CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Law, defined.
Criminal law is that branch or division of public law which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for their punishment.
Crime, defined.
Crime is an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or commanding it.
Note: Court decisions are not sources of criminal law, because they merely explain the meaning of, and apply, the law as enacted by the legislative branch of the government.
Power to define and punish crimes
The state has the authority, under its police power, to define and punish crimes and to lay down the rules of criminal procedure.
Limitations on the power of the lawmaking body to enact penal legislation
1. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.
2. No person shall be held liable to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.
What is an ex post facto law?
An ex post facto law is one which:
1. Makes a criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when done, and punishes such an act;
2. Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed;
3. Changes the punishment and inflicts greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed;
4. Alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense;
5. Deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection to which he has become entitled.
What is bill of attainder
- is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial.
Constitutional Rights of the Accused
1. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
2. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.
3. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties. Excess bail shall not be required.
4. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.
5. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself
6. Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted
7. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishmeent for the same offense.
8. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.
Statutory Rights of an Accused
1. To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
2. To be infored of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
3. To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from the arraignment to promulgation of the judgment.
4. To testify as a witness in his own behalf.
5. To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself.
6. To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial.
7. To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance ot witnesses and production of other evidence in his behalf.
8. To have a speedy, impartial and public trial.
9. To appeal in all cases
Characteristics of Criminal Law
1. General
- criminal law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in Philippine territory.
- Exception: heads of states and diplomatic representatives who, by virtue of the customary law of nations, are not subject to the Philippine territorial jurisdiction.
As a General Rule, Jurisdiction of Civil Courts is Not Affected by the Military Character of the Accused
- the jurisdiction of the civil tribunals is unaffected by the military or other special character of the person brought before them for trial, unless controlled by express legislation to the contrary.
Civil Courts Have Concurrent Jurisdiction with General Courts Martial Over Soldiers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
- Civil courts have jurisdiction over murder cases committed by persons subject to military law. Even in times of war, the civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the military courts of general courts-martial over soldiers of the Philippine Army, provided that in the place of the commission of the crime no hostilities are in progress and civil courts are functioning.
The Revised Penal Code or Other Penal Law is Not Applicable When a Military Court Takes Cognizance of the Case
- when the military court takes cognizance of the case involving a person subject to military law, the Articles of War apply, not the Revised Penal Code or other penal law.
Jurisdiction of Military Courts
- R.A. No. 7055 - Members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and other persons subject to military law, including members of the Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Units, who commit crimes or offenses penalized under the Revised Penal Code, other special penal laws, or local government ordinances, regardless of whether or not civilians are co-accused, victims, or offended parties which may be natural or juridical persons, shall be tried by the proper civil court, except when the offense, as determined before the arraignment by the civil court, is service-connected in which case the offense shall be tried by court-martial: Provided, That the President of the Philippines may, in the interest of justice, order or direct at any time before arraignment that any such crimes or offenses be tried by the proper civil courts.
The Prosecution of an Accused before a Court-Martial Is a Bar to Another Prosecution for the Same Offense.
- A court-martial is a court, and the prosecution of an accused before it is a criminal, not an administrative case, and therefore it would be, under certain conditions, a bar to another prosecution of the accused for the same offense, because the latter would place the accused in double jeopardy.
Exceptions to the General Application of Criminal Law
1. TREATIES
- Ex. Bases Agreement entered into by and between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America on March 14, 1947.
A. Any offense committed by any person within any base except where the offender and the offended party are both Philippine citizens (not members of the armed forces of the United States on active duty) of the offense is against the security of the Philippines;
B. Any offenses committed outside the bases by any member of the armed forces of the United States in which the offended party is also a member of the armed forces of the United States; and
C. Any offense committed outside the bases by any member of the armed forces of the United States against the security of the United States.
- Law of Preferential Application - Republic Act No. 75. It is a law to penalize acts which would impair the proper observance by the Republic and inhabitants of the Philippines of the immunities, rights, and privileges of duly accredited foreign diplomatic representatives in the Philippines.
- Sec. 4: “Any writ or process issued out or prosecuted by any person in any court of the Republic of the Philippines, or by any judge or justice, whereby the person of any ambassador or public minister of any foreign State, authorized and received as such by the President, or any domestic or domestic servant of any such ambassador or minister is arrested or imprisoned, or his goods or chattels are distrained, seized or attached, shall be deemed void, and every person by whom the same is obtained or prosecuted, whether as party os as attorney, and every officer concerned in executing it, shall, upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years and a fine of not exceeding two hundred pesos in the discretion of the court.”
- EXCEPTIONS: Sec. 5: “The provisions of Section Four hereof shall not apply to any case where the person against whom the process is issued is a citizen or inhabitant of the Republic of the Philippines, in the service of an ambassador or a public minister, and the process is founded upon a debt contracted before he entered upon such service; nor shall the said section apply to any case where the person against whom the process is issued is a domestic servant of an ambassador or a public minister, unless the name if the servant has, before the issuing thereof, been registered in the Department of Foreign Affairs, and transmitted by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to the Chief of Police of the City of Manila....”
Note: Not applicable when the foreign country adversely affected does not provide similar protection to our diplomatic representatives.
Persons Exempt from the Operation of Our Criminal Laws by Virtue of the Principles of Public International Law
A. Sovereigns and other chiefs of state
B. Ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, ministers resident, and charges d’affaires
A Consul is Not Entitled to the Privileges and Immunities of an Ambassador or Minister
- Consuls, vice-consuls and other commercial representatives of foreign nations do not possess the status of, and cannot claim the privileges and immunities accorded to ambassadors and ministers.
2. TERRITORIAL
- Criminal laws undertake to punish crimes committed within Philippine territory.
- The principle of territoriality means that as a rule, penal laws of the Philippines are enforceable only within its territory.
Exceptions to the Territorial Application of Criminal Law
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 Philippines or obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippines;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into the Philippines of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding 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 he law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of the Revised Penal Code.
3. PROSPECTIVE
- a penal law cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when committed.
- Exception: a. Where the new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of action.
B. Where the offender is a habitual criminal.
When the Repeal is Absolute, the Offense Ceases to be Criminal
- when the repeal is absolute, and not reenactment or repeal by implication, the offense ceases to be criminal. The accused must be acquitted. But repeal of a penal law by its reenactment, even without a saving clause, would not destroy criminal liability.
When the new law and the old law penalize the same offense, the offender can be tried under the old law.
When the repealing law fails to penalize the offense under the old law, the accused cannot be convicted under the new law.
A Person Erroneously Accused and Convicted Under a Repealed Statute May Be Punished Under the Repealing Statute.
- the fact that the offender was erroneously accused and convicted under a statute which had already been repealed and therefore no longer existed at the tie the act complained of was committed does not prevent conviction under the repealing statute which punishes the same act, provide the accused had an opportunity to defend himself against the charge brought against him.
THE REVISED PENAL CODE
(Act No. 3815, as amended)
AN ACT REVISING THE PENAL CODE AND OTHER PENAL LAWS
The Revised Penal Code Consists of Two Books
1. Book One - consists of two parts: (a) Basic principles affecting criminal liability (Arts. 1-20); and (b) The provisions on penalties including criminal and civil liability.
2. Book Two - defines felonies with the corresponding penalties, classified and grouped under fourteen different titles (Arts. 114-365)
Article 1. TIME WHEN ACT TAKES EFFECT. -- THIS CODE SHALL TAKE EFFECT ON THE FIRST DAY OF JANUARY, NINETEEN HUNDRED AND THIRTY-TWO.
Two Theories in Criminal Law
1. Classical Theory
Characteristics:
A. The basis of criminal liability is human free will and the purpose of the penalty is retribution.
B. That man is essentially a moral creature with an absolutely free will to choose between good and evil, thereby placing more stress upon the effect or result of the felonious act than upon the man, the criminal himself.
2. Positivist Theory
Characteristics:
A. That man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon which constrains him to do wrong, in spite of or contrary to his volition.
B. That crimes is essentially a social and natural phenomenon and as such, it cannot be treated and checked by the application of abstract principles of law and jurisprudence nor by the imposition of a punishment, fixed and determined a priori; but rather through the enforcement of individual measures in each particular case after a thorough, personal and individual investigation conducted by a competent body of psychiatrists and social scientists.
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 TE 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 PRECEDING 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.
1. When an offender should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship.
- but when the Philippine vessel or aircraft is in the territory of a foreign country, the crime committed on said vessel or aircraft is subject to the laws of that foreign country.
- a Philippine vessel or aircraft must be understood as that which is registered in the Philippine Bureau of Customs.
- it is the registration of the vessel or aircraft in accordance with the laws of the Philippines, not the citizenship of its owner, which makes it a Philippine ship or airship. A vessel or aircraft which is unregistered or unlicensed does not come within the purview of paragraph No. 1 Article 2.
2. When the offender should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippines or obligations and securities issued by the Government.
- even if done in a foreign country.
3. When the offender should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into the Philippines of the “obligations and securities” mentioned in the “preceding number”.
4. When an offender, while being a public officer or employee, should commit an offense in the exercise of his functions.
- the crimes that may be committed in the exercise of public functions are:
A. Direct Bribery
B. Indirect bribery
C. Fraud against the public treasury
D. Possession of prohibited interest
E. Malversation of public funds or property
F. Failure of accountable officer to render accounts
G. Illegal use of public funds or property
H. Failure to make delivery of public funds or property
I. Falsification by a public officer or employee committed with abuse of his official position
- when any of these felonies is committed abroad by any of our public officers or employees while in the exercise of his functions, he can be prosecuted.
5. When the offender should commit any of the crimes against the national security and the law of nations.
- the crimes against the national security and the law of nations are:
A. Treason
B. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason
C. Espionage
D. Inciting to war and giving motives for reprisals
E. Violation of neutrality
F. Correspondence with hostile country
G. Flight to enemy’s country
H. Piracy and mutiny in the high seas.
Crimes Committed on Board a Foreign Merchant Ship or Airship
- just as our merchant ship is an extension of our territory, foreign merchant ship is considered an extension of the territory, foreign merchant ship is considered an extension of the territory of the country to which it belongs. For this reason, an offense committed on the high seas on board a foreign merchant vessel is not triable by our courts.
Continuing Offense on Board a Foreign Vessel
- a continuing crime committed on board a Norwegian merchant vessel sailing from Formosa to the Philippines, by failing to provide stalls for animals in transit in violation of Act No. 55, is triable in the Philippines.
- the offense of failing to provide suitable means for securing animals while transporting them on a (foreign) ship from a foreign port to port of the Philippines is within the jurisdiction of the courts of the Philippines when the forbidden conditions existed during the time the ship was within territorial waters, regardless of the fact that the same conditions existed when the ship sailed from the foreign port and while it was on the high seas.
Offenses Committed on Board a Foreign Merchant Vessel While on Philippine Waters is Triable Before our Court
Rules as to Jurisdiction Over Crimes Committed Aboard Foreign Merchant Vessel
- There are two rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard merchant vessels while in the territorial waters of another country.
1. French Rule - Such crimes are not triable in the courts of that country, unless their commission affects the peace and security of the territory or the safety of the state is endangered.
2. English Rule - Such crimes are triable in that country, unless merely affect things within the vessel or they refer to the internal management thereof.
In this country, we observe the English Rule.
Crime Not Involving a Breach of Public Order Committed on Board a Foreign Merchant Vessel in Transit Not Triable by Our Courts
- mere possession of opium aboard a foreign merchant vessel in transit is not triable in Philippine courts, because that fact alone does not constitute a breach of public order. The reason for this ruling is that mere possession of opium on such a ship, without being used in our territory, does not bring about in this country those disastrous affects that our law contemplates avoiding. But said courts acquire jurisdiction when the tins of opium are landed from the vessel on Philippine soil. Landing or using opium is an open violation of the laws of the Philippines.
- When the foreign merchant vessel is not in transit because the Philippines is its terminal port, the person in possession of opium on board that vessel is liable, because he may be held guilty of illegal importation of opium.
Smoking Opium Constitutes a Breach of Public Order
Philippine Courts Have no Jurisdiction Over Offenses Committed on Board Foreign Warships in Territorial Waters
- In case vessels are in the ports of territorial waters of a foreign country, a distinction must be made between merchant ships and warships; the former are more or less subjected to the territorial laws. Warships are always reputed to be the territory of the country to which they belong and cannot be subjected to the laws of another state.
Extra-territorial Application of republic Act No. 9372
- Republic Act No. 9372, otherwise known as the “Human Security Act of 2007,” which was passed into law on March 6, 2007, has extra territorial application.
- Section 58 of R.A. No. 9372 provides that subject to the provision of an existing treaty of which the Philippines is a signatory and to any contrary provision of any law of preferential application, the provisions of the Act shall apply:
A. To individual persons who commit any of the crimes defined and punished in the Act within the terrestrial domain, interior waters, maritime zone and airspace of the Philippines;
B. To individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit, conspire of plot any of the crimes defined and punished in the Act inside the territorial limits of the Philippines;
C. To individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit any of the said crimes on board Philippine ship or airship;
D. To individual persons who commit any of said crimes within any embassy, consulate or diplomatic premises belonging or occupied by the Philippine government in an official capacity;
E. To individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit said crimes against Philippine citizens or persons of Philippine descent, where their citizenship or ethnicity was a factor in the commission of the crime; and
F. To individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit said crimes directly against the Philippine government.
TITLE ONE
FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY
___________________
Chapter One
FELONIES
Article 3. DEFINITION. -- ACTS AND OMISSIONS PUNISHABLE BY LAW ARE FELONIES (delitos).
FELONIES ARE COMMITTED NOT ONLY BY MEANS OF DECEIT (dolo) BUT ALSO BY MEANS OF FAULT (culpa).
THERE ARE 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.
Felonies, defined.
- Felonies are acts and omissions punishable by the Revised Penal Code.
Elements of Felonies
1. There must be an act or omission.
2. The act or omission must be punishable by the Revised Penal Code.
3. That the act is performed or the omission incurred by means of dolo or culpa.
Meaning of the Word “Act”
- Act -- any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the external world, it being unnecessary that the same be actually produced, as the possibility of its production is sufficient. But, the act must be one which is defined by the revised Penal Code as constituting a felony; or, at least, an overt act f that felony, that is, an external act which has direct connection with the felony intended to be committed.
Only External Act is Punished
- the act must be external, because internal acts are beyond the sphere of penal law.
Meaning of the Word “Omission”
- By omission is meant inaction, the failure to perform a positive duty which one is bound to do. There must be a law requiring the doing of performance of an act.
The Omission Must be Punishable By Law
- Because there is no law that punishes a person who does not report to the authorities the commission of a crime which he witnessed, the omission to do so is not a felony.
Classification of Felonies According to the means by Which They are Committed
1. Intentional Felonies
- the act or omission of the offender is malicious
- the act is performed with deliberate intent (with malice)
- the offender has the intention to cause an injury to another
2. Culpable Felonies
- the injury caused by the offender to another person is unintentional it being simply the incident of another act performed without malice.
- As stated in Article 3, the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill.
A Person Who Caused an Injury, Without Intention to Cause An Evil, May Be Held Liable For Culpable Felony
- the defendant, who was not a medical practitioner, tied a girl, wrapped her feet with rags saturated with petroleum and thereafter set the on fire, causing injuries. His defense was that he undertook to render medical assistance in good faith and to the best of his ability to cure her of ulcer. It was held that while there was no intention to cause an evil bu to provide a remedy, the defendant was liable for physical injuries through imprudence.
Imprudence, Negligence, Lack of Foresight or Lack of Skill
- imprudence - indicates a deficiency of action.
- if a person fails to take the necessary precaution to avoid injury to person or damage to property, there is imprudence.
- usually involves lack of skill.
- negligence - indicates a deficiency of perception.
- If a person fails to pay proper attention and to use due diligence in foreseeing the injury or damage impending to be caused, there is negligence.
- usually involves lack of foresight.
Note: The acts done in intentional and culpable acts are voluntary. The only difference between intentional felonies and culpable felonies is that, in the first, the offender acts with malice; whereas, in the second, the offender acts without malice.
Note: A criminal act is presumed to be voluntary. Fact prevails over assumption, and in the absence of indubitable explanation, the act must be declared voluntary and punishable.
Requisites of Dolo or Malice
1. He must have FREEDOM while doing an act or omitting to do an act;
- a person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force is exempt from criminal liability.
- So also, a person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury is exempt from criminal liability.
2. He must have INTELIIGENCE while doing the act or omitting to do the act;
- the imbecile or the insane, and the infant under nine ears of age as well as the minor over nine but less than fifteen years old and acting without discernment, have no criminal liability, because they act without intelligence.
3. He must have INTENT while doing the act or omitting to do the act.
- intent is presumed when committing an act with malice and the presumption arises from the proof of the commission of an unlawful act.
Mistake of Fact
- Mistake of fact is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused injury to another. He is not, however, criminally liable, because he did not act with criminal intent.
- ignorance or mistake of fact relieves the accused from criminal liability.
- an honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent which arises upon the commission of a felonious act.
Requisites of Mistakes of Fact as a Defense
1. That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be;
2. That the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful; and
3. That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused.
The mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused.
Lack of intent to kill the deceased, because his intention was to kill another, does not relieve the accused from criminal responsibility.
In mistake of fact, the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful.
When the accused is negligent, mistake of fact is not a defense
- the defense of mistake of fact is untenable when the accused is chard with a culpable felony. In mistake of fact, what is involved is lack of intent on the part of the accused. In felonies committed through negligence, there is no intent to consider, as it is replaced by imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill.
Criminal Intent is replaced by Negligence and Imprudence in Felonies Committed by Means of Culpa
- in felonies committed by means of culpa, since the doing of or failing to do an act must be voluntary, there must be freedom and intelligence on the part of the offender, but the requisite of criminal intent, which is required in felonies by dolo, is replaced by the requisite of imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
- therefore, in order that the act or omission in felonies committed by means of fault or culpa may be considered voluntary, the following requisites must concur:
(1) He must have FREEDOM while doing an act or omitting to do an act;
(2) He must have INTELLIGENCE while doing the act or omitting to do the act
(3) He is IMPRUDENT, NEGLIGENT, or LACKS FORESIGHT or SKILL while doing the act or omitting to do the act.
In culpable felonies, the injury cause to another should be unintentional, it being simply the incident of another act performed without malice.
Mistake in the Identity of the intended Victim is not reckless imprudence
- a deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is essentially inconsistent with the idea of reckless imprudence. Where such an unlawful act is willfully done, a mistake in the identity of the intended victim cannot be considered as reckless imprudence.
A Person Causing Damage or Injury to Another, Without Malice or Fault, is not Criminally Liable Under the Revised Penal Code
- if there is neither malice nor negligence on the part of the person causing damage on injury to another, he is not criminally liable under the Revised Penal Code. In such case, he is exempt from criminal liability, because he causes an injury by mere accident, without fault or intention of causing it.
The Act Performed Must Be Lawful
- the act of discharging a gun in a public place is unlawful. In such case, if a person is injured as a result of the discharge of the gun, the one discharging it in a public place is criminally liable for the injury caused.
The Third Class of crimes are Those Punished by Special Laws
- the third class of crimes are those defined and penalized by special laws which include crimes punished by municipal or city ordinances.
Dolo is Not required in Crimes Punished by Special Laws
- when the crime is punished by a special law, as a rule, intent to commit the crime is not necessary. It is sufficient that the offender has the intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law.
- intent to commit the crime and intent to perpetrate the act must be distinguished. A person may not have consciously intended to commit a crime; but he did intent to commit the act, and that act is, by the very nature of things, the crime itself.
- in the first (intent to commit the crime), there must be criminal intent; in the second (intent to perpetrate the act), it is enough that the prohibited act is done freely and consciously.
In Those Crimes Punished by Special Laws, the Act Alone Irrespective of its Motives, Constitutes the Offense
- when the doing of an act is prohibited by a special law, it is considered that the act is injurious to public welfare and the doing of the prohibited act is the crime itself.
- in crimes punished by statues or the Revised Penal Code, the public is affected by the intention of the actor. However, crimes punished by Special Laws, the public is affected by the act itself.
Good Faith and Absence of Criminal Intent Not Valid Defenses in Crimes Punished by Special Laws
Mala in se and Mala prohibita, Distinguished
1. Mala in se
- crimes which are wrongful from their nature
Example: theft, rape, homicide, etc.
- the intent governs
- Crimes mala in se are those so serious in their effects on society as to call for almost unanimous condemnation of its members.
- the acts are inherently immoral.
- refers generally to felonies defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code. However, there are crimes in the Revised Penal Code which were originally defined and penalized by special laws. Among those are possession and use of opium, malversation, brigandage and libel.
2. Mala prohibita
- wrong merely because prohibited by statute
Example: illegal possession of firearms
- violations of mere rules of convenience designed to secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs of society.
- the only inquiry is, has the law been violated.
- criminal intent is not necessary since the acts are prohibited for reasons of public policy, as in illegal possession of firearms.
- refers generally to acts made criminal by special laws.
Where the acts are inherently immoral, they are mala in se, even if punished under special law.
Intent Distinguished from Motive
- Motive is the moving power which impels one to action for a definite result. Intent is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result.
- Motive is not an essential element of a crime, and hence, need not be proved for the purpose of conviction.
When is it Relevant to Establish Motive
1. Where the identity of a person accused of having committed a crime is in dispute, the motive that may have impelled its commission is very relevant
2. When there is doubt as to the identity of the assailant.
3. Motive is important in ascertaining the truth between two antagonistic theories or versions of the killing.
4. Where the identification of the accused proceeds from an unreliable source and the testimony is inconclusive and not free from doubt, evidence of motive is necessary.
5. Where there are no eyewitnesses to the crime, and where suspicion is likely to fall upon a number of persons, motive is relevant and significant.
6. If the evidence is merely circumstantial, proof of motive is essential.
When is it NOT Relevant to Establish Motive
1. It is not necessary to pin a crime on the accused if the commission of the crime has been proven and evidence of identification is convincing.
2. Where the defendant admits the killing.
3. Where guilt is established by sufficient evidence
Disclosure of the motive is an aid in completing the prof of the commission of the crime.
But proof of motive alone is not sufficient to support a conviction.
Lack of motive may be an aid in showing the innocence of the accused.
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.
(1) 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 ON ACCOUNT OF THE EMPLOYMENT OF INADEQUATE OF INEFFECTUAL MEANS.
One who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the consequences which may naturally and logically result therefrom, whether foreseen or intended or not.
- thus, where the death of the 6 year-old victim was brought about by the rape committed by the accused, it is of no moment that she died by accident when she hit her head on the pavement while struggling, because, having performed an act constituting a felony, he is responsible for all the consequences of said act, regardless of his intention.
- one is not relieved from criminal liability for the natural consequences of one’s illegal acts, merely because one does not intend to produce such consequences.
Example:
a. One who fired his gun at B, but missed and hit C instead, is liable for the injury caused to C, although the one who fired the gun had no intention to injure C.
b. One who stabbed another in the dark, believing that the latter was E, when in fact it was G, is liable for the injury caused to G, although the one who stabbed him had no intention to injure G.
When a person has not committed a felony, he is not criminally liable for the result which is not intended
Example: One who, because of curiosity, snatched the bolo carried by the offended party at his belt, and the latter instinctively caught the blade of said bolo in trying to retain it, is not criminally liable for the physical injuries caused, because there is no provision in the revised Penal Code which punishes that act of snatching the property of another just to satisfy curiosity.
.
Under Paragraph 1, Article 4, a Person Committing a Felony is Still Criminally Liable if --
1. There is a mistake in the identity of the victim -- error personae.
2. There is a mistake in the blow -- aberatio ictus.
3. The injurius result is greater than that intended -- praeter intentionem.
Requisites of Paragraph 1 Article 4
- in order that a person may be held criminally liable for a felony different from that which he intended to commit, the following requisites must be present:
1. That a intentional felony has been committed; and
2. That the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony committed by the offender.
Any person who creates in another’s mind an immediate sense of danger, which causes the latter to do something resulting in the latter’s injuries, is liable for the resulting injuries.
The felony committed must be the PROXIMATE CAUSE of the resulting injury.
- proximate cause is “that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.”
The felony committed is not proximate cause of the resulting injury when:
1. There is an active force that intervened between the felony committed and the resulting injury, and the active force is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused; or
2. The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim.
When death is presumed to be the natural consequence of physical injuries
1. That the victim at the time the physical injuries were inflicted was in normal health.
2. That death may be expected from the physical injuries inflicted.
3. That death ensued within a reasonable time.
Not direct, natural and logical consequences of the felony committed
- if the consequences produced have resulted from a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the criminal act, the offender is not responsible for such consequences.
- a person is not liable criminally for all possible consequences which may immediately follow his felonious act, but only for such as are proximate.
Example: Thus, where a person struck another with his fist and knocked him down and a horse near them jumped upon him and killed him, the assailant was not responsible for the death of that other person.
The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the resulting injury when --
1. There is an active force that intervened between the felony committed and the resulting injury, and the active force is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused; or
2. The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim.
Question: Is the accused responsible for the result, if there is a neglect of the wound or there is an improper treatment of the wound?
Answer: Unskillful and improper treatment may be an active force, but it is not a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the criminal act.
Question: Is the accused criminally liable for the consequences which originate through the fault or carelessness of the injured person?
Answer: The fault or carelessness of the injured party will break the relation of the felony committed and the resulting injury if it has its origin from the malicious act or omission of the injured party who has a desire to increase the criminal liability of his assailant.
A supervening event may be the subject of amendment of original information or of a new charge without double jeopardy
- where the charge contained in the original information was for slight physical injuries because at that time the fiscal believed that the wound suffered by the offended party would require medical attendance for a period of only 8 days, but when the preliminary investigation was conducted, the justice of the peace found that the wound would heal after a period of 30 days, the act which converted the crime into a more serious one had supervened after the filing of the original information and this supervening event can still be the subject of an amendment or of a new charge without necessarily placing the accused in double jeopardy.
Impossible Crimes
Requisites of Impossible Crimes
1. That the act performed would be an offense against persons or property.
2. That the act was done with evil intent.
3. That its accomplishment is inherently impssible, or that the means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual.
4. That the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the Revised Penal Code.
Felonies Against Persons
1. Parricide
2. Murder
3. Homicide
4. Infanticide
5. Abortion
6. Duel
7. Physical Injuries
8. Rape
Felonies Against Property
1. Robbery
2. Brigandage
3. Theft
4. Usurpation
5. Culpable insolvency
6. Swindling and other deceits
7. Chattel mortgage
8. Arson and other crimes involving destruction
9. Malicious mischief
Note: If the act performed would be an offense other than a felony against persons or against property, there is no impossible crimes.
“Inherent impossibility of an accomplishment”
- there must be (a)legal impossibility, or (b)physical impossibility of accomplishing the intended act.
Example:
1. When one tries to kill another by putting in his soup a substance which he believes to be arsenic when in fact it is commons salt.
2. When one tries to murder a corpse.
Other examples:
I. “Would be an offense against persons”
Example: A fired at B, who was lying on bed, not knowing that B was dead hours before. In crime against persons, as would have been this case, it is necessary that the victim could be injured or killed. A dead person cannot be injured or killed. Had B been alive when he was shot, and as a consequence he died, the crime committed by A would have been murder, a crime against persons. There is physical and legal impossibility in this example.
II. “Would be an offense against property”
Example: A, with intent to gain, took a watch from the pocket of B. When A had the watch in his possession, he found out that it was the watch he had lost a week before. In other words, the watch belonged to A.
III. “Employment of inadequate means”
Example: A, determined to poison B, uses a small quantity of arsenic by mixing it with the food given to B, believing that the quantity employed by him is sufficient. But since in fact it is not sufficient, B is not killed. The means employed (small quantity of poison) is inadequate to kill a person. But where the means employed is adequate and the result expected is not produced, it is not an impossible crime, but a frustrated felony.
IV. “Employment of ineffectual means”
Example: A tried to kill B by putting in his soup a substance which he thought was arsenic when in fact it was sugar. B could not have been killed, because the means employed was ineffectual. But A showed criminal tendency and, hence, e should be punished for it in accordance with Article 4 paragraph 2, in relation to Article 59.
In impossible crime the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the Code.
- Example: A knew B owned an expensive watch. Thus he pointed a gun at B and decided to rob him. But, B forgot to bring the watch. A allowed B to go without further molestation. In this case, A is still liable for the crime of grave threats under Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code.
Purpose of the law in punishing the impossible crime
- to suppress criminal propensity or criminal tendencies. Objectively, the offender has not committed felony, but subjectively, he is a criminal.
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 PENAL 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 INJURY CAUSED BY THE OFFENSE.
The first paragraph of this article which contemplates a trial of a criminal case requires the following:
1. The act committed by the accused appears not punishable by any law;
2. But the Court deems it proper to repress such act;
3. In that case, the court must render the proper decision by dismissing the case and acquitting the accused;
4. The judge must then make a report to the Chief Executive though the Secretary of Justice, stating the reasons which induce him to believe that the said act should be made the subject of penal legislation.
Legal Maxim “nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege” which means there is no crime if there is no law that punishes the act.
In cases of excessive penalties, the second paragraph of Article 5 states that --
1. The court after trial finds the accused guilty;
2. The penalty provided by law and which the court imposes for the crime committed appears to be clearly excessive because --
A. The accused acted with lesser degree of malice and/or;
B. There is no injury or the injury caused is of lesser gravity.
3. The court should not suspend the execution of the sentence;
4. The judge should submit a statement to the Chief Executive, through the Secretary of Justice, recommending executive clemency.
The penalties are not excessive when intended to enforce a public policy.
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 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.
Development of crime
- from the moment the culprit conceives the idea of committing a crime up to the realization of the same, his act passes through certain stages.
1. Internal acts - such as mere ideas in the mind of a person, are not punishable even if, had they been carried out, they would constitute a crime. Intention and effect must concur. Mere intention producing no effect is no more a crime than a mere effect without the intention is a crime.
Example: If A intended to commit treason and joined a body of armed men in the belief that they were Makapilis, when in fact they were Guerrilleros, A was not liable for treason, despite his intent.
2. External acts - cover (a)preparatory acts; and (b)acts of execution.
A. Preparatory acts - ordinarily they are no punishable. Hence, proposal and conspiracy to commit a felony, which are only preparatory acts, are not punishable, except when the law provides for their punishment in certain felonies. But preparatory acts which are considered in themselves, by law, as independent crimes are punishable.
B. Acts of execution - they are punishable under the Revised Penal Code.
The Stages of Acts of Execution -- ATTEMPTED, FRUSTRATED and CONSUMMATED.
-In performing the acts of execution of a felony, the offender may reach only the first stage or the second stage. In either case, he does not produce the felony he intends to commit. But he is liable for attempted felony or frustrated felony, as the case maybe.
Attempted Felony
- there is an attempt when the offender begins the commission of a felony directly by overt acts. He has not performed all the acts of execution which should produce a felony.
Elements of Attempted Felony:
1. The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts;
2. He does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce felony;
3. The offenders’s act is not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance;
4. The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause or accident other than his spontaneous desistance.
The commission of a felony is deemed commenced directly by overt acts when the following 2 requisites are present:
1. That there be external acts;
2. Such external acts have direct connection with the crime intended to be committed.
Overt Acts Defined.
- An overt act is some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried to its complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense.
The external acts must have a direct connection with the crime intended to be committed by the offender.
What is an indeterminate offense?
- it is one where the purpose of the offender in performing an act is not certain. Its nature in relation to its objective is ambiguous.
The intention of the accused must be viewed from the nature of the acts executed by him, and not from his admission.
- acts susceptible of double interpretation, that is, in favor as well as against the accused, and which show an innocent as well as a punishable act, must not and cannot furnish grounds by themselves for attempted crime.
“Other than his spontaneous desistance”
- if the actor does not perform all the acts of execution by reason of his spontaneous desistance, there is no attempted felony. The law does not punish him.
-Reason: It is sort of a reward granted by law to those who having one foot on the verge of a crime, heed the call of their conscience and return to the path of righteousness.
The desistance should be made before all acts of execution are performed
The desistance which exempts from criminal liability has reference to the crime intended to be committed, and as o reference to the crime actually committed by the offender before his desistance
- A, with intent to kill, fired his pistol at B, but did not hit the latter. B cried and asked A not to shoot him. A desisted from firing his pistol again at B. Is A criminally liable?
Answer: yes, not for attempted homicide because he desisted before he could perform all the acts of execution, but for grave threats which was already committed by him when he desisted.
Issue: Should an accused who admittedly shot the victim but is shown to have inflicted only a slight wound be held accountable for the death of the victim due to a fatal wound caused by his co-accused?
Answer: The slight wound did not cause the death of the victim nor materially contribute to it. His liability should therefore be limited to the slight injury he caused. However, the fact that he inflicted a gunshot wound on the victim shows the intent to kill. The use of a gun fired at another certainly leads to no other conclusion that that there is intent to kill. He is therefore liable for the crime of attempted homicide and not merely for slight physical injury.
Definition of subjective phase of the offense
- it is that portion of the acts constituting the crime, starting from the point where the offender begins the commission of the crime to that point here he has still control over is acts, including the act’s natural course. If between these two points the offender is stopped by any cause outside of his own voluntary desistance, the subjective phase has not been passed and it is an attempt. If he is not so stopped but continues until he performs the last act, it is frustrated, provided the crime is not produced. The acts then of the offender reached the objective phase of the crime. Thus, if A, with intent to kill, mixes poison in the soup intended for B, and B begins to take into his mouth a spoonful of it, until this point, A can still prevent the poisoning of B by voluntary desisting and telling B to throw away the substance from his mouth as it contains poison. But from the moment B swallows it, A has no more control over his acts. The poison is no in B’s stomach and it will require the intervention of a physician to prevent the poisoning of B. If because of the intervention of the physician, B did not die, A will be liable for frustrated murder. The acts performed by a, following their natural course, passed from the subjective phase to the objective phase of the crime.
Subjective phase of the offense
- in attempted felony, the offender never passes the subjective phase of the offense.
Frustrated felony
Elements:
1. The offender performs all the acts of execution;
2. All the acts performed would produce the felony as a consequence;
3. Bu the felony is not produced;
4. By reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
Important words and phrases
1. “Performs all the acts of execution.”
- in frustrated felony, the offender must perform all the acts of execution. Nothing more is left to be done by the offender, because he has performed the last act necessary to produce the crime. This element distinguishes frustrated felony from attempted felony. In attempted felony, the offender does not perform all the acts of execution. He does not perform the last act necessary to produce the crime. He merely commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts.
Note: In crimes against persons, as homicide, which requires the victim’s death to consummate the felony, it is necessary for the frustration of the same that a mortal would be inflicted, because then the wound could produce the felony as a consequence.
2. “Would produce the felony as a consequence.”
- all the acts of execution performed by the offender could have produced the felony as a consequence.
Note: In crimes against persons, such as murder, which require that the victim should die to consummate the felony, it is necessary for the frustration of the same that a mortal wound is inflicted.
3. “Do not produce it.”
- in frustrated felony, the acts performed by the offender do not produce the felony, because if the felony is produced it would be consummated.
4. “Independent of the will of the perpetrator.”
- if the crime is not produced because of the timely intervention of a third person, it is frustrated.
- if the crime is not produced because the offender himself prevented its consummation, there is no frustrated felony, for the 4th element is not present.
Problem:
A doctor conceived the idea of killing his wife, and to carry out his plan, he mixed the arsenic with the soup of his victim. Immediately after the victim took the poisonous soup, the offender suddenly felt such a twinge of conscience that he himself washed out the stomach of the victim and administered to her the adequate antidote. Would this be a frustrated parricide? Certainly not, for even though subjective phase of the crime had already been passed, the most important requisite for a frustrated crime i.e., that the cause which prevented the consummation of the offense be independent of the will of the perpetrator, was lacking.
Frustrated felony distinguished from attempted felony
1. In both, the offender has not accomplished his criminal purpose.
2. While in frustrated felony, the offender has performed all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence, in attempted felony, the offender merely commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution. In other words, in frustrated felony, the offender has reached the objective phase; in attempted felony, the offender has not passed the subjective phase.
Attempted or frustrated felony distinguished from impossible crime
1. In attempted or frustrated felony and impossible crime, the evil intent of the offender is not accomplished.
2. But while impossible crime, the evil intent of the offender cannot be accomplished, in attempted or frustrated felony the evil intent of the offender is possible of accomplishment.
3. In impossible crime, the evil intent of he offender cannot be accomplished because it is inherently impossible of accomplishment or because the means employed by the offender is inadequate or ineffectual; in attempted or frustrated felony, what prevented its accomplishment is the intervention of certain cause or accident in which the offender had no part.
Consummated Felony
- a felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present.
Important words and phrases
- “all the elements” necessary for its execution and accomplishment “are present.”
When not all the elements of a felony are proved
- when a felony has two or more elements and one of them is not proved by the prosecution during the trial, either (1)the felony is not shown to have been consummated, or (2)the felony is not shown to have been committed, or (3)another felony is shown to have committed.
- Thus:
A. In the prosecution for homicide where the death of the victim is an element of the offense, if the element is absent, because the victim does not die, the crime is not consummated. It is either attempted or frustrated.
B. In taking personal property from another, when the element of intent to gain is lacking on the part of the person taking it, the crime of theft is not committed.
C. In the prosecution of estafa, if the element of deceit or abuse of confidence is not proved, there is no crime. There is only civil liability.
D. In the prosecution for robbery with violence against persons, if the element of intent to gain is not proved, the accused can be found guilty of grave coercion, another felony.
How to determine whether the crime is only attempted, or frustrated, or it is consummated.
- in determining whether the felony is only attempted or frustrated or it is consummated, the following must be considered:
A. The nature of the offense
B. The element constituting the felony
C. The manner of committing the same
Elements constituting the felony
Adiao Case (theft)
- a Customs inspector abstracted a leather belt from the baggage of a Japanese and secreted it in the drawer of his desk in the Customs House, where it was found by other Customs employees. The Court of First Instance convicted him of frustrated theft. The Supreme Court considered it consummated theft, because all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment were present.
Dominguez Case (estafa)
- defendant was a salesman of the Philippine Education Company. After he had received P7.50 for the sales of books, which he should have given to the cashier, he put it in his pocket with intent to misappropriate the amount. Held: This is frustrated estafa. The accused performed all the acts of execution. However, the crime was not consummated as there was no damage caused in view of the timely discovery of the felonious act. In this kind of estafa, the elements of (1)abuse of confidence, and (2)damage to the offended party must occur.
Is there a conflict in the rulings of the Adiao case and Dominguez case?
- in the Adiao case, the theft was consummated although the belt was only secreted in defendant’s desk. In the Dominguez case, the estafa was only frustrated even if the sales money was already in defendant’s pocket. Apparently, they should both be either consummated or frustrated. The difference lies in the elements of the two crimes. In estafa, the offended party must be actually prejudiced or damaged. This element is lacking in the Dominquez case. In theft, the mere removal of the personal property belonging to another with intent to gain is sufficient. The act of removing the personal property constitutes the element of taking in theft. In the Adiao case, only the element of taking is in question. And that element is considered present because he abstracted (removed) the leather belt from the baggage where it was kept and secreted it in the drawer of his desk. The taking was complete.
There is no crime of frustrated theft.
- it was held that the ability of the offender to freely dispose of the property stolen is not a constitutive element of the crime of theft. For the purpose of ascertaining whether theft is susceptible of commission in the frustrated stage, the question is again, when is the crime of theft produced? There would be all but certain unanimity in the position that theft is produced when there is deprivation of personal property due to its taking by one with intent to gain. Viewed from that perspective, it is immaterial to the product of the felony that the offender, once having committed all the acts of execution for theft, is able or unable to freely dispose of the property stolen since the deprivation from the owner alone has already ensued from such acts of execution.
It might be argued, that the ability of the offender to freely dispose of the property stolen delves into the concept of “taking” itself, in that, there could be no true taking until the actor obtains such degree of control over the stolen item. But even if this were correct, the effect would be to downgrade the crime to its attempted, and not frustrated stage, for it would mean that not all the acts of execution have not been completed, the “taking not having bee accomplished.”
Manner of committing the crime
1. Formal crimes -- consummated in one instant, no attempt.
- these are crimes, like slander and false testimony, which are consummated in one instant, by a single act.
- as a rule there can be no attempt at a formal crime, because between the thought and the deed there is no chain of acts that can be severed in a link.
2. Crimes consummated by mere attempt or proposal or by overt act.
Flight to enemy’s country - in this crime the mere attempt to flee to an enemy country is a consummated felony.
Corruption of minors - a mere proposal to the minor to satisfy the lust of another will consummate the offense.
Treason - the overt act in itself consummates a crime.
3. Felony by omission
- there can be no attempted stage when the felony is by omission, because in this kind of felony the offender does not execute acts. He omits to perform an act which the law requires him to do.
- but killing the child by starving him, although apparently by omission, is in fact by commission.
4. Crimes requiring the intervention of two persons to commit them are consummated by mere agreement.
Example: Corruption of public officer
5. Material Crimes - There are three stages of execution.
A. Consummated rape - entry of the labia or lips of the female organ without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina is generally held sufficient to warrant conviction of the accused for consummated crime of rape.
B. Frustrated rape - Supreme Court said there is no frustrated rape. Any penetration of the female organ by the make organ is sufficient. Entry of the labia or lips of the female organ, without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina, is sufficient to warrant conviction. Taking into account the nature, elements, and manner of execution of the crime of rape and jurisprudence on the matter, it is hardly conceivable how the frustrated stage in rape can be committed.
C. Attempted rape
There is no attempted or frustrated impossible crime
- in impossible crime, the person intending to commit an offense has already performed the acts for the execution of the same, but nevertheless the crime is not produced by reason of the fact that the act intended is by its nature one of impossible accomplishment or because the means employed by such person are essentially inadequate or ineffectual to produce the result desired by him. Therefore, since the offender in impossible crime has already performed the acts for the execution of the same, there could be no attempted impossible crime. In attempted felony, the offender has not performed all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence. There is no frustrated impossible crime, because the acts performed by the offender are considered as constituting a consummated offense.
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.
What are light felonies?
- are those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or both, is provided.
The light felonies punishable by the Revised Penal Code
1. Slight physical injuries
2. Theft
3. Alteration of boundary marks
4. Malicious mischief
5. Intriguing against honor
Important words and phrases
1. “With the exception of those committed against persons or property.”
General Rule
- light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated.
- Exception: Light felonies committed against persons or property, are punishable even if attempted or frustrated.
Reason for the general rule
- light felonies produces such light, such insignificant moral and material injuries that public conscience
Is satisfied with providing a light penalty for their consummation. If they are not consummated, the wrong done is so slight that there is no need of providing a penalty at all.
Reason for the exception
- the commission of felonies against persons or property presupposes in the offender moral depravity. For that reason, even attempted or frustrated light felonies against persons or property are punishable.
Examples of light felonies against person
- slight physical injuries and maltreatment. (Art.266)
Examples of light felonies against property
1. Theft by hunting or fishing or gathering fruits, cereals or other forest or farm products upon an enclosed estate where trespass is forbidden and the value of the thing stolen does not exceed P5.00.
2. Theft where the value of the stolen property does not exceed P5.00 and the offender was prompted by hunger, poverty, or the difficulty of earning a livelihood.
3. Alteration of boundary marks.
4. Malicious mischief where the damage is not more tha P200.00 or if it cannot be estimated
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.
Conspiracy is not a crime except when the law specifically provides a penalty therefor.
- an agreement to commit a crime is a reprehensible act from the viewpoint of morality, but as long as the conspirators do not perform overt acts in furtherance of their malevolent design, the sovereignty of the State is not outraged and the tranquility of the public remains undisturbed. However, in resolute execution of a common scheme, a felony is committed by two or more malefactors, the existence of a conspiracy assumes a pivotal importance in the determination of the liability of the perpetrators.
General Rule
- Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are not punishable
- Exception - they are punishable only in cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor.
Reason for the rule
- conspiracy and proposal to commit a crime are only preparatory acts, and the law regards them as innocent or at least permissible except in rare and exceptional cases.
The Revised Penal Code specially provides a penalty for mere conspiracy in Articles 115, 136, and 141.
1. Conspiracy to commit treason - punished by prision mayor and a fine of not exceeding 10,000 pesos.
2. Conspiracy to commit doup d’etat, rebellion or insurrecton - conspiracy to commit doup d’etat is punished by prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine which shall not exceed 8,000 pesos. Conspiracy to commit rebellion or insurrection shall be punished by prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine which shall not exceed 5,000 pesos.
3. Conspiracy to commit sedition - shall be punished by prision mayor in its medium period and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos.
Conspiracy as a felony, distinguished from conspiracy as a manner of criminal liability
- when the conspiracy relates to a crime actually committed, it is not a felony but only a manner of incurring liability, that is, when there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.
Even if the conspiracy relates to any of the crimes of treason, rebellion and sedition, but any if them is actually committed, the conspiracy is not a separate offense; it is only a manner of incurring criminal liability, that is, all the conspirators who carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution are equally liable. The offenders are liable for treason, rebellion or sedition, as the case may be, and the conspiracy is absorbed.
When conspiracy is only a manner of incurring criminal liability, it is not punishable as a separate offense.
Requisites of conspiracy
1. That two or more persons came to an agreement;
1st element -agreement presupposes meeting of the minds of two or more persons.
Thus, the fact that a document is discovered purporting to be a commission appointing the defendant an officer of the armed forces against the Government does not prove conspiracy, because it was not shown that defendant received or accepted that commission,
2. That the agreement concerned the commission of a felony; and
2nd element - the agreement must refer to the commission of a crime. It must be an agreement to act, to effect, to bring about what has already been conceived and determined.
Thus, the mere fact that the defendant met and aired some complaints, showing discontent with the Government over some real or fancied evils, is not sufficient.
3. That the execution of the felony be decided upon
3rd element - the conspirators have made up their minds to commit the crime. There must be a determination to commit the crime of treason, rebellion or sedition.
Direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy
- direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy, and may be inferred from the collective acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime. Conspiracy can be presumed from and proven by acts of the accused themselves when the said acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interests. It is not necessary to show that all the conspirators actually hit and killed the victim. Conspiracy renders all the conspirators as co-principals regardless of the extent and character of their participation because in contemplation of law, the act of one conspirator is the act of all.
Quantum of proof requires to establish conspiracy
- the elements of conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Settled is the rule that to establish conspiracy, evidence of actual cooperation rather than mere cognizance or approval of an illegal act is required.
- a conspiracy must be established by positive and conclusive evidence. It must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the crime itself. Mere presence of a person at the scene of the crime does not make him a conspirator for conspiracy transcends companionship.
Example: The evidence shown that George Comadre and Danilo Lonzano did not have participation in the commission of the crime and must therefore be set free. Their mere presence at the scene of the crime as well as their close relationship with Antonio are insufficient to establish conspiracy considering that they performed no positive act in furtherance of the crime. Neither was it proven that thir act of running away with Antonio was an act of giving moral assistance to his criminal act. The ratiocination of the trial court that “their presence provided encouragement and sense of security to Antonio,” is devoid of any factual basis. Such finding is not supported by the evidence on record and cannot therefore be a valid basis of a finding of conspiracy.
The Revised Penal Code specially provides a penalty for mere proposal in Articles 115 and 136
1. Proposal to commit treason - shall be punished by prision correccional and a fine not exceeding 5,000 pesos.
2. Proposal to commit coup d’etat, rebellion or insurrection - coup d’etat - shall be punished by prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine which shall not exceed 8,000 pesos; rebellion and insurrection - shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium period and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos.
Requisites of proposal
1. That a person had decided to commit a felony; and
2. That he proposes its execution to some other person or persons.
There is no criminal proposal when --
1. The person who proposes is not determined to commit the felony.
2. There is no decided, concrete and formal proposal
3. It is not the execution of a felony that is proposed
Example: A conceived the idea of overthrowing the present government. A called several of his trusted followers and instructed them to go around the country and secretly organize groups and to convince them of the necessity of having a new government. Note that what A proposed in this case is not the execution of the crime of rebellion, but the performance of preparatory acts for the commission of rebellion. Therefore, there is no criminal proposal.
It is not necessary that the person to whom the proposal is made agrees to commit treason or rebellion
- note that what constitutes the felony of proposal to commit treason or rebellion is the making of proposal. The law does not require that the proposal be accepted by the person to whom the proposal is made. If it is accepted, it may be conspiracy to commit treason or rebellion, because there would be an agreement and a decision to commit it.
Proposal as an overt act of corruption of public officer
- one who offers money to a public officer to induce him not to perform his duties, but the offer is rejected by the public officer, is liable for attempted bribery.
Article 9. GRAVE FELONIES, LESS GRAVE FELONIES, AND LIGHT FELONIES. -- GRAVE FELONIES ARE THOSE TO WHICH THE LAW ATTACHES THE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT OF PENALTIES WHICH IN ANY OF THEIR PERIODS ARE AFFLICTIVE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 25 OF THIS CODE.
LESS GRAVE FELONIES ARE TOSE WHICH THE LAW PUNISHES WITH PENALTIES WHICH IN THEIR MAXIMUM PERIOD ARE CORRECTIONAL, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ABOVE-MENTIONED ARTICLE.
LIGHT FELONIES ARE THOSE INFRACTIONS OF LAW FOR THE COMMISSION OF WHICH THE PENALTY OR ARRESTO MENOR OR A FINE OF NOT EXCEEDING 200 PESOS, OR BOTH, IS PROVIDED.
Important words and phrases
1. “To which the law attaches the capital punishment.”
- capital punishment is death penalty
2. “Or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive.”
- although the word “any” is used in the phrase, when the penalty prescribed for the offense is composed of two or more distinct penalties, the higher or highest of the penalties must be an afflictive penalty.
Example: A felony punishable by prision correccional to prision mayor is a grave felony, because the higher of the two penalties prescribed, which is prision mayor, is an afflictive penalty.
- if the penalty prescribed is composed of two or more periods corresponding to different divisible penalties, the higher or maximum period must be that of an afflictive penalty.
Example: A felony punishable by prision correccional in its maximum period or prision mayor in its minimum period is a grave felony, because the higher period, which is the minimum of prision mayor, is a period of an afflictive penalty.
- If the penalty is composed of two periods of an afflictive penalty or of two periods corresponding to different afflictive penalties, the offense for which it is prescribed is a grave felony.
Example: A felony punishable by the medium and maximum periods of prision mayor or by prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period is a grave felony, because both prision mayor and reclusion temporal are afflictive.
The afflictive penalties in accordance with Article 25 of this code are:
A. Reclusion perpetua
B. Reclusion temporal
C. Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification
D. Perpetual or temporary special disqualification
E. Prision mayor
3. “Penalties which in their maximum period are correctional.”
- when the penalty prescribed for the offense is composed of two or more distinct penalties, the higher or highest of the penalties must be a correctional penalty.
- if the penalty prescribed is composed of two or more periods corresponding to different divisible penalties, the higher or maximum period must be that of correctional penalty.
- if the penalty is composed of two periods of a correctional penalty or of two periods corresponding to different correctional penalties, like destierro and arresto mayor, the offense for which it is prescribed is a less grave felony
The following are correctional penalties:
A. Prision correccional
B. Arresto mayor
C. Suspension
D. Destierro
4. ‘The penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both, is provided.”
- when the Code provides a fine of exactly P200.00 for the commission of a felony, it is a light felony. If the amount of the fine provided by the Code is more than P200.00, then it is a less grave felony, because according to Article 26, a fine not exceeding P6,000.00 is a correctional penalty. If the amount of the fine provided by the Code is more than P6,000.00, it is a grave felony, because according to Article 26, a fine exceeding P6,000.00 is an afflictive penalty.
- although Article 26 provides that a fine not less than P200.00 is a correctional penalty, Article 9 which defines light felonies should prevail, because the latter classifies felonies according to their gravity, while the former classifies the fine according to the amount thereof.
Example: Gambling punishes with arresto menor of a fine not exceeding P200.00 is a light felony.
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.
Important words and phrases
1. “Special laws”
- a special law is a statute enacted by the Legislative branch, penal in character, which is not an amendment to the Revised Penal Code. Special laws usually follow the form of America penal law. The penal clause, for example, provides a penalty of from five to ten years or a fine not exceeding P5,000.000, or both, in the discretion of the court.
The provision of the Revised Penal Code on penalties cannot be applied to offenses punishable under special laws.
When the special law adopted penalties from the Revised Penal Code, the rules for graduating penalties by degrees or determining the proper period should be applied.
Offenses under special laws, not subject to the provisions of this Code relating to attempted and frustrated crimes
The special law has to fix penalties for attempted and frustrated crime
- the penalty for the consummated crime cannot be imposed when the stage of the acts of execution is either attempted or frustrated, because the penalty for the attempted and frustrated crime is two degrees or one degree lower, respectively. The special law does not provide for a penalty one or two degrees lower than that provided for the consummated stage. The special law has to fix a penalty for the frustration of the crime defined by it, in order that the crime may be punished in case its commission reached only the attempted or frustrated stage of execution.
When a special law covers the mere attempt to commit the crime defined by it, the attempted stage is punishable by the same penalty provided by that law.
Plea of guilty is not mitigating in offenses punished by special law
- the please of guilty as mitigating circumstances under the Revised Penal Code (Article 13, paragraph 7) is not available to offenses punishable under special laws.
- offenses which are punishable under the special laws are not subject to the provisions of Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code, and it has been held that the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, relative to the application of the circumstances modifying the criminal liability of the accused are not applicable to special laws.
- Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code prescribing the rules of the graduation of penalties containing three periods when mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the crime, was held inapplicable to offenses penalized by special laws, because the penalty prescribed by special law is usually indeterminate and does not contain three periods. For this reason, the mitigating circumstances of voluntary plea of guilty is not considered to mitigate the liability of one accused of illegal possession of firearms.
2. ‘Supplementary”
- the word “supplementary” means supplying what is lacking
Suppletory Application of the Revised Penal Code
- the suppletory application of the Revised Penal Code to special laws, by virtue of Article 10 thereof, finds relevance only when the provisions of the special law are silent on a particular matter.
Revised Penal Code, not suppletory when the penalties under the special law are different from those under the Revised Penal Code.
Aggravating circumstances cannot be appreciated, in offenses punished by special laws
Special laws amending the Revised Penal Code are subject to its provisions
- P.D. No. 533 is not a special law, entirely distinct from and unrelated to the Revised Penal Code. From the nature of the penalty imposed which is in terms of the classification and duration of penalties as prescribed in the Revised Penal Code, which is not for penalties as are ordinarily imposed in special laws, the intent seems clear that P.D. No. 533 shall be deemed as an amendment of the Revised Penal Code, with respect to the offense of theft of large cattle, or otherwise to be subject to applicable provisions thereof such as Article 104 of the Revised Penal Code on civil liability of the offender, a provision which is not fond in the decree, but which could not have been intended to be discarded or eliminated by the decree. Article 64 of the same Code should, likewise, be applicable, under which the presence of two mitigating circumstances, that of pea of guilty and extreme poverty, without any aggravating circumstances to offset them, entitles the accused to a lowering by one degree of the penalty for the offense.
