UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS- LEGAZPI

COLLEGE OF LAW
Legazpi City

CRIMINAL LAW I
REVIEWER

MELCRIS A. CASTRO
Law Student

PROS. DANICA BARCEBAL

Professor
 2021 CRIMINAL LAW 1 (REVIEWER) UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS-
MELCRIS A. CASTRO LEGAZPI COLLEGE OF LAW

I. General Principles of Criminal Law

a. Nature and Definition

Criminal Law

Criminal law is that branch of municipal law which defines crimes, treats of their
nature and provides for their punishment. (12 Cyc. 129)

It is that branch of public substantive law which defines offenses and prescribes their
penalties. It is substantive because it defines the state’s right to inflict punishment
and the liability of the offenders. It is public law because it deals with the relation of
the individual with the state.

Crime

Crime is an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or

commanding it.

Limitations on the power of Congress to enact penal laws

1. Must be general in application.

2. Must not partake of the nature of an ex post facto law.
3. Must not partake of the nature of a bill of attainder.
4. Must not impose cruel and unusual punishment or excessive fines.

b. Characteristics of Criminal Law

Generality ( ART 2, RPC)

Generality of criminal law means that the criminal law of the country governs all
persons within the country regardless of their race, belief, sex, or creed. However, it
is subject to certain exceptions brought about by international agreement.
Ambassadors, chiefs of states and other diplomatic officials are immune from the
application of penal laws when they are in the country where they are assigned.

Note that consuls are not diplomatic officers. This includes consul-general, vice-
consul or any consul in a foreign country, who are therefore, not immune to the
operation or application of the penal law of the country where they are assigned.
Consuls are subject to the penal laws of the country where they are assigned.

It has no reference to territory. Whenever you are asked to explain this, it does not
include territory. It refers to persons that may be governed by the penal law.

Criminal law is binding on all persons who live and sojourn in Philippine Territory (Art.
14, new Civil Code)
 2021 CRIMINAL LAW 1 (REVIEWER) UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS-
MELCRIS A. CASTRO LEGAZPI COLLEGE OF LAW

 US v Sweet ( 1 Phil 18)

 Lozada v Arroyo, GR No. 184379-80

Territoriality ( Art. 2, RPC)

Territoriality means that the penal laws of the country have force and effect only
within its territory. It cannot penalize crimes committed outside the same. This is
subject to certain exceptions brought about by international agreements and practice.
The territory of the country is not limited to the land where its sovereignty resides but
includes also its maritime and interior waters as well as its atmosphere.

Criminal laws undertake to punish crimes committed within Philippine Territory.

The territoriality Principle means that as a rule, penal laws of the Philippines are
enforceable only within its territory.

 People v Tulin, GR No. 111709, 30 August 2001

The Archipelagic Rule

All bodies of water comprising the maritime zone and interior waters abounding
different islands comprising the Philippine Archipelago are part of the Philippine
territory regardless of their breadth, depth, width or dimension.

On the fluvial jurisdiction there is presently a departure from the accepted

International Law Rule, because the Philippines adopted the Archipelagic Rule. In
the International Law Rule, when a strait within a country has a width of more than 6
miles, the center lane in excess of the 3 miles on both sides is considered
international waters.
Three international law theories on aerial jurisdiction

(1) The atmosphere over the country is free and not subject to the jurisdiction of
the subjacent state, except for the protection of its national security and public
order.

Under this theory, if a crime is committed on board a foreign aircraft at the

atmosphere of a country, the law of that country does not govern unless the
crime affects the national security.

(2) Relative Theory – The subjacent state exercises jurisdiction over its
atmosphere only to the extent that it can effectively exercise control thereof.
The Relative Theory

Under this theory, if a crime was committed on an aircraft which is already

beyond the control of the subjacent state, the criminal law of that state will not
govern anymore. But if the crime is committed in an aircraft within the
 2021 CRIMINAL LAW 1 (REVIEWER) UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS-
MELCRIS A. CASTRO LEGAZPI COLLEGE OF LAW

atmosphere over a subjacent state which exercises control, then its criminal
law will govern.

(3) Absolute Theory – The subjacent state has complete jurisdiction over the
atmosphere above it subject only to innocent passage by aircraft of foreign
country.

Under this theory, if the crime is committed in an aircraft, no matter how high,
as long as it can establish that it is within the Philippine atmosphere, Philippine
criminal law will govern. This is the theory adopted by the Philippines.

Prospectivity ( Art. 21 and 22, RPC)

As a general rule, penal laws shall have no retroactive application, lest they acquire
the character of an ex post facto law.

This general principle of criminal law is embodied in Article 21 of the Revised Penal
Code which provides that “no felony shall be punishable by any penalty not
prescribed by law prior to its commission”.

This is also called irretrospectivity.

Acts or omissions will only be subject to a penal law if they are committed after a
penal law had already taken effect. Vice-versa, this act or omission which has been
committed before the effectivity of a penal law could not be penalized by such penal
law because penal laws operate only prospectively.

In some textbooks, an exemption is said to exist when the penal law is favorable to
the offender, in which case it would have retroactive application; provided that the
offender is not a habitual delinquent and there is no provision in the law against its
retroactive application.

The exception where a penal law may be given retroactive application is true only
with a repealing law. If it is an original penal law, that exception can never operate.
What is contemplated by the exception is that there is an original law and there is a
repealing law repealing the original law. It is the repealing law that may be given
retroactive application to those who violated the original law, if the repealing penal
law is more favorable to the offender who violated the original law. If there is only
one penal law, it can never be given retroactive effect.

Effect of repeal of penal law to liability of offender

In some commentaries, there are references as to whether the repeal is express or

implied. What affects the criminal liability of an offender is not whether a penal law is
expressly or impliedly repealed; it is whether it is absolutely or totally repealed, or
relatively or partially repealed.
 2021 CRIMINAL LAW 1 (REVIEWER) UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS-
MELCRIS A. CASTRO LEGAZPI COLLEGE OF LAW

Total or absolute, or partial or relative repeal. -- As to the effect of repeal of penal

law to the liability of offender, qualify your answer by saying whether the repeal is
absolute or total or whether the repeal is partial or relative only.

A repeal is absolute or total when the crime punished under the repealed law has
been decriminalized by the repeal. Because of the repeal, the act or omission which
used to be a crime is no longer a crime. An example is Republic Act No. 7363, which
decriminalized subversion.

A repeal is partial or relative when the crime punished under the repealed law
continues to be a crime inspite of the repeal. This means that the repeal merely
modified the conditions affecting the crime under the repealed law. The modification
may be prejudicial or beneficial to the offender. Hence, the following rule:

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. This is so because all persons accused of a crime are presumed
innocent until they are convicted by final judgment. Therefore, the accused
shall be acquitted.

(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.

This does not mean that if they are not released, they are free to escape. If
they escape, they commit the crime of evasion of sentence, even if there is no
more legal basis to hold them in the penitentiary. This is so because prisoners
are accountabilities of the government; they are not supposed to step out
simply because their sentence has already been, or that the law under which
they are sentenced has been declared null and void.

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.

Consequences if repeal of penal law is partial or relative

 2021 CRIMINAL LAW 1 (REVIEWER) UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS-
MELCRIS A. CASTRO LEGAZPI COLLEGE OF LAW

(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 whether he is a habitual delinquent or not, 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, even if the repealing law is partial or relative, the crime still
remains to be a crime. Those who are not habitual delinquents will benefit on
the effect of that repeal, so that if the repeal is more lenient to them, it will be
the repealing law that will henceforth apply to them.

For example, under the original law, the penalty is six years. Under the
repealing law, it is four years. Those convicted under the original law will be
subjected to the four-year penalty. This retroactive application will not be
possible if there is a saving clause that provides that it should not be given
retroactive effect.

Under Article 22, even if the offender is already convicted and serving
sentence, a law which is beneficial shall be applied to him unless he is a
habitual delinquent in accordance with Rule 5 of Article 62.

Express or implied repeal. – Express or implied repeal refers to the manner the
repeal is done.

Express repeal takes place when a subsequent law contains a provision that such
law repeals an earlier enactment. For example, in Republic Act No. 6425 (The
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), there is an express provision of repeal of Title V of
the Revised Penal Code.

Implied repeals are not favored. It requires a competent court to declare an implied
repeal. An implied repeal will take place 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 the first law, such that the two laws cannot stand together, one of
the two laws must give way. It is the earlier that will give way to the later law
because the later law expresses the recent legislative sentiment. So you can have
an implied repeal when there are two inconsistent laws. When the earlier law does
not expressly provide that it is repealing an earlier law, what has taken place here is
implied repeal. If the two laws can be reconciled, the court shall always try to avoid
an implied repeal. For example, under Article 9, light felonies are those infractions of
the law for the commission of which a penalty of arresto mayor or a fine not
exceeding P200.00 or both is provided. On the other hand, under Article 26, a fine
whether imposed as a single or an alternative penalty, if it exceeds P6,000.00 but is
not less than P 200.00, is considered a correctional penalty. These two articles
appear to be inconsistent. So to harmonize them, the Supreme Court ruled that if the
issue involves the prescription of the crime, that felony will be considered a light
felony and, therefore, prescribes within two months. But if the issue involves
prescription of the penalty, the fine of P200.00 will be considered correctional and it
 2021 CRIMINAL LAW 1 (REVIEWER) UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS-
MELCRIS A. CASTRO LEGAZPI COLLEGE OF LAW

will prescribe within 10 years. Clearly, the court avoided the collision between the
two articles.

Consequences if repeal of penal law is express or implied

(1) If a penal law is impliedly repealed, the subsequent repeal of the repealing law
will revive the original law. So the act or omission which was punished as a
crime under the original law will be revived and the same shall again be
crimes although during the implied repeal they may not be punishable.

(2) If the repeal is express, the repeal of the repealing law will not revive the first
law, so the act or omission will no longer be penalized.

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.

When there is a repeal, the repealing law expresses the legislative intention to do
away with such law, and, therefore, implies a condonation of the punishment. Such
legislative intention does not exist in a self-terminating law because there was no
repeal at all.

 Valeroso v People, GR No. 164815 ( 2008)

 Tuates v Bersamin, GR No. 138962, 4 October 2002
 People v Hon. Toledano, GR No. 110220, 18 May 2000

C. Sources of Philippine Criminal Law

1. The Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) and its amendments
2. Special Penal Laws passed by the Philippine Commission, Philippine
Assembly, Philippine Legislature, National Assembly, the Batasang
Pambansa, and the Congress of the Philippines.
3. Penal Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law.

D. Constitution and Criminal Law

Penal Legislation

Due Process Clause

 White Light Corp v City of Manila, 122846, 20 January 2009

Equal Protection

Provision against Excessive Fines, Cruel and Unusual Punishment

 People v Echagaray, GR NO. 117472, 7 February 1997

 2021 CRIMINAL LAW 1 (REVIEWER) UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS-
MELCRIS A. CASTRO LEGAZPI COLLEGE OF LAW

Non-imprisonment for debt or non payment of poll tax

Ex post facto law

 US v Diaz Conde, L-18208, 14 February 1922

Bill of Attainder

Constitutional Rights of the Accused

Statute and Criminal Law

▪ Statutory Rights of an accused
▪ Special Laws

o Construction of Penal Laws

o US v Abad Santos, 36 Phil 243

1
▪ Liberally in favor of the accused
▪ Spanish text of the RPC prevails over the English text ▪
Retroactive application when favorable to the accused ▪
Prescribed but undeserved penalties ( Art. 5RPC)
o People v Formigones, L-3246, 1950

▪ Suppletory application of the RPC to Special Penal Laws

o Mala in se v Mala Prohibita

o Garcia v CA and People ( GR No. 157171, 2006)
∙ Preliminaries
o Date of Effectiveness and Application of the Provisions of the Code
o Application of its provision
o Theories in Criminal Law
o Application of Provisions of RPC
o Rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard foreigh
merchant vessels
▪ French Rule
▪ English Rule

∙ Felonies and Circumstances which Affect Criminal Liability

o Felonies
▪ Elements of Criminal Liability
∙ Actus Reus
o Acts
o Omissions
∙ Mens Rea
o Dolo
o Mistake of Fact
▪ US v Ah Chong, GR No. 5272, 19 March
2021 CRIMINAL LAW 1 (REVIEWER) UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS-
MELCRIS A. CASTRO LEGAZPI COLLEGE OF LAW

1910
▪ People v Oanis, GR No. 47722, 27 July 1943
▪ People v de Fernando, 49 Phil 75
o Malum Prohibitum
o Culpa
▪ Imprudence or Lack of Skill
▪ Negligence or Lack of foresight
∙ Ivler v San Pedro, GR No. 172716, 17
November 2010

∙ Transferred intent ( Art. 4, par 1)

o Aberratio Ictus
∙ People v Guillen, L-1477, 18 January
1950
∙ People v Umawid, GR No. 208719,
2014

o Error in personae
∙ People v Sabalones, GR No. 123485,
1988

o Praeter intentionem

2
∙ People v Alburquerque, GR No. 38773,
1933
∙ People v Cagoco, 58 Phil 524
∙ People v Mabugat, 51 Phil 967

∙ Intent v Motive
∙ Impossible crimes ( Art. 4 par 2)
∙ Intod v Ca, GR No. 103119, 21
October 1992

▪ Stages of criminal execution

∙ Consummated felonies ( Art. 6, RPC)
∙ Frustrated Felonies ( Art. 6, RPC)
∙ Attempted Felonies ( Art. 6, RPC)
∙ Specific Crimes
o Theft
▪ US v Adiao, 38 Phil 754
▪ Valenzuela v People, GR No. 160188
▪ People v Dino, CA, 45 OG 3446
▪ People v Espiritu, GR No. 2107-R, 31 May
1949
o Robbery
▪ People v Salvilla, GR No. 86163, 26 April
1990
o Estafa
▪ US v Dominguez, 41 Phil 408
o Illegal trespass
o Physical Injuries
▪ People v Kalalo, GR No. 39303-05, 17 March
 2021 CRIMINAL LAW 1 (REVIEWER) UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS-
MELCRIS A. CASTRO LEGAZPI COLLEGE OF LAW

1934
▪ Mandragon v People, L-17666, 1966
o Homicide and Murder
▪ People v Sazon, GR No. 89684, 1990
▪ People v Mision GR No. 63480
▪ People v Ramolete, GR No. L-28108
o Rape
▪ People v Campuhan, GR No. 129433, 2000
▪ People v Hernandez, 49 Phil 980
▪ Tibong v People- GR No. 191000, 2010

o Violations under RA 9165

o Arson
▪ US v Valdes, 39 Phil 240

∙ Manner of Committing Crimes

o Formal Crimes
o Crimes consummated by mere attempt
o Felony by Omission
o Crimes requiring intervention of 2 persons
o Material Crimes

▪ Light felonies ( Art. 9, RPC)

▪ Less grave felonies ( Art. 9, RPC)
▪ Grave felonies ( Art. 9, RPC)

3
o Conspiracy ( Art. 8, RPC)
∙ People v. Pugay, 167 SCRA 439
∙ People v Geronimo, GR No. L-35700, 1973

o Proposal to commit felony ( Art. 8, RPC)

∙ Justifying Circumstances and Circumstances which Exempt from Criminal

Liability

o Justifying Circumstances
▪ Self Defense
∙ People v Sazon, GR No. 89684, 1990
∙ Castanares v Court of Appeals, L-41269
∙ People v Uribe, GR No. 76493-94
∙ People v Yuman, 61 Phil 786
∙ People v Crisostomo, GR No. L-38180, 1981
∙ US v Jose Laurel 22 Phil 252
∙ People v Cabungcal, 51 Phil 803
∙ People v Sabio, GR No. L-23734
∙ People v Cajurao, GR No. 122767, 2004
∙ People v Diaz, L-24002, 1974
∙ People v Alconga, 78 Phil 366
∙ US v Domen, 37 Phil 57
∙ People v Dela Cruz, 61 Phil 344
∙ People v Apolinar, 38 OG 2870
∙ US v Guysayco, 13 Phil 292
 2021 CRIMINAL LAW 1 (REVIEWER) UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS-
MELCRIS A. CASTRO LEGAZPI COLLEGE OF LAW

▪ Defense of Relatives
∙ Olbinar v CA, GR No. 76235, 1991

▪ Defense of Strangers
∙ People v Ancheta, 66 Phil 638

▪ Avoidance of Greater Evil

▪ Fulfillment of Duty
∙ People v Delima, 46 Phil 738
∙ People v Lagata, 83 Phil 159
∙ People v Tan, 5 October 1976
▪ Obedience to a lawful order of a superior

o Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability ▪ Tabuena

v Sandiganbayan, GR No. 103501-03, 1997
▪ People v Beronilla, L-4445, 1995

∙ Exempting Circumstances ( ART 12, RPC)

o Insanity/ Imbecility
∙ People v Ambal GR No. L-52688, 17 October 1980
∙ People v Puno, GR No. L-33211m 1981
∙ People v Bascos, 44 Phil 204
∙ People v Bonoan, 64 Phil 87
∙ People v Diaz, GR No. 130210, 1999

o Minority
▪ RA 9344 as amended by RA 10630

4
o Accident
▪ US v Tanedo, 15 Phil 196
o Irresistible Force/ uncontrollable fear
▪ People v Loreno, L-54414, 1984
o Insuperable Cause
▪ People v Bandiman, GR No. 45186, 1936
o Other Absolutory Causes
▪ Instigation
∙ Instigation Vs Estrapment
o People v Lua Chu
▪ Pardon
∙ Art. 266-C RPC
∙ Art. 344 RPC
▪ Absolutory circumstances
∙ Art. 6(3) RPC
∙ Art. 20 RPC
∙ Art. 124, last paragraph RPC
∙ Art. 247, pars 1 and 2 RPC
∙ Art. 280, par 3 RPC
∙ Art. 332 RPC
∙ Art. 344 par. 4 RPC

∙ Circumstances which Mitigate Criminal Liability

o Mitigating Circumstances
▪ Ordinary Mitigating ( Art. 13 Sec. 1-10)
 2021 CRIMINAL LAW 1 (REVIEWER) UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS-
MELCRIS A. CASTRO LEGAZPI COLLEGE OF LAW

∙ When all the requisites to exempt from criminal liability

are not attendant
o People v Magpantay, CA 46 OG 1655
∙ Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong
o US v Reyes, 36 Phil 904
o People v Flores, 50 Phil 548
o People v Laude, 58 Phil 933
∙ Sufficient provocation
∙ Vindication of a wrong
∙ Passion or obfuscation
o US v Hicks, 14 Phil 217
o People v Engay, 47 OG 4306
o People v Olgado, GR No. L-4406, 1952

∙ Voluntary Surrender or plea of guilt

o People v Cagas- GR No. 144504, 2004
o People v Tenorio, GR No. L-15478, 1962
o People v Verceles, GR. No. 130650, 2002
o People v Conwi, 71 Phil 595
o People v Dela Cruz, GR No. L-45485
o People v Balneg, 79 Phil 805

∙ Deafness, muteness, blindness, or other physical defect

which restricts the offender’s means of
action/ defense/ communication
∙ Illness that would diminish the exercise of will power
∙ Analogous Circumstances
o Outraged feeling of creditor
o Impulse feeling of jealousy

5
o Battered Wife Syndrome
o Esprit de Corps

▪ Privileged Mitigating
∙ Art. 13 (2) and 68
∙ Art. 13 (1) and 69
o RA 9344

∙ Circumstances which Aggravate Criminal Liability

o Aggravating Circumstances
▪ Types
∙ Generic
∙ Specific
∙ Qualifying
∙ Inherent
∙ Special
▪ Taking advantage of public office
∙ US v Rodriguez, 19 Phil 150
∙ People v Ural, GR No. L-30801, 1974
∙ US v Torrida, 23 Phil 189
∙ US v Dacuycuy, 9 Phil 84
∙ People v. Gapasin, G.R. No. 73489, 25 April 1994

▪ In contempt of truth or Insult to public authority

2021 CRIMINAL LAW 1 (REVIEWER) UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS-
MELCRIS A. CASTRO LEGAZPI COLLEGE OF LAW

∙ People v Siojo, 61 Phil 307

∙ People v Tac-an, GR No. 76338, 1990
∙ People v. Tiongson, L-35123-24, 25 July 1984

▪ Disregard of rank, age or sex and dwelling

∙ People v Pagal, GR No. L-32040
∙ People v Lopez, 107 Phil 1039
∙ People v Atienza, GR No. L-39777, 1982
∙ US v Tapan, 20 Phil 20 Phil 211
∙ US v Rodriguez, 9 Phil 136
∙ People v Daniel, GR No. L-40330, 1978

▪ Abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness

∙ People v. Mandolado, L-51304-05, 28 June 1983,

▪ Committed in the palace of Chief executive, in his presence,

where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their
duties/ place dedicated to religious worship

▪ Nighttime, uninhabited place or by a band

∙ People v Pardo 79 Phil 568
∙ People v Boyles, GR No. L-15308, 1964
∙ People v Fausto Damaso, 75 OG 4979
∙ People v Manlolo GR No. 40778

▪ Crime committed on the occasion of conflagration, shipwreck,

earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune;

6
▪ Aid of men or persons who afford impunity
∙ People v Licop, 94 Phil 839

▪ Recidivism
∙ People v Lagarto, GR No. 65833, 1991
∙ People v Baldera, 86 Phil 189

▪ Reiteracion
▪ Habitual delinquency ( Art. 62 par 5)
∙ People v. Melendrez, G.R. No. 39913, 1933

▪ Quasi-recidivism ( Art 160)

▪ Price, reward or promise
∙ US v Gamao, 23 Phil 81

▪ Inundation, fire, poison

▪ Evident premeditation
∙ US v Manalinde, 14 Phil 77
∙ People v Lasafin, 92 Phil 688
∙ People v Dasal, 92 Phil 577
∙ People v. Ilaoa, G.R. No. 94308, 16 June 1994

▪ Craft, fraud or disguise

∙ People v Molleda, GR No. L-39779, 1978
 2021 CRIMINAL LAW 1 (REVIEWER) UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS-
MELCRIS A. CASTRO LEGAZPI COLLEGE OF LAW

∙ People v Daos, 60 Phil 143

∙ People v Saguing, GR No. L-27903
∙ People v Cunanan, GR. No. L-30103, 1977

▪ Taking advantage of superior strength, or means employed to

weaken defense
∙ People v Cabiling, GR NO. L-38091
∙ US v Devela, 3 Phil 625
∙ People v Guzman, 107 Phil 1122
∙ People v Galapia, GR No. L-39303
∙ People v Moka, GR No. 88838, 1991

▪ Treachery
∙ People v Velaga Jr., GR NO. 87202
∙ People v Macaspac, GR No. 198954
∙ People v Dadis, GR No. L-21270
∙ People v Gonzales, 76 Phil 473
∙ US v Balagtas, 19 Phil 164
∙ People v Canete, 44 Phil 478
∙ US v Baloyot, 40 Phil 385

▪ Ignominy
∙ People v Torrefiel, 45 OG 803
∙ People v Tapales, GR No. L-35281, 1979

▪ Unlawful entry
▪ Breaking of wall, roof, floor, door or window ▪ Aid of persons
under 15 years old, use of motorvehicles, airships or other
means;
▪ Cruelty

7
∙ People v Lucas, GR No. 80102, 1990
∙ People v Aguinaldo, 55 Phil 610

▪ Organized or syndicated crime group

▪ Illegal use of firearms or explosives
∙ RA 10591
∙ Celino v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 170562, 29 June 2007

▪ Use of dangerous drugs while committing a felony

∙ Sec. 25 RA 9165
▪ Use of information technologies in committing a felony ∙ RA
10175
▪
∙ Alternative Circumstances
o Relationship
▪ US v Insierto, 15 Phil 358

o Intoxication
o Degree of Instruction

∙ Persons Criminally Liable

o Principals- Art. 17
 2021 CRIMINAL LAW 1 (REVIEWER) UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS-
MELCRIS A. CASTRO LEGAZPI COLLEGE OF LAW

▪ Principal by Direct Participation

∙ People v Ancheta, 66 Phil, 638
∙ People v Ortiz and Zausa, 55 Phil 995
∙ People v Quisay 103, Phil 1160
∙ People v Timbol, GR No. 47471, 1944
∙ US v Bundal, 3 Phil 89
∙ People v Fernandez, GR No. 62116, 22 March 1990

▪ Principal by Induction
∙ People v Castillo, GR No. L-19238
∙ People v Kiichi Omine, 61 Phil 611
∙ People v Lawas, GR No. 7618, 1995

▪ Principal by Indispensable Cooperation

∙ US v Javier, 31 Phil 235

o Accomplices Art. 18
▪ People v Clemente, GR No. L-23463, 1967
▪ People v Antonio, 73 Phil 421

o Accessories Art. 19 and 20

▪ US v Montano, 3 Phil 110
▪ US v Galanco, 11 Phil 575
▪ US v Yacat, 1 Phil 443

o PD 1612
o Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability ( Art. 20)

∙ Plurality of Crimes
o Delito Compuesto ( Compound Crime)
▪ People v Tabaco, GR NO. 100382, 1997

8
▪ People v Sanchez, GR No. 13116, 1993
▪ US v Montiel 9 Phil 162

o Delito Complejo ( Complex Crime Proper)

▪ People v Hernandez, GR No. L-6025-26, 1956
▪ Batulanon v People, GR No. 139857, 2006
▪ US v Hernandez, 29 Phil 109
▪ People v Abedosa, 53 Phil 788
▪ People v Rodriguez, GR No. L-13981
▪ People v Cano, GR No. L-19660

o Delito Continuado ( Continuing Crime)

▪ Santiago v Garchitorena, GR No. 109266, 1988
▪ Gamboa v CA- GR no. L-41054, 1975
▪ People v Dela Cruz, GR No. L-1745, 1950
▪ People v Enguero, 100 Phil 1001

o Composite/ Special Complex Crimes

▪ People v Largo, 99 Phil 1061
▪ People v Buyco, 80 Phil 58
▪ Art. 266-B
 2021 CRIMINAL LAW 1 (REVIEWER) UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS-
MELCRIS A. CASTRO LEGAZPI COLLEGE OF LAW

▪ Art. 267
▪ Art. 294
▪ Art. 297
▪ Art. 320

o Complex Crimes in relation to Quasi Crimes

∙ Penalties
o Penalties that may be imposed
▪ US v Macasaet, 11 Phil 447

o Retroactivity
▪ Inmates of New Bilibid Prison v De Lima, GR No. 212719, 2019 ▪ US
v Soliman, 36 Phil 5
▪ People v Carballo, 62 Phil 651

o Pardon by the Offended Party ( Art. 23)

∙ Classification of Penalties
o Capital Punishment
▪ Art III Sec 19 of the 1987 Constitution
▪ RA 7659
▪ RA 8177
▪ RA 9346
o Afflictive Penalty
o Correctional Penalty
o Light Penalty

∙ Rules for Computation of Penalties

o Baking v Director of Prisons, GR No. L-30603, 1969

o Computation of Penalty for Habitual Delinquents

∙ Duration and Effect of Penalties

9
o Reclusion Perpetua
o Computation of penalties
o Rules in Preventive Imprisonment

∙ Effects and Nature of Penalties

o Perpetual Absolute Disqualification
o Temporary Absolute Disqualification
o Perpetual Special Disqualification
o Temporary Special Disqualification
o Suspension from Public Office/ Profession/ calling
o Suspension of right of suffrage
▪ Risos-Vidal v Comelec, GR No. 206666, 2015

o Civil Interdiction
o Bond to Keep the Peace
o Costs
o Pecuniary Liabilities
o Subsidiary Penalty
▪ Ramos v Gonong, GR No. L-42010, 1961
 2021 CRIMINAL LAW 1 (REVIEWER) UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS-
MELCRIS A. CASTRO LEGAZPI COLLEGE OF LAW

▪ Rosares v Director of Prisons, 85 Phil 730

▪ People v Arnault, 92 Phil 252

∙ Penalties in which other accessory penalties are inherent o

Death
▪ Accessory penalties of death
o Reclusion Perpetua
▪ Accessory penalties of Reclusion Perpetua
o Prision Mayor
o Prision Correccional
o Arresto
▪ Arresto Mayor
▪ Arresto Menor
o Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments of the
crime
▪ US v Bruhez, 28 Phil 305

∙ Application of Penalties
o Rules for the application of penalties to persons criminally liable and
for the graduation of the same
o Rules for the application of penalties with regard to the mitigating and
aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency

∙ Indeterminate Sentence Law

∙ Probation Law
∙ Execution and Service of Penalties
o Suspension in case of insanity
o Suspension in case of minority
o Execution of principal penalties

∙ Extinction of Criminal liability

o Total
▪ Risos Vidal v Comelec, GR No. 206666, 2015
▪ Yapdiangco v Buencamino, GR No. L-28841, 1983
▪ Namarco v Tuazon, 29 SCRA 70

10
▪ Sermonia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109454, 14 June 1994

o Death of the convict

o Service of sentence
o Amnesty
o Absolute pardon
o Prescription of the crime
▪ Sermonia v CA, GR No. 109454, 1994
▪ Reodica v CA, GR No. 125066, 1998
▪ People v Olarte, 19 SCRA 494

o Prescription of the penalty

o Marriage of the offended woman
o Partial
▪ Cruz III v. Go, G.R. No. 223446, 28 November 2016

o GCTA
o AM No. 15-08-02-SC
 2021 CRIMINAL LAW 1 (REVIEWER) UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS-
MELCRIS A. CASTRO LEGAZPI COLLEGE OF LAW

∙ Civil Liability

o Persons civilly liable for felonies

▪ Occena v Icamina, GR No. 82146, 1990
▪ Maccay v Nobela, GR No. 145823, 31 March 2005

o Restitution
▪ People v Evangelio, GR No. 181902, 31 August 2011
▪ Mesina v People, GR No. 162489, 2015
▪ People v Consigna, GR No. L-18087, 31 August 1965

o Reparation
▪ People v Dalena, GR No. 11387

o Indemnification
▪ People v Lara, GR No. 134605, 2002
▪ People v Bergante, GR No. 120369, 1998
▪ People v Tabongbanua, GR No. 171271, 2006

o Extinction and survival of Civil Liability

11