You are on page 1of 36

CRIMINAL LAW BOOK I

GOOD MORNING

CRIMINAL LAW
ONE
DEFINITIONS
Crime: A transgression done in violation of a rule
of conduct which specifically requires its
performance or non-performance.
Law: Sanchez Roman defines law as a rule of
conduct, just, obligatory, promulgated by
competent authority and of common observance
& benefit.
Criminal Law: Criminal law is a substantive and
public law which defines crimes, classifies its
nature and prescribes a penalty therefore.

No Common Law Crimes in the Philippines
Common law crimes are bodies of legal rules and
principles which are not based on statute but on
usages and traditions.
There are no common law crimes in the Philippines.
No act shall constitute as a crime unless it is made so
by law (U.S. vs. Taylor, 28 Phil 599).
nullum crimen, nulla poena, sine lege
Art 5 RPC: if there is no law punishing the act or
omission, the court must dismiss the case no matter
how wicked the act may seem.
PEOPLE vs. AVECILLA (GR No. 117033, Feb. 15, 2001)

THEORIES IN CRIMINAL LAW
Classical or Juristic Theory Existence of the
offenders free will, or a persons freedom to do an act.
Under this theory, the penalty for ones criminal act is
imposed by way of social retribution.
Positivist School of Thought Crime is a natural social
phenomenon to which the actor was exposed; cannot
be treated by the blanket application of abstract legal
principles; man is a social being and his acts are not
only attributable to his own free will but to other
forces of society
Under this theory, the penalty has a corrective purpose
and is imposed by way of prevention or deterrence
CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIM LAW
Generality

Territoriality

Prospectivity


GENERALITY: General Application of Criminal Laws:
Art 14, Civil Code
On all: military and PNP: Sec 46, RA 6975 (PNP); Sec 1,
RA 7055 (AFP and Cafgu, Articles of War Waiver by
President)

EXCEPTIONS TO GENERALITY
Laws of preferential application RA 75, subject to
reciprocity and Parliamentary Immunities
Generally accepted principles of public international
law Diplomatic Convention and Doctrine of Sovereign
Immunity
Treaty Stipulations Lance Corporal Smith

General Rule: TERRITORIALITY (Art 2)

EXCEPTIONS:
Art 1 Constitution and the Archipelagic theory
Baselines connect outermost points from
low watermark
UNCLOS, Art 3 12 NA mile territorial sea
UNCLOS, Art 33 contiguo zone
Exclusive Economic Zone 200 nautical mile









Baselines of Internal
waters
12 mile limit 12 mile cont. zone
EXCEPTIONS TO TERRITORIALITY

1. Philippine ship or airship place of registry
French and English Rules foreign merchant ships
RA 6235
2. 2000 BAR, No. 1
3. Offenses related to forgery and counterfeiting Philippine
coins or currency and in the importation, uttering and
distribution in the Philippines
4. Offenses committed by public officers or employees while
performing their functions
5. Offenses against national security and the law of nations
People vs. Lol-lo and Sarao
2008 Bar
High seas
PRINCIPLE OF PROSPECTIVITY
Ex post facto laws

Art 22, penal laws favorable to the accused

PEOPLE vs. AVECILLA (GR No. 117033, Feb. 15,
2001)

FELONIES: Acts or omissions
punishable by the RPC (Art 3)

THREE KINDS OF CRIMES:
felonies: dolo or culpa
offenses: special laws (General Rule: Penalties)
infraction or misdemeanors: violations of
municipal ordinances

Two Modes of Committing Felonies
(Art 3)

Dolo or Malice: with deliberate intent.
Culpa or Fault: imprudence, negligence, lack
of foresight or lack of skill.

ELEMENTS OF FELONIES

There is an act or omission
Act or omission is punishable by the RPC
(PEOPLE vs. SILVESTRE & ATIENZA and PEOPLE
vs. FRANCIS ABARCA, 153 SCRA 735)
Act or omission is incurred by dolo or culpa
all done with freedom

FELONIES BY DOLO
REQUISITES OF DOLO OR MALICE:
Freedom
Intelligence People vs. Taneo, lack of intelligence
and intent
Intent
No criminal intent, no crime, justified, No civil
liabilities, except in Art 11, par. 4 when a person
commits an act to avoid a greater evil or injury
(see Art 432 of the Civil Code)
No freedom or intelligence exempting, civilly
liable
MISTAKE OF FACT

Act should have been lawful and actor is not
negligent
US vs. AH CHONG
People vs. Oanis

FELONIES BY CULPA

Freely and intelligently but with negligence

People vs. Guillen

OFFENSES UNDER SPECIAL LAWS
Dolo or criminal intent or mens rea not required
Good faith is not a defense
But there must be intent to perpetuate the
prohibited act
People vs. Asa and Balbastro firearms/civilian guards
People vs. Landicho firearm for turn-over to Mayor
People vs. Lucero confidential agent

MALA IN SE vs. MALA PROHIBITA

Intent and good faith
Inherently immoral vs. wrongful by statutory
policy
RPC vs. SPL Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
148560, November 19, 2001 and Illegal
Exactions under the RPC

MOTIVE
Motive is the moving power which impels one
to action while intent is the purpose to use a
particular means
Latter is not essential except:
Questions as to identity
Conflicting versions
People vs. Taneo, somnambulism

CRIMINAL LIABILITY (Art 4)

Any person committing a felony although the
wrongful act is different from what is intended

Impossible crimes

REQUIREMENT UNDER PAR. 1
Intentional felony
wrong done is direct, natural and logical
consequence of the felony committed
el que es causa de la cause el que es causa del mal
causado
PEOPLE vs. FRANCIS ABARCA, supra (resulting
crime is different from what is intended)

ERROR IN PERSONAE (PP v. Oanis)
Actual victim mistaken as intended
victim
ABERRATIO ICTUS (PP v. MABUG-AT)
Intended victim
Actual victim
PRAETER INTENTIONEM
(People vs. Cagoco)
Intended victim same as actual victim
But a more serious crime is produced
IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES

2000 Bar, impossible crime is not a crime but
with a penalty; person punished for his
criminal tendencies

Intod vs. CA, 215 SCRA 52


MANNER OF COMMITTING CRIMES

1. FORMAL CRIMES (offenses under special laws,
Pecho vs. SB)

2. CRIMES BY OMISSION (no attempted stage)

3. MATERIAL CRIMES (3 stages of execution)

STAGES OF EXECUTION
1. ATTEMPTED

2. FRUSTRATED STAGES

3. CONSUMMATED STAGES

SUBJECTIVE PHASE
PHASE WHEREIN THE ACTOR CONCEIVES THE
IDEA OF COMMITTING A CRIME
Internal Acts not penalized
Preparatory Acts to a particular crime not
penalized for as long as they, in themselves,
do not constitute an offense
ACTOR HAS CONTROL OVER HIS ACTIONS
SPONTANEOUS DESISTANCE no liability
provided no other crime is committed
OBJECTIVE STAGE
State wherein the offender performed all the
acts of execution needed for the crime
No more control
Crime is either frustrated or consummated
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
MORTALITY OF WOUND: Borinaga and Kalalo
rulings
When the wound inflicted is not fatal,
homicide or murder is only attempted
(Velasco vs. People, GR 166479, February 28,
2006, 433 SCRA 649 and People vs. Dela Cruz,
GR 154348, June 8, 2004, 431 SCRA 388)
RAPE
ORITA ruling
People vs. Efren Valez (GR 136738, March 12, 2001)
child, inch penetration
People vs. Campuhan (GR 129433, March 30, 2000)
epidermal contact
PEOPLE vs. MONTERON (G.R. No. 130709, March 6,
2002) adult/ on top of female orgn
PEOPLE vs. MARIO (G. R. No. 132550, February 19,
2001) cannot recall (woke up/wet-sticky substance)
PEOPLE vs. COLLADO (G.R. Nos. 135667-70[1],
March 1, 2001) no intent to penetrate

THEFT AND ROBBERY
1. VALENZUELA VS. PEOPLE (GR No. 160188, June 21,
2007) Theft is a formal crime. It can only be
attempted or consummated and there can be no
frustrated stage in the crime of theft. Unlawful
taking complete when offender gains possession,
even if no opportunity to dispose
2. PP v. LEOPOLDO SALVILLA (184 SCRA 671) control
and dominion even if no asportation or no
opportunity to dispose

CONSPIRACY & PROPOSAL
When proposal is accepted, there is conspiracy
Act of one is the act of all
PEOPLE vs. ROEL PUNZALAN, ET. AL. (GR 78853; November 9,
1991) A co-conspirator is liable for such other crimes which
could be foreseen and which are the natural and logical
consequences of the conspiracy
PEOPLE vs. RICARDO LASCUNA, ET. AL. (GR 90626; August
18, 1993) time of commission; liable for graver offense
unless he performed overt acts to prevent the graver
offense
PEOPLE vs. DE LA CERNA, ET. AL. (GR L-20911, October
30, 1967) If the conspirators select a particular
individual or group of individuals to be their victim and
another person was killed by some, only those who
actually participated in the killing are liable
TWO FACETS OF CONSPIRACY
1. CONSPIRACY AS A MODE OF INCURRING
CRIMINAL LIABILITY (needs an overt act)

2. CONSPIRACY AS A CRIME
Crimes against National Security
Anti-Terrorism Law conspiracy to commit
murder, etc

ART 10
GEN RULE: RPC principles not applicable to
offenses under special laws:
Penalties
Stages of execution
Degrees of participation
graduation
Exception: Suppletory application when
applicable
MARTIN SIMON RULING

You might also like