sardines worth P3,396.oo from SFP to
CSAP. Charged with technical malversation, Mayor Ysidoro puts up good faith as his defense.
Rule on Mayor Ysidoro’s contention.
A: Good faith is unavailing. Criminal intent is not an element of technical malversation. The law
punishes the act of diverting public funds/property earmarked by law or ordinance for a particular
public purpose to another public purpose. The offense is mala prohibita. The prohibited act is not
inherently immoral but becomes a criminal offense because there is a law that forbids its
commission. Malice or criminal intent is completely irrelevant (Ysidoro v People, 685 SCRA 687,
November 14, 2012)