AN ACT REVISING THE PENAL CODE AND OTHER PENAL LAWS

Preliminary Article - This law shall be known as "The Revised Penal Code."
DATE OF EFFECTIVENESS AND APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE
Article 1. Time when Act takes effect. - This Code shall take effect on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-two.
Article 2. Application of its provisions. - Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application, the provisions of this
Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone,
but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:
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;
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. (hindi included rebellion dito so kapag sa labas ng bansa sila nag rebellion hindi under RPC)
Article 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.
Article 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.
Article 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 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.
Article 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. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. - Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in
which the law specially provides a penalty therefor.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit
it.
There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons.
Article 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light felonies. - Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital
punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with Art. 25 of this Code.
Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are correctional, in accordance
with the above-mentioned Art..
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.
Article 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. - Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special
laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially
provide the contrary.
Title Three
PENALTIES
Chapter One
PENALTIES IN GENERAL
Article 21. Penalties that may be imposed. - No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its
commission.
Article 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. - Penal Laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a
felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the
publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.
Article 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.
Article 213. Frauds against the public treasury and similar offenses. - The penalty of prision correccional in its medium period to
prision mayor in its minimum period, or a fine ranging from 200 to 10,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any public officer
who:
2. Being entrusted with the collection of taxes, licenses, fees and other imposts, shall be guilty or any of the following acts
or omissions:
(a) Demanding, directly, or indirectly, the payment of sums different from or larger than those authorized by law.
(b) Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided by law, for any sum of money collected by him officially.
(c) Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by way of payment or otherwise things or objects of a nature
different from that provided by law.
When the culprit is an officer or employee of the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs, the provisions of the
Administrative Code shall be applied.
Article 275. Abandonment of person in danger and abandonment of one's own victim. - The penalty of arresto mayor shall be
imposed upon:
1. Any one who shall fail to render assistance to any person whom he shall find in an uninhabited place wounded or in
danger of dying, when he can render such assistance without detriment to himself, unless such omission shall constitute a
more serious offense.
Article 365. Imprudence and negligence. - Any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been
intentional, would constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional
in its medium period; if it would have constituted a less grave felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium
periods shall be imposed; if it would have constituted a light felony, the penalty of arresto menor in its maximum period shall be
imposed.
Any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall commit an act which would otherwise constitute a grave felony, shall
suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods; if it would have constituted a less serious felony, the
penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed.
When the execution of the act covered by this article shall have only resulted in damage to the property of another, the offender
shall be punished by a fine ranging from an amount equal to the value of said damages to three times such value, but which shall in
no case be less than twenty-five pesos.
A fine not exceeding two hundred pesos and censure shall be imposed upon any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence,
shall cause some wrong which, if done maliciously, would have constituted a light felony.
In the imposition of these penalties, the court shall exercise their sound discretion, without regard to the rules prescribed in Article
sixty-four.
The provisions contained in this article shall not be applicable:
1. When the penalty provided for the offense is equal to or lower than those provided in the first two paragraphs of this
article, in which case the court shall impose the penalty next lower in degree than that which should be imposed in the
period which they may deem proper to apply.
2. When, by imprudence or negligence and with violation of the Automobile Law, to death of a person shall be caused, in
which case the defendant shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without malice, doing or falling to do an act from which material damage results by
reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing of failing to perform such act, taking into
consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and other circumstances regarding persons,
time and place.
Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those cases in which the damage impending to be caused is not
immediate nor the danger clearly manifest.
The penalty next higher in degree to those provided for in this article shall be imposed upon the offender who fails to lend on the
spot to the injured parties such help as may be in this hand to give. (As amended by R.A. 1790, approved June 21, 1957).
Article 366. Application of laws enacted prior to this Code. - Without prejudice to the provisions contained in Article 22 of this Code,
felonies and misdemeanors, committed prior to the date of effectiveness of this Code shall be punished in accordance with the Code
or Acts in force at the time of their commission.
RULE 131
Burden of Proof and Presumptions
Section 3. Disputable presumptions. — The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and
overcome by other evidence:
(b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent;
 Program Module 1
Criminal Law and its Definition and Characteristics
Disciplines in Criminal Science
Theories in Criminal Law
Theory Underlying the RPC
Crimes in General

History of the Revised Penal Law

1. Codification Movement – all laws codified in a single body of law
2. Spanish Codigo Penal – 1886 – apply Penal Code and Provisional Law of Criminal procedure in the PH
3. Codigo Penal ng Pilipinas – modified the Spanish penal code
4. US Period - translated the Penal Code but some parts are defective such as (dolo to deceit: it SHOULD be Malice)
Definition of Penal Law and Criminal Law
1. Penal Law – relates to penalties
2. Criminal Law – relates to crimes
3. Felonies – A crime UNDER the RPC. Crimes under special laws are NOT felonies but rather OFFENSE
4. Statutory Offense – crimes punished under special law
5. Misdemeanor – MINOR infraction such as violation of an ORDINANCE
6. CRIME – used as a general term. Apply to both RPC and special laws.
Jurisprudence
1. Statute is penal IFFF it imposes punishment for an offense committed against the state
2. Penal Statutes are statutes which command or PROHIBIT certain acts and establish PENALITIES for their violation
3. Also penal even though without expressly prohibiting certain acts AS LONG AS it IMPOSES a PENALTY
4. Non-payment of taxes BEFORE does not impose PENALTIES but only CIVIL LIABLITY NOT CRIMINAL LIABILITY so Art. 22
(retroactivity favorable to the accused) DOES NOT APPLY
5. But TAX CODE now imposes penalties so any law passed favorable to an accused under tax code can be RETROACTIVE.
6. When new law lowers the prescriptive period for a crime committed before, IT WILL APPLY based on Art. 22
Rationale of Penal Laws: Jurisprudence
1. Penalties are used to deter people from doing the same crime
2. Death penalty – when the accused is a DANEROUS enemy of the society
3. Exemplarity – making a person example to serve as a deterrent
4. Retribution should be proportionate with the gravity of the offense
5. Falsification of a 1 peso bill to buy 4 eggs and a punishment of 10 years imprisonment is TOO EXCESSIVE
Two Theories in Criminal law
1. Classical theory – eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth (oculo pro oculo, dente pro dente)
- Person has free will to choose between good and evil thereby placing more stress upon the effect or result of felonious
act
- Endeavoured for a direct proportion between crime and penalty
- PURPOSE is RETRIBUTION
2. Positivist theory – man is occasionally subdued by a STRANGE and MORBID PHENOMENAL which pushes him to do wrong
in spite or contrary to his decision
- Crime is SOCIAL and NATURAL phenomenon
- Rehabilitation
Crimes
1. Felonies
2. Offenses
3. Infraction of Ordinance – BUTTTT when penalty imposed is NOT an exercise of sovereign power to define crimes and
provide punishment then NOT a crime
Jurisprudence
1. A violation of a municipal ordinance to qualify as a crime must involve at least a certain degree of evil doing, corruption,
malice
2. Violation of jaywalking which was said to be a crime is WRONG. There need to be a PUBLIC law stating that jaywalking is a
crime. Ordinances ARE NOT public laws.
3. Refusal to pay rent in accordance to a municipal ordinance IS NOT A CRIME. Only an administrative liability.
Common law Crimes
1. Body of principles, usages and rules of action which do NOT rest for their authority upon any express or positive declaration
of the WILL of the legislature
2. NOT recognized here
3. A crime not punishable by law is NOT a crime at all
Power to Define and Punish Crimes: Jurisprudence
1. States as part of their POLICE POWER, have a large measure of discretion in creating and defining criminal offenses and
laying down the rules of criminal procedure.
2. If the law says only the auditor, editor or proprietor of an article will be liable for libel, so because he is only the manager,
HE IS NOT criminally liable. THERE IS NO COMMON LAW CRIMES HERE.
3. Imposing punishment should be the last resort: our laws do not merely provide for retribution but it also provides for laws
that are in favour of the offender.
4. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same CRIMINAL INTENT so even if different firearm pa, isang prosecution
lang pwede.
5. Allowed na heavier ang penalty kapag sa municipal ordinance because of peculiar conditions of the locality. So even though
there is conflict between RPC and ordinance with regard to prescription (heavier penalty in ordinance) it is allowed.
6. Offenses committed in the PH are crimes against the people of the Philippines.
 Program Module 2
Characteristics of Criminal Law
Generality; Territoriality; Irretrospectivity; Fundamental Assumptions

Characteristics of criminal law

1. Principle of GENERALITY – criminal law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in PH territory (CC 14.)
- A person to be immune to be immune, must be able to invoke a provision in PIL; law of preferential application or
customary IL.
- EXEMPTIONS to the PRINCIPLE of GENERALITY.
a. Persons subject to Military Law (art.2 of CA no. 408 otherwise known as Articles of war) are NOT immune from suit BUT
are covered by the articles of war. Subject to Court-Martials.
b. As provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application
o Bases agreement between US and PH
o RA 75 – in favour of diplomatic representatives. Privilege extends to the members of the household and
domestic servants that were registered with the DFA
o Constitution is a law of preferential application
c. Principles of Public International Law – cannot be sued, arrested or punished by the law of PH.
o Sovereigns and chiefs of state
o Ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, ministers resident (VIENNA CONVENTION on diplomatic relations and
protocol)
o Consuls and vice consuls ONLY have relative exemption and not immune from criminal J only those related to
his functions (honorary consuls ARE NOT exempted)
2. PRINCIPLE OF TERRITORIALITY – penal laws of PH are enforceable only WITHIN its territory.
- For purposes of CRIMINAL J -> only extend up to 12 nautical miles thus TERRITORIAL SEA.
1) Territory
2) Atmosphere
3) Interior waters
4) Maritime zone – if criminal -> only until territorial sea.
- Criminal J applies EVEN OUTSIDE territory if (art 2 of RPC):
1) While on a Philippine ship or airship – registered with BOC. Because a Filipino owns the vessel does not make
it PH craft.
2) Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note
3) 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) Against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.
o Treason, conspiracy, piracy, espionage (spy) (NOT INCLUDED REBELLION)
- Classification of Vessels
a. Foreign Public Vessels – war vessels/war ships – considered an extension of the nationality of the owner thus
PH J may not be applied to crimes committed there.
b. Foreign merchant vessels – SUBJECTED to TERRITORIAL LAWS
 In transit – NOT liable
 NOT in transit – LIABLE
 Rules as to J over crimes committed aboard foreign merchant vessels
a. French rule – take cognizance only when affects peach and security (thus if follows this, crimes
between persons in French ship, will be tried in France not in PH)
b. English Rule – FOLLOWED BY PH - take cognizance if in territory EXCEPT if involves internal
management of the vessel (thus if follows this, crimes between crew members because of
personal matters, PH can take cognizance)
3. Principle of Irrestrospectivity or PROSPECTIVITY – RPC 366 – crimes are punished under the laws in force at the time of
their commission
- Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege – there is no crime when there is no law punishing the same.
- NO ex post facto laws shall be enacted
- It is ex post facto law IF:
a. Makes criminal an innocent act done before the passage of the law
b. Aggravates crime
c. Greater punishment
 d. Alters the legal rules of evidence
e. Deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful
f. Deprives some lawful protection
- BILL of ATTAINDER – legislative act which inflicts punishment WITHOUT trial of a group of persons (communists).
- EXEMPTIONS to the prospectivity
a. When favorable to the accused:
1) Degree of Imposable Penalty reduced
2) Prescribing grounds for mitigation or extinction of criminal liablity
3) Providing for prescription of offenses.
b. BUT will not apply IF:
1) HABITUAL criminal
2) Accused disregards later law and invokes prior statute under which he was prosecuted
3) When the subsequent statute PRECLUDES application to existing actions or pending cases. BUT if NOT, it
would apply to pending ones.
4. Principle of LEGALITY – there is no crime when there is no law punishing the same. True to CIVIL law countries NOT to
common law countries.
5. Personal – penal laws DOES NOT allow anyone to assume another’s criminal liability
6. Principle of Certainty – every act made punishable by law must be SO DEFINED as to leave no penumbra of DOUBT to its
applicability to a given case.
JURISPRUDENCE
1. No foreigner enjoys immunity in PH except heads of state and diplomatic representatives
2. Jurisdiction of civil tribunals is unaffected by the military character of the person UNLESS controlled by express provision (in
PH we have articles of war so they are subjected to military tribunal if do crimes under Articles of War)
3. An assault committed by a military officer upon a prisoner of war is a violation of a genera penal law so under civil courts.
4. Honorary consuls do not have diplomatic privilege.
5. Consular officers are not accorded absolute immunity from a host country’s criminal jurisdiction, they may be tried for
certain local crimes upon action by a local court, and are immune from local jurisdiction only in cases directly relating to
consular functions.
6. When statute provides for a remedy and J, it is EXLUSIVE.
7. Foreign corporation is immune from suit but it may still file for a writ of prohibition where the suit was brought.
8. Diplomatic immunity is essentially a political question
9. Court of PH has NO J to take cognizance of crimes committed on the high seas on board of a transport or other vessel NOT
registered in PH.
10. US army transport is considered a WARSHIP thus it is an extension of US
11. Failure to provide suitable means to secure animals in violation of PH law is liable to PH if within territorial waters
12. Mere possession of opium aboard a foreign merchant vessel IN TRANSIT is NOT triable in PH because that fact alon does not
constitute a breach of public order for the OPIUM WAS NOT USED in our territory. BUT landing or using opium is an OPEN
VIOLATION of PH laws.
13. When a foreign merchant vessel is NOT IN TRANSIT because the PH is its terminal port, the person in possession of opium
on board is liable.
14. PIRACY is a crime against humanity NOT against a particular state. It may be punished in the competent tribunal of any
country where the offender may be found. The J of Piracy HAS NO territorial limit.
15. Subsidiary imprisonment – when fail to pay a fine then imprisonment na lang.
16. When a new law imposes a heavier penalty but was enacted AFTER the commission of a crime, that law WILL not apply.
17. The prohibition against ex post facto laws applies only to CRIMINAL or penal matters NOT LAWS WHICH CONCERN CIVIL
MATTERS.
18. When the act itself said that those who join communists AFTER the approval of this law will be punished thus NOT a bill of
attainder. But if those who are already members then punished then it will be a BILL of ATTAINDER.
19. When not released after serving the sentence, a petition for writ of habeas corpus is due.
20. Article 39 as amended by RA 5465 which exempts an accused person from subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency
will be given RETROACTIVE effect.
21. When there are two rapists and the other rapists marries the victim thus criminal liability is extinguished based on a law,
then the other accused should also be freed.
22. When a new law says that the crime shall prescribe after 1 year, then a crime in trial which is being tried after 2 years from
its commission is deemed prescribed thus case will be dismissed.
23. When the new law expressly states that it will have no effect on pending trials then it will not apply. General rule is it will be
apply favorably to accused but will not if it expressly states otherwise.
Other Fundamental Assumption of Penal Law
1. NO LIABILITY if felonious act is committed WITHOUT free will.
2. Ignorance of the law excuses NO ONE from compliance therewith – need PUBLICATION
Limitations on the power of the lawmaking body to enact penal legislation
1. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder
2. No person shall be held to answer for criminal offenses without due process of law – criminal laws must be of GENERAL
APPLICATION and must CLEARY DEFINE the acts and omissions punished as crimes.
Basic Maxims in Criminal Law
1. Principle of Pro Reo – whenever a penal law has two interpretations, one which is more lenient to the offender will apply.
2. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea – The acts CANNOT be criminal where the mind is NOT criminal. This maxim is NOT
ABSOLUTE because it is NOT applied to culpable felonies resulting from NEGLIGENCE or CULPA.
Jurisprudence
1. When facts are susceptible of 2 interpretations, court will sustain the interpretation for acquittal. Proof of guilt
must convince BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
2. Charge of rape based upon the sole testimony of the victim is NOT enough unless it is impeccable and rings
true throughout.
3. Reasonable doubt in criminal offenses must be resolved in favor of the accused.
 Program Module 3
Construction and Interpretation of Penal Laws
Construction of Penal Laws
1. Liberal Construction in Favor of the Offender (principle of pro-reo)
2. Penal laws are strictly construed AGAINST the government
a. When law is AMBIGUOUS – rule may apply. Task of the court is to know the meaning and spirit of the law
b. When law is CLEAR - rule WILL NOT APPLY. Task of court is to APPLY the law itself.
3. Cultural Environment by which the leg is operating can also be a source of intention of law.
4. In the construction or interpretation of RPC, SPANISH TEXT is CONTROLLING.
Jurisprudence
1. Elements of a crime must all be met. Mere carrying of bolo outside did not meet the second element which is the
motivation behind it. This construction is more favorable to the accused.
2. The phrase “private communication” is clear and therefore prohibit wire-tapping. Court will just apply the law.
3. The use of “extension line” was neither among the prohibited devices thus a construction in favor of the accused applies.
4. When the language of a statute is susceptible to more than one interpretation, the construction which tends to give more
effect to the intent of the legislature should be followed.
5. When a law prohibits raising flag of KKK, a contention that he only used a replica and not the one actually used during those
times is not tenable. The spirit of the law is to prevent insurrections thus the spirit of the law shall prevail over the principle
that the construction will be in favor of the accused. The preamble may be used in order to know the spirit.
6. Our society tolerates mistresses thus the use of the surname even though if not married but living for 20 years, Corazon will
not be liable against the Anti-Alias law because it is our CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT to have our own Corazons.
7. In the Spanish text, claim for allowance for good conduct ONLY applies to convicts (may final judgment na) NOT those who
serve PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT (meaning hindi pa na convict pero kinulong kasi dangerous sa society). So if in the
English text it says “any prisoner” is ambiguous, Spanish text will govern.
8. IN English text it says “complaint FILED by the offended party” while in Spanish text it only says “complaint by the offended
party.” When a complaint was already FILED by the chief of police for the victim, but hindi pwede kasi dapat yung victim
and magfile sabi nung accused na double jeopardy na. Kasi kapag sa English text, there is already a case FILED for the victim
thus another filing is double jeopardy pero sa Spanish technicaly yung filing nung chief of police is NOT a COMPLAINT by the
offended party. Thus pwede pa mag ‘complain’ yung victim.
9. Kapag sa English text general term lang ginamit like ‘rice’ pero sa Spanish text may difference between seedlings or palay
and cleaned up rice or yung bigas na talaga, Spanish text will control since magkaiba yung penalities.
10. For amendments that already use English terms, English term will apply. But to those which remained in their original
form, the Spanish text is controlling.
11. English text says “loss on any other part of his body” while Spanish text “any other member.” It was contended that teeth is
not a loss on part of the body. But Spanish text suggests that anything that results to disfigurement not just the obvious
ones like hand, foot etc. So teeth is still part of the “member” so doctor is liable.
REPEALS
1. Absolute or total repeal – when the crime punished has been DECRIMINALIZED.
2. Partial or Relative repeal – when the crime punished under the repealed law continues to be a crim. This means that the
repeal merely modified the conditions affecting the crime under the repealed law.
A. Different Effects of Repeal of Penal Law
1. If repeal makes the penalty lighter -> apply to accused unless habitual delinquent or new law expressly states that it will
NOT apply to pending actions
2. If repeal makes the penalty heavier -> not be retroactive -> law in force at time of the commission shall be applied.
3. If new law totally repeals the existing law so that the act is no longer punishable, the crime is obliterated.
B. Consequences if repeal of penal law is total or absolute
1. If a case is pending in court involving the violation of the repealed law, the same shall be dismissed, even though the
accused may be a habitual delinquent.
2. If a case is already decided and the accused is already serving sentence by final judgment, if the convict is not a habitual
delinquent, then he will be entitled to a release unless there is a reservation clause in the penal law that it will not apply to
those serving sentence at the time of the repeal. But if there is no reservation, those who are not habitual delinquents even
if they are already serving their sentence will receive the benefit of the repealing law. They are entitled to release.
If they are not discharged from confinement, a petition for habeas corpus should be filed to test the legality of their continued
confinement in jail.
If the convict, on the other hand, is a habitual delinquent, he will continue serving the sentence in spite of the fact that the law under
which he was convicted has already been absolutely repealed. This is so because penal laws should be given retroactive application
to favor only those who are not habitual delinquents.
C. Consequences if repeal of penal law is partial or relative
1. If a case is pending in court involving the violation of the repealed law, and the repealing law is more FAVORABLE to the
accused, it shall be the one applied to him. So W/N he is a HABITUAL DELINQUENT, IF THE CASE IS STILL PENDING IN
COURT, the repealing law will be the one to apply UNLESS there is a SAVING CLAUSE in the repealing law that it shall NOT
apply to pending causes of action.
2. If a case is already decided and the accused is already serving sentence by final judgment, if the repealing law is partial or
relative, the CRIME STILL REMAINS A CRIME. Those who are NOT habitual delinquents will benefit on the effect of that
repeal so if the repeal is more lenient, it will apply to them. But if more strict, it will not apply.
D. Express or implied repeal
1. Implied repeal – when there is a law on a particular subject matter and a subsequent law is passed also on the same subject
matter BUT is INCONSISTENT with each other, the later law shall prevail.
a. Repeal by implication is NOT favored
b. There is implied repeal if there are irreconcilable inconsistencies
c. Effects:
1) Pending Criminal Action is NOT dismissed due to an implied repeal.
2) Penalty under second law even though implied repeal will BE APPLIED if favorable to accused.
2. Express repeal – when a subsequent law contains a provision that such law repeals an earlier enactment.
E. Consequences if Repeal of Penal law is express or implied.
1. If subsequent law is an IMPLIED repeal -> kapag siya naman yung narepeal, old law is revived.
2. If subsequent law is an EXPRESS repeal -> kapag siya naman yung narepeal, old law will NOT be revived.
* These effects of repeal do not apply to self-repealing laws or those which have automatic termination. An example is the Rent
Control Law which is revived by Congress every two years.
Jurisprudence
1. Where the repeal is absolute, offense ceases to be criminal. So if violated ordinance tapos may repeal dun sa ordinance na
absolute then hindi ka na criminally liable.
2. A Compilation of Civil Service Laws and Rules which is prepared merely by the Bureau of Civil Service is NOT a repeal of EO
because according to CC art 7, laws are repealed only by subsequent ones. A COMPILATION is NOT subsequent law.
3. A penal law like any other statute may be repealed either expressly or impliedly.
4. If a saving clause stating that the acts committed in violation of a former law shall be prosecuted and punished, then
pending cases can still be tried.
5. Act.1 impliedly repeals act. 2 of penal code. Act. 3 expressly repeals act.1. Thereby act 2 of penal code will remain in force.
So even though act 3 removes criminal liability for perjury when it repealed act 1, Act 2 will now be in force wherein it still
criminalizes perjury UNLESS otherwise provided in act 3.
6. If act 2 is a repeal of act 1, and if act 2 is declared unconstitutional, act 1 will still be in force regardless if implied or express
repeal yung ginawa ni act 2.
Distinction between crimes punished under the RPC and crimes punished under special laws
Crimes under RPC and amendments thereto through special laws – MALA IN SE – wrong in itself (concubinage, adultery and
prohibited drugs)
Crimes under specials laws – MALA PROHIBITA -
Revised Penal Code Special Laws
1. As to moral trait of offender Considered; Liability would only arise Not Considered; It is enough that the
when there is dolo or culpa prohibited act was voluntary
2. As to use of good faith as Valid defense; EXCEPT when the crime is NOT a valid defense; ignorance of the
defense a result of CULPA law excuses no one. (But exemption to
this is when intent is required such as
when mere possession of firearm which
has pending registration for permit but
still was convicted, such conviction is
WRONG because intent of the law was to
prohibit secret possession. Also when
accused thought that the ballot were
 sample ballots thus did not include it in
the box, court considered the facts
present to them in the commission of the
‘crime’ as opposed to the defense of
good faith that he just failed to include
the ballot which cannot be supported)
3. As to degree of accomplishment Taken into account; attempted, NOT taken into account; acts gives rise to
of the crime frustrated and consummated stages a crime only when it is consummated;
there is no attempted or frustrated
stages UNLESS the special law expressly
penalizes the mere attempt or
frustration of the crime.
4. As to mitigating and aggravating Taken into account; since the moral trait NOT taken into account
circumstances of the offender is considered
5. As to degree of participation Taken into account when there is more NOT taken into account; all who
than one offender; principal, accomplice perpetrated the prohibited act are
and accessory penalized

Illustrations
1. Hijackers accosted the pilot and ordered the pilot to change destination but before the same could be accomplished,
military was alerted. THERE IS NO CRIME OF HIJACKING HERE only GRAVE COERCION. Under special law ang hijacking kaya
walang attempted hijacking.
2. Even if mayor did not profit, since selling of concession to his daughter is against Anti-Graft and corrupt practices which is a
special law, HE IS STILL LIABLE.
3. So if a special law states that it is prohibited for any person from preventing a voter from casting his vote and if the officer
fails to include the voter’s registration, GOOD FAITH is NOT a defense since the facts here are very CLEAR.
Test to determine if violation of special law is malum prohibitum or malum in se
*If you remove the law, will the act still be wrong?
 If uses the word “willfully” the MALICE must be proven. Where malice is factor, GOOD FAITH IS A DEFENSE.
 Violation of special law, act constituting a crime is a PROHIBITED ACT. CULPA is NOT a basis of liability UNLESS the special
law punishes an omission.
 Program Module 4
History, Sources and Application of Penal Law, Felonies and Their Classification, Criminal Intent, Distinguishing Motive From Criminal Intent
Murder – treachery (no defense from victim) and intent to gain
Homicide – dedoks lang

Article 2
A. Source of RPC
1. Rafael del Pan’s Correctional Code of 1916
2. Code of Maruecos
3. Original Draft of German Penal Code of 1913
B. Where offense punishable under RPC is also punished under military law
C. Piracy is triable anywhere
Scope of Application of the Provisions of the RPC
1. Intraterritorial – within PH territory
 Not only to PH archipelago but also atmosphere, interior waters and maritime zone.
 Under international law, as long as PH vessel is NOT within the territorial waters of a foreign country, PH laws shall
govern (since sa iba English rule din nag-aapply so kapag rape nangyari sa PH vessel while nasa US terriotorial sea,,
US takes J)
2. Extraterritorial – outside PH territory
 IF PH ship is within territorial waters or atmosphere of a foreign state, foreign state shall exercise J EXCEPT:
1) When crime is committed in a WAR VESSEL of a foreign country because war vessels are part of the
sovereignty
2) When foreign country applies French rule (take J only if against national sec) as opposed to
English/American or Anglo-Saxon Rule (enforces the territoriality of criminal law; UNLESS crime only
affects the internal mgt of the vessel) -> both of these rules apply only to MERCHANT vessels.
Illustration
1. Rules of Court – deleted the requirement of registration of a vessel. So even though the vessel is not registered, if a crime is
committed in high seas, and if it returns here in PH, it is under the J of our courts. BUT it added the phrase “in accordance
with GAPOIL” so if not registered, it is considered a pirate vessel and if it is done with the ‘intent to gain’ it can be
considered PIRACY so any court can take Jurisdiction.
When public officers or employees commit an offense in the exercise of their functions
1. RPC governs ONLY when the crime committed pertains to the exercise of the public official’s function
2. BUT RPC governs if the crime was committed within the PH embassy in foreign country.
Illustration
1. PH consulate who validly married here in PH and then marries again in a foreign country, he cannot be tried here in PH for
bigamy UNLESS he contracted the marriage in PH embassy.
2. But if he returns here in PH with his second wife, they will be prosecuted for concubinage.
3. Taking of the deposition is NOT the function of the consul BUT under RULES of COURT, consul can take deposition making it
consul’s function when he agreed to the falsification of the deposition THUS he us under the RPC. But if he killed a person in
Singapore, he will be tried in Singapore. AGAIN SA CONSULS LANG TO. If diplomat tapos pumatay immune siya sa J ng
Singapore pero ittry siya under PH courts.
4. Title I of Book 2 (crimes against national security) DOES NOT include Rebellion. So if acts of rebellion were done by
FILIPINOS in a foreign country, THEY WILL NOT BE LIABLE UNDER RPC. So kapag other things that is against the national
security of PH, they will be held liable under RPC na.

Article 3: Felonies
How a Felony May Arise
 Felony are crimes under RPC.
 Take note of its usage in RPC because when it is used, it means it does NOT extend to crimes under special laws.
 Example: Quasi-Recidivism – a person who shall commit a felony after being convicted. THUS it is not quasi-
recidivism if commit an offense or crime under special law.
1. Definition
 FELONIES – acts or omissions
 Elements:
1. Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege: If there is NO law that defines an act as a crime and provides for its penalty, such
act is NOT a crim.
2. Acts may be omissions or commissions; only external acts are punished
3. Omission is synonymous to inaction, the failure to perform a POSITIVE DUTY which one is bound to do. There must be a
law requiring such performance.
2. Classification of Felonies
1. Intentional Felonies
a. Act or omission of offender is malicious (dolo)
b. Deliberate intent
2. Culpable Felonies – performed without malice (culpa)
a. Negligence – lack of foresight
b. Imprudence – lack of skill
3. Crimes punished under special laws
1. NO need for malice (dolo)
2. Act alone constitutes the offense
3. Mala Prohibita and Mala in Se
Mala in Se Mala Prohibita
Definition Acts that are wrong from their Acts that are wrong merely because
nature it is prohibited by a statute
Intent Intent governs NOT important
Violates RPC Special penal laws
Minimum required for a person to Criminal intent Intent to perpetuate a crime
incur criminal liability
4. Good faith can be invoked as a defense for violation of RPC (mala in se)
5. Good Faith and absence of criminal intent are NOT valid defenses in crimes punished by special laws (mala prohibita)
6. Exceptions to the good faith rule in crimes of Mala Prohibita. Intent to perpetuate the act is required. (Example is when
the special law prohibits possession of firearms and the accused applied for permit but he was still convicted since
‘intent’ is not required. BUT this is wrong because what the law really prohibits is the possession of firearms which is
UNKNOWN to an agent of law -> liberal view)

4. Pattern of analysis in determining criminal liability

a. Was there criminal intent or malice (dolo)?
b. Was the act done by means of imprudence or negligence (culpa)?

5. Delito Deloso and Delito Culposa

Elements of Mala in SE
Delito Deloso (Dolo) (Malice NOT Deceit) Delito Culposa (Culpa)
Freedom (Voluntary) Freedom (Voluntary)
Intelligence Intelligence
Intent Negligence/Imprudence

A. Intent defined distinguished from discernment

1. -Discernment – moral significance that person ascribes to the said act
2. -Intent – desired of one’s act
B. Kinds of Intent
1. General Notion of intent – motive is NOT essential in establishing this notion of criminal intent
2. Specific Notion of intent – there is NO great difference between specific criminal intent and motive.
C. Intent (demonstrated by the use of particular means to bring about a desired result) distinguished from Motive (implies
motion; moving power which impels one to do an act)
1. Motive is Relevant when:
a. Aid in completing the proof of the commission of the crime
b. Lack of motive may be an aid in showing the innocence of the accused
 2. Motive is IRRELEVANT when:
a. When assailant is positively identified

Jurisprudence
1. By standing still and not preventing the crime of arson, such is NOT AN OMISSION since it is not a positive duty to prevent
someone.
2. Applying petroleum jelly to burns and making it worse is culpable because NEGLIGENT. Good faith is not a defense here.
3. When accidentally stumbled on an embankment and two shots were fired one killing a companion, such is NOT culpable.
Although it is negligent, the act were INVOLUNTARY. No MALICE and No FAULT.
4. When a person thought he shot a deer but it was his companion, such is CULAPBLE because the act was VOLUNTARY and he
knew he has a companion thus he should have exercised all the necessary diligence to avoid every undesirable conduct thus
guilt of homicide through reckless imprudence.
5. When accused ate a lot and the mixture of chemicals somehow made him hypnotized and attack everyone, he is acquitted
since his act was NOT voluntary but a result of the food he ate.
6. When an owner of a store was convicted for the selling of his agent of prohibited items under a special law, they both will
still be liable even though the owner did not have intent because intent is IRRELEVANT under specials laws.
7. Grave Coercion under RPC – when a person who without authority of law, shall by means of violence, prevent another from
doing something not prohibited by law or compel to do something against his will, either it be right or wrong.
8. Mayor of town upon recommendation of Municipal Health Officer barricaded some establishments and stalls which
protruded into the sidewalk -> the stalls were public nuisance so mayor in good faith in the performance of his duty has NO
criminal liability for grave coercion. (good faith as defense of violation under RPC)
9. If special law prohibits possession of firearms, and when accused said he just borrowed it and not the owner, such good
faith is NOT a defense. AGAIN special law does not care about good faith.
10. When a person possesses a firearm which has pending registration, he cannot be criminally liable since the spirit of the law
is the prohibition on possession of firearm unknown to an agent of law.
11. Secret agent is NOT exempted from getting a license for a firearm because he is NOT those listed for the exemptions.
12. A child who is above 9 but below 15 must have discernment or intelligence to be liable under QUASI-OFFENSE
13. If a child play with a pellet gun and shoots at his playmate which led to the latter’s death, the child is not criminally liable for
reckless imprudence resulting to homicide since he DID NOT HAVE discernment.
14. When the accused is PROPERLY IDENTIFIED, motive is irrelevant even if he said that he is just a bystander, when people
properly identified him, the finding of a motive is irrelevant.
15. Circumstantial evidence – indirect evidence, fat that was seen in the vicinity of the crime, aid in prosecution, proof of crime,
furnishes a powerful motive for the commission of the crime.
16. When a business is running slow and then the dry goods that are insured when destroyed in the fire would be paid, there is
a motive for the business owner to set fire on the stock room. There was even a hole in the room so hindi masasabi na
nadamay lang yung 26 sa sunog sa 30. The business is running slow is a circumstantial evidence that can make motive
relevant.
17. When husband said he was not feeling well and then he dreamt that he was having a fight then suddenly got up took his
bolo and stabbed his wife -> he is NOT liable for the crime because there was NO MOTIVE nor CRIMINAL INTENT.
18. When accused said that the victim was the first to attack and that he had no motive, establishment of motive is irrelevant
because accused himself did not deny the fact that he killed the victim.
19. Motive needs to be established through evidence because the identity of the culprit is unknown. Marcos election case
where in the evidence of prosecution fails, the motive of Marcos is not established. Mere presumption of his motive is NOT
PROOF for the crime.
 Program Module 5
Felonies and their Elements
Criminal Intent
How criminal liability is incurred
A. When crimes may be committed without criminal intent or malice (culpa)
1. Negligence – lack of foresight – deficiency of perception; failure to foresee impending danger
2. Imprudence – lack of skill – deficiency of action; A was driving a truck along a road and he hit B because it was raining
thus reckless imprudence
B. Reckless imprudence v. Simple Negligence
1. Reckless imprudence – if the danger is MANIFEST
2. Simple negligence – if danger is not clear nor manifest
C. Both elements of Mala in Se are Voluntary
D. Acts that are negligently executed are STILL VOLUNTARY
E. Intent is shown by overt (obvious) acts as opposed from just in the mind. (arises when there is an unlawful act)
F. Criminal intent presumed from commission of the crime but GOOD FAITH or MISTAKE OF FACT may be defenses.
1. Lack of intent to kill the deceased because the intention was to kill another DOES NOT relieve the accused from
criminal responsibility
2. For mistake of fact to apply, the intention of the accused in performing the acts SHOULD BE LAWFUL
3. There is no crime of resistance when there is a mistake of fact. (Ah Chong! He resisted because he thought intruder but
it turns out his roommate) (kapag nagresist siya kasi di niya alam na police officer pala humahabol sa kanya)
4. When the accused is negligent, mistake of fact is NOT a defense. THUS mistake of fact only applies to dolo.
G. Sources of Good Faith – if established negates criminal intent thus negates crime. NOT APPLY TO CULPA bc in culpa intent is
irrelevant.
1. Mistake of fact – applies ONLY to DOLO.
2. Act is lawful

Jurisprudence
1. ALWAYS ASK THE QUESTION “Was there intent?” If there is intent, good faith applies.
2. Is it punishable under RPC or SPECIAL LAW? If under RPC, good faith may apply. In special law, only special circumstances
wherein good faith may apply.
3. IN throwing a hand grenade at the President with the intention of killing him, the appellant acted with malice he is
therefore liable for all the consequences of his wrongful act even if the president was not the one who was killed.
4. Article 4 of RPC, criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony EVEN THOUGH the wrongful act done be
different from that which he intended.
5. For imprudence to set it, malice SHOULD NOT BE present but in this case, there is still malice even though the intent was
not met by the accused because he killed another person.
6. Qualifying circumstance of TREACHERY may be considered even when the victim of the attack was NOT the one whom the
defendant intended to kill
7. Treachery – when the victim has no means of self-defense.
8. Intent to kill a person but instead another was killed, does not extinguish intent.
9. When A struck B with his gun, and even without the intention of killing but only to injure him, such is reckless imprudence
resulting to homicide.
10. When boyfriend intended to shoot the girlfriend but instead killed the niece, this is frustrated murder. Also there is a
qualifying circumstance of treachery. THIS IS NOT IMPRUDENCE since THERE IS INTENT.
11. When there is INTENT to kill but resulted to death of another – DOLO thus frustrated murder
12. When there is ONLY INTENT TO INJURE but instead resulted to the death of the victim – CULPA thus reckless imprudence
resulting to homicide.
13. When justice of peace in permitting the sums deposited with him to be attached in the satisfaction of the judgment
rendered by him was not unlawful. Everything he did was in good faith under the belief that he was acting judiciously and
correctly. It as an error of the mind operating upon a state of facts. Food faith is a defense and in this case there is good
faith. Good faith negates intent. This is malversation under RPC so good faith can be a defense. This act done is NOT culpa
because THERE IS NO DANGER present as opposed dun sa petroleum jelly may danger present dun kasi buhay na ng tao or
yung sunog na paa yung concerned. Dito pera lang naman.
14. A crime is NOT committed if the mind of the person is innocent (actus non facit reum, nisi mes sit rea).
15. In Ah Chong’s mind, there is an intruder thus there is danger in his life. When the intruder entered he stabbed him and
resulted to the death of his roommate. This is NOT negligent because the danger is not on another person’s life but to
himself. And because there is mistake of fact, he good faith can be a defense since his action is not negligent but
supposedly it has intent. But the intent was negated by good faith thus there is NO CRIME.
16. When a woman thought all her life she was already of age to marry because her father made here believe all her life that
she was born at an earlier year, she cannot be criminally liable under RPC because good faith negates her intent to violate
the old RPC. This is not also criminal negligence because there is no danger present.
17. When accused thought only sample ballots so she did not include them in the box, even though this is prohibited under a
special law which generally doesn’t care about intent nor good faith, court can consider the FACTS present at the time of
the commission of the crime. This is different from the mere failure to include the ballots in the box because there is no
mistake of facts here. Such failure is still liable under the special law because presence of intent is irrelevant.
18. Mistake of fact is NOT tenable when the police officer kills another person. This is reckless negligence in failing to exercise
the ordinary diligence that under the circumstances he should have exercised by inquiring of the occupants of the house
whether the stranger was known to them as he seemed to have called somebody in the house.
19. Oanis and Galanta police officers shot a person lying in his back who they thought was the notorious Balagtas. Mistake of
fact here is NOT applicable because they committed culpa or negligence (again mistake of fact or good faith only applies to
those with intent). They should have checked first if it was the real Balagtas.
20. A person incurs no criminal liability when:
a. Offender acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office (only the present one in the
case of Balagtas)
b. The injury committed be the NECESSARY consequence of the due performance of such duty or the lawful exercise of
such right or office. (in this case it was NOT THE NECESSARY consequence)
 Program Module 6
Modes by which criminal liability is incurred
Causality
Impossible crimes
Their elements and forms
A. Committing a felony even if the consequences are unintended
1. Elements:
a. Felony is committed UNLESS the act is lawful. (When Bindoy was trying to take away his bolo from Pacas’ grip, the
bolo flew and hit a bystander – Bindoy is not criminally liable because he was not aware of the victim’s presence. He
was not trying to injure Pacas but only to get back his bolo. But if he intended to injure Pacas but instead injured a
bystander, then he would be criminally liable.)
(When mother’s hold of the baby loosened because she was trying to remove the grip of her husband from her father,
the husband is NOT liable for the death of the baby. In this case, the husband cannot be said to be committing a crime.
But if he was then the death of the baby is his liability)
General Rule: An offender is always liable for the consequence of his criminal action even though the result be
different from what he intended)
b. Wrong done is direct, natural, logical consequence of felony committed.
(Accused raised his bolo and threatening to stab the crew then the crew jumped into the water causing his death, he
will be liable for the death)
(One who inflicts injury on another is deemed by law to be guilty of homicide if the injury contributes immediately to
the death of the victim. The fact that other causes contributed to the death does not relieve the actor of responsibility
– thus applying a firebrand to the abdomen of the man who pestered him, victim was brought to the hospital and then
eventually dies such accused is liable even though if he contends that other causes led to the death)
1) Blow was efficient cause of the death (when hit in the head to not get pig but caused the death - liable)
2) Blow was proximate cause of the death (when stabbed with a fan knife but was not the cause of the death
but rather a heart attack due to shock – liable – there is intention in the commission of the crime because
even though fan knife only, death could reasonably anticipated)
i. How proximate cause is determined (overturned bus lead for the oil to leak -> this is the proximate
cause but the burning due to the torches held by rescuers, is the NATURAL CAUSE. Negligence is with
driver and conductor because they should have warned the rescuers.)
ii. Definition – natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces
cause, produces injury and without which, the result would not have occurred.
iii. When felony committed not proximate cause (when death was only after 22 days after the hacking
incident, there would have been other efficient causes of the death)
3) Intervening active force which is distinct and absolutely foreign to the felonious act of accused
i. Resulting injury is due to intentional act of victim
ii. Death attributable to fever prevalent in locality (when accused slapped victim then on the afternoon
the child got a fever then died the next day. It was found that sickness is prevalent in the locality so it
is not the act of the accused that caused the death of the child)
iii. Cause of death not proved (child is ill for 3 weeks and when he was scolded and slapped on the
thighs, he died two days later – NOT liable since cause of death is unknown.
iv. Death attributable to tetanus (There must be other causes that caused the tetanus other than the
hacking incident since the tetanus only happened 19 days after the hacking incident)
4) Blow accelerated death (a punch and a kick even though it does not cause external wound, it may easily
produce inflammation of the spleen and peritonitis and cause death thus can be classified as homicide)
c. When there is an intervening cause
1) Instances NOT constituting efficient intervening cause
i. Weak or diseased physical condition of victim (binatukan then patay; sinaksak ng kitchen knife then
patay bc of heart attack)
ii. Nervousness or temperament of victim (the wound which caused the nervousness of the patient
then began to move against the orders of the doctor and not bc victim wanted to increase the liability
of the accused, which then led to the death, the accused is not just liable for slight physical injuries
but rather HOMICIDE)
(also when patient removed the drainage from his body because of nervousness, which caused his
death, it will not extinguish the crime of homicide)
iii. Causes inherent in victim:
a) Addiction to tuba drinking (when physician told that tuba drinking hindered the effect of the
medicine which eventually led to the death, this will not lessen the assailant’s responsibility
bc he is responsible for all the consequences of the personal injury)
 b) Victim did not know how to swim (when crew member dies because he did not know how
to swim, liability of the captain will not be extinguished)
iv. Neglect of victim or third person
a) Victim refused medical attendance or surgical operation (a person injured is NOT obliged to
submit to a surgical operation to relieve the person who assaulted him from the results of
his crime – thus if may wound sa hand tapos dahil ayaw magpagamot, ayaw na gumana yung
hand, assailant is still responsible for the consequence)
d. Even if unintended
1) Error in personae: mistake in identity of victim (if there is intent to kill a person but killed another, this is
homicide and not homicide through negligence since there is still intent) (also mistake of fact is not a defense
when the police officers killed who they thought was Balagtas because the crime is negligence or culpa)
2) Abberratio ictus: mistake in blow (nabaril yung niece when he intended to kill his GF. This is frustrated
murder and not negligence since there is still intent)
3) Prater intentionem: injurious result is greater than that intended (binatukan lang pero namatay liable pa rin
for murder)
2. Cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused (crew jumping into the water, accused is chargeable with homicide since
the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent cannot be appreciated from the accused since he even said “are u already
dead?”) (sinuntok mo siya tapos nagkaroon ng blood clot sa baga, so yung pagsuntok mo parang yun na rin yung cause of
the evil caused kahit na yung blood clot talaga yung dahilan)
B. Impossible crimes – an act which would be an offense against person or property were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
-always the last resort, so for example trespass then rape dead body, he will be liable for trespass IF ever trespassing is under
RPC. BUT if for example a houseboy who technically did not commit trespass since he is already inside the house then he rapes a
dead body, such is an impossible crime which will be under RAPE under RPC since no other crime under RPC was committed. He
is then liable for penalties of RAPE.
-has its own penalties under RPC so different talaga siya with attempted and frustrated. Arresto mayor lang and fine
Requisites:
1. Act is Performed AGAINST PROPERTY or PERSON
2. That the act was done with evil intent
3. That its accomplishment is inherently impossible or the means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual (so kapag
adequate naman yung electricity pero sadyang malakas lang talaga yung victim, hindi siya impossible crime kasi physical
strength nung victim is NOT THE MEANS employed but rather the electricity which is adequate)
4. The act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the RPC
Illustrations
1. When houseboy finally decided to rape the owner but owner was already dead, he committed an impossible crime SINCE
no other crime was committed under RPC. But before sa RPC, Rape is a crime against chastity so hindi siya impossible crime
kasi hindi naman against sa person. Pero dahil sa new rape law na rape is against person, he is now liable against impossible
crime since hindi naman siya nag violate ng kahit ano pang crime under RPC.
2. When robber went to a department store and open the vault which turns out to be empty, this is not an impossible crime
because the third element is not met since there are OTHER THINGS that the robber can steal. So he is can be convicted of
attempted robbery if he did not take anything.
3. When husband put daily dose of poison on the drink of wife but the wife has strong resistance, this is not impossible crime
since it is still possible for him to kill her if the woman will have weaker resistance. Thus he committed frustrated parricide.
4. If the husband mistakenly puts vetsin rather than poison, this is impossible crime since wife will never die with just vetsin.
So he will be made liable for frustrated parricide. But if wife developed first wife developed cancer, he will be liable only for
physical injuries.
5. When bullets did not discharge because they were old, it is NOT impossible crime since kapag pinalitan ng bagong bullets
then hindi na impossible. So this is attempted homicide.)
6. If gun was empty this is an impossible crime since wala talagang mapapala dahil INADEQUATE siya.
HOWEVER, after Intod case, the wrongful acts of the culprits caused destruction to the house of the intended victim; this felonious
act negates the idea of an impossible crime. The SC still ruled conviction for the impossible crime NOT the destruction of property.
BUT w/n we agree with SC, we have to respect its ruling.
 Program Module 7
Phases in the Commission of Felonies
Stages in the Execution of Crimes
Conspiracies and Proposals to Commit Felonies

NO Crime unless there is a law punishing it

 When a person is charged in court and the court finds that there is no law applicable, the court will acquit the accused and
the judge will give his opinion that the said act should be punished.
Article 5
2 Situations:
1. The court cannot convict the accused because the acts do not constitute a crime. The proper judgment is acquittal but
the court is mandated to report to the chief executive that the said act be made subject of penal legislation and why.
2. Where the court finds the penalty prescribed for the crime too harsh considering the conditions surrounding the
commission of the crime, the judge should impose the law. The most that he can do is to RECOMMEND to the chief
executive to grant executive clemency.

Stages in the Commission of Felony: to bring about a proportionate penalty and equitable punishment.
Article 6 – true only to crimes under RPC
Formal Crimes – crimes which are consummated in one instance (no attempted or frustrated stages).
Example: ORAL DEFAMATION, Illegal Exaction (mere demanding constitutes the consummated stage)
Attempted Stage – when the offender has not yet performed all the acts of execution, there is yet something to be
performed but he was not able to perform all the acts of execution due to some cause or accident other than his
spontaneous desistance. DIRECTLY linked to the overt act performed by the offender NOT the felony he has in his mind.
Frustrated stage – if the offender has performed all the acts of execution which should produce the felony as a
consequence but the felony was not realized
Overt act – act which if allowed to continue in its natural course would definitely result into a felony (putting poison in
food)
Preparatory act - do not give rise to criminal liability because a felony only starts through overt acts (opening of poison)
Illustrations
1. When husband was only unwrapping the poison when he was caught by the police but he even admitted that he was to
poison his wife, such is NOT attempted parricide because the overt act begins ONLY when the husband mixed the poison
with the food of his wife.
2. In criminal law we are NOT allowed to speculate NOT to imagine what crime is intended, but apply the provisions of the law
of the facts given.
3. Act of entering alone is NOT yet indicative of robbery. You could only hold him liable for attempted robbery when he has
already completed all acts performed by him directly leading to robbery. The attempted stage is only that overt act which is
DIRECTLY linked to the felony intended to be committed. Thus only prosecuted for trespassing.
4. Removing of padlock is not attempted robbery but only attempted trespassing since he wasn’t able to steal something nor
enter the store.
5. When a man is caught carrying a woman forcibly, this is NOT attempted abduction but only acts of lasciviousness.
6. When a man is caught sleeping in the sofa with picklocks beside him he can only be prosecuted for qualified trespass to
dwelling and illegal possession of picklocks; NOT complex because one is not necessary means to commit the other.
Desistance on the part of the offender negates criminal liability in the attempted stage.
- True only in the ATTEMPTED stage
- If under the definition of the felony the act done is already in the frustrated stage, no amount of desistance will negate
criminal liability.
- What is negated is only the attempted stage but there may be other felony constituting his act.
Illustrations
 1. When A already shot B in the shoulders and approached B and said “now your dead, I will kill you” but A took pity and left.
His act is attempted homicide NOT physical injuries because there was already INTENT to kill. If he shot a second shot in the
air, the desistance only applies to the second shot because the first shot already hit B.
2. When B entered the house of A and A was already nude, he desisted. Therefore there is no attempted rape here because
the desistance prevented the crime from being consummated. But he may still be prosecuted for trespassing. But if he
proceeded to abuse the woman but the latter screamed, and A went out the window again, this is not trespassing. He
would be prosecuted for attempted rape aggravated by dwelling. Dwelling is taken as an aggravating circumstance while
trespass is NOT. Trespassing was only the means but not really the goal of B.
3 criteria in deciding what stage the felony is:
1. The manner of committing the crime
Subjective Phase – attempted stage – it is that point in time when the offender begins the commission of an overt act until
that point where he loses control of the commission of the crime
- If he has reached that point where he can no longer control the ensuing consequence, the crime has already passed the
subjective phase therefore no longer attempted.
Objective Phase – after the subjective phase. Frustrated or Consummated
- Considered not only the acts of the offender but also his belief.
- When the offender may not have done the act to bring about the felony as a consequence, if he could have continued
committing those acts but he himself did not proceed BECAUSE HE BELIEVED that he has done ENOUGH to
consummate the crime, SC said the subjective phase has passed. (for example sinindihan na niya yung cloth so akala
niya okay na yun pero kailangan pa pala dapat ng oil, such is not anymore in the subjective phase because he believed
that okay na yung pagsindi lang nung cloth)
- Ruling in US v. Valdez – still correct
- Ruling in People v. Garcia – control now
Crime Description
Bribery  Crime of the receiver because the crime of the
giver is corruption of public official.
 These independent crimes but actually they
cannot arise without the other.
 Hence if only one side of the crime is present, only
corruption, you cannot have a consummated
corruption without the corresponding
consummated bribery.
 If bribery only, it is possible only in the attempted
stage.
 So for example kapag may entrapment na kunwari
yung giver ay magbbribe talaga. Kapag tinangap na
nung public official, such is attempted bribery only
because there is NO MEETING OF THE MINDS.
 It will only be consummated if the giver is also
corrupt.
 NO FRUSTRATED Stage
Adultery  Also takes two to commit the crime
 Usually when it takes two to commit the crime
there could hardly be a frustrated stage.
 Requires the link of 2 participants
 NO FRUSTRATED stage
Rape  If there is NO penetration yet, it is not
consummated
 Even if the head of the penis pa lang napapasok
consummated na agad.
 NO FRUSTRATED stage
Arson  The moment any particle of the premises intended
to be burned blackened that is already
consummated.
  NO FRUSTRATED stage (People v. Garcia) – we
FOLLOW this now
 There is frustrated stage (US v. Valdez)
Physical Injuries  You cannot punish the attempted or frustrated
stage because you do not know what crime of
physical injuries was committed
 But a commentator said that there is attempted
(raised a fist but was stopped) and frustrated
(threw a punch but victim dodge). BUT this does
NOT STAND.

Illustrations:
1. When A threw muriatic acid at B but because of the timely plastic surgery the deformity was easily healed. This is still a
crime of serious physical injuries (as opposed to less serious or slight). A deformity can be said to exist when 3 factors
concur:
a. Injury should bring about ugliness
b. Ugliness must be visible
c. Ugliness would not disappear through NATURAL healing process.

2. Elements of the crime

Crime Description
Estafa  Committed through fraud or false pretense
 if there is no damage even if the offender
succeeded in carting away the personal property
involved, estafa CANNOT be considered as
consummated.
 To be consummated, there must be
misappropriation already done so that there is
damage already suffered by the offended party.
 No damage – only attempted or frustrated.
 Attempted – when acted as a public official to
collect fees for the non-compliance of permit to
cut timber but the complainant did not give fees
 Frustrated – when the complainant already gave
half of the fees but when he was about to give the
other half the fake public official was caught by
police
 JURIDICAL possession
Theft  Damage or intent to cause damage is NOT an
element of theft
 What is necessary only is INTENT TO GAIN
 Mere intent to derive some profit is enough but
the thinking must be complete before a crime of
theft shall be consummated.
 PHYSICAL possession so kapag sinira lang padlock it
is neither frustrated nor attempted it is robbery
 Offender need not move an inch from where he
was as opposed to larceny wherein need to
transport the thing stolen from one place to
another.
 NO FRUSTRATED STAGE according to SC so when
sa thieves has not yet left SM, it is still
consummated.
 Theft differs from robbery in that the theft is a taking of property that does not involve person-to-person interaction. A
person merely takes property that does not belong to him.
Robbery, in contrast to theft, is a taking of property that does involve person-to-person interaction with force, intimidation,
and/or coercion.
Burglary, in contrast to both theft and robbery, is the entering of a building or residence with the intention to commit a
theft or any felonious crime. Burglary does not require that property be stolen or that person-to-person interaction occur.
Illustration:
1. Remove wallet in the confines of the table (consummated theft since he has complete control of the wallet)
2. Trying to take the wallet or place it under the table (attempted – since di pa naman niya hawak)
3. If he instead take the table out of the room then apprehended him, it turned out that he is NOT authorized but only
interested in the wallet, it is only FRUSTRATED -> only applies to DINO -> now consummated na
4. IF the table is already out of the room, it is now consummated. Because the room is like the container of the wallet.
5. If opens the chest and took valuables and put inside pocket – already consummated
6. If he carried the chest and before he leaves the room he was apprehended this is only frustrated. -> applies only to
Dino -> consummated na now
7. IF the thing is stolen from a compound or from a room as long as the object has NOT been brought out of the room or
from the perimeter of the compound, the crime is only frustrated. -> applies only to Dino so Now consummated na
8. US v Dino – rifles were not taken outside of their boxes. The container of the box is the compound. – frustrated since di
pa sila nakakalabas sa compound -> NOT HOLDING ANYMORE
9. People v. Espiritu – remove linens from the boxes. The moment they had possession of the object itself –
consummated na because they have complete control of the linens already.
10. When the thief already taken out the object from the box then returned it, DESISTANCE DOES NOT APPLY since the
crime was already consummated. Again desistance only applies to attempted stage. It will not affect his criminal
liability BUT it will lessen his civil liability for he will no longer need to pay the object he was supposed to steal.
11. Taking the chickens out of the coop but returned it because not fit for fighting, desistance does not apply anymore
because it is already consummated theft.
12. If only break the padlock, this is not frustrated theft but rather robbery with force upon things. The padlock has nothing
to do with the stage of the commission of the crime.

3. Nature of the crime itself

 In crimes involving taking of human life, parricide, homicide and murder, FRUSTRATED stage is when the victim is mortally
wounded. Because the act must necessarily produce death if NOT for an intervening cause that prevented the death.
 BUTTTTTT when the offender believed he has done enough to cause the death of the victim which in fact NOT, it is still
frustrated stage because it has left the subjective phase.
 IF the wound is not mortal, the crime is only attempted. The reason is that the wound inflicted is NOT capable of bringing
about the desire felony of parricide, murder or homicide.

Article 8
CONSPIRACY and PROPOSAL to COMMIT a FELONY
2 ways for conspiracy to exist:
1. There is an agreement
2. The participants acted in concert or simultaneously which is indicative of a meeting of the minds towards a common
criminal goal. When the several offenders act in a synchronized, coordinated manner, the fact that their acts complimented
each other is indicative of the meeting of the minds. There is an implied agreement.
2 kinds of conspiracy:
1. Conspiracy as a crime – no overt act is necessary to bring about the criminal liability. This is only true when the law
expressly punishes the mere conspiracy but if NOT conspiracy is mere a preparatory act.
Crimes that mere conspiracy to commit them incurs criminal liability:
a. Treason
b. Rebellion
c. Sedition
d. Coup d’etat
2. Conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability.
A. General Rule: conspiracies and proposals to commit a felony are NOT punishable
1. Not indictable in the PH
a. But of pivotal importance in determining liability of perpetuators of crime
2. Exceptions: As provided by Law (if already conspired any one of these acts, if only one acted, all of them are still liable)
a. Conspiracies punished by RPC
i. Treason
ii. Rebellion
iii. Sedition
b. Proposals punished in the code
i. Treason
ii. Rebellion
c. Conspiracies punished by special laws
i. Commonwealth act no 616 sec 5
 Unlawfully obtaining or permitting to be obtained information affecting national defense
 Unlawfully disclosing info affecting national defense
 Disloyal acts or words in time of peace
 Disloyal acts or words in time of war
ii. RA 1700 – anti-subversion act
B. Mere Conspiracy as constituting commission of Crime
1. Monopolies and Combinations in restraint of Trade (Art 186)
2. Brigandage (Art 306) – more than 3 armed persons form a band of robbers for the purpose of committing robbery in the
highway
3. Certain violations of the dangerous drugs act
C. Mere proposal as overt act punished by law: Bribe NOT accepted (art 212: corruption of public officials (wherein the losing
candidate tried to offer money to public official to change the results, mere proposal of that money is punishable under 212)
D. Elements of Conspiracy (a conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence but it may be deducted from the mode and
manner in which the offense was perpetuated.)
1. Two or more persons come to an agreement
2. Agreement concerns commission of felony
3. They decide to commit it
E. Elements of Proposal
1. A person has decided to commit a crime
2. He proposes its commission to another
a. IF proposal is accepted, there is conspiracy
b. IF it is not accepted, only proposal.
F. Conspiracy to commit a crime is distinguished from conspiracy as means to commit to crime (when conspiracy relates to crime
actually committed, conspiracy is NOT the felony but only a means of incurring criminal liability)
G. Liability of Conspirator
1. Determination to commit felony
2. Taking part in every detail is NOT essential (even though hindi ikaw may hawak nung pipe or kahit hindi ikaw yung nagdealt
nung final blow, you are still liable for murder)
3. Conspirators need NOT all join in the agreement at the same time
4. Collective criminal responsibility: Act of one, Act of all
5. Solidary indemnity for victim’s indemnity (hati hati sa bayad)
H. Degree of Proof required to establish conspiracy
1. Same degree of proof required to establish crime
a. Mere Companionship DOES NOT establish conspiracy
b. Mere Presence at crime scene does not establish conspiracy
2. Positive and convincing
3. Founded on facts and NOT mere conjectures, inferences or presumptions
I. Liability in absence of conspiracy
1. Individual liability (Conspiracy is Not proven when it does not appear that the appellants had a common design. So if di
alam ni guy na papatay yung kasama niya and akala lang niya magnanakaw lang sila, individual liability na yung murder. But
even though he did not technically get things, the mere fact that he gave moral encouragement with his presence, he is
liable ONLY for robbery as an accomplice. An accomplice is one who cooperates in the execution of the crime by previous or
simultaneous acts provided that he has NOT taken direct part in the execution of the crime)
(Mere presence of the accused at the scene of the crime, in the company of others among whom could have been the
culprits, DOES NOT ESTABLISH criminal liability. The one who shot the victim is individually liable)
Illustrations:
1. When A proposed acts of sedition to B such is not a crime. But if B accepts the proposal such is a crime under RPC for
conspiracy.
2. When conspiracy is only a basis of incurring criminal liability, there must be an overt act done before the co-
conspirators become criminally liable.
3. So when the co-conspirators already done the over act, it is the overt act to be punished Not the conspiracy.
4. If a conspiracy for a crime is a crime in itself, and if one of the co-conspirators acted individually and the others DID
NOT know, all of them are criminally liable. BUT if the conspiracy for a crime is NOT a crime in itself but only basis of
criminal liability, if the other DID NOT KNOW or if anyone would desists before one of the co-conspirators acted
individually, he will be not liable but only the one who acted.
5. Conspiracy is only a basis of criminal liability -> means conspiracy is not a crime in in itself. SO kapag may conspiracy
lahat liable pero kung wala individual lang talaga so gets BASIS lang talaga siya.
6. 3 persons plans to rob a bank so for as long as no overt act yet, no crime. But when one of them commits any overt act,
all of them shall be held liable. But if one is absent from the scene of the crime or if he went to prevent them, he will
NOT be liable.
7. AS a general rule: if there has been a conspiracy to commit a crime in a particular place, anyone who did not appear
shall be presumed to have desisted. EXCEPTION to this:
a. One who did not appear is the MASTERMIND
b. Crime committed are those in which conspiracy is a crime in itself.
8. Conspiracy is possible even when the participants ARE NOT KNOWN to each other. When several persons began
punching the victim, even if they are strangers to each other, they are all liable.
9. Conspiracy does not require the meeting of the co-conspirator. Only need is that they ACTED in concert.
10. When wife hired persons to kill her husband and when they were beating the husband the wife desisted and ran away,
and then the persons killed the husband. Wife is not liable for parricide because she desisted.
11. When A ordered B to kill C and when A desisted by telling the police to stop B, but the police were not able to stop B, A
is absolved of criminal liability for the murder.
12. When there is conspiracy, the participants are ALL PRINCIPALS. -> NO LONGER ABSOLUTE. So if there was conspiracy
and when a co-conspirator merely cooperated in the commission of the crime with insignificant or minimal acts, he will
only be an accomplice. Thus one degree lower of penalty. Examples:
a. Taxi driver only came back after the commission of robbery to take away the robbers. He is only an accomplice for
the robbers can take another taxi despite his absence. He only extended COOPERATION not really the ACT itself.
13. In robbery with force upon things, penalty is based on the totality of the value of the personal property taken not the
individual takings of the robbers.

Composite Crimes – are crimes in which in substance, consists of more than one crime but in the eyes of the law, there is only one
crime. For example:
a. Robbery with homicide
b. Robbery with rape
c. Robbery with physical injuries
 In case the crime is a composite crime, the conspirator will be liable for all the acts committed during the commission of the
crime. This is because in the eyes of the law, all those acts done in pursuance of the crime agreed upon are acts which
constitute a single crime.
Illustrations
1. A, B and C agreed to rob. When A saw a girl he raped her without B and C knowing. All of them will be liable because
ROBERRY WITH RAPE IS A COMPOSITE CRIME. But if we are to say that these crimes are distinct crimes, they will not be
liable for the rape part.
2. Same applies with robbery with homicide.
3. EXCEPTION: When the crime agreed upon and crime committed by one of the co-conspirators are DISTINCT CRIMES
meaning not composite crimes.
4. Also if the co-conspirator tried to prevent the rape of the girl, he will not be liable for the rape part. BUT if the reason only
was that he did not know, HE will still be liable. (so parang same siya dun sa conspiracy is a crime in itself like dun sa
rebellion na may nagcommit ng rebellion without the knowledge of the others all of them are liable)
 Program Module 8
Classification of Felonies
Bases, Uses and Purposes
Special Penal Statues and Their Relation to the RPC

Classification of Felonies
1. Manner of their Commission (art.3)
 Intentional or with deliberate intent
 Culpable felonies resulting from negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill
2. Stages in their execution (art. 6)
 Attempted - offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts and DOES NOT perform all the acts
of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance
 Frustrated – offender commences the commission of a felony as a consequence but which would produce the felony as
a consequence but which nevertheless do NOT produce the felony by reason of causes INDEPENDENT of the
perpetrator.
 Consummated – when all the elements necessary for its execution are present.
3. Gravity (art. 9)
 Grave - attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive
 Less grave – which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period was correccional
 Light – penalty is arresto menor.
Importance of the Classification
To determine:
1. W/N these felonies can be complexed
2. Prescription of crime (art. 90)
Principal Penalties Prescription (unless the running period is suspended)
Death or reclusion perpetua or temporal 20 years
Afflictive penalties 15 years (except reclusion perpetua and temporal they
are 20)
Correctional penalty 10 years (5 years if arresto mayor)
Libel or other similar offenses 1 year
Oral defamation and slander by deed 6 months
Light 2 months

3. Penalty (in accordance with art. 25)

a. Penalty Imposed
Article 25. Penalties which may be imposed. - The penalties which may be imposed according to this Code, and their
different classes, are those included in the following:
Scale
Principal Penalties
Principal Penalty Penalty Imposed
Capital Punishment Death
Afflictive penalties Reclusion perpetua,
Reclusion temporal,
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
Prision mayor.

Correctional Penalties Prision correccional,

Arresto mayor,
 Suspension,
Destierro.

Light Penalties Arresto menor,

Public censure.

Penalties common to the three preceding classes Fine and Bond Keep to keep peace

b. Fines
Article 26.

Penalty Fine
Afflictive Penalty Exceeds 6k
Correctional Penalty 6k – 200
Light Penalty Less than 200

Suppletory Application of the RPC

Article 10
- There Is a reservation “provision of the RPC may be applied suppletorily to special laws”
- Only apply the provision of the RPC as a supplement to the special law or simply correlate the violated special law if
needed to avoid an injustice
- IF NO justice would result, do NOT give suppletorily application of RPC to special law.
- Example is when the special law does not give any civil damages to the victim. RPC can be applied as to avoid injustice.
Article 100 says that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.
- VIOLATIONS under RPC is GREATER than under special laws so whenever there is a simultaneous violation such as
rebellion and possession of firearms, the crime of rebellion will be the one that will be prosecuted SINCE the use of
arms is an element of rebellion.
- BUT WHEN the elements of the crime under RPC does not include the violation of another special law, both will be
tried. Example is sedition and use of firearms. Possession of firearms is NOT an element of sedition.
- A law that is outside RPC is not always a special law. IF a law only amends and modifies a crime under RPC it is still
MALA IN SE. Example is PD 533 punishing cattle-rustling (stealing) is not mala prohibitum but rather a modification of
the crime of theft of large cattle under RPC thus is NOT a special law. Thus if the cattle was murdered in the
commission of theft under PD 533, murder will not be tried since PD 533 is NOT a special law and the main goal is theft
not murder.
- But for example if PD 533 is not a modification of a crime in RPC, the crime of murder will be tried under RPC and also
theft under it.
- When Dangerous Drugs Act (a special law which do NOT have prohibitions against suppletory application of RPC) is
amended by RA 7659 which adopted the scale of penalties in RPC. So even though it is a general rule the crimes under
special laws has no stages but only consummated, a crime under dangerous drugs act will now have stages and
aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
People v Simon – Indeterminate Sentence Law applies as long as you are not involved in crimes with a penalty of
1. reculsion perpetua or death
2. treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason;
3. to those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage;
4. to those convicted of piracy;
5. to those who are habitual delinquents;
6. to those who have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence;
7. to those who having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive shall have violated the terms thereof;
8. to those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year,
9. not to those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of approval of this Act.
*In this case it applies to Simon since selling marijuana is not under those exceptions.