CRIMINAL LAW I New Revised
CRIMINAL LAW I New Revised
CRIMINAL LAW I New Revised
BOOK I
CRIMINAL LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE
Prof. GILBERT N. OCAMPO
Juris Doctor
Academic Practitioner
Criminal Justice Practitioner
Continuing Professional Education
Masters in Public Administration
1. Generality
2. Territoriality
3. Prospectivity
There are three characteristics of criminal law, to
wit:
(1)generality (2) territoriality, and (3) prospectivity.
The general, territorial and prospective characteristics
of criminal law are principles that define the scope
and limitation of the operation of criminal law.
Under these three principles, the operation or
enforceability of criminal law is limited to wrongful
acts committed on or after its
effectivity(prospectivity) within the territory of the
Philippines (territoriality) by person living and
sojourning therein (generality).
***Penal or criminal laws are strictly
construed against the state and liberally in
favor of the accused.
****If the language of the law were
ambiguous, the court will lean more
strongly in favor of the defendant than it
would if the statute were remedial, as a
means of effecting substantial justice.
The law is tender in favor of the rights of
an individual.
Note: Pro-reo
***PRO REO
In dubio pro reo is means "when in doubt, for the
accused.” Intimately related to the in dubio pro reo
principle is the rule of lenity.
The rule applies when the court is faced with
two possible interpretations of a penal statute,
one that is prejudicial to the accused and another
that is favorable to him. The rule calls for the
adoption of an interpretation which is more
lenient to the accused.
(Intestate estate of Gonzales vs. People, G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010).
GENERALITY
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 and
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.
Consular officers - Despite the ruling in
Schneckenburger vs. Moran, consular officers and
employees are now enjoying immunity from
criminal prosecution of acts performed in the
exercise of consular function under 1967,
Convention on Consular Relation.
Note: not exempted from criminal liability.
Slander (Liang vs. People, GR NO 125865, January 28, 2000)
or reckless imprudence resulting in homicide is
not function-related.
***Consul is liable for committing this crime.
Military officers - The Revised Penal Code and
special criminal laws are enforceable against military
men living or sojourning in the Philippines.
However, ***CA 408 (Articles of War) which vests
jurisdiction over members of the AFP to the courts-
martial did not divest the military courts of
jurisdiction to try cases involving "service-
connected crimes or offenses"
(Example: Mutiny or sedition, quarrels, frays; disorders,
breaking an arrest or escaping from confinement, releasing
prisoners without proper authority, wrongful appropriation
of captured property, corresponding with, or aiding the
enemy, spies, dueling, fraud against the government
affecting matters and equipment).
In fact, RA No. 7055 mandates that these service-
connected crimes shall be tried by the court-
martial.
*****CA 408 is a law of preferential application
since it excludes members of the AFP from the
operation of the Revised Penal Code and special
criminal laws if the crimes committed by them are
service-connected as defined by RA 7055.
Note: Crimes of service connected.
****Generality 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.
if the immunity is because of treaty or
stipulations between international organizations,
then immunities are deemed to be functional in
character.
Note: They are immune only on crimes RELATED
to their functions.
[Take note of the Visiting Forces Agreement, Art. V, which defines Criminal Jurisdiction over United States military and civilian personnel
temporarily in the Philippines in connection with activities approved by the Philippine Government.]
Presidential immunity - The presidential
immunity is subject the following conditions:
(1) the immunity has been asserted during
the period of his incumbency and tenure;
and
(2) the act constituting the crime is committed in
the performance of his duties. This immunity
will assure the exercise of presidential
functions free from any hindrance,
considering that the Chief Executive is a job
demands undivided attention
(Joya vs. Jail Warden of Batangas, G.R. Nos. 159418-19, December 10, 2003;).
Eclectic or Mixed Philosophy
This combines both positivist and classical
thinking. Crimes that are economic and
social by nature should be dealt with in a
positivist manner; thus, the law is more
compassionate. Heinous crimes should be
dealt with in a classical manner; thus,
capital punishment.
UTILITARIAN OR PROTECTIVE THEORY
The primary purpose of the punishment
under criminal law is the protection of the
society from the actual and potential
wrongdoers. The courts, therefore, in
exacting retribution for the wronged
society, should direct the punishment to
potential or actual wrongdoers since
criminal law is directed against acts or
omissions which the society does not
approve.
This theory is the mala prohibita.
BASIS MALA IN SE MALA PROHIBITA
As to their concepts There must be a criminal Sufficient that the prohibited
intent act was done
Wrong merely because
Wrong from its very nature prohibited by
statute
Criminal intent governs Criminal intent is not
necessary
Punished under the RPC Violations of special laws
As to legal Good faith or lack of
Good faith, lack of criminal criminal intent
implication
are not valid defenses;
intent or
it is enough that the
negligence are valid
prohibition was voluntarily
defenses
violated
Criminal liability is incurred Criminal liability is generally
even incurred
when the crime only when the crime is
is attempted or frustrated consummated
ARTICLE 3 and 4
****Crime: a generic term that embraces
any violation of the Revised Penal Code,
Special Penal Laws, and Municipal/City
Ordinances.
****Felony: Act or Omission punishable
by the Revised Penal Code.
****Offense: Act or Omission punishable
by Special Penal Laws.
****Infraction/Misdemeanor: Act or
Omission punishable by Municipal or City
Ordinances.
Elements of a Felony:
1.There must be an Act or Omission.
2.Such Act or Omission is punishable under the Revised
Penal Code.
3.There must be Deceit Malice (Dolo) or Negligence (Culpa).
Elements of Criminal Liability:
1.Physical Element (actus reus)
a. Act b. Omission
2. Mental Element (mens rea/ mens rea)
a. Deliberate Intent (Dolo) b. Constructive Intent (Culpa)
c. Transferred Intent (Art. 4, par. 1)
3. Concurrence
4. Resulting Harm
5. Causation
Act: Bodily movement tending to produce some
effect on the external world. (Note: it being
unnecessary that the same be actually procured, as
the possibility of its production is sufficient).
Omission: Failure to perform a positive duty
which one is bound to do. (Note: must be punishable
by Law)
Overt/External Acts: Physical Activity or deed,
indicating the intention to commit a particular
crime, more than a mere planning or preparation,
which is carried out to its complete transformation
following its natural course, without being frustrated
by external obstacles nor by the spontaneous
desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and
necessarily ripen a concrete offense.
Distinguish “motive” from “intent”.
May crime be committed without criminal intent?
Motive is the moving power that impels a person to
act for a definite result. It is not considered as an
element of the crime. It is essential only only when
the identity of the offender is in doubt. On the other
hand, intent is the purpose for using a particular
means to achieve a desired result. It is an ingredient
of dolo or malice, thus it is an element of deliberate
felonies.
A crime may be committed without criminal intent in
the following instances:
1.If such is a culpable felony;
2.In crimes which are mala prohibita in nature.
Dolo: Deceit-Deliberate Intent MALICE
Culpa: Negligence, Imprudence, Lack of Skill, or
Lack of Foresight.
Malice = Criminal Intent
Requisites of Dolo (Deceit):
1.Freedom-voluntariness
2.Intelligence- morality of human acts
3.Intent- presumption arises from proof of the
commission of an unlawful act.
**Negligence: The failure to foresee an impending
injury, thoughtlessness, failure to use ordinary care.
**Imprudence: The deficiency of action in avoiding
an injury due to lack of skill.
CULFABLE FELONY
What are of two kinds of felonies under the RPC?
1. Intentional (dolo-malice) – When the act is
performed with deliberate intent
Elements:
a. Intelligence b. freedom c. INTENT
2. Culpable (culpa-fault) – When the wrongful act results
from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of
skill.
Elements:
a. Intelligence b. Freedom c. **Imprudence (lack
of skill or deficiency in action)
**Negligence (Lack of foresight or deficiency of
perception)
What crimes cannot be committed through culpa
(negligence or imprudence)?
Murder ,Treason
Robbery , Malicious mischief
Mens rea is referred to as the gravamen of the offense.
Mens rea of the crime depends upon the elements of the
crime. It can only be determined by knowing the
particular crime committed.
Note: In theft, the mens rea is the taking of the property
of another with intent to gain.
In falsification, the mens rea is the effecting of the
forgery with intent to pervert the truth.
In robbery, the mens rea is the taking of the property of
another coupled with the employment of intimidation or
violence upon persons or things.
-“Ignorancia Legis Excusat,
Ignorancia Facti Excusat”
In Intod vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103119, October 21, 1992
On the other hand, where the offense is
legally impossible of accomplishment, the
actor cannot be held liable for any crime. In
the Philippines, the crime committed is
impossible crime if the offense sought to be
committed is factually or legally impossible.
Killing a dead person is impossible crime
because of legal impossibility.
Putting the hand inside an empty pocket
with intention to steal a wallet is impossible
crime because of factual impossibility.
Raping a dead person - Prior to RA 8353, rape is a
crime against chastity.
Thus, if a person raped a dead person believing
that she was just sleeping, offender could not be
held liable for impossible crime (J. Ramon Aquino).
In impossible crime the act could have constituted the
crime against person or property if its
accomplishment was not impossible. Rape is neither a
crime against person nor against property.
However, RA 8353 reclassifies rape from crime
against chastity to crime against person. Hence, an
offender for raping a dead person without knowing
that she was already dead may now be held liable
for impossible crime.
Committing another crime - “A” discharged
shotgun at “B” from a distance of 300 yards; but
because of the limited range of the firepower of
the shotgun, it would be impossible for “A” to
harm “B”. “A” is liable of discharged of firearm
and not impossible crime.
Where the offender unlawful entered the
house and took a watch that turned out to be
his own, he is liable for trespass to dwelling
and not impossible crime.
(Criminal Law Conspectus by Justice Florenz Regalado).
If the accused administered abortive
drugs upon his girlfriend whom he
believed to be pregnant, which turned
out not to be true, but the woman
became ill for more than 30 days, the
accused will be liable for serious
physical injuries and not impossible
crime of abortion
As to criminal liability
Mitigating Circumstance Basis Requisites/Elements
1. In the preceding chapter 1. when all requisites necessary
Incomplete to justify or exempt an act are
Justifying/Exempting not attendant
Principals
Accomplices
Accessories
What are the kinds of principals?
1.Principal by direct participation
2.Principal by
induction/inducement
3.Principal by indispensable
cooperation
What are the requisites for principals by direct
participation?
1.They participated in the criminal resolution.
2.They carried out the plan and personally
took part in its execution by acts, which
directly tended to the same end.
Note: Principals by direct participation are
those who materially execute the crime. They
appear at the crime scene and perform acts
necessary in the commission of the crime.
Who is a principal by inducement?
To be a principal by inducement, the inducer’s
utterances must be such nature and made in such
manner as to become the determining cause of the
crime.
Note: Principals by inducement are liable even if they
do not appear at the scene of the crime.
Q: A asked B to kill C because of grave injustice done to A by
C. A promised B a reward. B was willing to kill C, not so much
because of the reward promised to him but because he also
had his own long‐standing grudge against C, who had wronged
him in the past. If C is killed by B, would A be liable as a
principal by inducement?
A: No, A would not be liable as principal by inducement
because the reward he promised B is not the sole
impelling reason which made B to kill C.
Who is a principal by indispensable
cooperation?
Those who:
1.Participated directly in the criminal
resolution; or
2.Cooperated in the commission of the
crime by performing an act, without which
it would not have been accomplished.
PRINCIPAL BY
ACCOMPLICE
INDISPENSABLE
COOPERATION
If the crime could If the cooperation
hardly be committed merely facilitated or
without hastened
such cooperation, the consummation of
then the crime, this would
make
such cooperation
the cooperator
would bring about a
merely an
principal. accomplice.
Who is an accomplice?
An accomplice is one who:
1. Concurs with the criminal design of
the principals by direct participation;
2. Cooperates in the execution of the
offense by previous or simultaneous
acts, with the intention of supplying
material or moral aid in the execution
of the crime in an efficacious way;
Who are accessories?
Those who do not participate in the criminal
design, nor cooperate in the commission of the
felony, but with knowledge of the commission of
the crime, he subsequently takes part in three ways;
1. Profiting or assisting the offender to profit by the
effects of the crime;
2. Concealing or destroying the body of the crime
to prevent its discovery;
3. Harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape
of the principal of the crime.
Note: Where the accused misleads the authorities by
giving them false information, such act is equivalent to
concealment and he should be held as an accessory.
Problem: If a municipal treasurer, misappropriated
the personal computers entrusted to her and sold
this to other person, this other person is not liable
under PD 1612 BUT he may be liable as an
accessory to the crime of Malversation.
`
Exception to the discovery rule: constructive notice
rule should not be applied in the crime of bigamy –
Prescription of the penalty is the loss or forfeiture of
the right of the state to execute the final sentence of
conviction after the lapse of a certain period of time.
1.Death and reclusion perpetua - 20 years ,2.
Afflictive penalties - 15 years 3. Reclusion temporal -
15 years 4. Prision mayor - 15 years ,5. Correctional
penalties - 10 years ,6. Arresto mayor - 5 years , 7.
Light penalties - 1 year The penalty, to be subject of
prescription must have been imposed by final
judgment.
Illustration: Prescription is interrupted
1.He should give himself up ,2.Be captured
3.Go to foreign country with which the Philippines has
no extradition treaty
4.Should commit another crime
Partial Extinction
Conditional Pardon
Commutation of Sentence
Good Conduct allowances which the culprit
may earn while he is serving his sentence
Parole – because after you shall have served
the minimum indeterminate penalty, he could
be release.
Penalties Time included in the Time included in its Time included in its medium Time included in its
penalty in its entirety minimum period period maximum
Reclusion From 12 years From 12 years and From 14 years, 8 From 17 years, 4
temporal and 1 day to 20 1 day to 14 years months and 1 day to months and 1 day
years. and 8 months. 17 years and 4 to 20 years.
months.
a. Prision mayor From 6 years From 6 years and From 8 years and 1 From 10 years
b. Absolute
and 1 day to 12 1 day to 8 years. day to 10 years. and 1 day to 12
disqualification
c. Special
years. years.
temporary
disqualification