Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CRIMLAW Syllabus Student
CRIMLAW Syllabus Student
JD 401-CRIMINAL LAW 1
FIRST Semester, School Year 2022-2023
Part I
PHILOSOPHY Total human development with appropriate competencies
VISION A globally competitive law graduates
MISSION To provide high quality legal instruction involving the foundations and
principles of Criminal Law
GOAL To facilitate learning of the foundations and principles of criminal
law.
Graduate Legally competent, resourceful, innovative, articulate, ethical,
Attributes responsible, conscientious law graduates.
Core Values ETHICAL. Inculcate ethics, responsibility and conscientiousness in
pursuing the legal profession
COMMITMENT. Develop the passion not only in the study of law, but in
pursuing a career involving the legal profession, with the desire for
continuous learning and self-improvement
EXCELLENCE. Develop in the students the necessity to strive for
excellence from day one of the study of law, to the bar review to
pursuing service in the field of the legal profession
SERVICE. Inculcate in the hearts and minds of the students that the
legal profession is primarily service to the people
COMPETENCE in theory and in practice. Establish to the students the
significance of careful research and study, conscientious preparation,
articulate counseling, and effective writing in pursuing the legal
profession.
Program 1. Impart among law students a broad knowledge of law and its
Outcomes various fields, and of legal institutions;
2. Enhance their legal research abilities to enable them to analyze,
articulate and apply the law effectively, as well as to allow them to
have a holistic approach to legal problems and issues;
3. Prepare law students for advocacy, counseling, problem-solving and
decision making, and develop their ability to deal with recognized
legal problems of the present and the future;
4. Develop competence in any field of law as is necessary for gainful
employment or sufficient as a foundation for future training beyond
the basic professional degree, and to develop in them the desire and
capacity for continuing study and self-improvement;
5. Inculcate in them the ethics and responsibilities of the legal
profession; and
6. Produce lawyers who conscientiously pursue the lofty goals of their
profession and faithfully adhere to its ethical norms.
Course Credit 3 units
Course Alternatively entitled as Foundations and Principles of Criminal Law.
Description It is a detailed examination into the characteristics of criminal law,
the nature of felonies, stages of execution, circumstance affecting
criminal liability, persons criminally liable; the extent and extinction
of criminal liability as well as the understanding of penalties in
DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
COURSE SYLLABUS
The course covers Articles 1-113 of the Revised Penal Code and
related laws.
Contact 3 hours/week
Hours/Week
Course None
Prerequisite/s
Course Students will have acquired knowledge of the foundations and
Outcomes principles of Criminal Law and related laws and jurisprudence
Course Case digests; group assignments; quizzes; examination and
Requirements recitations; class attendance
Grading System Class Standing = 60%; Midterm/Final Exam = 40%
Midterm Grade = 60%(Class Standing) + 40%(Midterm Exam)
Final Term Grade = 60%(Class Standing) + 40%(Final Exam)
Final Grade = 40%(Midterm Grade) + 60%(Final Grade)
where:
Class Standing = 40%(Quizzes) + 20%(OCR)
OCR =Assignments, case digest, seat works, recitation, attendance
Part II. COURSE OUTLINE
TOPICS CASES
I. General Principles
A. Criminal Law
1. Definition
2. Sources of Criminal Law
3. Constitutional limitations on the Pp vs Apolonio Carlos, GR No. L-239, June 30, 1947
power of the state to enact penal -Is CAs 682 a bill of attainder?
laws:
a. equal protection clause
b. Due process
c. Non-imposition of cruel and
unusual punishment or
excessive fines
d. Ex-post facto law
e. Bill of attainder
B. Scope and Characteristics People of the Philippine Island v. Lol-lo and Saraw,
b.1. Characteristics G.R. No. 17958, February 27, 1922
-Can Lol-lo and Saraw be charged with a crime and
a. Generality trued before the Philippines courts despite the crime
b. Territoriality having been committed outside the Philippine
c. Prospectivity territory?
DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
COURSE SYLLABUS
1. Classical
2. Positivist
DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
COURSE SYLLABUS
DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
COURSE SYLLABUS
B. Liability for a felony not intended People of the Philippines v. Benjamin Ortega et al., G.R.
1. Requisites No. 116736, July 24, 1997
2. Preater intentionem ▪ Why did the Supreme Court say that the accused
3. Error in personae (mistake in Manuel Garcia, had it not for the error committed by the
prosecution in charging the proper offense, should have
identity)
been held criminally liable for the death of Masangkay
4. Aberratio Ictus (mistake in the
even if his participation was only to help Benjamin
blow); Ortega conceal the body of the victim?
People of the Philippines v. Roger Umawid, G.R. No.
208719, June 9, 2014
(Why is the killing of Maureen an example of a mistake in
the blow?)
People of the Philippines v. Rolly Adriano et al., G.R. No.
205228, 15 July 2015
(May the accused be held criminally liable for the death
of an unintended victim? Why?)
People of the Philippines v. Rolusape Sabalones et al.,
G.R. No. 123485, August 31, 1998
(Illustrate how there was a mistake in the identity of the
accused’s victim in this case.)
People of the Philippine Islands v. Gines Alburquergue,
G.R. No. L-38773, December 19, 1933
-What defense did Gines Alburquergue interpose in this
case? Was this defense appreciated in his favor?
C. (1) Proximate cause; (2) immediate People of the Philippines v. Gerardo Cornel, G.R. No.
cause); (3) efficient intervening L-204, May 16, 1947
cause; (4) efficient cause of death (Why was the tetanus infection suffered by the victim
rule; (5) Blow Accelerated Death deemed a natural result of the acts of the accused?)
Rule; (6) Instilling Fear Rule; (7)
People of the Philippines v. Noel Sales, G.R. No. 177218,
supervening event rule
October 3, 2011
-Why was Noel Sales held criminally liable for the death
of his son when his intention in beating his son was only
to discipline him and that he did not have an intent to
kill?
Filomeno Urbano v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R.
No. 72964 January 7, 1988; People of the Philippines v.
Orlito Villacorta, G.R. No. 186412, September 7, 2011
▪ What efficient intervening cause was present in these
DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
COURSE SYLLABUS
cases? How did this cause break the “cause and effect”
relation of the act of the accused and the death of the
victim?
D. Impossible crimes Sulpicio Intod v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103119.
1. Legal impossibility October 21, 1992; Gemma Jacinto v. People of the
2. Physical impossibility Philippines, G.R. No. 162540, July 13, 2009
-What crimes were Sulpicio Intod and Gemma Jacinto
held liable for? Why were they held criminally liable for
said crimes?
People of the Philippines v. Hesson Callao, G.R. No.
228945, March 14, 2018
-How did the Supreme Court resolve the issue raised by
the accused that the crime committed was not murder
but an impossible crime? What is the reason for such a
ruling?
DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
COURSE SYLLABUS
DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
COURSE SYLLABUS
d. Light Felonies
V. Conspiracy and Proposal to commit People of the Philippines v. Michael Bokingco, et al., G.R.
felony No. 187536, August 10, 2011
a. Definition ▪ Why did the Supreme Court acquit the accused
b. General rule; exception Reynante Col while convicting accused Michael
Bokingco? Explain the basis of the acquittal.
c. Conspiracy as a felony
People v. Armando Caballero, et al, G.R. Nos. 149028-30,
d. Conspiracy as a manner of April 2, 2003
incurring criminal liability ▪ Explain the basis of the Supreme Court in ruling that
e. Proposal to commit a felony only conspirator Robito is liable to the killing of Leonilo.
People v. Bacbac, G.R. No. 149372, September 11, 2007
▪ Accused detached from the conspiracy. Is he still liable?
People v. Delos Reyes, G.R. 44112, October 22, 1992
▪ Accused in this detached from the conspiracy during
the commission of the crime by his co-conspirators. Why
was the accused held criminally liable?
People v. Go-Tan vs. Go, G.R. 168852, September 30, 2008
▪ Can a mother be held liable as a conspirator to her son
engaging in an extra marital affair?
DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
COURSE SYLLABUS
VII. Applicability of Art.6, RPC to Evangeline Ladonga v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
special laws 141066, February 17, 2005
▪ How did the Supreme Court construe and reconcile the
apparent contradictory clauses embodied in Article 10 of
the Revised Penal Code?
▪ How did the Supreme Court resolve Evangeline
Ladonga’s argument that the provisions of the Revised
Penal Code on conspiracy cannot be made to apply to
special penal laws like B.P. Blg. 22?
Yu v. People, G.R. No. 134172, September 29, 2004
▪ Explain the basis of the Supreme Court in applying Art.
39 of the Revised Penal Code to a special law, B.P. 22
VIII. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
a. Justifying circumstances (Art. People of the Philippines v. Cristina Samson, G.R. No.
11, RPC) 214883, September 02, 2015
b. Battered Woman Syndrome ▪ May there still be unlawful aggression even if the
attacker was disarmed? Explain your answer in the light
of the case of Cristina Samson.
People of the Philippines v. Rodolfo Olarbe, G.R. No.
227421, July 23, 2018
▪ Was Rodolfo Olarbe able to establish that he acted in
self defense? Explain comprehensively.
▪ How did the Supreme Court rule on Rodolfo Olarbe’s
invocation that he acted in defense of a stranger?
SPO2 Lolito Nacnac v. People of the Philippines G.R. No.
191913, March 21, 2012
▪ Explain the elements of self defense as discussed in the
case of Lolito Nacnac.
People of the Philippines v. Eduardo Gonzales, G.R. No.
195534, June 13, 2012; People of the Philippines v. Bingky
Campos, G.R. No. 176061, July 4, 201;1
People of the Philippines vs. Melanio Nugas, G.R. No.
DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
COURSE SYLLABUS
DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
COURSE SYLLABUS
DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
COURSE SYLLABUS
DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
COURSE SYLLABUS
DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
COURSE SYLLABUS
DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
COURSE SYLLABUS
and Ammunition
Regulation Act
j. Alternative circumstances People of the Philippines v. Jose Audine, G.R. No. 168649,
December 6, 2006
▪ Why did the Supreme Court impose upon Jose Audine
the maximum penalty for the crime he committed?
People of the Philippines v. Andres Fontillas, G.R. No.
184177, December 15, 2010
▪ Why did the Supreme Court reject the plea of Andres
Fontillas that the Court should appreciate his extreme
intoxication as a mitigating circumstance?
People of the Philippines v. Perlito Mondigo, G.R. No.
167954, January 31, 2008
▪ Why was intoxication not appreciated in this case as a
mitigating circumstance?
Pp vs ZZZ, GR 224584, Sept. 04, 2019
-How was the relationship of ZZZ to the offended party
appreciated in this case?
MIDTERM EXAMINATION
IX. PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE AND
DEGREE OF PARTICIPATION
DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
COURSE SYLLABUS
DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
COURSE SYLLABUS
DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
COURSE SYLLABUS
DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
COURSE SYLLABUS
DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
COURSE SYLLABUS
DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
COURSE SYLLABUS
counts of rape?
▪ What is the distinction between this case and the case
of People of the Philippines vs. Emmanuel Aaron, G.R.
Nos. 136300-02, September 24, 2002?
Santiago Paera vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
181626, May 30, 2011
▪ What is the foreknowledge doctrine?
▪ Why did the Supreme Court not apply the single
criminal intent rule in this case but instead ruled that
Paera is criminally liable for three counts of Grave
Threats?
Mirriam Defensor Santiago v. Hon. Francis Garchitorena,
G.R. No. 109266 December 2, 1993
▪ What is the legal basis of the Supreme Court’s ruling
that Santiago committed only one crime despite having
allegedly committed 32 acts of violation of R.A. 3019?
▪ Is the “continuing principle” applicable also to violation
of special penal laws?
Geruncio Ilagan, et al. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
110617 December 29, 1994
▪ Were the accused correctly charged with eight separate
crimes of estafa or should they have been charged with
only one offense? Why?
2. Art. 25-26 –Classification of People of the Philippines vs. Victor Abletes et. al., GR No.
Penalties (Imposable Penalties) L-33304, July 31, 1974
▪ Why is the penalty of life imprisonment or cadena
perpetua as imposed by the trial court erroneous?
▪ Is life imprisonment the same as reclusion perpetua?
Why?
3. Art. 27-29 – Duration and Hernan vs Sandiganbayan, GR 217874, Dec. 5, 2017
computation
DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
COURSE SYLLABUS
4. Application of Penalties People v. Alfredo Bon, G.R. No. 166401, October 30, 2006
a. (Art. 46-52) ▪ Why did the Supreme Court rule that the penalty of ten
(10) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen
(17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as
maximum, for each count of attempted rape imposed by
the Court of Appeals is not correct?
▪ What is the proper penalty? State the legal basis.
DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
COURSE SYLLABUS
DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
COURSE SYLLABUS
c. Art.61-65. Graduation of
Penalties
XII. EXECUTION AND SERVICE OF In the matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Pete C.
SENTENCE (Art.78-88) Lagran, G.R. No. 147270, 15 August 2001
▪ What penalties under the Revised Penal Code can be
simultaneously served?
1) When and how; Three-fold Rule ▪ Why did the Supreme Court reject the accused’s
2) Suspension of service contention that he has completed the service of his
3) Death penalty in relation to RA 9346 sentence and thus entitled to release?
4) Other penalties
5) Probation Law (PD 968 as amended) Neil Suyan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 189644 July 2,
2014
▪ Was there a violation of the right of Neil Suyan to due
process when the trial court ordered the revocation of
DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
COURSE SYLLABUS
DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
COURSE SYLLABUS
DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
COURSE SYLLABUS
DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
COURSE SYLLABUS
b.1. Restitution
b.2. Reparation of Damage
Caused
b.3 Indemnification of
Consequential Damage
FINAL EXAMINATION
References:
Online Resources:
The Book Shelf - Supreme Court E-Library (judiciary.gov.ph)
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)