Criminal Law Review

[DRAFT] AJF MIDTERM NOTES (CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL SALVA)
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW:

INTRODUCTION
Criminal law 1 Article 1-113 plus some new
penal laws, with respect to Article 2.
P.D 1612 on Anti-Fencing law in relation to
Article 19 last paragraph including P.D 1829 the
obstruction of justice law and the two others are
the indeterminate sentence law and probation
law. Those are the allied special laws that will
be covered under book 1.
After the midterm then book 2 of the revised
penal code so Article 114-365 of the RPC.
CRIMINAL
OFFENSES
LAW
1:
FELONIES
AND
Lets start with book 1 so from the very basic

which is the definition of Criminal law, it is the
branch of public law which defines crimes treat
of their nature and provide punishment.
Of course, CRIMES are act or omission
punished by law. But you know in the RPC the
crime there covered specific provision of the
penal laws are termed FELONIES, those which
are punished by RPC.
If they are not punished by the RPC then they
are called OFFENSE or Offenses.
That is why you will notice in the information
charging the accused of any crimes punished by
the RPC there is an allegation there that the
accused. FELONIOUSLY but if it is a
violation of Special penal law the word
feloniously is deleted and changed to
KNOWINGLY.
DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATION OF CRIMES
ACCORDING TO THEIR WRONGNESS:
1. Crimes mala in se
2. Crimes Mala prohibita
As distinguish from classification of Felonies,

when you speak of classification of felonies they
are those that are found in the RPC which are
found in 3 articles of the revised penal code.
Classification of felonies according to the modes
of commission and that is Article 3, intentional
felonies and culpable felonies.
Those crimes which are committed with dolo are
intentional felonies and those crimes that resort
from negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight
and lack of skill are the ones known as culpable
felonies.
In culpable felonies there is no element of
criminal intent.
Q. Now if you are asked, may a person be
convicted of an offense when he has no criminal
intent in the commission thereof?
A. You will note that there is only one instance,
the best instance of course is culpable felonies,
criminal intent is not an element there because
they are all done from negligence or
imprudence.
But the other instance is in the crimes known as
MALA PROHIBITA. So those are the two
instances where a person may be convicted of a
crime even if he has no criminal intent.
MALA PROHIBITA means crimes punished by
special law and in culpable felonies those which
resorts to negligence, imprudence, lack of
foresight and lack of skill.
MALA IN SE VS MALA PROHIBITA:
Q. How do you distinguish Mala in se and Mala
prohibita?1
A. 1. Mala in se the wrong done is inherently
wrong with or without of the existence of a
1
This question has been asked in the previous bar

examinations maybe in 7 instances already.
[INTRODUCTION ARTICLE 7]AJF-NG 1

penal law that act there is inherently wrong. But
not in the case of Mala prohibita, it is not
inherently wrong it becomes punishable only
because of a specific provision of law punishing
for such violation.
Example: Possession of fire arms. This is not
inherently wrong but if the possessor of the gun
fails to assume license to use the same then if he
is arrested by the police then he will be charge
of the illegal possession of fire arms.
Possession of Marijuana and Shabu, the
possession thereof is no inherently wrong but
because it is punished by R.A 9165 mere
possession of any dangerous drug is punishable
regardless of the good and the bad intent of the
offender.
2. In the crime Mala in se good faith is a
defense but it is no so in Mala prohibita.
3. In crimes Mala in se the stages of felonies
are considered whether attempted, frustrated or
consummated but in the case of Mala prohibita
the violation of such penal law is always
consummated.
EXCEPT: When the special law provides that

such mitigating or aggravating circumstance is
present.
IMPORTANT THEORIES IN CRIMINAL
LAW:
Now what are the important theories in Criminal
law?
1. Positivist theory.
In this theory, it postulates that the purpose of
the punishment is for reformation or correction,
and the offender there is considered a sick
person needing treatment.
2. Holistic theory.
Unlike here, what is considered more is the
crime of the offender and the danger of the
crime committed. The purpose of the
punishment here is for retaliation. (An eye for an
eye a tooth for a tooth) It postulates that man is
endowed with free will and when he commits a
wrong then he is punishable.
OTHER TWO THEORIES:
Q. Is there an exception?
A. Yes, when the specific provision of the law
provides punishment for mere attempt or for
mere frustration thereof.
3. Eclectic theory.
It is merely a mixture of the good aspect of both
holistic and positivist theory.
4. Utilitarian theory or protective theory.
Example: R.A 9165 under section 26 mere

attempt to import, sell, any dangerous drug is
punishable. But there is frustrated stage, because
there is no specific provision punishing the mere
frustration thereof.
It postulates that the purpose of the punishment

is to protect the society against both potential
and actual wrong doer.
4. The presence of mitigating and aggravating

circumstances are considered in the imposition
penalties with the crime Mala in se. But it is not
applicable in general in offenses punished by
Special law.
In one case, People vs Magnum2 it is about the

violation of B.P 26. The accused there was
convicted by the lower court for violation of B.P
26 upon appeal the SC held that he should be
acquitted. Because to apply distinctly the
PEOPLE VS MAGNUM
Not sure check the book.

principle of Mala prohibita it will cause grave
miscarriage of justice.
In this case, it is about the accused who was
invited by the complainant to issue a check to
cover the value of the article purchased by the
accused to guarantee its payment. The accused
who were not able to pay the total amount but he
is amortization amounted more than the value of
what he purchased. But then when the check
bounce he is sued by B.P 26. Then the utilitarian
theory or protective theory was applied by the
court to protect the accused from being
convicted of the offense. Because it will become
unfair already, the complainant had already
recovered the total amount.
EXCEPTION IN MALA PROHIBITA:
The violation of Mala prohibita intent or motive
is not controlling as long as there is a violation
but in this case it is an EXCEPTION.
3 MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OR
CARDINAL FEATURES OF CRIMINAL
LAW:
Generality, Territoriality, Prospectivity.
1. Generality.
Under this characteristics, all persons who live
or sojourn in the Philippine soil shall be covered
by our criminal law regardless of sex, age and
nationality or religious affiliation. Of course this
characteristic admits of an EXCEPTION:
Under our PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW:
Those who enjoy diplomatic immunity like head
of states, ambassadors, the head of delegation of
foreign countries and Charges d affairs.
Q. Are consuls exempted under the RPC?
A. Prior to the consular agreement of 1966 it
said that consuls are not immune from criminal
prosecution but when there was a consular
agreement that was passed and entered into by

member states now there is now a limited
exception where they are now protected and
given immunity, that is for acts which they have
committed in the performance of their official
functions. (19:00)
2. Territoriality.
It means that all offenses committed in the
Philippine territorial jurisdiction of the country
shall be governed by our Philippine laws.
Take note that the characteristics of generality
refers to persons that are covered by the
provision but when we speak of territoriality that
characteristic refers to the offenses committed
in
TERRITORIAL AND EXTRATERRITORIAL:
And our provision of Article 2 has two rules in
the jurisdiction of the Philippines over crimes
committed.
When you speak of the Territorial jurisdiction it
is stated in the first portion Article 2, that all
offenses committed in the Philippine
archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior
waters and maritime zone shall be governed by
Philippine law.
EXCEPTION: EXTRA-TERRITORIALITY:
1. Should commit an offense while on a
Philippine ship or airship
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or
currency note of the Philippine Islands or
obligations and securities issued by the
Government of the Philippine Islands;chan
robles virtual law library
3. Should be liable for acts connected with
the introduction into these islands of the
obligations and securities mentioned in the
presiding 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 Two of this Code.
TWO RULES GOVERNING OFFENSES ON

BOARD IN A VESSEL:
TERRORISM.
We apply the ENGLISH RULE. Now what does

those two principles or rule on jurisdiction of
offenses committed on foreign vessel postulates?
Under this Article it is now included the crime

of TERRORISM, even if it is committed
outside the territory of the Philippines it is
subject to prosecution under our Penal laws.
SHOULD COMMIT AN OFFENSE WHILE
ON A PHILIPPINE SHIP OR AIRSHIP:
Q. What is the ship referred to here?
A ship, vessel or an aircraft maybe owned by a
wealthy Filipino. But it is not registered in the
Philippines. So this is a luxury vessel owned by
Lucio Tan but it is registered in Thailand.
While in the high seas murder or homicide is
committed on board and then when they are
anchored in Manila Bay the ship captain
surrendered the killer to the local authority?
Has Philippine court have jurisdiction?
A. No, because the ship mentioned there should
have been registered before a concerned agency
like the bureau of customs in the Philippines.
DETERMINATION OF CITIZENSHIP OF A
SHIP OR AIRPLANE:
What determines the citizenship of a ship or
airship is the country of registration. So if
murder is committed in the ship of Lucio Tan in
the middle of the pacific ocean. After they reach
the Philippine shore the killer was surrendered
by the ship captain, if he is charged in court.
Then that accused could file a MOTION TO
QUASH the information on the ground of
LACK OF JURISDICTION.
a. Anglo American or English rule

b. French or Nationality rule
ENGLISH RULE: it postulates that all offenses

committed on board or vessel shall be governed
by the country on which they are in the time of
the commission of the cime.
EXCEPT: When the crime pertain to the internal
affair or the internal management of the ship.
So if it affects public order or security
committed on board of vessel as long as it is
within the maritime jurisdiction of the
Philippines it will still be governed by our RPC
then the offender be prosecuted in the Phil.
court. This is the ENGLISH RULE ON
TERRITORIALITY.
FRENCH AND NATIONALITY RULE: this
postulates that all offenses committed on board
of the vessel while it is in a host country shall be
governed by the laws of the country to which
that vessel belong.
EXCEPT: When the crime committed affects the
security and public order of the host country.
COMMONALITY: ENGLISH RULE AND
FRECH RULE
So there is commonality there in English rule all
crimes that affects national security and public
order is cognizable under our Phil. court under
our RPC. In nationality rule, all crimes should
be subject to the penal law of the hometown to
which that vessel belong except that crime
affects the national security or public order of
the host country.

PROBLEM QUESTION:
Q. Suppose there is MB Pilipinas a registered
ship in the Phil. while anchored in the bay of
Tokyo, Japan. A Filipino commits murder
against also a Filipino. Now can the court or
Philippine law apply to the accused?
A. Applying territoriality or the English rule,
since the Phil. vessel although registered in the
Philippines is within the jurisdiction of the
foreign country then the courts will apply the
territoriality rule. Since, murder affects the
national security and public order of Japan then
the court there can take cognizance of the
prosecution of that vessel.
EXCEPTION: As ruled in one case, if the
foreign country take no action to prosecute the
offender while the ship is in their jurisdiction
and allowed the Philippine ship to sail back to
the Philippines, then the ship captain
surrendered the criminal to the local authorities
and then he is prosecuted, may the Philippine
court try the case?
2nd and 3rd exception: Coins and currency, even

if it is committed outside our country the same
can still be prosecuted, in order to protect the
economy and financial stability of the country.
4TH exception: Offenses committed by Public
officers and employees in the discharge of their
function. Public office is public trust. So
whenever a public officer officially assigned
they are expected to follow our laws.
Example those who are assigned in different
embassies and consular offices. They are
provided with operating expenses for consular
offices in their diplomatic offices abroad. If
those public officers pocketed the money for
their personal benefit then certainly they are
guilty of malversation of public funds.
Although, they are in foreign country but under
the 4th exception they could be charge in the
Phil. courts. In addition they will be charge of
the violation of the anti-graft and corrupt
practice act (R.A 3019)
5TH exception: Crimes against national security.
A. Yes, but the court may deny that motion.

Although we are covered by the English rule.
Since ownership is registered in the Phil., our
courts can now take cognizance of the case
where the accused was prosecuted. That is when
the foreign country did not take any action.
Well, the very existence of the state is at stake in

this crime. Treason, conspiracy to commit
treason, espionage. So whenever committed
Philippine courts have jurisdiction.
BAR EXAM QUESTION:
But with respect to the crimes of law of nations,

very prominent among them is PIRACY.
What are instances in which our Phil. law will

apply even if the offense is committed outside
the territory of the Philippines? State the reason
for those 5 instances.
First exception: Philippine ship is an extension
of Phil. territory provided that the crime is
committed in the high seas. That portion where
no foreign country exercise no jurisdiction.
PIRACY:
Because Piracy is a crime not against a

particular state but a crime against the WHOLE
MANKIND. Piracy, whenever committed may
be tried in the Philippines, if the criminals
anchors in the Philippine soil.
Even if it is outside the territorial jurisdiction of

the Phil. our criminal law may apply.

TERRORISM:
The new here is the crime of terrorism.
Terrorism is committed by a person who
commits any crime like murder, kidnapping or
ransom, piracy when under Phil. water or in the
high seas and the commissioner thereof sought a
widespread and extra-ordinary panic to the
populace and the purpose of the offender it to
coerce the government to give in to some
unlawful demand.
TWO KINDS OR CLASSIFICATION OF

FELONIES ACCORDING TO THE MODE OF
COMMISION:
1. INTENTIONAL FELONY - If the
crime is committed with deliberate
intent or dolo.
2. CULPABLE FELONY if the wrong
done resorts from negligence then that is
culpable felony.
MISTAKE OF FACT:
3. Prospectivity.
SCOPE OF APPLICATION:
Q. What is the scope of the application of the
provision of the RPC?
A. The answer here is the entire Article 2.
Because article 2 itself is the scope of the
application of the provision of the law.
ARTICLE 3: FELONIES:
Art. 3. Definitions. Acts and omissions
punishable by law are felonies (delitos).
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.
Acts or omission punished by law are felonies.

Although, acts are omission punished by law,
that law there is specifically referring to the
RPC.
Mistake of fact, maybe invoke as a complete

defense to exonerate the accused from the crime.
U.S V ACHONG
During the early American regimes there were a
lot of lawless element hiding there and they used
to enter the residence of the people. So when
darkness come at night all houses are already
closed. In the case of Achong, he did so but
when he was already resting in the middle of the
night there were loud knocks at the door and so
Achong, challenged and ask Who are you!?
Several times. But no response was given. So it
made Achong think that the one who is trying to
open the door is a criminal or a lawless element.
Then all of the sudden the door swung open and
came a dark shadow rushing towards Achong.
Achong believing that he is being attacked, he
get hold of a bladed weapon and then stab the
rushing black shadow. And when he put on the
light he recognize that it was his roommate in
the house.
So Achong was charged with murder.
HELD: Under the principle of Mistake of fact
Achong was acquitted.

3 REQUISITES FOR AN ACCUSED TO BE
ENTITLED FOR A MISTAKE OF FACT:
1. That the act would have been lawful
have the facts been what he had believed
him to be.
Achong at that time when he challenge the man
who was knocking at his door and nobody
responded, he already have in mind that it could
be a lawless criminal.
Later on after marrying the man, B was charged

with Bigamy. B now invoked the MISTAKE OF
FACT. He argued that she never knew that she
could not marry she could not marry. It is her
honest belief that she could already remarry in
the Phil. without being prosecuted with bigamy.
HELD: It is not meritorious defense, what
applies here is IGNORANCE OF THE LAW.
Ignorance of the law excuses no one
ARTICLE 4: HOW CRIMINAL LIABILITY
SHALL BE INCURRED.
And when the door swung open, believing that

his life is in danger he attacked. There was
unlawful aggression, he repealed what he
believed to be an unlawful aggression by
holding that bladed weapon and stabbed the
man.
It turned out that there was a MISTAKE OF
FACT because the person who he stabbed was
not a criminal.
Art. 4. Criminal liability. Criminal liability

shall be incurred:
1. By any person committing a felony
(delito) 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.
2. The purpose of the act must have been

lawful.
3. There must be no fault or negligence on
the part of the actor.
In almost all of the bar examination of the bar,

question is asked involved the application of
Article 4.
Achong has no negligence or fault on his part.

Because he had already challenge whoever was
knocking at his door.
So all the requisites of mistake of fact are
present, hence he was acquitted.
ACTUAL CASES WHERE MISTAKE OF
FACT WAS INVOLVED.
A and B a married couple in the Phil. then A
went to the state to look for a greener pasture.
While there, he applied for divorce and later on
it was approved by the court in the states in
America. And then B in the Phil. after having
learned that his husband is coming to be wed in
states she accepted suitor and marry the man.
Q. How is criminal liability incurred?

A. 1. By any person committing a felony (delito)
although the wrongful act done be different from
that which he intended or
2. By any person performing an act which would
be an offense against persons or property, were
it not for the inherent impossibility of its

2ND PARAGRAPH: IMPOSSIBLE CRIME:
RELATE IT WITH ARTICLE 48:
The 2nd paragraph of Article 4 defines what is an

impossible crime.
Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. When a

single act constitutes two or more grave or less
grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary
means for committing the other, the penalty for
the most serious crime shall be imposed, the
same to be applied in its maximum period.
BAR QUESTION: What is an impossible

crime? Answer: Para. 2 of Article 4.
2 ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
UNDER THE FIRST PARA.
1. That a specific felony is committed.
2. That the injury or prejudice suffered is a
consequence of that felonious act.
So there must be a felony. Remember the
opening sentence of para. 1 when committing a
felony although the wrongful act done be
different from that which he intended.
Example: X with intent to kill shoots Y whom

he found walking in the street but because of
imperfect aim the bullet did not hit Y instead it
landed on a 3rd person and died as a
consequence.
Definitely, X has no intention to kill the 3rd
person. But then under the provision of para. 1
of article 4, criminal liability is incurred by a
person when committing a felony although the
wrongful act done be different from that which
he intended.
COMPLEX CRIME:
Now it result to a COMPLEX CRIME, because
when a person fires against an intended victim
who was not hit by the bullet that is already a
felony, that is ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE.
The same bullet intended to Y landed on the
person or the body of a 3rd party who died as a
consequence. Then it is consummated homicide.
When a single act constitute two or more grave

or less grave felonies. That is a complex crime
of homicide with attempted homicide.
Q. What is the penalty?
A. It shall be applied in its maximum period.
Reclusion temporal in its maximum period.
PRINCIPLES THAT ARE PRONOUNCE IN
THE BASIS OF PARA. 1:
He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of
the evil caused.
A person who commits a felony shall be liable
for the direct, natural and logical consequence of
his act.
Example: In a bus one of the passenger runs
amock he was stabbing left and right person two
passengers at the back of the bus thinking that
they will also be attacked, jump out of the
running bus, their heads hit the cemented road
causing their death, one of the victim of the
stabbing also die.
Q. Is the person liable not only against the
person whom he had stabbed but also for those
two who jump out of the running bus and who
died as a consequence?
A. Yes, Whoever cause a minute sense of danger
in the mind of a person and does an act to avoid
injury to himself but in so doing got injured or
died as a consequence then that person who
propose a minute sense of danger shall be liable.

Had there been no attack made by the culprit,
there could not be reason for the 2 passenger to
be afraid.
already committing a felony, although the wrong

done is not what he intended.
Q. How shall the offender be penalized?
3 CAUSES UNDER THE FIRST PARA.

WHERE THE OFFENDER IS LIABLE EVEN
IF THE CRIME COMMITTED IS DIFFERENT
FROM THAT WHICH HE INTENDED.
1. Aberatio Ictus or mistake in the blow.
Here there are 3 persons present in the scene of
the crime. The offender, intended victim and the
innocent person who was injured by reason of
his act committed by mistake.
Example: X with intent to kill shoots Y but Y
was not hit by the bullet but the same bullet hit
another person who died as a consequence. This
is where ARTICLE 48 will apply.
It is safe to say that Aberatio Ictus give rise to a
complex crime.
2. Error in persona if the person he
injured is never the intended victim.
Example: X who wanted to kill his enemy Y. He
knows that Y is always passing through a small
alley coming from his office. So X posted
himself of the opposite side of the alley. Then in
the afternoon, a person whom he believes was Y
emerge from the another end of the alley. So he
points his pistol and shouted Y this is your
end and squeezed the trigger and the man was
hit by the bullet and fell on the ground and died.
When X approached the victim he was surprised
it was not Y whom he had killed but his own
Father who happens who have a physical
resemblance with Y.
So here may be charge with Parricide. He could
not validly invoke the defense, that he has no
intent to kill his own father. It will not hold
water. Because at the time he shoots at that
person whom he believes his enemy he was
A. Under ARTICLE 49 when the crime is

committed as a result of error in persona. The
penalty to be imposed, that which pertain to the
crime actually committed or the crime he
intended to commit whichever is lesser but to be
imposed in its maximum period.
In the example given where X intends to kill Y
and Y had been killed it could have been
homicide the penalty would have been reclusion
temporal.
But because of mistake of Identity that crime he
committed is Parricide violation of Article 246.
The penalty here is reclusion perpetua.
PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED:
To apply the penalty, he will be charged with
parricide, once convicted the penalty of parricide
will not be imposed by him . Because under the
rule the penalty for the intending crime which is
lesser to be imposed. So it is RECLUSION
TEMPORAL IN ITS MAXIUM.
DISTINGUISH ERROR IN PERSONA FROM
ABERATIO ICTUS:
In Aberatio Ictus, there are 3 persons present in
the scene of the crime but in the case of Error in
Persona there are only 2 persons present in the
scene of the crime.
SPECIAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
AND
SPECIAL
AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE.
In effect, the case of error in persona or mistake
in identity is the special mitigating circumstance.
Because the law says the penalty for a lesser
offense for the crime shall be imposed. But in
Aberatio Ictus the penalty for the most serious

crime shall be imposed and to be applied in its
maximum period.
for homicide shall be fixed in its minimum

period. Reclusion temporal in its minimum.
So in effect, Aberatio Ictus is a SPECIAL

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE.
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME:
3. Praeter Intertionem
Example: A and B. A when he always meet B in
the presence of people. A will tell B, Ikaw B
yang mukha mo Nanay mo lang ang
makakagugusto! Hihihihi So because of that, B
lost his patient sabi nya I will teach A a lesson
So he approached A and B throw a fistic blow in
the face but because of the strong impact A loses
his balance and A fall in the cemented floor and
cause internal hemorrhage resulting to his death.
Q. Is B liable for homicide?
A. Under the principle of Praeter Intertionem, he
shall be liable of homicide but he shall be
entitled to a MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
that is found under para. 3 of the Article 3 That
he did not intend to commit so grave a wrong
than what has been committed. He did not
intend to kill the victim what he wants is to
inflict physical harm to the victim.
But nonetheless, such fistic blow is the cause
that made A hit the cemented floor and died.
He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of
the evil caused.
A person incurred a criminal liability when he
commits a felony although the wrongful act
done be different from that which he intended.
When he throw a fistic blow hitting the victim
he already commits a felony and that is Physical
Injury. But the wrong done went beyond the
intent the victim died.
But that is only simple homicide, and applying
one mitigating circumstance that he does not
intend to commit so grave a wrong the penalty
Art. 4. Criminal liability. Criminal liability

shall be incurred:
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
In para. 2 the offender does not commit a felony
unlike in para. 1 where the opening sentence
starts with when committing a felony but in
the 2nd paragraph he merely performs an act,
which could become an act that could become a
crime against persons or property where if not
because of the inherently possibility of its
employment of ineffectual or inadequate means.
Example: When a person intending to kill
someone shoots the person but he is already
dead.
Now, there is legal impossibility in that
situation. Because a dead man could not be
killed anymore.
PENALTY OF IMPOSSIBLE CRIME:
Impossible crime is penalized under Article 59
of the RPC
Art. 59. Penalty to be imposed in case of failure
to commit the crime because the means
employed or the aims sought are impossible.
When the person intending to commit an offense
has already performed the acts for the execution
of the same but nevertheless the crime was not
produced by reason of the fact that the act
intended was by its nature one of impossible
accomplishment or because the means employed
by such person are essentially inadequate to

produce the result desired by him, the court,
having in mind the social danger and the degree
of criminality shown by the offender, shall
impose upon him the penalty of arresto mayor
or a fine from 200 to 500 pesos.
CRIMINAL MIND OF THE OFFENDER:
Q. Is impossible crime a Felony?
A. No, actually there is no felony but it is
punished. But what is punished here is the
Criminal mind of the offender.
ELEMENTS OF IMPOSSIBLE CRIME:
1. That a person performs an act which
could be an offense against person.
Never used in your written and answer in
recitation that an impossible crime is committing
a felony, he is merely performing an act.
2. That he has evil intent.
3. That the crime he intended to commit is
impossible of being consummated,
either because of physical or legal
impossibility or the means employed
was either inadequate or ineffectual.
4. Provided that the act should not
constitute violation of any other
provision of the revised penal code.
PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY/MATERIAL
IMPOSSIBILITY OR LEGAL
IMPOSSIBILITY.
INEFFECTUAL MEANS:
Example: A person intending to kill his rival and
invited his rival and then the offender pick a
bottle believing it contains person and pour it in
the drink of his rival but despite the fact the
bottle is almost finished he is still asking for
more. Then he found that the bottle he poured is
just sugar and not poison.
ILLUSTRATION OF IMPOSSIBLE CRIME:

X and Y are business rival but Y was
progressing in his business and X continue to
suffer loses. They are engaged in the same line
of business. So X decided to kill Y so that he
could monopolize the business.
X one afternoon goes to the house of Y. He
found Y lying on a bed. So he approach Y whom
he thought that he was sleeping but he wanted Y
to see how he would kill him. So he tried to
wake up Y but Y could not be waken up
anymore. It appears that he succumb to cardiac
arrest 10 minutes ago. But despite knowing that
Y is already dead he still shot all the bullets
contained in the magazine of his caliber 45
pistol.
Q. Is X liable for an impossible crime of
murder?
A. Apply the elements:
1. That a person performs an act which
could be an offense against person.
2. That he has evil intent.
In this example, there is no more intent to kill.
So there is no more impossible crime but had he
immediately shot the victim believing that he
was asleep and later on discovered that he
already suffered heart attack 10 mins. Ago then
that is the time when X will be liable for
impossible crime and will be penalize for
arrestor mayor or a fine of 500 php but not if he
had knowledge already that his intended victim
is already dead at the time of the shooting, there
is no more killing intent.
PEOPLE
VS
IMPOSSIBILITY.
INTOD:
PHYSICAL
In this case, Intod wants to kill his enemy he

goes to house of his enemy. The labor whom
intod had inquired in whom where the victim
could be found pointed to a room in the house.

Nandyn lang po sa kwarto dyn So Intod was
armed with armalite riffle and his gun. And fire
shots at the room only to discover that the
intended victim had gone to another place.
committed when a personal property is

unlawfully taken that belongs to another
employing violence or intimidation or person or
cause upon things.
Q. Is intod liable for an impossible crime? Intod

was charged with attempted murder and was
convicted by the trial court.
The thing taken by the offender must belong to

another if it belongs to him there is really legally
impossible to commit robbery.
A. The SC held that there was no attempted

murder that was committed but only an
impossible crime.
Q. Is the crime committed as impossible crime?
REASONING: The victim in whom he intended

to be killed was not present in the room
therefore he could not be killed. Had he known
that the victim is already out then there is no
impossible crime.
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY:
Under the 2nd para. When performing an act
which would constitute a crime against person
or property.
EXAMPLE:
X lost his wrist watch to a snatcher one month
ago. Then after one month he sees a man and
immediately notice that the wrist watch worn by
the man was the same wrist watch that was
snatched by the snatcher.
So he approached the man and told the man,
Pare ung relos na suot mo, akin yan Sabi nya
Hindi akin to I will show u that that is mine,
look at the back of the wrist watch and you will
find my initial there
There was really an engraved initial of the
person. O kita mo The accused now tried to
get it by means of force.
Q. Would he be liable for an impossible crime
there? For a crime for robbery?
It is legally impossible to hold a person of
robbery. Under Art 293 the crime of robbery is
A. No, because at the time when he pocked the

knife or revolver to the person he was already
committing felony, which is either grave
coercion grave threat.
So that is no longer an impossible crime.
EXAMPLE OF IMPOSSIBLE CRIME: LEGAL
IMPOSSIBILITY
X who lost his wrist watch to a snatcher and
wanted to own a wrist watch again. He
pickpocket in Quiapo a wrist watch, when he
examined he discovered that it was the same
wrist watch that was snatched by the snatcher.
Q. Is there a crime committed?
A. It is impossible crime. It is legally impossible
for the owner of that thing to be liable for theft.
He has an evil intent on that time but there was a
legal impossibility of committing theft.
EXAMPLE: Provided that the act should not
constitute violation of any other provision of the
revised penal code.
X is a suitor of a pretty woman. But his offer of
love was not accepted by the woman. And he
said, ok tatangapin ko but at the back of his
mind By hook or by crook magiging akin ka
din So one evening , one month after that
incident where his offer of love was not
accepted. Learning that the girl he was courting
was left alone in her house. He went to the
house. And then he found the house to be closed,

he peek through the window and sees the girl
lying in the sofa.
But the door is locked in the inside. To get
inside of the house he climb the window and
surreptitiously approached the girl who lying in
the sofa and believing she was asleep he began
removing her underwear and mounted on her
until he was able to penetrate her. But he was
surprised because the body of girl is already cold
only to discover that the girl had already died
20 minutes ago because of cardiac arrest.
Q. What was the crime committed?
A. There is no more impossible crime there
because there was a last element in impossible
crime Provided that the act should not
constitute violation of any other provision of the
revised penal code.
When he entered the house, he already violated
ARTICLE 280 which is a case of TRESSPASS
TO DWELING, it already constitute a crime
based on other provision of the law.
So the crime to be charged is only TRESSPASS
TO DWELLING. Had the door been open then
it was through the door that he entered and he
penetrated here and discovered that she was
already dead then that would be considered as
an impossible crime. Because rape now is a
crime against person.
HISTORY OF RAPE AS A CRIME AGAINST
PERSON:
Prior to the enactment of R.A 8353 there is no
impossible crime of rape because rape is still a
crime against chastity and not a crime against
person. It is only when a new provision of the
RPC was inserted in Title 8 that is ARTICLE
266-A. It transforms the crime of rape to crime
against chastity to crime against person.
trespass to dwelling under Article 280 because

entering to a window of the house of another is
entrance against the presumed.
ARTICLE 5:
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 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.
Article 5 pertains to the duty of the judge when

confronted by TWO SITUATIONS:
1. Like for instance, the accused is charged with
the crime of murder. Despite the evidence
overwhelming evidences proving that the crime
is indeed murder with aggravating circumstances
present, the judge convicting him of murder but
the judge sentence instead of death penalty he
merely sentence the accused for RECLUSION
PERPETUA.
You know the penalty for murder prior to the
suspension of death penalty is reclusion of
perpetua to death.
EXAMPLE:
If there was entry to a means not intended for

entrance then that would constitute as a crime of

One example is a Judge of Manila who in a
heinous crime, rape with homicide, the law
clearly state that the penalty is death penalty.
The judge instead of imposing death penalty
merely imposed reclusion perpetua. The reason
for this is that in conscience, he cannot impose
the death penalty because according to his
religious belief god gives life and only god can
take it away.
So instead of following the tenets of the law, he
imposes reclusion perpetua. That VIOLATES
THE PROVISION OF SECTION 5. Even if he
is against his belief the law must be followed,
Dura Lex Sed lex!
And there is now a duty where he could
recommend to the chief executive through his
secretary of justice the grant in the same
judgement or conviction recommending that the
chief executive grant executive clemency. But it
is not the judge itself who will exercise
clemency by reducing the penalty to reclusion
perpetua.
2. The 2nd is when the accused is charged by an

offense but after trial where evidence had
already been presented the court finds that there
is no existing law whether the RPC or any
special law that punishes that act charged in the
information. The duty of the court is to
DISMISSED OR ACQUIT THE ACCUSED.
But if he feels that there is a need for such act be
punished he must put a recommendation from
his judgment, recommending to the chief
executive through the sec. of justice that such act
is subject to a penal legislation.
That is the 2 duties that is contained in Art. 5 of
the RPC.
ARTICLE
6:
CLASSIFICATION
OF
FELONIES ACCORDING TO THE STAGE
OF EXECUTION
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 reason of causes independent of
the will of the perpetrator.
There is an attempt when the offender
commences the commission of a felony directly
or over acts, and does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the felony by
reason of some cause or accident other than this
own spontaneous desistance.
CLASSIFICATION
ACCORDING TO
EXECUTION:
OF
THE
FELONIES
STAGE OF
1. Consummated Felony
2. Frustrated Felony
3. Attempted Felony
CONSUMMATED FELONY: When all the
elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present.
Example: So when a person shoots a victim who
was hit on the abdomen and piercing the heart
and died as a consequence. That is already
consummated felony of homicide or murder.
FRUSTRATED FELONY:
But if the victim survives because of timely
medical intervention. The would that could have
resorted to his death were not because of the

timely medical attention in the hospital and the
crime would be FRUSTRATED MURDER OR
HOMICIDE.
ATTEMPTED FELONY:
But if the wound inflicted is serious but it will
not cause the death of the victim even if there is
medication or there is no treatment. Then the SC
ruled the crime is only ATTEMPTED
MURDER OR ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE.
PROVIDED: That under Frustrated and
attempted homicide there must always have an
INTENT TO KILL. Because if the intent to kill
is not established during the trial then it would
only be serious physical injuries, less serious
physical injury or light physical injury.
DISTINCTION: FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE
OR
MURDER
FROM
PHYSICAL
INJURIUES:
It is the presence of intent to kill. In the absence
of intent to kill if the victim is seriously injured
that will only be serious physical injuries but
once intent to kill is proven that could either be
frustrated homicide or attempted homicide as the
case may be.
DEFINITION: FRUSTRATED FELONY:
Now, How does the law define frustrated
felony? There is FRUSTRATED FELONY,
when the offender has performed all the acts of
execution that would produce the felony. But
nevertheless do not produce them by reason of
some cause independent of the perpetuator.
ATTEMPTED FELONY:
There is attempted felony whenever the offender
had commenced the commission of the felony
directly by overt act but does not perform the
acts of execution that could produce the felony
by reason of some cause or accident other than
his own spontaneous desistance.
ILLUSTRATION:
Precy a very pretty model is married to a
handsome doctor. But the doctor was very
jealous type. Whenever they attend any social
gathering Precy is always the apple of the eye,
and the doctor became very jealous one night
and someone in that night ask the wife to dance
but they dance for two hours already and they
dont want to sit down. So the doctor became
very jealous he approached the two in the center
of the ballroom and pull the hands of the wife,
Halika ka na! Uwi na tayo masakit na ang ulo
ko! So along the way they were quarrelling
there were heated exchange of words until they
reach the house the scolding continues but the
wife was also responding, Bakit ba
napakaseloso mo?!
The Husband lost his patience, he draws his
pistol then shoots the wife, the bullet hit the
abdomen, the wife fell down, gasping for breath
indicative that he is already dying.
The doctor who is also a surgeon take the body
of the wife and become resourceful and brought
the wife inside his clinic, the operated on the
wife successfully extracting the bullet from her
abdomen then administer the medicine thereby
saving the wife. If the wife recovered after
recovery he know approach you as a lawyer,
Ano ba ang demanda pede sa asawa ko? Gusto
ko sya turuan ng leksyon, binaril nya ko.
Q. From those 3 stages of execution which from
these 3 stages shall be the crime to be charged
against the doctor?
Of course, it could not be consummated crime
because she did not die. Would it be parricide?
The wife was injured seriously and she could not
have died if not for the timely medical
intervention performed by the husband. Could it
be frustrated parricide?

a. NONE OF THEM. Because to become
frustrated parricide, take note, when the
offended had performed all the acts of execution
that would produce the felony of parricide in the
case all the acts of execution has been performed
by the husband, he could have committed where
if not for the timely medical intervention. That
the felony of parricide does not result by reason
of some cause independent of the perpetuator.
defender done was to force him to take one

cupful of sugar in order that he would vomit so
he vomited including the poison, thus saving the
life of the victim?
INDEPENDENT
PERPETUATOR:
In the case of PEOPLE VS VALENZUELA , in

the crime of theft our understanding of theft is
that it is incapable of 3 stages of execution.
Because you have there in another case where
the ruling of the CA is that there is a crime of
frustrated theft but not in the case of Valenzuela,
the SC that theft is susceptible only for two
stages, it is either:
FROM
THE
Now how do you understand, independent from

the perpetuator? It is the one who would save the
life should be not the perpetuator himself, it
must not be the doctor before the provision of
law would apply.
But here it is the perpetuator himself who saved
the life of the victim then it could not be
frustrated parricide.
A. The answer is the same. If the perpetuator is

the one who saved the life of the victim that the
crime is SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES.
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY:
a. Consummated
b. Attempted.
Q. Would it be attempted parricide?
NO FRUSTRATION STAGE.
A. No, because in attempted felony the offender

merely commence the execution of the felony
directly by overt act. In the example given, the
doctor already performed all the acts of
execution that would result to the crime so it
could not be any of the two.
No frustrated stage. Why is there no frustration

stage? Because once the offender had
already.. (search in the book for the reason)
SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY:

This is the crime that is applicable. It is because
the criminal intent to kill has been eliminated by
the own act of the perpetuator when he saved the
life of his wife.
PROBLEM QUESTION:
The same is true when a person wants to kill
through poison by pouring it to the drink of the
victim but when it was drank by the victim it
already took effect on the body of the victim and
the victim became unconscious, he was grasping
for breath because of that poison. But what the
TWO STAGES OF ROBBERY:

In the case of robbery there are two types:
a. Robbery with violence or intimidation
of person.
b. Robbery with force upon things.
ROBBERY
WITH
VIOLENCE
INTIMIDATION OF PERSONS:
OR
Robbery with violation or intimidation, an

example of this is in the case of holdup. If the
holdoper goes inside the bus and held up the
passengers, he is already in possession of the ill
taken. But along the way there were policemen,
so before he could escape he is already arrested
before the thing taken from the passenger?

Q. What is the crime?
A. It is consummated robbery. Because once the
taking the complete meaning he is already in
complete control, even he has no opportunity to
dispose the same, the SC held that it is already
consummated.
ROBBERY WITH FORCE UPON THINGS:
But that principle will not apply in the case of
robbery with force upon things. Robbery in an
inhabited house under Article 299 and robbery
in an uninhabited house, because to become
robbery the offender must have entered the
house completely with his body, and he get
something inside the house and gets out of the
house.
But if the robber is already holding the thing
inside the house but before he could passhe is
alreadythat is already a FRUSTRATED
ROBBERY.
ATTEMPTED ROBBERY:
It is when, for example, he entered the house and
opens the cabinet then he was already holding a
thing in value but before he was already
apprehended then that is ATTEMPTED
ROBBERY. (see the book for clear illustration)
Q. What makes it attempted robbery?
A. Because of the definition, because there is
attempted felony when the offender had
commence the commission of the felony directly
by overt act.
PROBLEM QUESTION:
But supposed with intent to rob he destroys the
door, once he entered the house. The robber sees
a very big picture of the family, the couple had
several children who are still very small. That
made him changed his mind, he said, kawawa
naman to So he ran out of the house. But what

is the crime committed?
A. There is no attempted robbery there.
Rather the crime is CONSUMMATED
TRESSPASS TO DWELLING.
It is not attempted robbery because at that point
when he entered the house he does not take hold
of anything yet. Then it is not yet definite what
is the intended crime that he wants to commit.
But if he was able to open the cabinet and he
was arrested by doing that act. That is already an
indication that his intention was indeed to rob.
Because the act performed as a direct connection
with the intended felony but not when the robber
when he destroys the door and rushed out to the
house. That is only a crime of consummated
trespass to dwelling. But not attempted robbery.
PROBLEM QUESTION:
Supposed the robber destroys the windows.
Instead, he protrude his arm on the broken
window and he was able to grab the bag of the
owner of the house. It contain money and
jewelry.
Q. What was the crime is committed?
A. It is theft. Because in Article 299 and 302 in
robbery the robber should have entered the
house, his entire body not merely a part of his
body.
EXTORTION OR BRIBERY:
In the crime of bribery there is only one stage
and that is always consummated. The moment
the public officer receives the bribe it is
consummated. There is no frustrated and
attempted stage.
But in the crime of CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC
OFFICIALS, the one who offers the bribe if the
bribe being offered was accepted by the public
officer then both are guilty of consummated

felony. Consummated bribery with respect to the
public officer and consummated corruption of
public official with respect to the bribe.
If the bribe was not accepted by the public
officer he does not commit any crime. But the
one who offers the bribe shall be guilty of
ATTEMPTED CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC
OFFICIAL.
So bribery is only committed in one stage only
consummated. But corruption of public official
is in two stages, either consummated or
attempted.
ARSON:
Some books say, there is no frustrate arson. But
I do not believe that. In the Reyes book there are
3 STAGES IN THE COMMISSION OF
ARSON, there is consummated, frustrated and
attempted.
PHYSICAL INJURIES:
Q. Is there frustrated or attempted physical
injuries?
In the application of Art. 6 how to understand
the so called, material crimes and formal crimes.
consummated. Kase tingnan mo, kapag ka ung

isang tao sinuntok ung kanyang kaaway
tinamaan sa mukha, naputol ang ngipin nya
automatic that is already serious physical
injuries pero halimbawa susuntukin na nya but
before he could hit the mouth of the victim
naalala nya, mabigat pla ung penalty bigla nyang
hinatak, is that frustrated or attempted physical
injury? No.
Q. But did he committed any crime?
A. Yes, that is unjust vexation. Syempre, pag ka
ginawa sayo un sasabihin mob a Ay salamat
muntk mo na kong sinaktan Ganun ba? O
maiinis ka? Of course, you will be vexed and
annoyed.
RAPE:
There is no frustrated rape in Rape. But when is
there consummated rape?
A. A mere slightest penetration of the penal
instrument to the private organ
consummate rape.
Q. So kung slightest penetration
consummated, when is there frustrated?
is
A. Wala.
FORMAL CRIMES:
Formal crimes are crimes which are susceptible
of 3 stages or 2 stages of execution. Like for
instance, in crime of oral defamation, there is no
frustrated or attempted oral defamation. If the
offender opens his lips and then he stated to the
victim, Hoy ikaw numero uno kang
magnanakaw That is already consummated
already.
So if there is no penetration that is attempted

rape. But such act may constitute any other
crime. It could be acts of lasciviousness.
DISTINCTION: ATTEMPTED RAPE AND
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS:
Halimbawa, sinabi nya Hoy, ikaw ang numero

unong Magna Hindi na naituloy. There is no
attempted and frustrated here.
It could be considered attempted rape if from the

conduct of the offender it manifested his intent
to penetrate the woman. If there is no such
conduct to penetrate then the SC held that it
could not be a crime of attempted rape but a
crime of ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS.
Physical injuries are always consummated,

walang stages ang physical injuries. It is always
EXAMPLE: In one case, the accused was

convicted of attempted rape. However, in the

testimony of the woman the victim was a minor
stated that the man force her to lie down
removed her underwear and then removes his
pants and the man mound on her.
punishable not only in its consummated stage

but also in its consummated and attempted stage.
When the judge asked, What more has been

done by the accused? The victim said, He held is
penis and put his penis on top of my private part
and then the judge asked further, Is there
something more that the accused had done?
Opo Then he rub his penis on top of my
private part. What else? There was no more
Kiniskiskiskiss po sa ibabawa po ng aking ari.
So the conviction of rape is wrong, because
there was no act constituting any intent to
penetrate, but the act was constitute in lewd
design and therefore there is acts of
lasciviousness, which is in violation of Art. 336
of the RPC.
ERRONEOUS CONNOTATION:
Previously, there was an erroneous connotation
about rape that the mere touching of the penal
instrument consummates the offense, but that is
wrong. There must be a slightest penetration is
what consummates the crime of rape.
ARTICLE 7: LIGHT FELONIES
BAR QUESTION: Are all light felonies,
punishable when only consummated?
Art. 7. When light felonies are punishable.
Light felonies are punishable only when they
have been consummated, with the exception of
those committed against person or property.chan
robles virtual law library
A. It
is
only
consummated.
punishable
when
EXCEPTION:
EXCEPT: When the crime is against personal
property. It means to say that light felonies are

Criminal Law Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Criminal Law Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

[DRAFT] AJF MIDTERM NOTES (CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL SALVA)