Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Characteristics of the classical theory. Thus, any person who makes false or counterfeit coins (Art. 163) or forges treasury
or bank notes or other obligations and securities (Art. 166) in a foreign country may
1. The basis of criminal liability is human free will and the purpose of the penalty is
be prosecuted before our civil courts for violation of Art. 163 or Art. 166 of the
retribution.
Revised Penal Code.
2. That man is essentially a moral creature with an absolutely free will to choose
3. When the offender should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into the
between good and evil, more stress upon the effect or result of the felonious act than Philippines of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number.
upon the man, the criminal himself.
The reason for this provision is that the introduction of forged or counterfeited
3. establish a mechanical and direct proportion between crime and penalty. obligations and securities into the Philippines is as dangerous as the forging or
4. There is a scant regard to the human element. counterfeiting of the same, to the economical interest of the country.
Characteristics of the positivist theory. 4. When the offender, while being a public officer or employee, should commit an offense in
1. That man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon which the exercise of his functions.
constrains him to do wrong, in spite of or contrary to his volition. The crimes that may be committed in the exercise of public functions are direct
2. That crime is essentially a social and natural phenomenon, and it cannot be treated bribery (Art. 210), indirect bribery (Art. 211), frauds against the public treasury (Art.
and checked by the application of abstract principles of law and jurisprudence nor 213), possession of prohibited interest (Art. 216), malversation of public funds or
by the imposition of a punishment, fixed and determined a priori; but rather through property (Art. 217), failure of accountable officer to render accounts (Art. 218), illegal
the enforcement of individual measures in each particular case after a thorough, use of public funds or property (Art. 220), failure to make delivery of public funds or
personal and individual investigation conducted by a competent body of property (Art. 221), and falsification by a public officer or employee committed with
psychiatrists and social scientists. abuse of his official position. (Art. 171).
Art. 2. Application of its provisions. When any of these felonies is committed abroad by any of our public officers or
employees while in the exercise of his functions, he can be prosecuted here.
1. When the offender should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship.
(registered in the Philippine Bureau of Customs) 5. When the offender should commit any of the crimes against the national security and the
law of nations.
> The Philippine vessel, although beyond three miles from the seashore, is
considered part of the national territory. The crimes against the national security and the law of nations are treason (Art. 114),
conspiracy and proposal to commit treason (Art. 115), espionage (Art. 117), inciting
> But when the Philippine vessel or aircraft is in the territory of a foreign country, to war and giving motives for reprisals (Art. 118), violation of neutrality (Art. 119),
the crime committed on said vessel or aircraft is subject to the laws of that foreign correspondence with hostile country (Art. 120), flight to enemy's country (Art. 121),
country. and piracy and mutiny on the high seas. (Art. 122)
The crimes punishable in the Philippines under Art. 2 are cognizable by the Regional All must concede that felonious homicide is a subject for the local jurisdiction (Mali
Trial Court in which the charge is filed. and Wildenhus vs. Keeper of the Common Jail, 120 U.S. 1, cited in People vs. Wong
Cheng, 46 Phil. 729, 731-732)
> The crimes committed outside of the Philippines but punishable therein under
Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code shall be cognizable by the Regional Trial Court in Crimes not involving a breach of public order committed on board a foreign merchant vessel
which the charge is first filed. (Rule 110, Sec. 15[d], Revised Rules of Criminal in transit not triable by our courts.
Procedure)
Mere possession of opium aboard a foreign merchant vessel in transit is not triable in
Crimes committed on board foreign merchant ship or airship. Philippine courts, because that fact alone does not constitute a breach of public
order. The courts acquire jurisdiction when the tins of opium are landed from the
Just as our merchant ship is an extension of our territory, foreign merchant ship is
vessel on Philippine soil. Landing or using opium is an open violation of the laws of
considered an extension of the territory of the country to which it belongs. For this
the Philippines. (U.S. vs. Look Chaw, 18 Phil. 573, 577-578)
reason, an offense commited on the high seas on board a foreign merchant vessel is
not triable by our courts. (U.S. vs. Fowler, 1 Phil. 614) When the foreign merchant vessel is not in transit because the Philippines is its
terminal port, the person in possession of opium on board that vessel is liable,
Continuing offense on board a foreign vessel.
because he may be held guilty of illegal importation of opium. (U.S. vs. Ah Sing, 36
(U.S. vs. Bull, 15 Phil. 7) Offense committed on board a foreign merchant vessel Phil. 978, 981-982)
while on Philippine waters is triable before our court.
Smoking opium constitutes a breach of public order.
Rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard foreign merchant vessels.
Smoking opium aboard an English vessel while anchored two and one-half miles in
There are two rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard merchant Manila Bay constitutes a breach of public order, because the primary object of the
vessels while in the territorial waters of another country. law in punishing the use of opium is to protect the inhabitants of this country against
the disastrous effects entailed by the use of such drug. And to smoke opium within
French Rule. Such crimes are not triable in the courts of that country, unless their our territorial limits, even though aboard a foreign merchant ship, is certainly a
commission affects the peace and security of the territory or the safety of the state is breach of the public order here established, because it causes such drug to produce
endangered. its pernicious effects within our territory. Philippine courts have jurisdiction over
English Rule. Such crimes are triable in that country, unless they merely affect crimes constituting a breach of public order aboard merchant vessels anchored in
things within the vessel or they refer to the internal management thereof. In this Philippine jurisdictional waters. (People vs. Wong Cheng, 46 Phil. 729, 733)
country, we observe the English Rule. Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over offenses committed on board foreign warships in
Do the Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the crime of homicide committed on board a territorial waters.
foreign merchant vessel by a member of the crew against another? In case vessels are in the ports or territorial waters of a foreign country, a distinction
Disorders which disturb only the peace of the ship or those on board are to be dealt must be made between merchant ships and warships; the former are more or less
with exclusively by the sovereignty of the home of the ship, but those which disturb subjected to the territorial laws. (See U.S. vs. Bull, 15 Phil. 7; U.S. vs. Look Chaw, 18
the public peace may be suppressed, and, if need be, the offenders punished by the Phil. 573; and People vs. Wong Cheng, 46 Phil. 729)
proper authorities of the local jurisdiction. Warships are always reputed to be the territory of the country to which they belong
and cannot be subjected to the laws of another state. A United States Army transport
is considered a warship. (U.S. vs. Fowler, 1 Phil. 614)
Title One: FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL "Punishable by law."
LIABILITY - Art. 3. Definition. > This is the other element of a felony. This is based upon the maxim, "nullum
crimen, nulla poena sine lege," - there is no crime where there is no law punishing it.
Felonies - acts and omissions punishable by the Revised Penal Code.
> "punished by the Revised Penal Code" and not by a special law.
Elements of felonies.
> "felony" = acts and omissions punished in the Revised Penal Code
1. That there must be an act or omission.
> "crime" and "offense" = which are applied to infractions of the law punished by
2. That the act or omission must be punishable by the Revised Penal Code. special statutes.
3. That the act is performed or the omission incurred by means of dolo or culpa. Classification of felonies according to the means by which they are committed:
(People vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 80762, March 19, 1990, 183 SCRA 309, 324)
(1) Intentional felonies
Meaning of the word "act." = any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in Felonies committed by means of dolo or with malice. the act or omission of the
the external world offender is malicious; act is performed with deliberate intent (with malice);has the
> as constituting a felony; or, at least, an overt act of that felony, that is, an external intention to cause an injury to another.
act which has direct connection with the felony intended to be committed. (See Art.
Dolus is equivalent to malice, which is the intent to do an injury to another.
6)
(2) In culpable felonies
Example of felony by performing an act.
Felonies committed by means of fault or culpa. the act or omission of the offender is
A took the watch of B with intent to gain and without the consent of the latter. The not malicious. The injury caused by the offender to another person is "unintentional,
act of taking the watch of B, with intent to gain, constitutes the crime of theft. it being simply the incident of another act performed without malice."
Only external act is punished. Few felonies committed by means of fault or culpa. Art. 217 punishes malversation
through negligence. Art. 224 punishes evasion through negligence
a criminal thought or a mere intention, no matter how immoral or improper it may
be, will never constitute a felony. Art. 365 punishes (an intermediate act) acts by imprudence or negligence, which,
had they been intentional, would constitute grave, less grave or light felonies in a
Thus, even if A entertains the idea of killing B, as long as he does not commence the lesser degree and with an equal result
commission of the crime directly by overt act, A is not criminally liable.
A person who caused an injury, without intention to cause an evil, may be held liable for
Meaning of the word "omission." = inaction, the failure to perform a positive duty culpable felony. (U.S. vs. Divino, 12 Phil. 175, 190)
which one is bound to do.
Imprudence indicates a deficiency of action, usually involves lack of skill.
In felonies by omission, there is a law requiring a certain act to be performed and the Negligence indicates a deficiency of perception, usually involves lack of foresight
person required to do the act fails to perform it.
Reason for punishing acts of negligence (culpa).
The omission must be punishable by law. His own person, rights and property, and those of his fellow beings, would ever be
Because there is no law that punishes a person who does not report to the authorities exposed to all manner of danger and injury.
the commission of a crime which he witnessed, the omission to do so is not a felony.
(People vs. Silvestre and Atienza; 56 Phil. 353)
Three reasons why the act or omission in felonies must be voluntary. Mistake of fact.
While ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith (ignorantia
1. The Revised Penal Code continues to be based on the Classical Theory, according
legis non excusat), ignorance or mistake of fact relieves the accused from criminal
to which the basis of criminal liability is human free will.
liability (ignorantia facti excusat).
2. Acts or omissions punished by law are always deemed voluntary, since man is a
Mistake of fact is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused
rational being. One must prove that his case falls under Art. 12 to show that his act
injury to another. He is not, however, criminally liable, because he did not act with
or omission is not voluntary.
criminal intent.
3. In felonies by dolo, the act is performed with deliberate intent which must
Requisites of mistake of fact as a defense:
necessarily be voluntary; and in felonies by culpa, the imprudence consists in
voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which material 1. That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused
injury results. believed them to be.
Requisites of dolo or malice. 2. That the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful. (the act
done would not constitute a felony had the facts been as the accused believed them to be)
(1) He must have FREEDOM while doing an act or omitting to do an act; (2) He must
have INTELLIGENCE while doing the act or omitting to do the act; (3) He must have 3. That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused.
INTENT while doing the act or omitting to do the act.
Ah Chong case and Oanis case distinguished
All the three requisites of voluntariness in intentional felony must be present,
In the Ah Chong case, there is an innocent mistake of fact without any fault or
because "a voluntary act is a free, intelligent, and intentional act." (U.S. vs. Ah
carelessness on the part of the accused, because, having no time or opportunity to
Chong, 15 Phil. 488, 495)
make any further inquiry, and being pressed by circumstances to act immediately,
Intent presupposes the exercise of freedom and the use of intelligence. the accused had no alternative but to take the facts as they then appeared to him, and
such facts justified his act of killing the deceased.
One who acts without freedom necessarily has no intent to do an injury to another.
One who acts without intelligence has no such intent. In the Oanis case, the accused found no circumstances whatever which would press
them to immediate action. The person in the room being then asleep, the accused
Criminal intent is presumed from the commission of an unlawful act.
had ample time and opportunity to ascertain his identity without hazard to
Criminal intent and the will to commit a crime are always presumed to exist on the
themselves, and could even effect a bloodless arrest if any reasonable effort to that
part of the person who executes an act which the law punishes, unless the contrary
end had been made, as the victim was unarmed. This, indeed, is the only legitimate
shall appear.
course of action for the accused to follow even if the victim was really Balagtas, as
But the presumption of criminal intent does not arise from the proof of the commission of an they were instructed not to kill Balagtas at sight, but to arrest, and to get him dead or
act which is not unlawful. alive only if resistance or aggression is offered by him.
The maxim is: actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea a crime is not committed if the
Hence, the accused in the Oanis case were at fault when they shot the victim in
mind of the person performing to act complained be innocent. There is no felony by dolo if
violation of the instructions given to them. They were also careless in not verifying
there is no intent. The presumption of criminal intent from the commission of an
first the identity of the victim.
unlawful act may be rebutted by proof of lack of such intent.
Lack of intent to kill the deceased, because his intention was to kill another, does not relieve
the accused from criminal responsibility.
Mala in se and mala prohibita, distinguished.
In error in personae or mistake in the identity of the victim, the principle of mistake of fact crimes mala in se (wrongful from their nature, such as theft, rape, homicide, etc.,);
does not apply. those so serious in their effects on society as to call for almost unanimous
condemnation of its members; the intent governs; refers generally to felonies denned
No crime of resistance when there is a mistake of fact.
and penalized by the Revised Penal Code
The defense of mistake of fact is untenable when the accused is charged with a culpable felony.
In felonies committed through negligence, there is no intent to consider, as it is mala prohibita (wrong merely because prohibited by statute, such as illegal
replaced by imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill. possession of firearms); violations of mere rules of convenience designed to secure a
more orderly regulation of the affairs of society; has the law been violated?; refers
Criminal intent is necessary in felonies committed by means of dolo because of the
generally to acts made criminal by special laws
legal maxims
Intent distinguished from motive.
Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, "the act itself does not make a man guilty unless
his intention were so." Motive is the moving power which impels one to action for a definite result. Intent is
the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result. Motive is not an essential
Actus me invito factus non est meus actus, "an act done by me against my will is not my
element of a crime, and, hence, need not be proved for purposes of conviction.
act."
(1) He must have FREEDOM while doing an act or omitting to do an act; (2) He must
have INTELLIGENCE while doing the act or omitting to do the act;(3) He is
IMPRUDENT, NEGLIGENT or LACKS FORESIGHT or SKILL while doing the act or
omitting to do the act