CRIMINAL LAW 1

QUIZ

1. 1. Discuss the territoriality and extraterritoriality

principles in criminal law.
2. 2. Are you in favor of the reimposition of capital
punishment? Is death penalty a cruel and
inhuman punishment?
3. 3. Is motive the same as intent? Is motive material
in determining criminal liability? Explain.
4. 4. What is an ex post facto law?
WHAT IS CRIMINAL LAW?

Criminal law is a branch of

municipal law which defines
crimes, treats of their nature, and
provides for their punishment.
• If the crime is punished by
the Revised Penal Code, it is called
a felony; if by a special law, it is
called an offense; and if by an
ordinance, it is called
an infraction of an ordinance.
In the Philippines, there is no crime where there
is no law punishing it (nullum crimen, nulla poena
sine lege).

Common law crimes (also called court declared

crimes), such as running a disorderly house,
eavesdropping, and wasting police time that
were considered offenses in commonwealth
countries, are not recognized here.
No matter how reprehensible a human
conduct is, the actor cannot be subjected to
punishment if there is no clear definition of
the punishable offense and penalty that may
be imposed under a law. Under Article 5 of
the RPC, if there is no law punishing an act or
omission of which a person is charged, the
court must dismiss the case.
THEORIES IN CRIMINAL LAW

• Classical theory
• Positivist theory
• Eclectic philosophy
• Utilitarian theory
Under the classical theory, the basis of
criminal liability is human free will to
choose between good and evil. The basic
postulate of the classical penal system is
that humans are rational and calculating
beings who guide their actions with
reference to the principles of pleasure and
pain. They refrain from criminal acts if
threatened with punishment sufficient to
cancel the hope of possible gain or
advantage in committing the crime.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ROBERTO ESTRADA
(G.R. NO. 130487, JUNE 19, 2000 )

“The basic principle in our criminal law is that a person is

criminally liable for a felony committed by him. Under the
classical theory on which our penal code is mainly based, the
basis of criminal liability is human free will. Man is essentially
a moral creature with an absolutely free will to choose
between good and evil. When he commits a felonious or
criminal act, the act is presumed to have been done
voluntarily, i.e., with freedom, intelligence and intent. Man,
therefore, should be adjudged or held accountable for
wrongful acts so long as free will appears unimpaired.”
Under the positivist theory, the purpose of
penalties is to secure justice. The penalties
imposed must not only be retributive but
must also be reformative, to give the convict
an opportunity to live a new life and rejoin
society as a productive and civic-spirited
member of the community.
 NORMA DE JOYA VS. JAIL WARDEN OF BATANGAS
(G.R. NOS. 159418-19, DECEMBER 10, 2003)

“The positivist theory states that the basis for criminal

liability is the sum total of the social and economic
phenomena to which the offense is expressed.”

“The State is concerned not only in the imperative necessity

of protecting the social organization against the criminal
acts of destructive individuals but also in redeeming the
individual for economic usefulness and other social ends.”
 NORMA DE JOYA VS. JAIL WARDEN OF BATANGAS
(G.R. NOS. 159418-19, DECEMBER 10, 2003)

“The court has to consider not only the primary elements of

punishment, namely, the moral responsibility of the convict, the
relation of the convict to the private complainant, the intention of
the convict, the temptation to the act or the excuse for the crime -
was it done by a rich man in the insolence of his wealth or by a
poor man in the extremity of his need? The court must also take
into account the secondary elements of punishment, namely, the
reformation of the offender, the prevention of further offenses by
the offender, the repression of offenses in others.”
Classical Theory Positivist Theory

1. Man is essentially a moral creature with an 1. Man is subdued occasionally by a strange

absolutely free will to choose between good and and morbid phenomenon which conditions
evil. him to do wrong contrary to his volition.

2. Criminal liability is based on human free 2. Crime is essentially a social and moral
will and the purpose of the penalty is phenomenon and penalty is imposed for self-
retribution. defense.

3. Crime is a juridical entity and the penalty is 3. Basis of criminal responsibility is his
an evil and a means of juridical tutelage. dreadfulness or dangerous state
Eclectic (or mixed) philosophy combines good features
of classical and positivist theories. As contended by
many legal theorists, the classical theory should be
applied to heinous crimes, whereas the positivist
theory should be applied to socio-economic crimes.
The Philippines generally adapts the eclectic
philosophy. The Revised Penal Code belongs mainly
to the classical theory but Philippine penal law is
based on the Spanish penal code and has adopted
features of the positivist theory of criminal law
exemplified by the indeterminate sentence law,
impossible crime, juvenile justice, and probation.
In acquitting the accused from criminal liability under BP
22 for checks that bounced, the Supreme Court, in the case
Oriel Magno vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 96132, June 26,
1992, has invoked the utilitarian theory of criminal law
(protective theory). Consistent with this theory, the mala
prohibita principle punishing an offense regardless of
malice or criminal intent, should not be utilized to apply
the full harshness of the special law where the noble
objective of the law would be tainted with materialism and
opportunism.
“Petitioner could hardly be classified as a menace against whom
the society should be protected. While the gravamen of violation
of B.P. 22 is the issuance of worthless checks that are dishonored
upon their presentment for payment, we should not apply penal
laws mechanically. It is not the letter alone but the spirit of the
law also that gives it life. This is especially so in this case where a
debtor’s criminalization would not serve the ends of justice but in
fact subvert it. Considering that the money value of the two
checks issued by petitioner has already been effectively paid two
years before the informations against him were filed, we find
merit in this petition. We hold that petitioner herein could not be
validly and justly convicted or sentenced for violation of B.P. 22.”
(Teresita Alcantara Vergara vs. People of the Philippines, G.R.
No. 160328, February 04, 2005)
CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITATIONS
The constitutional limitations on the power of Congress to
enact penal laws are as follows:
(1) Equal protection;
(2) Due process;
(3) Non-imposition of cruel and unusual punishment or
excessive fine;
(4) Ex post facto law; and
(5) Bill of attainder. (2013 Bar Exam)
“No person shall be deprived of life,
liberty, or property without due process of
law, nor shall any person be denied the
equal protection of the laws.”

(Section 1, Article III of the Constitution)

The idea behind the equal protection is that
similar subjects should not be treated differently
so as to give undue favor to some and unjustly
discriminate against others. The guarantee
means that no person or class of persons shall be
denied the same protection of laws which is
enjoyed by other persons or other classes in like
circumstances.
JESUS C. GARCIA VS. HON. RAY ALAN DRILON
(G.R. NO. 179267, JUNE 25, 2013)

R.A. 9262 does not violate the guaranty of equal protection of the laws. The
Constitution does not require that things which are different in fact be
treated in law as though they were the same. The equal protection clause
does not forbid discrimination as to things that are different. It does not
prohibit legislation which is limited either in the object to which it is
directed or by the territory within which it is to operate. The distinction
between men and women is germane to the purpose of R.A. 9262, which is
to address violence committed against women and children. R.A. 9262
applies equally to all women and children who suffer violence and abuse.
“No person shall be held to answer for a
criminal offense without due process of law.”

(Article III, Section 14 [1] of the Constitution)

“The prohibition of cruel and unusual
punishments is generally aimed at the form or
character of the punishment rather than its
severity in respect of duration or amount, and
apply to punishment regarded as cruel or obsolete,
for instance, those inflicted at the whipping post,
or in the pillory, burning at the stake, and the like.
Fine and imprisonment would not thus be within
the prohibition. “(People of the Philippines vs.
Pablo de la Cruz, G.R. No. L-5790, April 17, 1953)
“It takes more than merely being harsh, excessive,
out of proportion, or severe for a penalty to be
obnoxious to the Constitution. The fact that the
punishment authorized by the statute is severe does
not make it cruel and unusual. It has been held that
to come under the ban, the punishment must be
flagrantly and plainly oppressive, wholly
disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to
shock the moral sense of the community.” (Lito
Corpuz vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
180016, April 29, 2014)
The constitutional proscription under the bill of rights
extends only to situations of extreme corporeal or
psychological punishment that strips the individual of his
humanity. Perpetual disqualification from public office
has been prescribed as a penalty for the repeated failure to
file the Statement of Contributions and Expenditures and
does not constitute cruel, degrading and inhuman
punishment. (Joel T. Maturan vs. COMELEC, G.R. No.
227155, March 28, 2017)
 “No ex post facto law or bill of attainder
shall be enacted.”

(Article III, Section 22 of the Constitution)

An ex post facto law is a law which retroactively affects
that right or condition of an accused who committed a
crime prior to its effectivity. (2015 Bar Exam)

A bill of attainder is a legislation that inflicts punishment

on an individual without judicial trial. In effect, the
legislature exercises judicial power in disregard of the
doctrine of separation of powers.
CHARACTERISTICS OF
CRIMINAL LAW
 GENERALITY

Under Article 14 of the Civil Code, penal laws

shall be obligatory upon all persons within
Philippine territory, whether they reside or
sojourn or are merely transients, regardless of
nationality and other personal circumstances.
 EXCEPTIONS

1. Principles of International Law

The main yardstick in ascertaining whether a person is a

diplomat entitled to immunity is the determination of
whether or not he performs duties of diplomatic nature. The
Vienna Convention lists the classes of heads of diplomatic
missions to include (a) ambassadors or nuncios accredited to
the heads of state, (b) envoys, ministers or internuncios
accredited to the head of states, and (c) charges d' affairs
accredited to the ministers of foreign affairs.
 EXCEPTIONS

Consular officers are immune from criminal prosecution of

acts performed in the exercise of their functions.

A diplomatic agent enjoys immunity from criminal

jurisdiction of the receiving state except in the case of an
action relating to any professional or commercial activity
exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving state
outside his official functions. Commission of a crime, such as
slander, is not part of official duty.
 EXCEPTIONS

The basis of the immunity of diplomatic agents and

heads of states is the principle that one sovereign
power cannot exercise jurisdiction over another
sovereign power. For the others enjoying limited
immunity, the basis is the doctrine of state immunity
from suit which requires the consent of the state to be
sued.
 EXCEPTIONS

The basis of the immunity of diplomatic agents and

heads of states is the principle that one sovereign
power cannot exercise jurisdiction over another
sovereign power. For the others enjoying limited
immunity, the basis is the doctrine of state immunity
from suit which requires the consent of the state to be
sued.
Q: IS A COMMERCIAL ATTACHÉ COVERED
BY THE GENERALITY RULE?
A: YES. A COMMERCIAL ATTACHÉ IS
NOT A DIPLOMATIC AGENT. HENCE,
HE IS NOT EXEMPT FROM THE
GENERALITY RULE OF CRIMINAL
LAW. (2011 BAR EXAM)
Q: CAN A DIPLOMAT STATIONED IN
THE PHILIPPINES BE PROSECUTED FOR
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE RESULTING IN
HOMICIDE?
A: NO, A DIPLOMAT STATIONED IN
THE PHILIPPINES IS IMMUNE FROM
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE RESULTING
IN HOMICIDE. (2014 BAR EXAM)
Q: CAN A CHARGÉ D'AFFAIRES BE
PROSECUTED FOR FRUSTRATED
AND ATTEMPTED MURDER?
A: NO. A CHARGÉ D'AFFAIRES, A
DIPLOMAT WHO HEADS AN EMBASSY IN
THE ABSENCE OF THE AMBASSADOR, IS
IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION FOR
MULTIPLE FRUSTRATED AND ATTEMPTED
MURDERS. (2016 BAR EXAM)
 EXCEPTIONS

2. Laws of Preferential Application

P.D. No. 1083 (The Code of Muslim on Personal Laws) is a

law of preferential application. Article 349 of the RPC on
bigamy is not obligatory to Muslims married under Muslim
Law where the requirements set therein are met. (Marbella-
Bobis vs. Bobis, G.R. No. 138509, July 31, 2000)
 EXCEPTIONS

However, if the marriage is not solemnized in accordance

with Muslim Law, the accused cannot claim exemption
from criminal liability on the basis of his religious beliefs as
a Muslim because of the generality principle. (Abubakar vs.
Arca, G.R. No. L-14916, December 29, 1962)
 EXCEPTIONS

3. Case Law

The President of the Philippines is entitled to immunity

from suit subject to the following conditions: (1) the
immunity has been asserted; (2) during the period of his
incumbency and tenure; (3) the acts constituting the crime is
committed in the performance of his duties.
 EXCEPTIONS

3. Case Law

The President of the Philippines is entitled to immunity

from suit subject to the following conditions: (1) the
immunity has been asserted; (2) during the period of his
incumbency and tenure; (3) the acts constituting the crime is
committed in the performance of his duties.
Q: CAN THE PRESIDENT SHED THE
PROTECTION AFFORDED BY THE
PRIVILEGE AND SUBMIT TO THE
COURT'S JURISDICTION?
A: THERE IS NOTHING IN OUR
LAWS THAT WOULD PREVENT
THE PRESIDENT FROM WAIVING
THE PRIVILEGE. THE CHOICE OF
WHETHER TO EXERCISE THE
PRIVILEGE OR TO WAIVE IT IS
SOLELY THE PRESIDENT'S
PREROGATIVE. (LUIS BELTRAN VS.
HON. RAMON MAKASIAR, G.R.
NO. 82827, NOVEMBER 14, 1988)
Q: CAN AN ACCUSED IN A
CRIMINAL CASE IN WHICH THE
PRESIDENT IS COMPLAINANT
RAISE THE PRESIDENTIAL
PRIVILEGE AS A DEFENSE TO
PREVENT THE CASE FROM
PROCEEDING AGAINST SUCH
ACCUSED?
A: THIS PRIVILEGE OF IMMUNITY FROM
SUIT, PERTAINS TO THE PRESIDENT BY
VIRTUE OF THE OFFICE AND MAY BE
INVOKED ONLY BY THE HOLDER OF THE
OFFICE; NOT BY ANY OTHER PERSON IN
THE PRESIDENT'S BEHALF. IT IS A
DECISION THAT CANNOT BE ASSUMED
AND IMPOSED BY ANY OTHER PERSON.

(LUIS BELTRAN VS. MAKASIAR, G.R. NO.

82827, NOVEMBER 14, 1988)
In Estrada vs. Desierto (G.R. Nos. 146710-15,
March 2, 2001), the Supreme Court clarified
the doctrine that a non-sitting President does
not enjoy immunity from suit, even for acts
committed during the latter’s tenure.
 TERRITORIALITY

Our penal laws apply to offenses

committed within the territorial
jurisdiction of the country.
 ARTICLE I OF THE CONSTITUTION

“The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago,

with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other
territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or
jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial
domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the
insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around,
between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago,
regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the
internal waters of the Philippines.”
Q: A, MARRIED TO B, CONTRACTED
ANOTHER MARRIAGE WITH C IN CHINA.
THEREAFTER, A AND C RETURNED TO
THE PHILIPPINES AND LIVED AS
HUSBAND AND WIFE IN QUEZON CITY.
CAN A BE PROSECUTED FOR BIGAMY?
A: NO. A MAY NOT BE PROSECUTED FOR BIGAMY
SINCE THE BIGAMOUS MARRIAGE WAS
CONTRACTED OR SOLEMNIZED IN CHINA, THUS,
THE OFFENSE WAS COMMITTED OUTSIDE THE
TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF OUR COUNTRY.
SUCH VIOLATION IS NOT ONE OF THOSE WHERE
THE REVISED PENAL CODE, UNDER ARTICLE 2
THEREOF, MAY BE APPLIED
EXTRATERRITORIALLY. HOWEVER, A AND C MAY
BE PROSECUTED FOR CONCUBINAGE FOR
HAVING COHABITED AS HUSBAND AND WIFE.
(1994 BAR EXAM)
Q: WHAT ARE THE EXCEPTIONS TO
THE TERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF
CRIMINAL LAW?

(EXTRATERRITORIALITY PRINCIPLE)
The provisions of the RPC shall be enforced outside the jurisdiction of
the Philippines against those who:
a. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship
(flag state rule);
b. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency of the Philippines
or obligation and securities issued by the government of the
Philippines;
c. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into the
country of the obligations and securities aforestated;
d. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense
in the exercise of their functions; and
e. Should commit any of the crimes against the national security and
the law of nations
• War vessels and official vessels of heads of states
are extensions of the country’s jurisdiction
wherever it may be located.

• When a Philippine merchant ship is in the high

seas, it is an extension of Philippine territory since
the high seas is not within the jurisdiction of any
country. The crime shall be subject to Philippine
courts.
• The flag state rule is subject to the limitation that the vessel
is not within the territorial jurisdiction of another country,
otherwise, the latter’s laws will govern because penal laws
are primarily territorial. The Philippines will have
jurisdiction only if the foreign country did not assume
jurisdiction.

• The country of registry, not ownership, determines its

nationality. Thus, a Filipino-owned ship registered in the
US is an American ship.
If the foreign vessel is a warship, our
courts have no jurisdiction as such is an
extension of the country to which it
belongs and is not subject to the laws of
another state. (US vs. Fowler, 1 Phil. 614)
- The French/English Rules refer to the
jurisdiction over merchant vessels of one country
located in another country. French rule
recognizes flag or nationality of vessel. Crimes
committed on board are not triable in our country
unless those affect the peace and security of our
country, such as drug-trafficking.
- English rule adheres to the territoriality
principle. Crimes are triable in the host country,
unless such crimes affect the internal
management of the vessel. The English rule is
followed in our jurisdiction.
The protective interest principle involving forgery
and crimes against national security seeks to
protect the financial stability and existence of the
State.

Under the protective principle, criminal laws shall

be enforced outside the jurisdiction of the
Philippines against those who should forge or
counterfeit Philippine currency, obligations and
securities (treasury bill) or those who should
introduce forged currency note or securities and
obligations into the Philippines.
Q: X, a resident of Russia, counterfeits
Philippine money in Russia. Can he be
prosecuted in the Philippines?
Q: X, a resident of Russia, counterfeits
Philippine money in Russia. Can he be
prosecuted in the Philippines?
A: Yes. X cannot invoke the territoriality
principle. Under the protective principle, the
Philippines has jurisdiction over acts
committed abroad by nationals or foreigners
which are prejudicial to the national interest of
the country. (2012 Bar Exam)
Function-Related Crime

This is designed to implement the constitutional

mandate on public accountability.

The functions contemplated by this rule include

those which should be performed under the law
by public officers in the foreign service of the
Philippine government in a foreign country.
National Security

Crimes against national security (treason,

espionage) shall apply even outside the
jurisdiction of the Philippines.

Rebellion is a crime against public order, not a

crime against national security. Hence, the RPC
cannot be given extraterritorial application for
rebellion committed outside the territory of the
Philippines. (2011 Bar Exam)
Universal Crime

Three crimes against the law of nations under the

RPC: piracy, qualified piracy, and mutiny

Jurisdiction over piracy has no territorial limits. It

is a crime against all, so it may be punished by all.
Nor does it matter that the crime was committed
within the territorial waters of a foreign state.
(People of the Philippines vs. Lol-Lo and Saraw,
G.R. No. L-17958, February 27, 1922)
Special Laws

The laws that punish trafficking in persons

(R.A. 9208 as amended by R.A. No. 10364) and
terrorism (R.A. No. 9372) have specific
provision for extraterritorial rule.
General Rule
Under the prospectivity principle, criminal law
punishes crimes committed on or after its
effectivity.

Exceptions
Laws shall be given retroactive effect:
(1) If the law is favorable to the accused;
(2) If the law decriminalizes an act
(3) If the law expressly provides retroactivity
Exception to the exception
Even if the law is favorable to the accused, it shall be
given retroactive effect if he is a habitual delinquent.

Rule 5, Article 62 of the RPC

A person shall be deemed to be a habitual delinquent if
within a period of ten years from the date of his release
or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious
physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa, or falsification,
he is found guilty of any said crimes a third time or
oftener.
If there is merely an implied repeal, the
pending criminal action at the time of the
effectivity of the second law impliedly
repealing the first law is not dismissed because
the act punished in the first law is still
punished in the second law. Implied repeals
are also called repeals by re-enactment. (People
of the Philippines vs. Purisima, G.R. No. L-
42050-66, November 20, 1978)
Effects of Repeal

If a penal law is expressly repealed by another law, the

crime is obliterated. If there is a pending criminal
action at the time of repeal, the same is to be dismissed.
(Ang Beng v. Commissioner of Immigration, L-9621,
January 30, 1957)

The intention of the new law repealing the old law is to

decriminalize an act punished under the latter. Thus,
the subject act is not a crime anymore. Nullum crimen
nulla poena sine lege. (2011 Bar Exam)
The intention of the new law is merely to
provide a new rule. The repeal will not destroy
the criminal liability of the accused. (U.S. vs.
Cuna, G.R. No. L-4504, December 15, 1908)
Article 3

“Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies.

Felonies are committed not only be 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 fault when the wrongful
act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of
foresight, or lack of skill.”
In intentional crimes, the act itself is punished.
In negligence or imprudence, what is
principally penalized is the mental attitude or
condition behind the act, the dangerous
recklessness, lack of care or foresight. (Jayson
Ivler vs. Hon. Maria Rowena Modesto-San
Pedro, G.R. No. 172716, November 17, 2010)
There is deliberate intent in the commission of
a felony if the offender, in doing the act or in
omitting to do an act, has done so with
FREEDOM OF ACTION, INTELLIGENCE,
and INTENT.
Freedom

When a person acts without freedom, the law looks

at him as a mere tool. As such, his liability is
likened to the knife that wounds, or of the torch
that sets fire, or of the key that opens a door, or of
the ladder that is placed against the wall of a house
in committing robbery. Thus, a person who acts
under the compulsion of irresistible force or under
the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or
greater injury is exempt from criminal liability.
Intelligence

If a person acted without knowledge of

wrongness or rightness of his act in committing
a felony, then no crime exists. This requisite is
necessary to determine the morality of human
acts. Hence, the law exempts certain classes of
persons from criminal liability, such as minors
and insane persons, or considers diminished
intelligence as mitigating circumstance.
Intent

A design or determination to do certain things; an

aim or the purpose of the mind, including such
knowledge as is essential to such intent. Intent is a
mental state, thus, there is a need to determine it by
the means used or the overt act.

Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. No crime is

committed if the mind of the person performing the
act complained of is innocent.
Is motive the same as intent? Is motive material
in determining criminal liability?

Motive is the moving power or force which

impels a person to a desired result. Lack or
absence of motive for committing the crime
does not preclude conviction. Intent, not
motive, must be established by the prosecution.
Motive is relevant when:

1. When the accused has not been positively

identified (where there are no eyewitnesses or where
suspicion is likely to fall upon a number of persons)
2. Proof of motive becomes essential when the
evidence of the commission of a crime is purely
circumstantial.
3. Where motive forms an essential element of the
crime such as in the cases of libel, slander, and
malicious mischief
There is culpable felony if the offender, in
doing the act or in omitting to do an act, has
done so with FREEDOM, INTELLIGENCE, and
IMPRUDENCE, NEGLIGENCE, LACK of
FORESIGHT or LACK OF SKILL.
Imprudence – It usually involves lack of skill. A deficiency of
action or failure to take necessary precaution to avoid injury
or damage such as when a driver fails to check and determine
the road worthiness of his vehicle before hitting the road
where thereafter he had a brake failure which caused him to
run over a pedestrian. Such may have been avoided if he had
prudently checked his vehicle.

Negligence – It usually involves lack of foresight. A

deficiency of perception or failure to pay proper attention and
to use diligence to a void a foreseeable damage or injury such
as when a cop indiscriminately fires his gun in the air during
New Year’s Eve which caused injury to another. had the cop
foreseen that firing his gun in open air might injure someone
the incident would not have happened.
Distinguish mala in se and mala prohibita
Mala in se are acts or omissions which are
inherently wrong or evil. An example of this is
rape. Mala prohibita are acts or omissions that
are not wrong or evil in essence, but they are
wrong because they are prohibited. An
example of malum prohibitum is illegal
possession of firearms. Crimes mala in se
generally involve moral turpitude.
Good faith or lack of criminal intent is a defense in
mala in se but not in mala prohibita, unless intent is
an element of the crime such as in Section 3(e) of
R.A. No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act (“Causing any undue injury to any party,
including the Government, or giving any private
party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or
preference in the discharge of his official
administrative or judicial functions through
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence”).
In crimes mala in se the stages of felonies, like
attempted, frustrated or consummated are
considered, but in mala prohibita, as a general rule,
the violation of a special law is always
consummated. The exception is that, when the
specific provision of the law provides punishment
for mere attempt or mere frustration thereof. An
example of this is R.A 9165 (Dangerous Drugs Act)
that makes punishable a mere attempt to sell which
provided under Section 26 thereof that, a mere
attempt to import or sell any dangerous drugs.
In mala in se, the presence of modifying
circumstances (mitigating, aggravating) are
considered in the imposition of penalties. In
mala prohibita, modifying circumstances are not
applicable, except when the special law
provides for such mitigating or aggravating
circumstances.
Article 4. Criminal liability. - Criminal liability shall
be incurred:

1. By any person committing a felony although

the wrongful act done be different from that 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 an account of the employment
of inadequate or ineffectual means.
El que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado
or he who is the cause of the cause is the cause
of the evil caused. One who commits an
intentional felony is responsible for all the
consequences which may naturally or logically
result therefrom, whether foreseen or intended
or not.
Mistake of fact, if such ignorance or mistake of
fact, is sufficient to negative a particular intent
which under the law is a necessary ingredient
of the offense charged cancels the presumption
of intent and works an acquittal. One cannot be
held criminally responsible who, by reason of a
mistake as to the facts, does an act for which he
would be exempt from criminal liability if the
facts were as he supposed them to be. (U.S. vs.
Ah Chong, G.R. No. L-5272, March 19, 1910)
Q: Can mistake of fact negate theft? For
instance, A, a laborer was hired by B to harvest
coconuts from a plantation which B told A
belonged to him. Unknown to A, the ownership
of the land is in dispute. Can A be held liable
for theft?
A: No. Mistake of fact negates intent to gain
which is an element of theft. (1988 Bar Exam).
Belief of ownership as a defense in theft is in
accordance with the mistake of fact doctrine.
(2012 Bar Exam)

The belief of the accused of ownership must be

honest and in good faith not a mere sham or
pretense.
The maxim ignorantia facti excusat applies only
when the mistake is committed without fault or
carelessness. Where the accused mistook actual
victim for intended victim (error in personae),
the accused is criminally liable for the crime
committed against the actual victim. (People of
the Philippines vs. Antonio Oanis, G.R. No. L-
47722, July 27, 1943)
Q: What is the effect of mistake in the identity
of the intended victim?
If the intended and actual crimes are of the
same gravity, the penalty is not lowered.

If the intended and actual crimes are of

different gravity, apply Article 49.
“Article 49. In cases in which the felony committed is different from that
which the offender intended to commit, the following rules shall be
observed:
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 its 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.
3. The rule established by the next preceding paragraph shall not be
applicable if the acts committed by the guilty person shall also constitute an
attempt or frustration of another crime, if the law prescribes a higher penalty
for either of the latter offenses, in which case the penalty provided for the
attempted or the frustrated crime shall be imposed in its maximum period.”
In other words, if the penalty for the intended
crime is different from that of the committed crime,
the court shall impose the penalty for the intended
crime or the committed crime, whichever is lesser,
to be applied in the maximum period.

If the crime committed is parricide punishable by

reclusion perpetua, but the intended crime is
homicide. The penalty for homicide, reclusion
temporal, shall be applied in its maximum period.
Q:What is mistake in the blow?
In error in the victim of the blow (aberratio ictus),
the offender intends the injury on one person
but the harm fell on another.

Illustration:

X, with intent to kill, shoots Y but Y was not hit.

The bullet hit Z who died as a consequence.
Q: What is praeter intentionem?
The injury is on the intended victim but the
consequence is graver than intended. It is a
mitigating circumstance under Article 13 no. 3.
“That the offender had no intention to commit
so grave a wrong as that committed”.
Q: What is proximate cause?
Proximate cause is defined as that cause, which, in
natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and
without which the result would not have occurred.

Without the stab wounds, the victim could not have

been afflicted with an infection which later on caused
multiple organ failure that caused his death. The
offender is criminally liable for the death of the victim if
his delictual act caused, accelerated or contributed to
the death of the victim. (Rodolfo Belbis Jr. vs. People of
the Philippines, G.R. No. 181052, November 14, 2012)
Q: What is an impossible crime?
Impossible crime is not a felony. It is just an act
that would be a crime against person or
property were it not for the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment or on
account of the employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means.
The requisites of an impossible crime are:
1. That the act performed would be an offense
against persons or property;
2. That the act was done with evil intent;
3. That its accomplishment was inherently
impossible, or the means employed was either
inadequate or ineffectual; and
4. That the act performed should not constitute a
violation of another provision of the RPC.
What is legal impossibility?

Legal impossibility 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 are to perform an act in
violation of the law;
2. there is intention to perform the physical act;
3. there is a performance of the intended physical act; and
4. the consequence resulting from the intended act does not
amount to a crime.
(Sulpicio Intod vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103119, October 21,
1992)
What is physical impossibility?

Physical impossibility has been actualized in the

case of Intod vs. CA. Intod wanted to kill his
enemy so he went to the latter’s house. Mandaya
pointed to a room in the house. Intod, armed with
a firearm, fired shots at the room only to discover
that the intended victim was in another city. Intod
was held liable for impossible crime because there
was physical impossibility to kill the intended
victim.