THEORIES
Different philosophies underlying the criminal
law system: (4 schools of thought):
1) Classical or juristic theory
a) Basis of criminal liability is human
free will. Man has the capacity to
choose between right and wrong,
good and evil. Hence, when he
ELEMENTS:
A) Act performed would be an offense
against persons or property;
1. Parricide Art. 246
2) Murder Art. 248
3) Homicide Art. 249
4) Infanticide Art. 255
5) Abortion Arts.256, 257, 258 &
259;
6) Duel Arts. 260 & 261
7) Physical Injuries Arts. 262, 263, 264,
265 & 266.
Crimes against Property:
1) Robbery Arts. 294, 297, 298, 299,
300, 302 & 303;
2) Brigandage Arts. 306 & 307
3) Theft Arts. 308. 310 & 311
4) Usurpation Arts. 312 & 313;
5) Culpable Insolvency Art. 314;
6) Swindling & other Deceits Arts. 315,
316, 317 & 318
7) Chattel Mortgage Art. 319
8) Arson & other crimes involving
destruction Arts. 320, 321, 322, 323,
324, 325 & 326.
9) Malicious Mischiefs Arts. 327, 328,
329, 330 & 331.
Why only crimes against persons &
property?- Because these crimes involved
moral depravity.
Ex. Inadequate means Using a small
quantity of poison by mixing it in the food,
thinking it was enough.
Two kinds of inherent impossibility:
1) Legal impossibility it occurs where
the intended acts, even if completed would
not amount to a crime. It would apply to
those circumstances where: 1) the motive,
desire and expectation is to perform an act
in violation of the law; 2) there is intention
to perform the physical act; 3) there is
performance of the intended physical act;
4) the consequence resulting from the
intended act does not amount to a crime.
(ex. Killing a dead person).
2) Factual or physical impossibility- This
occurs when extraneous circumstances
unknown to the actor or beyond his control
prevent the consummation of the intended
crime. Ex. A thief who picks the pocket of
& finds the same empty.
Article 49: Penalty to be imposed upon the
principals when the crime committed is
different from that intended:
1) If the penalty prescribed for the
felony committed be higher than that
corresponding to the offense which the
accused intended to commit, the penalty
corresponding to the latter shall be
imposed in the maximum period.
2) If the penalty prescribed for the felony
committed be lower than that
corresponding to the one which the
accused intended to commit the penalty
for the former shall be imposed in its
maximum period.
Article 59 Penalty for impossible crimes
the court having in mind the social
danger and the degree of criminality
shown by the offender, shall impose upon
the offender the penalty of Arresto Mayor
or a fine ranging from 200 to 500 pesos.
ARTICLE 5-
- Duty of the courts in connection with acts
which should be repressed but which are
not covered by the laws and in cases of
excessive penalties.
Whenever the 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 DOJ, 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 DOJ,
such statement as may be deemed proper
without suspending the execution of the
sentence, when a strict enforcement of the
provisions of the 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. ( Cases of former Pres. Estrada
and Jalosjos).
CLASSIFICATION OF CRIMES
Two:
1) Formal crimes are those which are
always consummated by a single act. Ex.
Slander.
2) Material crimes are those which
have 3 stages :Attempted, Frustrated and
Consummated.
DEVELOPMENT OF CRIME
ARTICLE 11 JUSTIFYING
CIRCUMSTANCES are those where the
act of the person is said to be in
accordance w/ law, so that such person
is deemed not to have transgressed the
law and is free from both criminal and civil
liability.
- No civil liability- except under par. 4
by the person benefited.
The law recognizes the non-existence
of a crime do not incur criminal liability.
1) Self-defense any one who acts in
defense of his person or rights, provided
the following circs. Concur:
a) Unlawful aggression
b) Reasonable necessity of the
means employed to repeal it; &
c) Lack of sufficient provocation on
the part of the person defending
himself.
.
1) Unlawful Aggression positively strong
act with wrongful intent.
a) Actual means an actual attack with
the use of physical force or weapon- ex.
act of stabbing; shooting.
b) Imminent an attack that is impending
or at the point of happening- Pp. vs.
Nabayra (1991)- There must be a real
danger; not a mere threatening attitude-
- ex. aiming a gun and brandishing
a bolo; (not holding his waistline).
Agreement to fight not unlawful
aggression except if one violates the
agreement.
If unlawful aggression ceases no more
aggression- not justified revenge (Pp. vs.
Alconga 78 Phil. 366)
Unlawful aggression is a material
aggression, an offensive act which
positively determines the intent of the
aggressor to cause the injury (Pp. vs.
Sabio 19 SCRA -901)
There is no unlawful aggression when the
peril to ones life, limb or right is neither
actual or imminent (Pp. vs. Crisostomo-
108 SCRA- 288)
Impt. element -UA w/o it no complete
self-defense- Pp. vs. Bausing 1991;
( Incomplete self-defense).
2) Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to repeal it Pp. vs. Gatual
254 SCRA no need of mathematical
calculation of the material
commensurability between the means
B) MINORITY :
Youthful offender is a child, minor or
youth, including one who is emancipated
in accordance with law, who is over nine
but under eighteen years of age at the
time of the commission of the offense.
( Art.189 Pres. Decree No. 603- Child &
Youth Welfare Code).
Minors are classified as:
1) person under 9 years old
2) person over 9 years of age and
under 15, unless he has acted with
discernment, in which case, such minor
shall be proceeded against in accordance
w/ the provs. of PD 603 ( Child & Youth
Welfare Code).
Old provisions of the law:
1) children under 9 years- absolute
exemption;
2) children over 9 but under 15- w/o
discernment absolute exemption;
3) children over 9 but under 15- w/
discernment- tried- if convicted sentence
will be suspended- if he commits another
crime, he will be charged and if convicted
the suspended sentence will be
promulgated and he will serve his previous
conviction and the second conviction.
4) children over 15 but under 18 tried
and if found guilty promulgation of
sentence is suspended. Same proc.
as in no. 3.
Basis: Arts. 189 & 192 PD 603:
A child over 9 years of age or under at
the time of the commission of the offense
shall be exempt from criminal liability and
shall be committed to the care of his or her
father or mother, or nearest relative or
family friend in the discretion of the court
and subject to its supervision. The same
shall be done for a child over 9 but under
15 years of age at the time of the
commission of the offense, unless he
acted with discernment, in which case he
shall be proceeded in accordance with Art.
192.
Discernment-means the mental capacity to
fully appreciate the consequences of ones
unlawful acts (Pp. vs. Navarro) or to
determine the difference between right
and wrong. This may be shown and
should be determine by considering all the
circumstances afforded by the record of
the case, his appearance, his attitude,
and his behavior and conduct, not only
before and during the commission of the
act but also after and even during the trial
(Pp. vs. Doquena 68 Phil. 580).
Pp. vs. Alcabao- 44 O.G. 5006- a child, 11
years of age, with a sling shot hit the right
eye of the offended party causing serious
injuries, and after hitting him, still uttered
bad remarks. This showed that the
accused realized the nature of his
wrongful act and he, therefore, acted with
discernment.
Art. 196: If it is shown to the satisfaction of
the court that the offender whose sentence
has been suspended, has behaved
properly and has shown his capability
to be a useful member of the community,
even before reaching the age of majority,
upon recommendation of the DSWD, it
shall dismiss the case and order his final
discharge.
Art. 197: Whenever the youthful offender
has been found incorrigible or has wilfully
failed to comply with the conditions of
his rehabilitation programs, or should his
continued stay in the training institution be
inadvisable, he shall be returned to the
committing court for the pronouncement of
sentence.
When the youthful offender has reached
the age of 21 while in commitment, the
court shall determine whether to dismiss
the case or pronounce the judgment. In
this caser, the offender can avail of
probation and he shall be credited in the
service of his sentence with full time spent
in the actual commitment and detention.
C) ACCIDENT:
Accident- is any happening beyond
the control of a person the consequences
of which are not foreseeable. If
foreseeable there is culpa.
Accident is an occurrence that happens
outside the sway of our will, and altho it
comes about through some act of our will,
lies beyond the bounds of humanly
foreseeable consequences. It connotes
absence of criminal intent.
Elements:
a) performance of a lawful act;
b) with due care;
c) causes injury to another by mere accident;
and
d) without any fault or intention of causing it.
Pp. vs. Bindoy- 56 Phil. 15- if in the struggling
with another who sought to wrest away his bolo,
to defend his possession the defendant
wounded a bystander, who died as a conse-
D) COMPULSION OF IRRESISTIBLE
FORCE Any person who acts under the
compulsion of irresistible force.
- The irresistible force must be physical
and must come from a third person.
It cannot spring primarily from the offender
himself (Pp. vs. Fernando 33 SCRA 149)
The accused acted not only without will
but against his will.
U.S. vs. Caballeros 4 Phil. 850 the
offender was struck with the butts of the
guns of those who killed another to compel
him to bury their victim, he is not liable as
accessory because he acted under the
compulsion of an irresistible force.
Irresistible force- must produce such an
effect upon the individual that in spite of all
resistance, it reduces him to a mere
instrument and as such, incapable of
committing a crime. Such a force can
never consist in anything which springs
primarily from the man himself; it must be
a force which acts upon him from the
outside and by means of a third person
(Pp. vs. Serrano- 136 SCRA 391).
The duress, force, fear or intimidation
must be present, imminent and impending
and of such nature as to induce a well-
grounded apprehension of death or
serious bodily harm if the act is not done.
The compulsion must be one of such a
character as to leave no opportunity to the
accused for escape or self-defense in
equal combat (Pp. vs. Lorenzo 130
SCRA 311; Pp. vs. Patog 144 SCRA
429; Pp. vs. Nalipanat- 145 SCRA 483).
Elements:
1) The force must be physical, must
come from an outside source, and the
accused must act not only w/o a will but
even against his will;
2) The accused must be reduced to a
mere instrument, such that the element of
freedom is wanting; and
3) The duress, force, fear or intimidation
must be present, imminent and impending
and of such a nature as to induce a well-
grounded fear of death or serious bodily
injury if the act is not done.
The fear should not be speculative,
fanciful of imagined. It must be real. It is
based on the complete absence of
freedom on the part of the accused and
has its roots in the Latin maxim ACTUS
ME INVITO FACTUS NON EST MEUS
ACTUS which translates to AN ACT
DONE BY ME AGAINST MY WILL IS NOT
MY ACT.
The compulsion employed upon the
accused must have been of such
character as to leave no opportunity for
him to spring an escape to himself foist
any act of defense for self-preservation.
Thus, duress has been unavailing where
the accused had every opportunity to run
away if he had wanted to or resist any
possible aggression because he was also
armed (Pp. vs.Salvatierra- 71 SCAD)
E) IMPULSE OF UNCONTROLLABLE
FEAR the fear must be insuperable and
he who acts under this situation is
completely deprived of freedom.
Elements:
1) The threat which caused the fear
was of an evil greater than, or at least
equal to, that which the accused was
required to commit; and
2) it promised an evil of such gravity
and imminence that the ordinary man
would have succumbed to it ( Pp. vs.
Arizobal -5 CAR 901).
The compulsion must be of such
character as to leave no opportunity for
the accused to escape (Pp. vs. Parulan).
U.S. vs. Exaltacion 3 Phil. 339 the
accused was compelled under fear of
death to join the rebels, thus he is not
liable for Rebellion.
Pp. vs. Rene Siao Accused Reylan
Gimena, under gun point, was directed by
accused Siao to rape Erlinda. Both
Gimena and Siao were charged of the
crime of Rape. During the trial, accused
Gimena was able to prove that he was
acting under controllable fear. Between his
life and that of raping Erlinda, although he
knew that the act is illegal and wrong, he
had no other recourse but to do it,
otherwise, he would be killed. Instinct of
self- preservation is very important.
Gimena was acquitted. Siao was
convicted.
Distinction between IRRESISTIBLE
FORCE (IF) and UNCONTROLLABLE
FEAR ( UF) :
B) It is aggravating- if it is habitual or
intentional.
Pp. vs. Hernandez- No. L- 3391- accused
who plotted to kill the victim, had drunk
wine in order to embolden him carrying out
with his evil plan- aggravating.
Pp. vs. Calinawan G.R. No. 21413-R- if
one is somewhat drunk at the time of the
incident for having drunk tuba- mitigating.
To be aggravating, there must be evidence of
excessive and habitual use or specific purpose
to commit the crime by getting drunk, otherwise,
it will be mitigating (Pp. vs. Moral- 132 SCRA
474).
Pp. vs. Dumo 128 SCRA 663- The accused
cannot claim intoxication when he was able to
drive his tricycle to the place where he brought
the victim, made love to her, following which he
killed and dumped her in a well and then drove
his vehicle back to the place where he came
from, as such conduct shows that he had
complete control of his mental faculties.
3) Degree of Instruction & Education/ Lack of
Education- whether to be considered mitigating
or aggravating, depends upon the nature of the
crime committed. It is not illiteracy alone, but the
lack of intelligence of the offender that is
considered. If one is not considered literate but
is highly or exceptionally intelligent or mentally
alert or comes from a family of professionals, so
that he realizes the significance of his acts, there
is no mitigation.
If the crime is basically wrong, such as Parricide,
Theft or Rape- it is immaterial whether the
offender is schooled or not, because these are
forbidden by natural law.
High degree of learning is aggravating if he
takes advantage of it in the commission of the
crime. Ex. Lawyer- in the crime of Falsification or
a Doctor who kills his victim by the medicine he
prescribed.
In the crime of Treason, the decisions
vary. In the case of Pp. vs. Marasigan 47
O.G. 3229- it was held mitigating. But in
the case of Lansanas- 82 Phil. 193- it was
considered aggravating, because love of
country is the natural feeling of every
citizen no matter how unlettered or
uncultured he may be.
ARTICLE 16- WHO ARE
CRIMINALLY LIABLE-
h) Public Censure-
- May Censure be included in the sentence of acquittal?-
No. Because censure is a penalty. If the accused is
acquitted, the court has no authority to censure him,
because no matter how light a punishment it may be, is
repugnant and is essentially contrary to acquittal. (Pp.
vs. Abellera- 69 Phil. 623). But if the court finds that the
acts charged and proved are immoral, unethical or
reprehensible, but such do not constitute a crime, the
court may exercise its disapproval of those acts to avoid
the impression that by acquitting the accused the court
approves the act or of his conduct (Pp. vs. Meneses- 74
Phil. 119).
i) Fine- (Art. 26)
1) Afflictive more than P6,000
2) Correctional- not less than P200 but not
more than P6,000
3) Light less than P200
This applies if the fine is imposed as a
single or alternative penalty (Pp. vs.
Basalo 101 Phil. 57). It does not apply if
imposed together with another penalty
(Pp. vs. Quinto- 60 Phil. 351).
Reconciliation between Art. 9 and Art. 26- Under Art. 9,
alight felony is defined as an infraction of law in which
the penalty is AMe. or a fine not exceeding P200. Under
Art. 26, a light fine is less than P200. So, a fine which is
exactly 200 is correctional.
If the issue is prescription of felony- Art. 9 will prevail
over Art. 26. Such offense will prescribe within two
months. But if the issue is prescription of penalty, Art. 26
will prevail and as such, will be considered correctional
and will prescribe in 10 years except AMa, which will
prescribe in 5 years ( Arts. 90, 91 and 92).
j) Pecuniary Liabilities (Art.38)
Order of Payment- in case the property of the
offender should not be sufficient for the payment
of all his pecuniary liabilities, the same shall be
met in the following order:
1) The reparation of the damage caused;
2) Indemnification of consequential damages;
3) Fine;
4) Costs of the proceedings.
1) Death
2) Reclusion Perpetua
3) Reclusion Temporal
4) Prision Mayor
5) Prision Correccional
6) Arresto Mayor
7) Destierro
8) Arresto Menor
9) Public Censure
10) Fine
SCALE NO. 2