CRIMINAL LAW – branch of law which defines crimes, treats of their BILL OF ATTAINDER – legislative acts which inflicts
nflicts punishment
nature, and provides for its punishment
CRIME – an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law,
forbidding or commanding it
SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW:
1. RPC (Act No. 3815) and its amendments
2. Special Penal Laws and BP
3. PDs
People v Santiago
 Gregorio Santiago & Porfirio Parondo
 6m wide highway – 30mins/hr – Wagon between heaps of
stones
 Act 2886, amending G.O 58
 Homicide by Reckless Negligence
 Sec. 2of GO 58 partake the same character as the
provisions in the Consti; said act is valid and constitutional
 Provisions of GO have the character of a statutory law, the
power of the legislature to amend it is self-evident.
 Our legislature which enacted Act 2886 is the legal
successor of the military govt
US v Pablo
 Andres Pablo – police; jueteng raid
 Francisco Dato – arrested; was just paid to plead guilty
 Maximo Malicsi & Antonio Rodrigo – Pablo let them escaped
 Pablo’s testimony – denied seeing the 2; was paid P15
 Perjury under Act. No. 1697 which repealed Arts. 318-324 of
RPC re: false testimony
COMMON LAW CRIMES – body of principles, usages and rules of
action, which do not rest for their authority upon any express and
positive declaration of the will of the legislature
Art. II, Sec. 5 – The maintenance of peace and order, the protection
of life, liberty and property, and promotion of the general welfare are
essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of
democracy
Art VI, Sec. 1 – The legislative power which shall be vested in the
Congress of the PH which shall consist of a Senate and HoR, except
to the extent reserved to the people by the provision of initiative and
referendum
LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF THE LAWMAKING BODY TO
ENACT PENAL LEGISLATION
1. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted
2. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense
without due process of law
AN EX POST FACTO LAW IS ONE WHICH:
1. Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law
and which was innocent when done, and punishes such an
act
2. Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when
committed
3. Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment
than the law annexed to the crime when committed
4. Alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction
upon less or different testimony than the law required at the
time of the commission of the offense
5. Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect
imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which
was done when lawful
6. Deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection
to which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a
former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty
without trial. Its essence is the substitution of a legislative act for a
judicial determination of guilt.
Romualdez v COMELEC
 SPS. Carlos and Erlinda Romualdez:
- 113 Mariposa Loop, Mariposa St., Bagong Lipunan,
Krame, QC
- 935 San Jose St., Barauen, Leyte
 1st case: Viol of Sec. 261 (y) 2 and (y) 5 of the Omnibus
Election Code and Viol of RA 8189
- Dennis Garay and Angelino Postol
 2nd case: Jan 2006; separate information
 Mala Prohibita
 Void for vagueness doctrine holds that a law is facially invalid
if men of common intelligence must necessarily guess its
application
PP v Dacuycuy
 Judge Auxencio Dacuycuy
 Celestino Matondo and Cirilo M. Zanoria
 Magna Carta for Teacher (RA 4670)
 Fixing of term penalties
 RA 4760 is unconstitutional for it violates the prohibition
against undue delegation of legislative powers by vesting in
the court the responsibility of imposing a duration of
punishment
Pesigan v Angeles
 Anselmo and Marcelino Pesigan – carabao dealers
 Arnulfo Venarosa and Dra. Bella Miranda confiscated the
carabaos for viol of EO 626-A
 Replevin
 EO should not be enforced bc it is a penal legislation
published more than 2 months later in the OG
 Summary confiscation was not in order
 Restoration of carabaos
CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW
1. General – binding on all persons who live or sojourn in the
Philippine territory
Exception: treaties and laws of preferential application
- Persons exempted from our criminal laws
 Sovereigns and chief of states
 Ambassadors, Ministers Plenipotentiary,
Ministers Residenst and Charges d’
Affaires
Minucher v Scalzo
 Khosrow Minucher – labor attache, Iranian; viol of
RA 6425; was later acquitted – filed damages
against Scalzo
 Arthur Scalzo – special agent of US PEA
 Diplomatic immunity
 Scalzo was acquitted, for he is an agent of US Drug
Enforcement Agency, allowed by govt to conduct
activities in the country to help contain the problem
of drug trafficking.
Liang v People
 Jeffrey Liang – works as an economist at ADB
 Joyce Cabal – charged Liang for oral defamation
 Diplomatic immunity: Sec. 45 of the Agreement
between ADB and PH Govt HQ
 Liang is not covered by the immunity, for slandering
is not within the scope official duty
2. Territorial – undertakes to punish crimes with PH territory
Exception: Art. 2 of RPC

US v Bull
 H. N Bull – master of vessel, willfully and unlawfully
transport and bring into the port of Manila the head
of cattle and carabaos, without providing suitable
means for securing animals while in transit, so as
to avoid cruelty and unnecessary sufferings
 Animals to be tied by means of rings
 Bull was found guilty of viol od Acts No. 55 and No.
275
 The PH has jurisdiction over an offense committed
on the high seas or within the territorial waters of
our country
 English Rule
People v Wong Cheng
 Wong Cheng – illegally smoked opium aboard a
merchant vessel Changsa of English nationality
while in Manila Bay
 PH has jurisdiction. Smoking of opium breached
PH’s public order
People v Look Chow
 Upon arrival of steamship Erroll (English
nationality) in the ports of Manila and Cebu, 2 sacks
of opium were found during the search of cargo
 4 cans of opium were also found where the crew
habitually sleep
 PH has jurisdiction. In this case, a can of opium is
landed from the vessel upon the PH soil, thus,
committing an open violation of the laws of the land
People v Lol-lo and Saraw
 2 boats of Dutch possession left matuta: 1) Dutch
and 2) 11 people from Holland
 2nd boat arrived at Buang and Bukid – surrounded
by Moros, all armed – brutally violated 2 women
(Lol-lo and Saraw)
 The 2 were arrested for Piracy
 Piracy is a crime not against a particular state, but
against all mankind. It may be punished in the
competent tribunal of any country where the
offender may be found or into which he may be
carried.
 The jurisdiction of piracy has no territorial limits
3. Prospective – A penal law cannot make an act punishable
in a manner in which it was not punishable when committed
Exception: Whenever a new statute dealing with crime
established conditions more lenient or favorable to the
accused,it can be given a retroactive effect; BUT, this has
no application when:
 A new is expressly made inapplicable
 The offender is a habitual criminal
EFFECTS OF REPEAL ON PENAL LAW
 If the repeal makes the penalty lighter, the new law
applies
 If the new law imposes a heavier penalty, the law
in force at the time of the commission of the crime
applies
 If the 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.
People v Lacson
 Recaredo Sarmiento – presscon re Kuratong
Baleleng case
 Rub out ummary execution
 Lacson + 25 others – murder
 Ombudsman – reinvestigation – Amended Info
 Lacson – principal to accessory
 Lacson questioned the jurisdiction of
Sandiganbayan for not all the accused are public
officials
 Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction to all. It is suffice
that one is a public official
Go v Dimagiba
 Fernando Dimagiba – guilty of BP 22 for the 13
dishonored checks issued in favor of Susan Go
 MR - arrested
 Dimagiba filed for Writ of Habeas Corpus
 His Petition for WHC aims to reopen the case that
has already become final and executory
 SC-AC 12-2000 cannot be applied retroactively
because it does not delete the penalty of
imprisonment
 Not favorable to the accused
REVISED PENAL CODE
Art. 1 – Time when Acts takes effect. January 1, 1932
THEORIES IN CRIMINAL LAW
a) Classical Theory
- CL: freewill; Penalty: retribution
- Man is a moral creature with an absolute free will to
choose between good and evil, placing stress upon
the effect and result if the felonious act than the
criminal
- Establishes a mechanical and direct proportion
between crime and penalty
- Scant regard to human element
b) Positivist Theory
- Man is subdued occasionally by a strange and
morbid phenomenon which constrains him to do
wrong
- Crime is a social and natural phenomenon
Magno v CA
 Oriel Magno - lease equipment for his car repair shop
 Corazon Magno (VP of Mancor) – financier; not known to
Magno
 Joey Gomez (LS Finance and Mngmt Corp) - lessor
 1st check = Pacific Bank
 2nd checks = Piso Bank; 6 checks where 4 bounced
 BP 22
 Magno was acquitted. Non -disclosure of facts evokes
suspicion that the transaction is irregular and immoral per se
 Unjust debt
Art. 2 – Application of its provisions. Except as provided by treaties
and laws on preferential application, the provisions of this Code shall
be enforced not only within the Philippine archipelago, including its its
atmosphere, its interior waters and its maritime zones, but also
outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:
1) Should commit an offense on a PH ship or airship
2) Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the
PH Islands, or obligations or securities issued by the
Government of the PH Islands
3) Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into
these Islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in
the preceding number
4) While being public officers or employees, should commit an
offense in the exercise of their functions; OR
5) Should commit any of the crimes against national security
and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book II of this
Code
RULES AS TO JURISDICTION OVER CRIMES COMMITTED
ABOARD FOREIGN MERCHANT VESSELS
1. French Rule
General Rule: When a ship enters territory = no jurisdiction
Exception: Unless, the peace of the ports has been
compromised by a commission of a crime
2. English Rule
General Rule: When a ship enters territory = jurisdiction
Exception: Unless, the peace of the ports has not been
compromised
o PH follows this Rule
o Not applicable to warships
o Crimes not involving a breach of public order committed on
board a foreign merchant vessel in transit is not triable by
our courts
 Ex: mere possession of opium aboard a foreign
merchant vessel in transit
 Reason: The crime did not spill over, and the peace
of the ports have not been threatened
Art. 3 – Definition. Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies
(delitos)
Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo),
but also by means of fault (culpa)
There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate
intent; and there is default when the wrongful act results from
imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill
ELEMENTS OF FELONIES
1) There must be an act or omission
2) It must be punishable by RPC
3) The act is performed or the omission is incurred by means
of dolo or culpa
FELONIES BY OMMISSION
 Anyone who fails to render assistance to any person whom
he finds in an uninhabited place wounded or in danger of
dying, is liable for abandonment of persons in danger
 Any person entrusted with collection of taxes who voluntarily
fails to issue a receipt as provided by law is guilty of illegal
exaction
 A Filipino who does not disclose his knowledge of any
conspiracy against the government
NULLUM CRIMEN, NULLA POENE SINE LEGE
 There is no crime when there is no law punishing it
REQUISITES OF DOLO
1) Freedom
2) Intelligence
3) Intent
REQUISITES OF CULPA
1) Freedom
2) Intelligence
3) Imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill
MISTAKE OF FACT – misapprehension of fact on the part of the
person who caused injury to another. An honest mistake of facts
destroys the presumption of criminal intent
 Requisites:
1. The act done would have been lawful had the facts been
as the accused believed them to be
2. The intention of the accused in performing the act should
be lawful
3. The mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the
part of the accused
People v Ah Chong
 Ah Chong – cook at Officers’ quarters
 Pascual Gualberto – houseboy
 The two of them were roommates
 One night – Pascual entered the house which awakened Ah
Chong, who constantly asked “Who’s there?”
 No answer – “If you enter the room, I will kill you.”
 Ah Chong struck the intruder with a knife – Pascual died
 RTC: Homicide
 SC: No criminal liability. Mistake of fact. If one has a
reasonable cause to believe the existence of facts which will
justify the killing, if without fault or carelessness he does
believe them, he is legally guiltless of the homicide
People v Oanis
 Antonio Oanis and Alberto Galanta – were instructed to
arrest a notorious criminal, Anselmo Balagtas
 Suspected house – man was sleeping – both fired shots
 Innocent man
 Oanis and Galanta were criminal liable. No mistake of fact.
People v Pugay
 Please see Art. 8
Calimutan v People
 Drinking spree – Cantre and Saňano, with other companions
 While otw, met with Rollie Calimutan and Michael Bulalacao
 Cantre has a grudge against Bulalacao – punched
 Calimutan picked a stone as big as a man’s fist – hit Cantre
 Cantre died. Certificate of Death = cardio respiratory arrest
due to suspected food poisoning
 Dr. Mendez: internal hemorrhage and massive accumulation
of blood in his abdominal activity due to his lacerated spleen
 RTC and CA: Calimutan guilty of homicide
 SC: Reckless imprudence resulting to Homicide
 Proximate cause: stone thrown; culpable felony
 Absence of intent
Diego v Judge Castillo
 Cresencia Escoto and Jorge de Perio – married
 Jorge – divorce in Texas
 Crescencia – married Manuel Diego
 RTC: acquitted C for bigamy. GF by virtue of a divorce
decree
 SC: Mistake of law does not excuse a person even the lay
persons from liability. It is presumed that everyone knows
the law
 Judge Castillo – gross ignorance of the law
People v Garcia
 Renato Garcia – jitney – run at a greater speed without
taking necessary precaution
 Hit and bumped Sanily Billon – died
 Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicide. Inexcusable
lack of precaution when he disregarded the traffic signs
cautioning motorists to slow down
Garcia v CA
 Arsenia Garcia (election offense) – 5k votes
 Aquilino Pimentel Jr
 Electoral Reforms Law
 Intentional decreasing of votes = mala in se
Manuel v People
 Eduardo Manuel = malice, not in GF
 Rubylus Garcia (1st marriage)
 Tina Gandalera (2nd marriage)
  Bigamy
 Manuel claims he does not know that he has to seek
nullification first of his previous marriage
 GF not a valid defense; acted with fraud
 Presumption: Intentional Felony
 Judicial Declaration of Presumptive Death
People v Delim
 Delims (Marlon, Robert, Ronald, Leon and Manuel)
 Modesto Bantas – Igorot; adopted; abducted; shot in the
head
 Conspiracy = YES
 Homicide. No evidence of treachery and abuse of strength
Ivler v San Pedro
 Jason Ivler – vehicular collision
 Reckless Imprudence resulting to Slight PI and Reckless
Imprudence resulting to Homicide and Damage to Property
 Pleaded guilty to 1st
 Both are single crime; Double Jeopardy
 Conviction or acquittal of such quasi-offense bars
subsequent prosecution for the same quasi-offense
MALE IN SE
 Wrongful from their nature; punishable by RPC
 Has serious effects on the society as it calls for a unanimous
condemnation of its members
 Intent governs
MALA PROHIBITA
 Wrong merely because prohibited by statute
 Violations of mere rules of convenience designed to secure
a more orderly regulation of the affairs of the society
People v Bayona
 Cornelio Bayona – revolver
 Precint 4 @ Pilar, Capiz – election
 Jose Desiderio
 Breach of electoral act. Intent is immaterial when a statutory
provision is violated.
 Mala Prohibita. Presumption: Act was intentionally done.
US v Chico
 Go Chico – flags and banners used in the insurrection of the
PH
 Viol of Act No. 1696
 Mala Prohibita. The legislature did not intend that a criminal
intent must exist for there to be a crime. They did commit an
act and the act is the crime itself.
Estrada v Sandiganbayan
 Plunder under RA 7080
 Constitutionality of said act
 SC: constitutional
 Plunder is malum in se which requires criminal intent. It is a
heinous crime, for the acts were inherently wrong or immoral
MOTIVE – moving power which impels one to action for a definite
result; not an essential element of a crime, and need not be proved
for purposes of conviction
INTENT – is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such
result
Article 4. Criminal Liability. Criminal liability shall be incurred:
1) By any person committing a felony (delito) although the
wrongful act dome be different from which he intended
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 on account of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
 One who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all
the consequences which may naturally and logically result
therefrom, whether foreseen or intended or not
 El que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado (He,
who was the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil
caused)
The causes which may produce a result different from that which
he intended:
A. ERROR IN PERSONAE – mistake in the identity of the
victim
B. ABBERATIO ICTUS – mistake in the blow
C. PRAETER INTENTIONERM – The injurious result is greater
than that intended
REQUISITES OF ARTICLE 4, PAR. 1
1) Intentional felony has been committed
2) The wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural
and logical consequence of the felony committed by the
offender
A, in attempting suicide, jumped out of the window to kill himself, but
when he dropped to the ground, he fell on an old woman who died as
a consequence.
 A is not criminally liable for intentional suicide, for he was not
committing a felony when he attempted suicide. An act which
is not punishable by the RPC is attempting to commit
suicide.
B, who was being fired at with a gun by C to kill him, fired his pistol at
the latter in self-defense, but missed him and instead killed D.
 B is not criminally liable. One acting in self-defense is not
committing a felony
 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
During a robbery in a jeepney, one of the culprits told the women
passengers to bring out their money and not to shout or else there will
be shots. One of the women jumped. She died.
 The culprit is liable. When he demanded money and
threatening to shoot them if they would not bring it out, a
felony was committed.
 If a person whom a criminal assault is directed against
reasonably believes himself to be in danger of death or great
bodily harm, impelled by the instinct of self-preservation,
assailant is liable.
 Wrong done must be the direct, natural and logical
consequence of a felonious act.
1) The victim was threatened with a knife, so he
jumped into the water, and drown.
2) Other causes cooperated in producing the fatal
results, as long as the wound inflicted is dangerous,
to destroy or endanger life.
3) The victim was suffering from internal malady
*A- tuberculosis-B gave him fist blows. B is liable
*A-malady-B gave him fist blows-B is liable for his
acts accelerated the death of A
4) The offended party refused to submit to a surgical
operation.
5) The resulting injury was aggravated by infection.
PROXIMATE CAUSE – 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. People v Mananquil
 NATURAL – occurrence in the ordinary course of human life
 LOGICAL – rational connection between the act of the
accused and the resulting injury or damage
The felony committed is NOT the proximate cause when:
1. There is an active force that intervened between the felony
committed and the resulting injury
2. The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the Quinto v Andres
victim.
The ff are not efficient intervening causes:
1) The weak or physical condition of the victim (e.g: heart
disease)
2) Nervousness or temperament of the victim
3) Causes which are inherent to the victim (e.g: not knowing
how to swim; tuba drinking) People v Quianzon
4) Neglect of the victim to refuse medical assistance or surgical
operation
5) Erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical treatment
When death is presumed to be the natural consequence of
physical injuries inflicted
1) The victim was in normal health
2) The death may be expected from the PI sustained
3) The death ensued within a reasonable time.
 A person is not criminally liable for all the consequences
which may immediately follow his felonious act, but only for
such are proximate.
Urbano v IAC
A struck B and knocked him down. A horse jumped on A causing his
death.
 B is not responsible. The jumping of the horse is the active
force which produced such result. (People v Rockwell)
A inflicted physical injuries on B. B immerses himself deliberately in a
contaminated cesspool.
 A is not liable; not proximate cause
Is the accused responsible for the result, if there is a neglect of the
wound or there is an improper treatment of the wound?
 The neglect of the wound or it unskillful and improper
treatment, which are of themselves consequences of the
criminal act, and which might naturally follow in any case,
must in law be deemed to have been among those PP v Marco
consequences which were in the contemplation of the guilty
party. Unskillful and improper treatment may be an active
force, but it is not a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from
the criminal act
Is the accused criminally liable for the consequences which originate
through the fault or carelessness of the injured person?
 Yes. All persons who are responsible for an act constituting
a crime are also liable for all the consequences arising
therefrom and inherent therein, other than those due to
incidents entirely foreign to the act executed, or which
originate through the fault of carelessness of the injured
person. Valenzuela v PP
People v Iligan
 Fernando Iligan hacked Esmeraldo Quiňones, who was later
hit by a truck
 Iligan = liable
 Murder to Homicide IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES –
 The intentional felony was the hacking of the head
 Hacking – not the direct cause, but it was the proximate
cause of Esmeraldo’s death
 One unbroken chain of events
 Valentina Mananquil
 Elias Day - pneumonia
 Gasoline to Elias – burns
 Pneumonia was the complication of the burns sustained
 Liable
 Executive Clemency
 Edison Garcia – did not join his friends in fishing
 Wilson Quinto – died after fishing – cause of death: drowning
with traumatic head injuries
 Dante Andres & Randyver Pacheco
 Acquitted for lack of evidence
 Andres Aribuabo went to the kitchen to ask food from Juan
Quianzon
 Q got irritated – applied a firebrank on A’s neck – attacked
him also with a bamboo spit, causing A’ injury in the
abdomen
 A died.
 Q = wound inflicted was not fatal; A would have survived if
he did not remove the drainage
 Murder to Homicide = A’s death would have still followed
even if he did not remove the drainage. The wound inflicted
was the cause which determined A’s death, without being
able to counteract its effects.
 Filomeno Urbano hacked Marcelo Javier on his right palm
and left leg
 Settlement: PhP 700
 Javier suffered from lockjaw convulsions due to a tetanus
toxins – died
 Testimonies: Javier immediately went back to work after he
was properly healed; bare hands – exposed the wounds to
tetanus
 Homicide to SPI, but Urbano’s liability was extinguished by
the CA
 Infection of the wound was an efficient intervening cause
later or between the time Javier was wounded. Remote
cause. Tetanus was the proximate cause.
 Constancio Sabalbero was approached by Simeon Marco –
hunting knife – Constancio ran – he met Rafael Marco –
round cane
 Vicente Sabalbero came. He ran with his sons.
 Bienvenido was stabbed by Rafael – ran again but was
tripped by vines and fell – Dulcisimo Beltran stabbed him,
followed by Simeon
 Rafael = Murder to SPI. His acts were not connected with D
and S. the death of B was not the direct, natural and logical
consequence of the wound inflicted by Rafael. There was an
active intervening cause.
 Aristotle Valenzuela and Jovy Calderon – Super Sale Club
 SG Lorenzo Lago
 Consummated Theft
Requisites:
1) The act performed would be an offense against persons
or property
 2)Act was done with an evil intent
3)Its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that the
means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual
4) Act perform should not constitute a violation against RPC
Examples:
1) When one tries to kill another by putting in his soup a
substance which he believes to be arsenic when in fact
is a common salt
2) When on tries to murder a corpse
A, who wanted to kill B, looked for him. When A saw B, he found out
that B was already dead. A still stabbed B to satisfy his grudge.
o A did not commit an impossible crime, for A knew that B was
already dead when he stabbed his lifeless body.
A, with intent to gain, took a watch from B’s pocket. When A had the
watch in his possession, he found out that it was the watch which he
lost a week before.
o It is an impossible crime. The act performed could have been
theft, but there is a legal impossibility of accomplishing it
because in theft, the personal property taken must belong to
another.
A wants to poison B. A uses a small quantity of arsenic and mixes it
with B’s food. B is not killed.
o It is an impossible crime, for the means employed were
insufficient and inadequate to kill a person
o If in case the means employed was sufficient, the crime
committed was attempted murder.
A put sugar on B’s soup, thinking it was arsenic.
o It is an impossible crime. The means employed was
ineffectual.
A fired his trigger to B. No bullets were fired. Empty.
o IC; ineffectual means
 In an impossible crime, the act performed should not
constitute another violation of another provision of this Code.
Intod v CA
 Sulpicio Intod et.al peppered bullets at Bernardina
Palangpangan’s house
 No one was inside the house
 Impossible Crime. Factual impossibility because of
Palangpangan’s absence.
People v Domasian
 Enrico Agra was abducted by Pablito Domasian
 Tricycle – Alexander Grate
 Enrico got saved – Pablito escaped
 Dr. Agra received a ransom note – Dr. Tan’s handwriting
 Kidnapping with Serious Illegal Detention.
 It is not an impossible crime for there was no inherent
improbability for its accomplishment; conspiracy exists
ART. 5 – Duty of the court in connection with acts which should
be repressed but which are not covered by the law, and in cases
of excessive penalties. Whenever a court has knowledge of any act
which it may deem proper to repress, and which is not punishable by
law, it shall render the proper decision and shall report to the Chief
Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons which
induce the court to believe that said act should be made the subject
of penal legislation.
In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief
Executive, through the Department of Justice, such statement as may
be deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence,
when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result
in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into
consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the
offense.
Art. 6 – Consummated, frustrated and attempted felonies.
Consummated felonies, as well as those which are frustrated and
attempted, are punishable.
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary
for its execution and accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated
when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as a consequence, but which, nevertheless, do not
produce it by reasons of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator.
There is an attempt when the offender commences the
commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform
all the act of execution which should produce the felony by reason of
some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
Development of a Crime
1) Internal Acts – mere ideas in the mind of a person; not
punishable
2) External Acts –
a. Preparatory Acts
 Buying of poison
 Carrying of inflammable materials
b. Acts of Execution – attempted, frustrated or
consummated
ELEMENTS OF ATTEMPTED FELONY
1) The offender commences the commission of a felony by
directly overt acts
2) He does not perform all the acts of execution which should
produce the penalty
3) The offender’s act is not stopped by his own spontaneous
desistance
4) The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to the
cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance
OVERT ACTS – is a physical activity or deed, indicating the intention
to commit a crime, more than a mere planning or preparation, which
will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense
 ELEMENTS:
1. External Acts
2. Such external acts have direct connection with the crime
intended to be committed
INDETERMINATE OFFENSE – one where the purpose of the
offender in performing an act is not certain
A picked the pocket of B to get hold of his wallet containing money. A
could not remove it. B grabbed A’s hand.
o A is only guilty of an attempted felony, for he fails to perform
all the acts of execution bc of B’s discovery.
A fired his pistol at B, but it jammed.
o A is liable for an attemted felony. Accident
 If the actor does not perform all the acts of execution by
reason of his own spontaneous desistance, there is no
attempted felony. The law does not punish them.
 The desistance should be made before all the acts of
execution are performed.
A, with intent to kill, fired his pistol at B, but did not hit him. B cried. A
desisted.
o A is not liable for attempted homicide, but for grave threats.
A should not be exempted for the crime he committed before
his desistance.
 People v Campuhan
ELEMENTS OF FRUSTRATED FELONY  Ma. Corazon Pamintuan (mother)
1) The offender performs all the acts of execution  Crysthel (4 years old)
2) All the acts performed would have produced the felony as a  Primo Campuhan – knelt before Crysthel
consequence  Attempted Rape
3) But, the felony is not produced  No proof; no erection yet
4) By reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator People v Lamahang
 Police (Jose Tumambing) – on patrol
A, with intent to kill, fires his gun at B. The wound inflicted on B was  Aurelio Lamahang
a) not mortal – Attempted; b) mortal – Frustrated
 Store of cheap goods @ Fuentes St., Iloilo – iron bar
 Attempted Robbery to Trespass to Dwelling
FRUSTRATED ATTEMPTED
 His evident intention was only to enter the premises. His final
o Offender has o Offender commences
objective, once he succeeded in entering was know known
performed all the acts the commission of a
of execution felony directly by overt
People v Salvilla
acts, and does not
 Bienvenido Salvilla with companions – robbery @ New
perform all the acts of
Iloiolo Lumber Yard
execution
o Offender has reached o Subjective phase  Rodita Habelbero – hold up
the objective phase  Severino Choco – owner
o There is no o There is intervention Daughters: Mary and Mimi
intervention of a and the offender does  Took cash and other valuables – hostage
foreign or extraneous not arrive at the point  OIC Mayor – negotiated
cause or agency of performing all the  Mary’s leg was amputated
between the beginning acts which should  Consummated Robbery
of the consummation produce the crime  Not necessary that the robber was able to get hold of the
of the crime, and the properties
moment all acts have
been performed Leonidas v People
 Crisaldo Alberto (victim)
CONSUMMATED FELONY  Leonidas Epifanio (accused)
- All the elements for the respective crime committed shall be  Allan Perez (witness)
present  Walking – narrow pathway – bladed weapon
 Stabbing at the back
HOW TO DETERMINE WHETHER A CRIME IS A, F or C  Attempted Murder
1) Nature of a Crime  Leonidas never passed the subjective phase. Stopped short
2) Elements by his voluntary desistance
3) Manner of committing the crime
o Consummated Crime People v Sy Pio
o Crimes consummated by mere attempt or  Sy Pio – gun – store @ Misericordia, Sta. Cruz, Manila
proposal or by an overt act  Pistol – 1st shot: Jose Sy
o Felony by omission
 Tan Siong Kiap – asked – was fired – ran
o Crimes requiring the intervention of 2 persons
 Ong Pian – boss – different venue
to commit them are consummated by mere
agreement  Kiap and Sy – P70 issue – gamblinhg
o Material crimes - 3 stages  Frustrated Murder to Attempted Murder
 Kiap had escaped
 Drawing of a gun = no crime
 Firing; jammed = attempted People v Ravelo
 Mortal wound = frustrated  Pedro Ravelo with companions
 Killed = consummated  Reynaldo Gaurano – kidnapped while walkibg along Tandag
bridge; was brought to Brgy. Avasian – Detained – kept and
US v Eduave locked at Pedro’s house for 10 hrs – assaulted and was burnt
 Protacio Eduave  Next day: Joey Lugatima – kidnapped – was brought to
companion’s house – tied with a nylon – told to be killed at
 8 ½ inches; 2 inches deep
9am – escaped – police
 Threw the body into the bushes
 Murder (Gaurano)
 Frustrated Murder.
 Frustrated Murder to Slight Physical Injuries
 Crime was not produced due to something beyond his
 Verbal expression is not sufficient to show an actual design
control
of perpetrating a crime.
People v Orita
People v Kalalo
 Cielito Orita
 Land dispute between Isabel Holgado And Marcelo Kalalo
 Cristina Abayan
 Parcel of land @ Barrio Calumpang, San Luis, Batangas
 Balisong – boarding house
 Isabel and Arcadio – land plow – Marcelo knew
 No penetration
 Brothers: Felipe and Juan; BiL: Gregorio; Cousin: Alejandro
 Frustrated Rape to Consummated Rape
Garcia; Mother: Fausta; Aunt: Alipia
 Perfect penetration not required
 Bolos – ordered – land plow – stop
 Isabel with Maria Guiterrez and Hilarion Holgado arrived
  Marcelino Panaligan and Arcadio = resume
 Bolo fight
 Marcelo v Arcadio – 6 slashes
 Felipe, Juan and Gregorio v Marcelo – 14 slashes
 Marcelo fired shots at Hilarion – 4 times
 Arcadio and Marcelo’s death = Murder to Homicide
 Hilarion = Discharge of Firearms to Attempted Homicide
US v Dominguez
 Dominguez – salesman @ PHL Education Company
 Sale of books – P 7.50 – pocketed
 Frustrated Estafa
 No damage. Abuse of confidence
Pozar v CA
 James Gregory Pozar – American – SPI
 Probation – Danilo Ocampo
 Documents – P 100
 Corruption of public officials = NO
 Lapsed of 6 months; no reason to conclude that the act of
advancing payment was needed to hasten his application
People v Hernandez
 Miguel Dayrit – roof – on fire – saw Hernandez holding a
stick and was running away from the house
 Hernandez – culprit – stick with a rag soak with petroleum
 Consummated Arson
US v Valdez
 Mrs. MD Lewin – phonecall from Mrs. Auckback
 Smoke – lower portion of the house
 Paulino Banal – servant – found a burning jute sack and rag
soaked with kerosene which were placed between the
house’s post and partition of entresol
 That time, Severino Valdez was in the entresol
 Frustrated Arson
 All acts; fire was extinguished on time
Velasco v People
 Frederick Maramba – cleaning his jeep
 Rodolfo Velasco – fired 6 shots at Maramba not knowing he
wears a vest
 Attempted Murder
 Velasco failed to consummate the crime because of his poor
aim and swiftness of Maramba
Baleros v People
 Maria Loudes Albano (Malou) – UST
 Marvilou (maid)
 Renato Baleros (Chito) – piece of cloth with dizzying effects
 Bed – pinned down – lying on top of Malou with carnal
knowledge
 Malou kicked Chito and squeeze his sex organ
 Attempted Rape to Light Coercion
 Chito was fully clothed and that there was no intention to
undress Malou. Unjust Vexation
People v Almazan
 Henry Almazan – 12 fighting cocks were stolen
 Searched – went to Vicente Madriaga’s house
 Used .38 caliber and fired at Angel Soliva – ran
 Almazan then shot Noli – died and Noel – was hit in the thigh
 Noli = Murder
 Noel = Frustrated Murder to Attempted Murder
 Not fatal
People v Listerio
 Agapito Listerio and his group, with lead pipes and bladed
weapon
 Jeonito Araque and brother, Marlon – stabbed
 Frustrated Murder to Attempted Homicide
 Marlon’s attacker thought he was dead
People v dela Cruz
 Cecilia Caparos (neighbor)
 Rosemarie dela Cruz
 Whiazel Soriano
 School
 Consummated Kidnapping with SIL to Attempted
Kidnapping with SIL
 Commenced her criminal scheme by taking hold of
Whiazel’s hand and by leading her out of the school’s
premises
ART. 7 – When light felonies are punishable. Light felonies are
punishable only when they have been consummated, with the
exception of those committed against persons or property.
LIGHT FELONIES – mere infractions of law for the commission of
which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos,
or both, is provided.
- Slight PI
- Theft
- Alteration of boundary marks
- Malicious mischief
- Intriguing against honor
Art. 8 – Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony – Conspiracy
and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in
which the law specially provides a penalty therefore
A conspiracy exists when 2 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.
The RPC provided a penalty for mere conspiracy in the ff cases:
- Conspiracy to commit treason
- Conspiracy to commit coup d’ etat, rebellion or
insurrection
- Conspiracy to commit sedition
 When the conspiracy relates to any of the crimes of treason,
rebellion and sedition, but any of them is actually committed,
the conspiracy is not a separate offense; it is only a manner
of incurring criminal liability
 RA 6425 punishes the mere conspiracy to sell, deliver and
distribute prohibited drugs.
Indications of Conspiracy
- When the defendants by their acts aimed at the same object,
one performing one part and the other performing another
act, so as to complete it with the view to the attainment of
the same object, and their acts, through apparently
independent, were in fact concerted and cooperative,
indicating closeness of personal association, concerted
action and concurrence of sentiments, the courts will be
justified that they were engaged in a conspiracy.
- Conspiracy = there’s unity of purpose and unity in the
execution of the unlawful acts
- Collective responsibility when all the accused acted in
concert, each doing his part to fulfill the common design to
kill their victim.
 - The acts of the defendants show common design and unity
of purpose.
- It is not necessary to prove a previous agreement to commit
a crime if there is a proof that the malefactors have acted in
concert and in pursuance of a common objectives
REQUISITES OF CONSPIRACY
1) 2 or more persons come to an agreement
2) The agreement concerned the commission of a felony
3) The execution of the felony be decided upon
REQUISITES OF PROPOSAL
1) A person has decided to commit a felony
2) He proposes its execution to some other person/s
There is no criminal proposal when:
 The person who proposes is not determined to commit the
felony
- A desires that the present govt be overthrown, but
he’s afraid to do it himself, so he suggested it to
others
 There is no decided, concrete and formal proposal
- Above ex: mere suggestion only
 It is not the execution of a felony that is proposed
People v Comadre
 Robert Agbanlog with friends – drinking spree @ Jaime
Agbanlog’s house
 Robert noticed George, Antonio (both Comadre) and Danilo
Lozano – dropped a grenade on the roof of the terrace
 All were hospitalized (shrapnel injuries)
 Robert died
 RTC: Complex Crime of Murder with Multiple Murder (with
conspiracy)
 SC: no conspiracy; RTC ruling affirmed only to Antonio
 Mere presence of George and Danilo at the scene and their
familial bonds was not enough to establish conspiracy,
considering that they did not perform any act for the
furtherance of the crime
 They were just merely looking when Antonio threw the
grenade
Kingstone Li v People
1) Prosecution
 Christopher Arugay – TV with GF and sister
 Peeked thru the window
 Kingstone Li and Eddie Boy Sangalang were taking a bath
naked outside Arugay’s house
 Shouting match – street brawl – Li hit Arugay on the head –
Li stabbed Arugay
2) Defense
 Li – TV – bottles
 Shouting match – street brawl – fought with knives
 RTC: Homicide with Conspiracy
 SC: No conspiracy
 Sangalang’s act of stabbing Arugay is a sponataneous
reaction because he saw his friend being struck in the head
Garcia v People
 CPL Francisco Rolleraie
 Fidelino, Wilfredo and Leopoldo (all Garcia) – ganged up
Paulino Olgera
 Stabbing – bolo – repeat
 RTC: Conspiracy
 SC: No conspiracy
 Failure to include in the information
People v Tabuso
 Renato Datingginoo (witness)
 Arnold Mendoza, Arquillos Tabuso and others
 Renato “Dagul” Bugarin – sustained 2 gun shots in the lungs
 RTC: Murder with Conspiracy
 SC: No conspiracy
 Mendoza was the one who shot Bugarin. Tabuso was blind;
he cannot serve as a lookout
People v Manero
 Manero Brothers (Norberto, Edilberto, Elpidio), companions
and Arsenio Villamor – conspired to kill communist
symphatizers
 Fr. Peter Geremias – original victim
 Bantil/ Rufino Robles – Attempted Murder case involvement
– commotion between him and Manero brothers
 Bantil escaped, and went to Fr. Peter Domingo-Gomez’
house
 Fr. Tulio Favali arrived
 Norberto fired at Favali’s head – jumped over 3x – kick 2x –
shattered the priest’s head – brain scattered on the road –
flaunted Fr’s head to his comrades
 RTC: Murder with Conspiracy
 Severino Lines, Rudy Lines, Efren Plenago and Roger
Bendano appealed
 SC: Affirmed
 Alibis cannot prevail over positive identifications of the
witnesses.
 Not merely bystanders bc they have executed acts to ensure
the commission of the crime
People v Pugay
 Benjamin Samson – mentally retarded
 Bayani Miranda – poured gasoline
 Fernando Pugay – burn Samson
 SC: no conspiracy
 No evidence establishing that they concerted with the act
 Individual acts
 Pugay = Homicide thru Reckless Imprudence
 Samson = Homicide
Art. 9 – Grave Felonies, Less Grave Felonies and Light Felonies.
Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital
punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in
accordance with Art. 25 of this Code.
Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with
penalties which in their maximum period are correctional, in
accordance with the above-mentioned article.
Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission
of which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200
pesos, or both, is provided.
Art. 10 – Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code.
Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special
laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be
supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide
the contrary.
 Where the special law adopted penalties from RPC, the rules
for graduating penalties by degrees or determining the
proper period should be applied
 Article 6 of RPC cannot be applied to offenses punished by
special laws
 Article 10 is not applicable to punish an accomplice under
the special law
Ladonga v People
  SPS. Adronico and Evangeline Ladonga – regular
customers in the pawnshop of Alfredo Oculam – loan 3x
 3 post-dated checks as security to the loan
 Insufficiency of deposits and Account closed
 Adronico – signatory; issuer
 Evangeline – was just present during the signing
 SPS – BP 22
 Is conspiracy applicable to SL = YES
 BP 22 – no prohibition against the applicability of RPC’s
suppletory character
 Evangeline – acquitted; no participation; no criminal design
People v Simon
 NARCOM operative – illegal activities of Alyas Pusa @
Guagua, Pampanga
 Buy-bust
 Informant pointed Martin Simon
 Sgt. Buenaventura Lopez acted as poseur buyer – 2 teabags
for P40 @ 3. 8 kgs
 RTC: viol of RA 6425; life imprisonment
 W/N RA 6425 be given retroactive effect to entitle Simon to
a lesser penalty under RPC
 YES. RA 6425 applies only to 750g; adopted penalties under
RPC
 LP to AM (min) to PC (max)
Art. 11 – Justifying Circumstances – The following do not incur
criminal liability:
1) Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided
that the ff circumstances concur:
1st: Unlawful Aggression
2nd: Reasonable necessity for the means employed to
prevent or repel it
3rd: Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself
2) Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his
spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural, or
adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in
the same degrees, and those by consanguinity within the
fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second
requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are
present, and the further requisite, in case the provocation
was given by the person attacked, that the one making
defense had no part therein.
3) Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a
stranger, provided that the first and second requisites
mentioned in the first circumstance of this article are present
and that the person defending be not induced by revenge,
resentment or the evil motive.
4) Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an
act which causes damage to another, provided that the
following requisites are present:
1st: The evil sought to be avoided actually exists
2nd: The injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it
3rd: There be no other practical and less harmful means of
preventing it
5) Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the
lawful exercise of a right or office
6) Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a
superior for some lawful purpose.
SELF-DEFENSE
1) Unlawful Aggression
 equivalent to assault or at least threatened
assault of an immediate and imminent kind
 peril to one’s life, limb or right is actual or
imminent
 actual physical force or use of weapon
 actual, sudden and unexpected attack
 cannot consist in oral threats or a merely
threatening stance
 insulting words, without physical assault, do
not constitute unlawful aggression
 slapping
 mere belief on an impending attack is not UA
 when the aggressor flees, UA ceases
UA in defense of other rights:
a. Defense of right to chastity – e.g: placing of hands
on a woman’s body part
b. Defense of property – can be invoked only when it
is coupled with an attack on the person entrusted
with said property
c. Defense of Home – entry to another’s home at
nighttime. The owner of the house need not wait for
a blow before repelling the aggression
 There is self-defense even if the aggressor used a toy
pistol, provided the accused believed it was a real gun
 When intent to attack is manifested, picking up a weapon
is sufficient UA
2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it
 Whether the means employed is reasonable,
will depend upon the nature and quality of the
weapon
 It does not imply material commensurability
between the means of attack and defense
 Perfect equality between the weapon used by
the one defending himself and that of the aggressor is
not required, because the person assaulted does not
have sufficient tranquility of mind to think, to calculate
and to choose which weapon to use
3) Lack of sufficient provocation – it is present when
 No provocation at all was given
 If there’s provocation, it was not sufficient
 If the provocation was sufficient, it was not given by the
person defending himself
 Even if a provocation was given by the person defending
himself, it was not proximate and immediate to the act of
aggression
The provocation is sufficient when:
 One challenges the deceased to come out to come out of
the house and engage in a fist-fight with law and prove who
is a better man
 One hurls insults or imputes another utterances or vulgar
language, and such imputation provoke the other to attack
BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME
 Definition: patterns of psychological and behavioral
symptoms found in women living in battering relationship as
a result of cumulative abuse
 Passage of RA 9262 (April 27, 2004) , BWS can now be
invoked as defense notwithstanding the absence of any of
the justifying circumstances under the RPC
DEFENSE OF RELATIVES
 Husband who killed a man because he was on top of his wife
 A father who aided his son when he was being attacked
DEFENSE OF STRANGERS
  A heard screams and cries for help. When A responded, he
saw B attacking his wife with a dagger. A approached B and
struggled for the possession of the weapon, in the course of
which A inflicted wounds on B.

AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL OR INJURY

 Killing of the fetus to save the life of a mother
 Self-preservation will always make one feel that his own
safety is of greater importance than that of another
 When the accused was not avoiding any evil, he cannot
invoke such
 Fire breaks out – nipa houses were pulled down
 Storm – ship was heavily loaded with cargoes – captain
ordered the goods thrown overboard

FULFILLLMENT OF A DUTY
 Shooting of an offender who refused to surrender
 Doctrine of self-help
 A doctor who amputated the leg of a patient to save him from
gangrene is not liable for the crime of mutilation

OBEDIENCE TO AN ORER
 The subordinate is not liable for carrying out an illegal order
of his superior, if he is not aware of the illegality of the order
and he is not negligent