Alright ah. I already inform you to memorize the definition of Criminal law.

What is CRIMINAL LAW?

Criminal Law is a branch of or division of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for their punishment.

CRIME is an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or commanding it.

Do not take this for granted. This might be asked in the BAR memorized the definition of criminal law and law.

Okay. Alright.

THERE IS NO COMMON LAW CRIMES IN THE PHILIPPINES.

Why?

The simple answer is

TAKE NOTES: THERE IS NO COMMON LAW CRIME IN THE PHILIPPINES because IN OTHER FOR IT to be A CRIME, WHETHER UNDER
IN THE RPC OR BY A SPECIAL BE A CRIME.

In order that it may be a crime. That Crime should be defined and punished based on A WRITTEN LAW.

Key word is WRITTEN LAW.

Such as RPC or SPECIAL CRIMINAL LAWS example RA 9262.

May favorite RA 9019

What is the purpose of the CRIMINAL LAW?

WHY DO WE HAVE CRIMINAL LAWS?

TAKE NOTE: The purpose of CRIMINAL LAW is to punish crimes or offenses. Meaning to punish OFFENDERS to the commission of
crimes or offenses in order that we will have an ORGANIZED SOCIETY.

In relation to that DO NO FORGET THE TWO THEORIES OF CRIMINAL LAW.

What are those TWO THEORIES?

CLASSICAL THOERY and POSITIVIST THEORY.

What do you mean by CLASSICAL OR JURIST THEORY The basis of criminal liability is human FREE WILL and the purpose if the
penalty is retribution. RPC IS UNDER CLASSICAL THEORY

HOW ABOUT POSITIVIST THEORY - The primary purpose: Reformation. There is great respect for the human element because
the offender is regarded as socially sick who needs treatment, not punishment.

Eclectic or mixed philosophy - This combines both positivist and classical thinking. Crimes that are economic and social by nature
should be dealt with in a positivist manner; thus, the law is more compassionate. Heinous crimes should be dealt with in a
classical.

G.R. No. 130487. June 19, 2000*

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROBERTO ESTRADA, accused-appellant.
Criminal Law; Under the classical theory on which our penal code is mainly based, the basis of criminal liability is human free will;
man, therefore, should be adjudged or held accountable for wrongful acts so long as free will appears unimpaired.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 (delito doloso), 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.

Why is the case remanded in the RTC?

As early as in the RTC, the lawyer of in alleged that the accused is INSANE.

What will be the effect if the accused is proven to be INSANE?

Accused will be exempted from CRIMINAL LIABILITY. INSANITY IS AN EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE.

In effect according to the classical theory when a person commits a crime. He commits the crime out on this own free will. He
commits the crime voluntarily that being the case then he should deserve the corresponding punishment in proportion to the
crime he committed.

IN ESTRADA CASE, if it is found that the accused is INSANE then it simply means that did not voluntarily commits the crime he is
exempted from criminal liability.

How about the POSITIVIST THEORY OR REALIST THEORY? When a person commits a crime does not commit the crime voluntarily,
that person committing a crime in effect is A SICK PERSON that needed to be medically attended by Psychologist and sociologist.
In effect when person commits a crime according to the positivist theorist. The person should be treated in order that he will
become again a productive member of the society. Meaning he should not be punished.

In connection with that in effect RA 9344 in so far as

1. offender who is 15 years below
2. offender above 15 under 18 acting without discernment.
THEY SHOULD BE SUBJECTED TO INTERVENTION OR DIVERSTION.
Purpose : so that those offenders will be reintegrated to the society.

TAKE NOTE: SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW.

The important question is. IS the interpretation of a particular criminal law by a SUPREME COURT a SOURCE OF CRIMINAL LAW?

If let us say a provision of a RA 9262 is raised to the SC and SC has given an interpretation of the disputed provision. Is the
interpretation of a particular criminal law by a SUPREME COURT a SOURCE OF CRIMINAL LAW? YES OR NO?

IT IS NOT. It is not a source of criminal law. The power to enact a criminal law is STRICTLY LEGISLATIVE.

SC does not have power to enact criminal law.

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE YES during MARTIAL LAW. PRESIDENT promulgate and enact law.

REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNAMENT in 1986 Pres. Aquino has power to execute and enact criminal laws.

In short class the point is. This criminal laws are enacted by the LEGISLATIVE BODY. (congress and senate as legislative body)

POWER TO ENACT CRIMINAL LAW IS BASED ON THE INHERENT POLICE POWER OF STATE.

Q: if we say that Congress has the power to enact criminal law. Is this power absolute?
A: NO, It is not absolute. It has limitation as provided by the CONSTITUTION (BILL OF RIGHTS). CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS to
ENACT CRIMINAL LAWS.

EX POST FACTO LAW.

Ex post facto law is a penal law which is given retroactive application to the prejudice of the accused. Hence, even if the penal
law is made to apply retroactively, if it is favourable to the accused the same is not ex post facto, and, thus, allowed under Article
22 (Boado, 2012, pp. 34). It is further defined as one which:
1. Makes criminal in act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when done, and punishes such an act;
2. Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater that it was, when committed;
3. Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed;
4. Alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony that the law required at the
time of the commission of the offense;
5. Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which
when done was lawful; and
6.Deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a
former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty (Reyes, Book One, 2012, p.3, citing In re: Kay Villegas Kami, Inc.,
35 SCRA 429).

TAKE NOTE: If the law punishes an act which was innocent or which was not criminal at the time it was committed then it is an
EX POST FACTO LAW

Why: Before a criminal law becomes effective it must be published. THE PEOPLE SHOULD BE NOTIFIED of such a LAW before the
people are expected not to committed the crime punished on the said law.

IN RELATION TO THAT: does it mean a criminal law can never have a retroactive effect? In short provided that it be favorable
to the accused.

G.R. No. 125672. September 27, 1996.*

JESUSA CRUZ, petitioner, vs. CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION FOR WOMEN IN MANDALUYONG, respondent.
The beneficial effects of the amendment provided under R.A. 7659 should be extended to an accused although the penalty of life
imprisonment imposed on her under the previous law had already become final.All told, the petitioner should now be deemed
to have served the maximum period imposable for the crime for which she was convicted, i.e., selling 5.5 grams of dried marijuana
leaves. Although her penalty of life imprisonment had already become final, the beneficial effects of the amendment provided
under R.A. 7659 should be extended to petitioner.

SHE WAS CONVICTED AS RA 6425 that was the old anti-drugs law. This law was amended by 7659. The amended of the RA7659
AS interpreted by the SC her penalty should not be more than SIX YEAR and she has already served that sentence although she is
originally convicted and penalty is LIFE IMPRISONMENT. But because of retroactive application of the RA 7659 which was
FAVORABLE TO CRUZ then she was immediately release from prison since she has already served the sentence in accordance of
the new amended law

EVEN IF THE ACCUSED IS ALREADY SERVING SENTENCE. ONCE THAT CRIMINAL LAW IS FAVORABLE TO THE ACCUSED that as rule
that will applied on the him/her.

EXCEPTIONS:
1. Law does not provide a retroactive effect
2. Accused is HABITUAL DELINGUENT
AS early as NOW. MEMORIZED WHO IS HABITUAL DELINGUENT or when is the offender consider as HABITUAL DELINGUENT?

ARTICLE 62. PAR 5.

Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects:
a person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent, is 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, robo (ROBERY), hurto(THEFT), estafa or falsification, he is found guilty
of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.

AS early as now. WHAT IS THE EFFECT IF THE OFFENDER HABITUAL DELINGUENT?

WHEN DO WE SAY that the offender is HABITUAL DELINGUENT? a person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent, is 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,
robo (ROBERY), hurto(THEFT), estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.

TAKE NOTE: That offender is considered a HABITUAL DELINGUENT? IF he is FOUND GUILTY ATLEAST A THIRD TIME OR OFTER.

Minimum is THIRD CONVICTION:

THIS CRIME IS CRIME IS AGAINT PROPERTY - robo (ROBERY), hurto(THEFT), estafa
serious or less serious physical injuries crime againt person
Falsification Crime against public interest. TITLE 4

I CALL YOUR ATTENTION

TAKE NOTE: in so far physical injuries are in concern THEY ONLY REFER TO serious or less serious physical injuries ONLY it does
not include SLIGHT OR LIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES.
WATCH OUT!!!!

EVEN IF THE OFFENDER IS CONVICTED OF ROBBERY AND THEFT AND THE THIRD ONE IS SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES. Is he a
HABITUAL DELINGUENT? THE ANSWER IS = NO because the definition speaks of serious or less serious physical injuries.

The basic effect of being a HABITUAL DELINGUENT? YOU WILL BE GIVEN THE PENALTY OF THE THIRD OR FOURTH CRIME
COMMITTED AND ADDITIONAL PENALTY

Because the offender is a HABITUAL DELINQUENT. If he is not a HABITUAL DELINGUENT? LETS say the first crime.
Robbery
Estafa
Slight physical injuries NOT CONSIDERED AS HABITUAL DELINQUENT

TAKE NOTE: the additional penalty should EXCEED 30 YEARS.

PROSPECTIVE AND RETROACTIVITY

In so far as the RETROACTIVITY IS CONCERN. TAKE NOTE of RA 9344 - Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006.

Under RA 9344
ALL THOSE persons who committed a crime when they are 15 years old and below even if they are serving sentence SHALL BE
DISMISSED AND THE OFFENDER WILL BE RELEASE FROM JAIL and cases will be dismissed.

Which provides retroactive application in so far as those offenders are in consider.

REMEMBER BEFORE RA 9344 What is the age of criminal liability

9 and below over 9 but under 15 acting with discernment

RA 9344 15 year old ka pababa EXEMPTED KA FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY

OVER 15 example 15 years and one hour acting with discernment criminal liable ? NO because

In the CIRCULAR ENACTED BY THE SUPREME COURT the phase over 15 should be read as 15 years and one day.

OTHER CHARACTERISTIC OF CRIMINAL LAW aside from PROSPECTIVE.

General, Territoriality, Prospective.

GENERALITY refers to the PERSONS covered by penal laws; Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory
upon all those who live or sojourn in Philippine territory (Article 14, New Civil Code).
EXCEPT
Those we call that have SOVERIGH IMMUNITY under PUBLIC INTERNATION LAW.

HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE. If DONAL THRUMP comes to the phil and commits murder since he is the president of UNITED STATES
can you commit a murder case against him- NO he exempted from GENERAL CHARACTERISTIC OF CRIMINAL LAW

(i) Public Ministers;

(ii) Ambassadors; and
(iii) Domestic Servants of Ambassadors and Public Ministers
3.Principles of Public International Law
The following persons are exempted:
a.Sovereigns and other chiefs of state;
b.Charges d affaires;
c.Ambassadors
d.Ministers plenipotentiary; and
e.Ministers resident
ENJOYED IMMUNITY FROM SUITS

TERRITORIALITY refers to the PLACE where the law is applicable; penal laws of the Philippines are enforceable only within the
territory

As a rule our criminal law is applicable within out Territory. EXCEPTIONS: MEMORIZED ARTICLE 2
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship controlling factor registered in the philippines
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;
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.

Q: Supposing there is this VESSEL MD DUTERTE. Let say that MV DUTERTE. Owned by FILIPINO CHINESE. They are considered as
Filipino citizen and this vessel is registered in CHINA but owned by 5 FILIPINO and A CRIME of HOMICIDE was commited on board
of MV DUTERTE. Q can the case be filed in the Philippines?

A: No. y not! Meaning to say the CONTROLING FACTOR IS THAT IT SHOULD BE REGISTERED TO THE APPOPRIATE Philippines
registry

EXCEPTION 2 and 3:
What is the rational for the 2-3 exception: ECONOMIC AND VITAL INTEREST OF THE COUNTRY

EXCEPTION 4 : applies only if the crime commited is relation to the OFFICE of the public officer.

EXAMPLE. Consulate office of the Philippines in LA there is cashier. The cashier malverse the collection. The malversation took
place in the Consular office of the Philippines in LA California. Q. can a case of malversation be filed in the Philippines? A : YES.
The crime committed is in relation to the function to the public officer. Being as cashier is accountable to the public funds. ART.
217- MALVERSATION.

EXCEPTION NUMBER 5 crime against title ONE.

If there is a conflict between the English version between the Spanish version which will prevail.

PEOPLE VS MANGULABNAN
that the English version of Article 294, No. 1, of the Revised Penal Code, which defines the special, single and indivisible crime of
robbery with homicide only punishes any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person,
with the penalty of reclusion perpetua when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been
committed, but this English version of the Code is a poor translation of the prevailing Spanish text of said paragraph, which reads
as follows:
"1. Con la pena de reclusion perpetua a muerte, cuando con motivo o con ocasion del robo resultare homicidio."
We see, therefore, that in order to determine the existence of the crime of robbery with homicide it is enough that a homicide
would result by reason or on the occasion of the robbery (Decision of the Supreme Court of Spain of November 26, 1892, and
January 7, 1878, quoted in 2 Hidalgo's Penal Code, p. 267 and 259-260, respectiveljr). This High Tribunal speaking of the accessory
character of the circumstances leading to the homicide, has also held that it is immaterial that the death would supervene by
mere accident (Decision of September 9, 1886; October 22, 1907; April 30, 1910 and July 14, 1917), provided that the homicide
be produced by reason or on occasion of the robbery, inasmuch as it is only the result obtained, without reference or distinction
as to the circumstances, causes, modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime, that has to be taken into
consideration (Decison of January 12, 1889see Cuello Calon's Codigo Penal, p. 501-502). People vs. Mangulabnan, et al., 99
Phil. 992, No. L-8919 September 28, 1956

ARTICLE 3

INTENTIONAL FELONIES AND CULPABLE FELONIES.

[No. 504. September 16, 1902.]

THE UNITED STATES, complainant and appellant, vs. ToMASA DE LOS REYES, defendant and appellee.

1.CRIMINAL LAW; BIGAMY; INTENT.A woman who marries a second time under a bona, fide belief that her former spouse is
dead is not guilty of bigamy.

2.ID.; ID.; ; CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE.It is criminal negligence to contract a second marriage within two years of the reported
death of the former spouse without the exercise of a high degree of diligence in confirming such report. United States vs. De los
Reyes, 1 Phil., 375, No. 504 September 16, 1902

ACQUITED OF INTENTIONAL BIGAMY BY CHARGED CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE.

RELYING ON THE STATEMENT ON THE MOTHER IN LAW

ACQUITTED BY INTENTIONAL BIGAMY BUT CONVICTED
CULPABLE BIGAMY OR RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE RESULTING IN BIGAMY.

Can you fault delos reyes? In getting married in the second time wherein the mother in law it saying that her son was died. You
do not have an intent to committed intentional bigamy.
Accused did not exercise due diligence in further verifying the death of her husband.

ARTICLE 3 definition of FELONY - 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.

In connection of ARTICLE 3 the case of G.R No. 80762. March 19, 1990 *PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FAUSTA
GONZALES, AUGUSTO GONZALES, CUSTODIO GONZALES, SR., CUSTODIO GONZALES, JR., NERIO GONZALES and ROGELIO LANIDA,
accused, CUSTODIO GONZALES, SR., accused-appellant.

Criminal Law; Murder; Act as used in Art. 3 of the Revised Penal Code; There must be shown an act committed by appellant
which would have inflicted any harm to the body of the victim that produced his death.While the prosecution accuses, and the
two lower courts both found, that the appellant has committed a felony in the killing of Lloyd Peacerrada, forsooth there is
paucity of proof as to what act was performed by the appellant. It has been said that act, as used in Article 3, of the Revised
Penal Code, must be understood as any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the external world. In this
instance, there must therefore be shown an act committed by the appellant which would have inflicted any harm to the body
of the victim that produced his death. Yet, even Huntoria, as earlier emphasized, admitted quite candidly that he did not see who
stabbed or who hacked the victim. Thus this principal witness did not say, because he could not, whether the appellant
hacked or stabbed the victim. In fact, Huntoria does not know what specific act was performed by the appellant. This lack of
specificity then makes the case fall short of the test laid down by Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code previously discussed.

The eye witness on this case did not see the appellant commit the overt act of stabbing. Therefore he did not commit a felony.
Because a felony is defined as - Acts and omissions. Then he did not commit the crime of murder.

Memorized the definition of the word ACT - any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the external world.

What is omission ? is meant inaction, the failure to perform a positive duty which one is bound to do. There must be law requiring
the doing or performance of an act.

Article 275 ABONDONMENT a felony by omission. Law requires a positive duty to perform. If that person fails to do the positive
duty required by law, He is guilty of felony by omission

In relation of 116 Art. 116. Misprision of treason. Every person owing allegiance to (the United States) the Government of
the Philippine Islands, without being a foreigner, and having knowledge of any conspiracy against them, conceals or does not
disclose and make known the same, as soon as possible to the governor or fiscal of the province, or the mayor or fiscal of the city
in which he resides, as the case may be, shall be punished as an accessory to the crime of treason.

When you speak of FELONY crimes punishable under RPC only.

Felony crimes offense are interchange.

If a crime is punishable by a special criminal law. It is called an OFFENSE MALA PROHIBITA as distinguish to MALA IN SE.

WHAT ARE THE Distinction between MALA PROHIBITA as distinguish to MALA IN SE.

MALA PROHIBITA it wrong because the law provides for it. It a punishable by special law.

MALA IN SE inherently wrong. Those cover by the RPC.

TAKE NOTE: In mala PROHIBITA criminal INTENT IS NOT AN ELEMENT. Whereas CRIMINAL INTENT is required in MALA IN SE.

In mala prohibita what is important is that the accused VOLUNTARY PERPETUATED the ACT. In illegal possession of FIREARMS.
The accused cannot raise a defense that he does not have any criminal intent. In fact he just possess the gun for protection. THE
ANSWER IS NO. AS long as the accused violated the law. If the accused VOLUNTARY PERPETUATED the prohibited act is it already
sufficient.

THERE ARE SOME FELONIES in RPC that does not required CRIMINAL INTENT and yet it is a FELONY.
FOR EXAMPLE 304 - possession of picklock criminal intent is not required in yet it a felony under the RPC

THERE ARE some CRIMES that are punishable by SPECIAL LAW and yet criminal intent is required.

The distinction as to criminal intent is not ABSOLUTE.

G.R. Nos. 115008-09. July 24, 1996.*

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DANIEL QUIJADA Y CIRCULADO, accused-appellant.

There is conceded wisdom in punishing illegal possession of firearm without taking into account the criminal intent of the
possessor, for if intent to commit the crime were required, enforcement of the decree and its policy or purpose would be difficult
to achieve.Murder and homicide are defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code as crimes against persons. They are mala
in se because malice or dolo is a necessary ingredient therefor. On the other hand, the offense of illegal possession of firearm is
defined and punished by a special penal law, P.D. No. 1866. It is a malum prohibitum which the lawmaker, then President
Ferdinand E. Marcos, in the exercise of his martial law powers, so condemned not only because of its nature but also because of
the larger policy consideration of containing or reducing, if not eliminating, the upsurge of crimes vitally affecting public order
and safety due to the proliferation of illegally possessed and manufactured firearms, ammunition, and explosives. If intent to
commit the crime were required, enforcement of the decree and its policy or purpose would be difficult to achieve. Hence, there
is conceded wisdom in punishing illegal possession of firearm without taking into account the criminal intent of the possessor. All
that is needed is intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by law, coupled, of course, by animus possidendi. However, it must be
clearly understood that this animus possidendi is without regard to any other criminal or felonious intent which an accused may
have harbored in possessing the firearm.

Generally speaking if there is criminal intent it is mala in se punishable by RPC

Generally as a rule if he act is committed even without criminal intent as a rule MALA PROHIBITA as long as the act committed is
VOLUNTARY PERPETUATED. Or voluntarily committed by the accused.

BASIC rule in interpretation and construction of cRiminal laws In case of doubt it should be in favor to the accused. The doubt
should be resolved in favor of the accused.

WHY? BECAUSE all forces of government are against in SO ACCUSED.

Everything is at the command of the government in order to pinpoint the liability upon the accused, BECAUSE OF THAT
DISPARITY.pag may duda sa batas it should be in favor of the accused.

Acidic kumain ka ng skyflakes. Pag acidic ka un lang ang remedy. Kumain ka ng biscuit.

DO NOT FORGET THE ENGLISH RULE AND FRENCH RULE

TAKE NOTE: ENGLISH RULE is the one we follow.

VESSEL refered of as MERCHANT OR MILITARY VESSEL. Not a WARSHIP VESSEL.

Sec 26 A regarding trafficking in PERSONS RA 9208 as amended to RA 10364.

"SEC. 26-A. Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction. The State shall exercise jurisdiction over any act defined and penalized under this Act,
even if committed outside the Philippines and whether or not such act or acts constitute an offense at the place of commission,
the crime being a continuing offense, having been commenced in the Philippines and other elements having been committed in
another country, if the suspect or accused:

"(a) Is a Filipino citizen; or

"(b) Is a permanent resident of the Philippines; or
"(c) Has committed the act against a citizen of the Philippines.
"No prosecution may be commenced against a person under this section if a foreign government, in accordance with jurisdiction
recognized by the Philippines, has prosecuted or is prosecuting such person for the conduct constituting such offense, except
upon the approval of the Secretary of Justice.

"The government may surrender or extradite persons accused of trafficking in the Philippines to the appropriate international
court if any, or to another State pursuant to the applicable extradition laws and treaties."

THIS CRIME CAN BE PROSECUTED HERE IN THE PHILIPPINES.

SEC 58 RA 9372 Human Security Act of 2007- ANTI TERRORISM LAW

SEC. 58. Extra-Territorial Application of this Act. - Subject to the provision of an existing treaty of which the Philippines is a
signatory and to any contrary provision of any law of preferential application, the provisions of this Act shall apply: (1) to individual
persons who commit any of the crimes defined and punished in this Act within the terrestrial domain, interior waters, maritime
zone, and airspace of the Philippines; (2) to individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the
Philippines, commit, conspire or plot to commit any of the crimes defined and punished in this Act inside the territorial limits of
the Philippines; (3) to individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit any of
the said crimes on board Philippine ship or Philippine airship; (4) to individual persons who commit any of said crimes within any
embassy, consulate, or diplomatic premises belonging to or occupied by the Philippine government in an official capacity; (5) to
individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit said crimes against Philippine
citizens or persons of Philippines descent, where their citizenship or ethnicity was a factor in the commission of the crime; and
(6) to individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit said crimes directly
against the Philippine government.

TERRORISM. Conspiracy to commit terrorism. Even if it is committed aboard. It can be prosecuted HERE in the Philippines.

THIS TWO LAWS are exception in relation to ARTICLE 2.

IN RELATION OF ARTICLE 3.
US vs ACHONG - [No. 5272. March 19, 1910.]

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff and appellee, vs. AH CHONG, defendant and appellant.

JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE; SELF-DEFENSE; MlSTAKE OF FACTS.Defendant was a cook and the deceased was a house boy, and both
were employed in the same place and usually slept in the same room. One night, after the defendant had gone to bed, he was
awakened by some one trying to open the door, and called out twice, "Who is there?" He received no answer, and fearing that
the intruder was a robber, leaped from the bed and again called out: "If you enter the room I will kill you." At that moment he
was struck by a chair which had been placed against the door. Believing that he was being attacked, he seized a kitchen knife and
struck and fatally wounded the intruder, who turned out to be his roommate. Thereupon he called to his employers and rushed
back into the room to secure bandages to bind up the wound. Defendant was charged with murder. While there can be no doubt
of defendant's exemption from liability if the intruder had really been a robber, the question presented is whether, in this
jurisdiction, a person can be held criminally responsible when, by reason of a mistake of f acts, he does an act for which he would
be exempt if the facts were as he supposed them to be, but would constitute murder if he had known the true state of facts at
the time.

Held, That, under such circumstances, there is no criminal liability, provided that the ignorance or mistake of fact was not due
to negligence or bad faith. In other words, if such ignorance or mistake of facts is sufficient to negative a particular intent which,
under the law, is a necessary ingredient of the offense charged it destroys the presumption of intent and works an acquittal;
except in those cases where the circumstances demand a conviction under the penal provisions governing negligence, and in
cases where, under the provisions of article 1 of the Penal Code, a person voluntarily committing an act incurs criminal liability
even though the act be different from that which he intended to commit. United States vs. Ah Chong., 15 Phil. 488, No. 5272
March 19, 1910

IF there is a valid MISTAKE OF FACT. What is the effect. THE ACCUSED ACTED WITHOUT CRIMINAL INTENT.

What are the requisites of the valid mistake of FACT:

a.Mistake of fact negatives criminal liability akin to justifying circumstances under Article 11 NOT CRIMINALLY LIABLE.

Requisites of mistake of fact as a defense

i. That the act done would have been unlawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be;
ii.That the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful; and
iii.That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused (Reyes, Book One, 2012, p.45).

IMMEDIATELY WE RELATE THIS TO PEOPLE VS OANIS

THERE IS A MISTAKE IN IDENTITY offender is criminal liable.

Q: is motive an element of a crime NO. Motive is not an element is crime. AS long as the accused is positively identified that the
court need not need to inquire on the motive of the acussed.

There are instances where motive become relevant. Likely : when there is doubt as to who is the assailant. When the evidence is
circumstantial evidence.

PEOPLE VS YAU. Same; Evidence; Circumstantial Evidence; The settled rule is that a judgment of conviction based on
circumstantial evidence can be upheld only if the following requisites concur: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the
facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce
conviction beyond reasonable doubt.The prosecution presented credible and sufficient pieces of circumstantial evidence that
led to the inescapable and reasonable conclusion that Petrus committed the crime charged. The settled rule is that a judgment
of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld only if the following requisites concur: (1) there is more than one
circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is
such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The corollary rule is that the circumstances proven must constitute an
unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the
guilty person.

THE CRIME it SELF MUST BE PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT AND THE IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED/OFFENDER must be
proven beyond reasonable doubt.

In relation to that.
ONCE there is a witness who positively identifies the offender. Then the defense of denial or alibi will drop.

Let go to ARTICLE 4.
Paragraph 1 take NOTE: PRINCIPLE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE in relation to.

b. Aberratio ictus (Mistake in the victim of the blow) generally increases criminal liability with Criminal liability
c. Error in personae (Mistake in the identity) may or may not lower criminal liability depending upon whether or actual crime
committed and the intended crime are of equal or different gravity (Article 49, RPC) - with Criminal liability
d. Praeter intentionem (So grave a wrong caused than that intended) lowers criminal liability under Article 13 lack of intention
to commit so grave a wrong
the results exceeded. with Criminal liability

Efficient intervening cause interrupted the natural flow of events leading to ones death. This may relieve the offender from
liability. No criminal liability

PARAGRAPH 2 IMPOSSIBLE CRIME

Impossible Crime the accused is punished for his criminal tendency or propensity; Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal
Code

Requisites:
i. That the act performed would be an offense against persons or property;
ii. That the act was done with evil intent;
iii. That its accomplishment is inherently impossible or that the means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual; and
iv. That the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the RPC.
G.R. No. 103119. October 21, 1992.*

SULPICIO INTOD, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

Criminal Law; Impossible crime; To be impossible, the act intended by the offender must be by its nature one impossible of
accomplishment.That the offense cannot be produced because the commission of the offense is inherently impossible of
accomplishment is the focus of this petition. To be impossible under this clause, the act intended by the offender must be by its
nature one impossible of accomplishment. There must be either (1) legal impossibility, or (2) physical impossibility of
accomplishing the intended act in order to qualify the act as an impossible crime.

Same; Same; Same; Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts even if completed, would not amount to a crime.Legal
impossibility occurs where the intended acts, even if completed, would not amount to a crime. Thus: Legal impossibility 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 a performance of the intended physical act; and (4) the consequence resulting
from the intended act does not amount to a crime.

Same; Same; Same; Factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control
prevent the consummation of the intended crime.On the other hand, factual impossibility occurs when extraneous
circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime. One example is the
man who puts his hand in the coat pocket of another with the intention to steal the latters wallet and finds the pocket empty.

THE ACCUSED WAS CHARGE OF ATTEMPTED MURDER CONVIECTED IN rtc sc held THAT CRIME IS AN IMPOSSIBLE CRIME.

It must be crime against persons and crimes against property.

Article 5 just read it.

ARTICLE 6 is an important article STAGES of the EXECUTION OF THE FELONY. Memorized article 6

A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present.

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.

TAKE NOTE : in so far

Murder, Homicide or Parricide.
When to we say that the crime is Frustrated or attempted? HOW DO YOU KNOW?

FRAUSTRATED when the victim suffer a moral or fatal wound. The victim will necessary died unless medically attended. Offender
the has ordinarily inflicted a moral or fatal wound. The offender has already perform all the acts of execution.

If there is not moral wound but there is an intent to kill then the crime is only attempted.

In relation to Physical Injuries. If there is no intent to kill and the victim suffered physical injuries then the crime is only SERIOUS,
LESS SERIOUS, SLIGHT and LIGHT physical injuries.

Because in PH cases the offender has no intent to kill.

Whereas in attempted - Murder, Homicide or Parricide.
THERE IS ALWAYS AN INTENT TO KILL.

In so far as to attempted felony or attempt stage is concern.

TAKE NOTE: of the spontaneous desistance.

If there is a spontaneous desistance. That is an action that we called ABSOLUTORY CAUSE.

Absolutory causes are those where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment there is no
penalty imposed (Reyes, Book One, 2012, p. 254) offender will be exempted from criminal liability by returning to the folds of
the law.
Examples of absolutory causes
1.Article 6 (3) spontaneous desistance in the attempted stage unless the overt act committed already constitutes a crime
other than that intended
2. Article 7 attempted/frustrated light felonies except those against persons or property
3. Article 16 accessories in light felonies
4. Article 20 certain relatives who are accessories subject to the requisites provided therein: upon those who are such with
respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity
within the same degrees
5. Article 247 death and physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances: any legally married person
6. Article 332 certain relatives in theft, estafa, and malicious mischief: committed or caused mutually by the following persons:
(a) spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line; (b) the widowed spouse with respect to the
property which belonged to the deceased spouse before the same shall have passed into the possession of another; and (c)
brothers and sisters and brothersinlaw and sistersinlaw, if living together
7. Article 124, last paragraph the commission of a crime, or violent insanity of any other ailment requiring the compulsory
confinement of the patient in a hospital, shall be considered legal grounds for the detention of any person
8. Battered woman syndrome Section 26, RA 9262
9. Status offenses in Sections 57 and 58, RA 9344
10. Article 280, paragraph 3 the provisions of this Article (On trespass to dwelling) shall not be applicable to any person who
shall enter anothers dwelling for the purpose of preventing some serious harm to himself, the occupants of the dwelling or a
third person, nor shall it be applicable to any person who shall enter a dwelling for the purpose of rendering some service to
humanity or justice, nor to anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns, inns and other public houses, while the same are open
11. Somnambulism
12. Article 344, paragraph 4 In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape, the marriage of the offender with
the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him. The provisions of this
paragraph shall also be applicable to the coprincipals, accomplices and accessories after the fact of the abovementioned crimes
13. Mistake of fact
14. Repeal of a penal law, either absolute or modification of the penalty when favorable to the offender
15. Instigation by reason of public policy.

Are this stages of felony applicable to special criminal laws because of article 10 A: NO

IN MALA PROHIBITUM in violation of special law there is only stage which is CONSUMMATED VIOLATION OF SPECIAL PENAL
LAW. Unless the very law itself provide for frustrated and attempted stages.

WHAT IS THE REASON. TAKE NOTE: if there is a stages in commission of the felony. We lower the penalty by degrees.

BIGAMY ARTICLE 349 punisable by PRISON MAYOR FOR CONSUMMATED. If it is frustrated one degree lower is what? PRISION
CORRECIONAL. If it merely an attempted stage another one degree lower. Arresto mayor.
This is the reason why there is a stages of the execution and the importance in knowing those stages BECAUSE OF THE AFFECT
OF THE PENALTY.

For an example. If it is HOMICIDE, reclusion temporal art 249.

If is frustrated No degree lower, in accordance with the rule article 61 in relation to the graduated scales under article 71

LOWERING THE PENALTY by degree by considering

1. Stages of the commission of the felony under art 6.
 2. Degree of participation of the offender under art 16.
Whether is one is a principal, accomplice and accessory.
THEN WE LOWER THE DEGREE OF PENALTY. In accordance of rules in article 61 and graduated scale in under article 71.

G.R. No. 129433. March 30, 2000.*

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PRIMO CAMPUHAN Y BELLO, accused-appellant.

RAPE BY SEXUAL INTERCOURSE.

Criminal Law; Rape; Words and Phrases; Touching when applied to rape cases does not simply mean mere epidermal contact,
stroking or grazing of organs, a slight brush or a scrape of the penis on the external layer of the victims vagina, or the mons
pubisthere must be sufficient and convincing proof that the penis indeed touched the labias or slid into the female organ, and
not merely stroked the external surface thereof, for an accused to be convicted of consummated rape.In People v. De la Pea
we clarified that the decisions finding a case for rape even if the attackers penis merely touched the external portions of the
female genitalia were made in the context of the presence or existence of an erect penis capable of full penetration. Where the
accused failed to achieve an erection, had a limp or flaccid penis, or an oversized penis which could not fit into the victims vagina,
the Court nonetheless held that rape was consummated on the basis of the victims testimony that the accused repeatedly tried,
but in vain, to insert his penis into her vagina and in all likelihood reached the labia of her pudendum as the victim felt his organ
on the lips of her vulva, or that the penis of the accused touched the middle part of her vagina. Thus, touching when applied to
rape cases does not simply mean mere epidermal contact, stroking or grazing of organs, a slight brush or a scrape of the penis on
the external layer of the victims vagina, or the mons pubis, as in this case. There must be sufficient and convincing proof that the
penis indeed touched the labias or slid into the female organ, and not merely stroked the external surface thereof, for an accused
to be convicted of consummated rape. As the labias, which are required to be touched by the penis, are by their natural situs
or location beneath the mons pubis or the vaginal surface, to touch them with the penis is to attain some degree of penetration
beneath the surface, hence, the conclusion that touching the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum constitutes
consummated rape.

On the old rape law. MERE TOUCHING. Now no MORE. There should be slight penetration or insertion for the consummation of
RAPE.

RAPE IS EITHER attempted or consummated.

If the offender just wants to derived vicarious pleasure or sexual pleasure. If the men put himself on the top of the woman without
any intent to penetrate. He keeps on pumping but without and intent to penetrate. What is the crime. Acts of Lasciviousness

But it if from the facts there is an intent to penetrate on there is an attempt to insert but was not successful there is a crime of
attempted rape.

G.R. No. 160188. June 21, 2007.*

ARISTOTEL VALENZUELA y NATIVIDAD, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and HON. COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

May either be Consummated theft or attempted theft there is no frustrated theft. The fact that the offender was not able to
depose the stolen goods. Does not make a crime a frustrated theft. The crime is still attempted theft as long as he was already in
possession of the subject of theft.

Can we apply this principle to robbery cases. IT should also be consummated and attempted following the case of Valenzuela vs.
People, 525 SCRA 306, G.R. No. 160188 June 21, 2007. Applying as analogy.

There only difference between theft and robbery if force, violence.

ARTICLE 7 - 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.

ARTICLE 8 - A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it.

When is there conspiracy? When two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide
to commit it. REGARDLESS OF PARTICIPATION. It is called as Act of one is an act of ALL
Is conspiracy is a crime or a felony itself? NO.

Is mere conspiracy punishable ? NO

It becomes punishable only when the law say so. LIKE CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY.
The RPC specially provides a penalty for mere conspiracy in:
a. Treason (Article 115)
b. Coup d etat, rebellion, insurrection (Article 136)
c. Sedition (Article 141)
d. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade (Article 186)

Under special laws

a. Selected acts committed under the Dangerous Drugs Act
b. Espionage
c. Illegal Association
d. Highway Robbery
e. Arson
f. Terrorism under the Human Security Act

There is no law that punishes conspiracy to commit rape. When A and B conspire to rape C. where in the A will do the act of
raping and B is only the look out. Will the criminal liability of A and B the same?

Habang tinitira nya ung isa ung isa nakatingin lang. are both the same criminal liable A:YES

That is why in prosecution for a crime involving conspiracy. The conspiracy itself must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Because if the conspiracy was not proven beyond reasonable doubt then the offender will be held liable according to their EXTENT
OF PARTICIPATION in the commission of the crime.

Usually what the evidence of conspiracy. Meron ba yang in agreement in writing where in we a and b decided to rape on this
date place and time. Meron ba tong documentary evidence? NO. otherwise they are both stupid.

Conspiracy is only implied by the acts executed by the participants. When the acts where taken together it will show that they
have COMMON CRIMINAL PURPOSE and they acted on the commission of the crime.

ONLY PROVEN by considering the acts of the offender or one of the conspirator turned as state witness.

I remember this one case involving malversation. Can a private person be held criminally liable for malversation for public funds
A: yes by conspiring to a public officer who is accountable for public fund (US VS PONTE)

Requisites of conspiracy:
a. That two or more persons came to an agreement;
b. That the agreement concerned the commission of a felony; and
c. That the execution of the felony be decided upon.

A B C conspired to kill X. A is the mastermind in the execution of the conspiracy A was not present. A did not executed an overt
act of killing. Will A be criminally liable? Would this not amount to desistance?

A: YES criminally liable

A: No, A master mind even if not present in the execution of the crime he/she is criminally liable because he the mastermind
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELIPE B. PAREJA, ET AL., defendants, FELIPE B. PAREJA,
Criminal law; Conspiracy; All conspirators are liable as coprincipals.Once an express or implied conspiracy is proved, all of the
conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the extent and character of their respective active participation in the
commission of the crime or crimes perpetrated in furtherance of the conspiracy because in contemplation of law the act of one
is the act of all. The foregoing rule is anchored on the sound principle that "when two or more persons unite to accomplish a
criminal object, whether through the physical volition of one, or all, proceeding severally or collectively, each individual whose
evil will actively contributes to the wrongdoing is in law responsible for the whole, the same as though performed by himself
alone.
ARTICLE 9 classification of felonies. Article 9 should be related with article 25

Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which a penalty of arrest menor or a fine not exceeding 200
pesos or both; is provided. 199 pesos below

When the penalty is FINE and the amount is 200 that is correctional penalty. Pag pinag uusap penalty exceeding 200 correctional
penalty

Is this important yes especially when we relate this to article 48 complex crime? Because in complex crime, It refers into two
or more grave or less grave felonies. It does not mention light felony. Light felonies is excluded form complex crime under article
48.

Must be correlate this to article 26 - Art. 26. When afflictive, correctional, or light penalty. A fine, whether imposed as a single
of as an alternative penalty, shall be considered an afflictive penalty, if it exceeds 6,000 pesos; a correctional penalty, if it does
not exceed 6,000 pesos but is not less than 200 pesos; and a light penalty if it less than 200 pesos.

Whether FINE is afflictive or correctional or light penalty?

TAKE NOTE: exactly 200 pesos is its correctional penalty

This is important in relation to Article 89? - How criminal liability is totally extinguished.

Whether the issue is prescription of crime or prescription of penalty?

5. By prescription of the crime;
6. By prescription of the penalty;

ARTICLE 10 - This Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary.

If the special law is insufficient then we supplement it with RPC

When do we say that a law is a specially criminal law?

We relate this in the case of Romueldez vs marcelo - of Act No. 3326 as amended - AN ACT TO ESTABLISH PERIODS OF
PRESCRIPTION FOR VIOLATIONS PENALIZED BY SPECIAL ACTS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES AND TO PROVIDE WHEN
PRESCRIPTION SHALL BEGIN TO RUN

It will be only considered as special law if it provides a penalty. It is only a special law because it does not punish an act.

ARTICLE 11
Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 - Republic Act No. 9262 - SECTION 26. Battered Woman Syndrome
as a Defense. Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any
criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under
the Revised Penal Code.

In the determination of the state of mind of the woman who was suffering from battered woman syndrome at the time of the
commission of the crime, the courts shall be assisted by expert psychiatrists/ psychologists.
THIS A DEFENSE.

If it is in a case of Battered Woman Syndrome. Even if there is no unlawful aggression. The offender can invoke this a defense and
the offender does not incur criminal or civil liability.

IN SELF DEFENSE.
11. 1 / 11.2 / 11.3 = THERE SHOULD ALWAYS BE UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION.

If there is no unlawful aggression, what is the effect?

G.R. No. 89684. September 18, 1990.*

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GERARDO SAZON, alias INSIK, accused-appellant.
Criminal Law; Self-Defense; An accused who invokes self-defense must prove it by clear and convincing evidence; he cannot just
rely on the weakness of the prosecution.Well-entrenched is the rule that where the accused invokes self-defense, it is
incumbent upon him to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he indeed acted in defense of himself. He must rely on the
strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution. For, even if the prosecution evidence is weak, it could
not be disbelieved after the accused himself had admitted the killing.

Same; Same; Without proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, a plea of self-defense must fail.It is a statutory
and doctrinal requirement that for the justifying circumstance of self-defense, the presence of unlawful aggression is a condition
sine qua non. There can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim has committed an unlawful aggression
against the person defending himself. In the present case, the burden of evidence having been shifted, we hold that the defense
failed to establish the primary element of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim and, therefore, the plea of self-defense
must fail. The narrations of the sequence of events by the accused, and by the lone alleged eyewitness for the defense, Jose
Randera, are unconvincing primarily on account of their inherent inconsistency and conflict with each other.

Once there is no unlawful aggression walang complete self defense. Because it is one of the elements.

Pag walang unlawful aggression, walang din INCOMPLETE SELF-defense as a privileged mitigating circumstance.

Kaya importante ung unlawful aggression for offender the to claim either one complete self defense or two incomplete self
defense as a privilege mitigating circumstance.

It is an indispensable condition for the accused for the accused to claim a complete self defense or a privilege mitigating
circumstance. - Privilege mitigating circumstance the PENALTY WILL BE LOWER THAN one DEGREE.

As against ordinary mitigating circumstance. What is the penalty. It only affect only the PERIOD of the penalty in case of the
divisible penalty. Or it will effect lesser penalty if the penalty pertains to two or more indivisible penalty.

SELF DEFENSE REQUISITIES

1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

Can article 11 paragraph 1 be invoke in so far as defense of property is in concern?

A: YES, article 11 states that Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights.

People vs. Narvaez

Nos. L-33466-67. April 20, 1983.*
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MAMERTO NARVAEZ, defendant-appellant.

This IS A DEFENSE OF PROPERTY

Criminal Law; The act of the victims of ordering and actually fencing off the house and rice mill of the accused constitutes unlawful
aggression against property rights.The actuation of deceased Fleischer in angrily ordering the continuance of the fencing would
have resulted in the further chiselling of the walls of appellants house as well as the closure of the access to and from his house
and rice millwhich were not only imminent but were actually in progress. There is no question, therefore, that there was
aggression on the part of the victims: Fleischer was ordering, and Rubia was actually participating in the fencing. This was indeed
aggression, not on the person of appellant, but on his property rights.

The assault on appellants property, therefore, amounts to unlawful aggression as contemplated by law.

Same; Shooting of the victims by the appellant from the window of his house while the former were proceeding with the fencing
off of appellants rented estate despite the latters plea to stop the same is disproportionate to the physical aggression of the
victims.The reasonableness of the resistance is also a requirement of the justifying circumstance of self-defense or defense of
ones rights under paragraph 1 of Article 11, Revised Penal Code. When the appellant fired his shotgun from his window, killing
his two victims, his resistance was disproportionate to the attack.
There is unlawful aggression
Hindi din nya prinovoke
In this element number 2 is missing or absent
But there is an unlawful aggression MERON INCOMPLETE justifying circumstances and entitle on the privileged mitigating
circumstance and the penalty will be lowered to one or two degrees as the case my by THIS IS WITH THE SOUND DISCRETION
OF THE COURT.

In the Narvaez case the penalty was lowered by Two degrees because of the privileged mitigating circumstance. Not only that.
The penalty was lowered again by one more degree because Narvaez acted with passion/obfuscation (under ART 13 par 6.) He
lost hi cool, nawala cya sa sarili. He voluntarily surrenders. THERE is two oridinary mitigating circumstance. Walang aggravating.
Anung effect nito article 64. PAR 5.

Art. 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods
5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall impose
the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it may deem applicable, according to the number and nature
of such circumstances.

HIMAY
there are two or more mitigating circumstances
no aggravating circumstances
in effect it converted in to privileged mitigating circumstance.

NARVAEZ was convicted of Homicide penalty RT Court granted him two degrees ARRESTO MAYOR na lang anung penalty
one month and one day to 6 months

DEFENSE OF RELATIVE
Requisites:
a. Unlawful aggression
b. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
c. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making the defense had no part therein

Defense of Stranger
Requisites:
a. Unlawful aggression
b. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
c. The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive

ACTUAL UNLAWFUL or IMMINENT UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION IMMINENT TO THE POINT OF HAPPENING.

PARAGRAPH 4 MISTAKE OF NECESSITY

Doctrine of State of Necessity
Damage to another this term covers injury to persons and damage to property

That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists The evil must actually exist. If the evils sought to be avoided is merely
expected or anticipate or may happen in the future, paragraph 4 of Article 11 is not applicable (Reyes, Book One, 2012, p. 212)

PARAGRAPH 5 Fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of right or office Article 11, par. 5

Requisites:
a. That the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office;
b. That the injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful
exercise of such right or office

G.R. No. 125059. March 17, 2000.*

FRANCISCO T. SYCIP, JR., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

Same; Same; Same; The exercise of a statutory right to suspend installment payments is a valid defense against the purported
violations of B.P. Blg. 22.Note that we have upheld a buyers reliance on Section 23 of P.D. 957 to suspend payments until such
time as the owner or developer had fulfilled its obligations to the buyer. This exercise of a statutory right to suspend installment
payments, is to our mind, a valid defense against the purported violations of B.P. Blg. 22 that petitioner is charged with. Sycip, Jr.
vs. Court of Appeals, 328 SCRA 447, G.R. No. 125059 March 17, 2000

IN effect you are admitting the act then you should justify the self defense pag hnd mo na justify convicted ka sigurado ako hnd
ka nya babayaran.

Obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose Article 11, par. 6

Requisites:

a. That an order has been issued by a superior;

b. That such order must be for some lawful purpose; and

c. That the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful.

ARTICLE 12 EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES

Imbecility or Insanity complete deprivation of intelligence

Are insanity and imbecility the same ? NO
Minority Article 12, pars 2 and 3 (15 year and under ABSOLUTE EXEMPTION) (15 year and one day but under 18 acting without
discernment EXEMPTED ) with discernment criminally liable.

DISCERNMENT means the capacity of the child at the time of the commission of the offense to understand the difference
between right and wrong and the consequences of the wrongful act.

Accident without fault or intention causing it Article 12, par. 4

Acting under the compulsion of an irresistible force Article 12, par. 5
Acting under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear Article 12, par. 6
Insuperable or lawful causes Article 12, par. 7

People of the Philippines Vs. Chrisopher Mejaro Roa

Insanity as an exempting circumstance is not easily available to the accused as a successful defense. It is an exception rather than
the rule on the human condition. Anyone who pleads insanity as an exempting circumstance bears the burden of proving it with
clear and convincing evidence. The testimony or proof of an accused's insanity must relate to the time immediately preceding or
simultaneous with the commission of the offense with which he is charged.

In fine, therefore, the defense failed to present any convincing evidence of accused-appellant's mental condition when he
committed the crime in March 2007. While there is evidence on record of his mental condition in 2001 and in 2012, the dates of
these two diagnoses are too far away from the date of the commission of the offense in 2007, as to altogether preclude the
possibility that accused-appellant was conscious of his actions in 2007. Absent any supporting evidence, this Court cannot
sweepingly conclude that accused-appellant was mentally insane for the whole 11-year period from 2001 to 2012, as to exempt
him criminal liability for an act committed in 2007. It was the defense's duty to fill in the gap in accused-appellant's state of mind
between the 2001 diagnosis and the 2012 diagnosis, and unfortunately, it failed to introduce evidence to paint a full picture of
accused-appellant's mental condition when he committed the crime in 2007. With that, the Court has no other option but to
adhere to the presumption of sanity, and conclude that when accused-appellant attacked the victim, he was conscious of what
he was doing, and was not suffering from an insanity.

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES ARTICLE 11 EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES ARTICLE 12

Affects the act NOT the actor NO CRIMINIAL LIABILITY. THERE Affects the actor NOT the act. NO CRIMINIAL LIABILITY
IS NO CIVIL LIABILITY EXCEPT PARAGRAPH 4 in this case it is THERE is CIVIL LIABILITY. Except paragraphs 4 and 7
not the actor who will shoulder the civil liability but the
persons benefited in proportion to the benefit received
 Act is considered to have been done WITHIN the bounds of
law; hence, legitimate and lawful in the eyes of the law.
Since the act is considered lawful, there is no crime.
Since there is no crime, nor a criminal, there is also no civil
liability (except Art. 11, par. 4)
Act complained of is actually wrongful, but the actor is NOT
liable.
Since the act complained of is actually wrong there is a
crime but since the actor acted WITHOUT voluntariness,
there is no dolo or culpa.
Since there is a crime committed though there is no
criminal, there is civil liability (except Art. 12 par. 4 and 7)

TAKE NOTE: ABSOLUTORY CASES the offender does not incur criminal liability because of PUBLIC POLICY.

ARTICLE 332 - Chapter Ten

EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY

IN CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY

Art. 332. Persons exempt from criminal liability. No criminal, but only civil liability, shall result from the commission of the
crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by the following persons:

1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line.chanrobles virtual law library

2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased spouse before the same shall have passed
into the possession of another; and

3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together.chanrobles virtual law library

The exemption established by this article shall not be applicable to strangers participating in the commission of the crime.

Entrapment
Ways and means are
resorted to for the capture
of lawbreaker in the
execution of his criminal
plan
The means originate from
the mind of the criminal
LAWFUL ONLY WAYS
and means are device by
the law enforcement
officers in order to caught
the offender in the
commission of the crime
Instigation
Instigator induces would be
accused to commit the
crime, hence he becomes a
coprincipal
The law enforcer conceives
the commission of the
crime and suggests to the
accused who adopts the
idea and carries it into
execution
UNLAWFUL
The instigator is criminally
liable but the person
instigated is not criminally
liable because the criminal
intent to commit the crime
did not come from him but
it came from the law
enforcement officers.

Not a bar to the It will result in the acquittal

prosecution and conviction of the accused
of the lawbreaker