Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Criminal Law Book 1: Atty. Mohammad Jamalul J. Giducos
Criminal Law Book 1: Atty. Mohammad Jamalul J. Giducos
BOOK 1
ATTY. MOHAMMAD JAMALUL J. GIDUCOS
[email protected]
09177232179
CRIMINAL LAW
DEFINITION OF TERMS
1.) Law
-Rule of conduct, just and obligatory,
promulgated by competent authority for
common observance and benefits.
CRIMINAL LAW
2.) Crime
-Act or omission punishable by law. It is an act
omitted or committed in violation of public law
forbidding or commanding it.
3.) Felony
-Act or omission punishable by The Revised
Penal Code.
4.) Offense
-Act or omission punishable by Special Laws.
5.) Infraction
- Act or omission punishable by LGU Ordinances.
CRIMINAL LAW
January 1, 1932.
THREE GENERAL CHARACTERISITICS OF
CRIMINAL LAW
1.) GENERALITY
• That the law is binding upon all persons who
reside or sojourn in the Philippines, irrespective of
age, sex, color, creed or personal circumstances.
(Art. 114, NCC);
Exceptions to GENERALITY:
1. Treaty stipulation
2. Laws of preferential application
3. Principles of Public International Law.
Examples:
• Sovereigns and other head of state.
• Ambassador, minister plenipotentiary, minister
resident and charges d' affaires.
Except…
2.) TERRITORIALITY
• That the law is applicable to all crimes committed
within the limits of Philippine territory, which
includes its atmosphere, interior waters and
maritime zone. (Art. 2, RPC, see Art. 1 of the
Philippine Constitution);
THE NATIONAL TERRITORY
The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago,
with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other
territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or
jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial
domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the
insular shelves, and other submarine areas.
The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of
the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form
part of the internal waters of the Philippines.
Article 2 of the RPC
• Answer:
Yes, the law can be retroactively
applied because it is favorable to the
accused.
• Will your answer be the same if A is
habitual delinquent?
FELONIES & CIRCUMSTANCES
WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY
• ART. 3
-FELONIES (Either by dolo or culpa)
ELEMENTS
a.) There must be an act or omission
b.) Such act or omission is punishable by RPC; and
c.) Committed either by dolo or culpa.
FELONIES & CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH
AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY
• Intent
-the purpose to use a particular means
to affect such result.
• Motive
-the moving power, which impels one to
action for a definite result, e.g. Jealousy,
Revenge.
FELONIES & CIRCUMSTANCES
WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Proximate Cause
-That cause, which, in natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces injury,
and without which the result would not have
been committed (Bataclan V. Medina 102 Phil.
181)
ANSWER:
• MALA INSE
• MALA PROHIBITA
QUESTION:
Motive is essential in the determination of the commission
of a crime and the liabilities of the perpetrators. What are
the instances where proof of motive is not essential or
required to justify conviction of an accused?
1. When there is an eyewitness or positive identification of the
accused.
Requisites:
1. that the act done would have been lawful had
the facts been as the accused believed them to
be;
2. intention of the accused is lawful; mistake
must be without fault of carelessness. (United States
v. Ah Chong)
PROBLEM
The accused and his family lived in a neighborhood
that often was the scene of frequent robberies. At one
time past midnight, the accused went downstairs with a
loaded gun to investigate what he thought were
footsteps of an unwanted guest. After seeing what
appeared to him an armed stranger out to rob them, he
fired his gun and seriously injured the man. When the
lights turned on, the man turned out to be a brother-in-
law on his way to the kitchen for some snacks. The
accused was indicted for? serious physical injuries.
Should he be acquitted or convicted, given the
circumstances? Why?
ANSWER:
He should be acquitted. Considering the given
circumstances - - frequent neighborhood robberies, time
was past midnight, and the victim appeared to be a
robber in the dark, the accused could have entertained
an honest belief that his life and limb and those of his
family are already in immediate and imminent danger.
Hence, it may be reasonable to accept that he acted out
of an honest MISTAKE OF FACT, without criminal intent.
An honest mistake of fact negatives criminal intent and
absolves the accused from liability.
Causes which produce a different
result:
ANSWER:
Yes, Alexander can be held liable for the death of Carol and
Benjamin because of felonious act of running was the proximate
cause of the victim's death. The rule is that when a person, by a
felonious act, generates in the mind of another a sense of imminent
danger, prompting the latter to escape from or avoid such danger and
in the process, sustains injuries or dies, the person committing the
felonious act is responsible for such injuries or death. (US vs. Valdez,
41 Phil, 1497; People vs. Apra, 27 SCRA 1037.)
CASE STUDY:
Vicente hacked Anacleto with a bolo but the latter was able to parry it with his hand,
causing upon him a two- inch wound on his right palm. Vicente was not able to hack
Anacleto further because three policemen arrived and threatened to shoot Vicente if he did
not drop his bolo. Vicente was accordingly charged by the police at the prosecutor's office
for attempted homicide. Twenty- five days later, while the preliminary investigation was in
progress, Anacleto was rushed to the hospital because of symptoms of tetanus infection on
the two-inch wound inflicted by Vicente. Anacleto died the following day.
Can Vicente be eventually charged with homicide for the death of Anacleto? Explain.
CASE STUDY:
ANSWER:
Yes, Vicente may be charged of homicide for the death of Anacleto, unless the tetanus infection which
developed twenty five days later, was brought about by an efficient supervening cause. Vicente's
felonious act of causing a two-inch wound on Anacleto's right palm may still be regarded as the
proximate cause of the latter's death because without such wound, no tetanus infection could develop
from the victim's right palm, and without such tetanus infection the victim would not have died with it.
CASE STUDY:
Maryjane had two suitors - Felipe and Cesar. She did not openly show her preference but on two occasions, accepted Cesar's invitation to
concerts by Regine and Pops. Felipe was a working student and could only ask Mary to see a movie which was declined. Felipe felt
insulted and made plans to get even with Cesar by scaring him off somehow. One day, he entered Cesar's room in their boarding house and
placed a rubber snake which appeared to be real in Cesar's backpack. Because Cesar had a weak heart, he suffered a heart attack upon
opening his backpack and seeing the snake. Cesar died without regaining consciousness. The police investigation resulted in pinpointing
Felipe as the culprit and he was charged with Homicide for Cesar's death. In his defense, Felipe claimed that he did not know about Cesar's
weak heart and that he only intended to play a practical joke on Cesar.
Is Felipe liable for the death of Cesar or will his defense prosper? Why?
CASE STUDY:
ANSWER:
Yes, Felipe is liable for the death of Cesar but he shall be given the benefit of the mitigating circumstance that he did not intend to commit so
grave a wrong as that which was committed (Art. 13, par. 3, RPC).
When Felipe intruded into Cesar's room without the latter's consent and took liberty with the letter's backpack where he placed the rubber
snake. Felipe was already committing a felony. And any act done by him while committing a felony is no less wrongful, considering that they
were part of "plans to get even with Cesar".
Felipe's claim that he intended only "to play a practical joke on Cesar" does not persuade, considering that they are not friends but in fact
rivals in courting Maryjane. This case is parallel to the case of People vs. Pugay, et al.
CASE STUDY:
The conduct of wife A aroused the ire of her husband B. Incensed with anger almost beyond his control, B could not help but inflict physical
injuries on A. Moments after B started hitting A with his fists, A suddenly complained of severe chest pains. B, realizing that A was indeed in
serious trouble, immediately brought her to the hospital. Despite efforts to alleviate A's pains, she died of heart attack. It turned out that she
had been suffering from a lingering heart ailment. What crime, if any, could B be held guilty of?
CASE STUDY:
B could be held liable for parricide because his act of hitting his wife with fist blows and therewith inflicting physical injuries on her, is felonious. A person committing a felonious act incurs
criminal liability although the wrongful consequence is different from what he intended (Art. 4, par. 1, Revised Penal Code).
Although A died of heart attack, the said attack was generated by B's felonious act of hitting her with his fists. Such felonious act was the immediate cause of the heart attack, having
materially contributed to and hastened A's death. Even though B may have acted without intent to kill his wife, lack of such intent is of no moment when the victim dies. However, B may be
given the mitigating circumstance of having acted without intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed (Art. 13, par. 3, Revised Penal Code).
CASE STUDY:
While the crew of a steamer prepared to raise anchor at the Pasig River, A, evidently impatient with the progress of work, began to use abusive language against the
men. B, one of the members of the crew, remonstrated saying that they could work best if they were not insulted. A took B's attitude as a display of insubordination
and, rising in a rage, moved towards B wielding a big knife and threatening to stab B. At the instant when A was only a few feet from B, the latter, apparently
believing himself to be in great and immediate peril, threw himself into the water, disappeared beneath the surface, and drowned.
May A be held criminally liable for the death of B?
CASE STUDY:
Yes. A can be held criminally liable for the death of B, Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code provides in part that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful
act done be different from that which he intended. In U.S. vs. Valdez 41 Phil. 497. where the victim who was threatened by the accused with a knife, jumped into the river but because
of the strong current or because he did not know how to swim, he drowned, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for homicide of the accused because, if a person against whom a criminal assault is
directed believes himself to be in danger of death or great bodily harm and in order to escape jumps into the water, impelled by the instinct of self-preservation, the assailant is responsible for the homicide
in case death results by
drowning.
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
Requisites:
OZ and YO were both courting their co-employee, SUE. Because of their bitter rivalry, OZ decided to get rid of YO by poisoning him. OZ poured a substance into YO's coffee
thinking it was arsenic. It turned out that the substance was white sugar substitute known as Equal. Nothing happened to YO after he drank the coffee. What criminal liability did
OZ incur, if any? Explain briefly.
ANSWER:
OZ incurred criminal liability for an impossible crime of murder. Criminal liability shall be incurred 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 or ineffectual means (Art. 4, par. 2, RFC).
In the problem given, the impossibility of accomplishing the crime of murder, a crime against persons, was due to the employment of ineffectual means which OZ thought was poison. The law imputes criminal
liability to the offender although no crime resulted, only to suppress his criminal propensity because subjectively, he is a criminal though objectively, no crime was committed.
CASE STUDY
Carla, 4 years old, was kidnapped by Enrique, the tricycle driver paid by her parents to bring and fetch her to and from school. Enrique wrote a ransom note demanding P500,000.00 from Carla's parents in exchange
for Carla's freedom. Enrique sent the ransom note by mail. However, before the ransom note was received by Carla's parents, Enrique's hideout was discovered by the police. Carla was rescued while Enrique was
arrested and incarcerated. Considering that the ransom note was not received by Carla's parents, the investigating prosecutor merely filed a case of "Impossible Crime to Commit Kidnapping" against Enrique. Is the
prosecutor correct? Why? (3%)
CASE STUDY:
ANSWER:
No, the prosecutor is not correct in filing a case for "impossible crime to commit kidnapping" against Enrique. Impossible crimes are limited only to acts which when performed would be a crime against
persons or property. As kidnapping is a crime against personal security and not against persons or property, Enrique could not have incurred an "impossible crime" to commit kidnapping. There is thus no
impossible crime of kidnapping.
CASE STUDY
Accused was a houseboy in a house where only a spinster resides. It is customary for the spinster to sleep in the nude because her room was warm. It was also the habit of the houseboy that whenever she enters her room, the houseboy would follow and peek into the
keyhole. Finally, when the houseboy could no longer resist the urge, he climbed into the ceiling, went inside the room of his master, placed himself on top of her and abused her, not knowing that she was already dead five minutes earlier. Was an impossible crime committed?
ANSWER:
Yes. Before, the act performed by the offender could not have been a crime against person or property. The act performed would have been constituted a crime against chastity. An impossible crime is true only if the act done by the offender constitutes a crime against person or property. However, with new
rape law amending the Revised Penal Code and classifying rape as a crime against persons, it is now possible that an impossible crime was committed. Note, however, that the crime might also fall under the Revised Administrative Code— desecrating the dead.
2 stages
in the development of a crime:
• 1. INTERNAL ACTS
• - e.g. mere ideas of the mind
• NOT PUNISHABLE
• 2. EXTERNAL ACTS
a. Preparatory acts - ordinarily not punishable except when
considered by law as independent crimes
(e.g. Art. 304, Possession of picklocks and similar tools)
b. Acts of Execution - punishable under the RPC
ART. 6 – STAGES IN THE
COMMISSION OF FELONY
• Rape
• Bribery
• Corruption of Public Officers
• Adultery
• Physical Injury
• Arson
ART. 8 – CONSPIRACY AND
PROPOSAL TO COMMIT A CRIME
Examples:
Conspiracy to commit sedition
Conspiracy to commit rebellion
Conspiracy to commit treason
ART. 8 – CONSPIRACY AND
PROPOSAL TO COMMIT A CRIME
Examples:
Proposal to commit treason
Proposal to commit rebellion
Proposal is true only up to the point where the
party to whom the proposal was made has not
yet accepted the proposal. Once the proposal
was accepted, a conspiracy arises. Proposal is
unilateral, one party makes a proposition to the
other; conspiracy is bilateral, it requires two
parties.
SEDITION;
Proposal to commit sedition is not a crime. But
if Union B accepts the proposal, there will be
conspiracy to commit sedition which is a crime
under the Revised Penal Code.
ART. 8 – CONSPIRACY AND
PROPOSAL TO COMMIT A CRIME
Kinds:
1.) Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony as a
crime.
Ex.
Conspiracy and Proposal to commit Rebellion
Conspiracy and Proposal to commit Treason
Conspiracy to commit sedition.
ART. 8 – CONSPIRACY AND
PROPOSAL TO COMMIT A CRIME
BB and CC, both armed with knives, attacked FT. The victim's
son, ST, upon seeing the attack, drew his gun but was prevented
from shooting the attackers by AA, who grappled with him for
possession of the gun. FT died from knife wounds. AA, BB and
CC were charged with murder.
In his defense, AA invoked the justifying circumstance of
avoidance of greater evil or injury, contending that by preventing
ST from shooting BB and CC, he merely avoided a greater evil.
Will AA's defense prosper?
Answer:
No, AA's defense will not prosper because obviously there was a conspiracy among BB,
CC and AA, such that the principle that when there is a conspiracy, the act of one is the act
of all, shall govern. The act of ST, the victim's son, appears to be a legitimate defense of
relatives; hence, justified as a defense of his father against the unlawful aggression by BB
and CC. ST's act to defend his father's life, cannot be regarded as an evil inasmuch as it is,
in the eyes of the law, a lawful act.
What AA did was to stop a lawful defense, not greater evil, to allow BB and CC achieve
their criminal objective of stabbing FT.
CASE STUDY:
Juan and Arturo devised a plan to murder Joel. In a narrow alley near
Joel's house, Juan will hide behind the big lamppost and shoot Joel
when the latter passes through on his way to work. Arturo will come
from the other end of the alley and simultaneously shoot Joel from
behind. On the appointed day, Arturo was apprehended by the
authorities before reaching the alley. When Juan shot Joel as planned,
he was unaware that Arturo was arrested earlier. Discuss the criminal
liability of Arturo, if any. [5%]
Arturo, being one of the two who devised the plan to murder Joel, thereby becomes a co-principal by direct
conspiracy. What is needed only is an overt act and both will incur criminal liability. Arturo's liability as a
conspirator arose from his participation in jointly devising the criminal plan with Juan, to kill Jose. And it was
pursuant to that conspiracy that Juan killed Joel. The conspiracy here is actual, not by inference only. The overt
act was done pursuant to that conspiracy whereof Arturo is co-conspirator. There being a conspiracy, the act of
one is the act of all. Arturo, therefore, should be liable as a co-conspirator but the penalty on him may be that of
an accomplice only (People vs. Nierra, 96 SCRA 1; People us. Medrano, 114 SCRA 335) because he was not able
to actually participate in the shooting of Joel, having been apprehended before reaching the place where the
crime was committed.
CASE STUDY:
At about 9:30 in the evening, while Dino and Raffy were walking along Padre Faura Street, Manila. Johnny hit them with
a rock injuring Dino at the back. Raffy approached Dino, but suddenly, Bobby, Steve, Danny and Nonoy surrounded the
duo. Then Bobby stabbed Dino. Steve, Danny, Nonoy and Johnny kept on hitting Dino and Raffy with rocks. As a result.
Dino died, Bobby, Steve, Danny, Nonoy and Johnny were charged with homicide.
ANSWER:
Yes, there is conspiracy among the offenders, as manifested by their concerted actions against the victims, demonstrating a common felonious
purpose of assaulting the victims. The existence of the conspiracy can be inferred or deduced from the manner the offenders acted in commonly
attacking Dino and Raffy with rocks, thereby demonstrating a unity of criminal design to inflict harm on their victims.
ART. 9 – CLASSIFICATION FELONIES
ACCORDING TO GRAVITY
RECLUSION PERPETUA
Grave/
RECLUSION TEMPORAL Afflictive
(12 years and 1 day to 20 years)
PRISION CORRECCIONAL
(6 months and 1 day to 6 years)
MTC Less Grave
ARRESTO MAYOR
(31 days to 6 months)
ARRESTO MENOR
(1 to 30 days)
Light
Destierro
ART 11. – JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
• JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
Those wherein the acts of the actor
are in accordance with law, and
hence, he incurs no criminal and civil
liability.
NO CRIME AT ALL!
ART 11. – JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
1.) Self-defense
Requisites:
a.) Unlawful aggression
b.) Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it; and
c.) Lack of sufficient provocation on the
part of the person defending himself.
People of the Philippines vs. Dolorido,
G.R. No. 191721, January 12, 2011).
• Defense of person
• Self-defense of chastity – there must be an attempt to rape the
victim
• Defense of property – must be coupled with an attack on the
person of the owner, or on one entrusted with the care of such
property.
• Apply DOCTRINE OF SELF-HELP under the Civil Code
• Self-defense in libel – justified when the libel is aimed at a
person’s good name.
• RA 9262 (BWS)
RA 9262 (BWS)
Grandfather
Spouse, ascendants, descendants
Son
Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, Daughter
or his relatives by affinity in the same degrees
DEFENSE OF HONOR
One night, Una, a young married woman, was sound
asleep in her bedroom when she felt a man on top of
her. Thinking it was her husband Tito, who came home
a day early from his business trip, Una let him have
sex with her. After the act, the man said, "I hope you
enjoyed it as much as I did." Not recognizing the voice,
it dawned upon Lina that the man was not Tito, her
husband. Furious, Una took out Tito's gun and shot
the man. Charged with homicide Una denies
culpability on the ground of defense of honor. Is her
claim tenable?
ART 11. – JUSTIFYING
CIRCUMSTANCES
DEFENSE OF HONOR
Osang, a married woman in her early twenties, was sleeping
on a banig on the floor of their nipa hut beside the seashore
when she was awakened by the act of a man mounting her.
Thinking that it was her husband, Gardo,who had returned
from fishing in the sea, Osang continued her sleep but
allowed the man, who was actually their neighbor, Julio, to
have sexual intercourse with her. After Julio satisfied himself,
he said "Salamat Osang" as he turned to leave. Only then did
Osang realize that the man was not her husband. Enraged,
Osang grabbed a balisong from the wall and stabbed Julio to
death. When tried for homicide, Osang claimed defense of
honor. Should the claim be sustained? Why?
ART 11. – JUSTIFYING
CIRCUMSTANCES
DEFENSE OF HONOR
• No, Osang"s claim of defense of honor should not be sustained because
the aggression on her honor had ceased when she stabbed the aggressor.
In defense of rights under paragraph 1, Art. 11 of the RPC, It is required
inter alia that there be (1) unlawful aggression, and (2) reasonable
necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. The unlawful
aggression must be continuing when the aggressor was injured or disabled
by the person making a defense.
• But if the aggression that was begun by the injured or disabled party
already ceased to exist when the accused attacked him, as in the case at
bar, the attack made is a retaliation, and not a defense. Paragraph 1, Article
11 of the Code does not govern.
• Hence, Osang's act of stabbing Julio to death after the sexual intercourse
was finished, is not defense of honor but an immediate vindication of a
grave offense committed against her, which is only mitigating.
ART 11. – JUSTIFYING
CIRCUMSTANCES
DEFENSE OF PROPERTY
• A security guard, upon seeing a man scale the wall
of a factory compound which he was guarding, shot
and killed the latter. Upon investigation by the police
who thereafter arrived at the scene of the shooting,
it was discovered that the victim was unarmed.
When prosecuted for homicide, the security guard
claimed that he merely acted in self-defense of
property and in the performance of his duty as a
security guard.
ART 11. – JUSTIFYING
CIRCUMSTANCES
DEFENSE OF PROPERTY
DEFENSE OF PROPERTY
• There must be a notable disproportion between the intent and the resulting
crime
ARTICLE 13. MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES
4.)Sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the
offended party immediately preceded the act.
-This is mitigating only if the crime was committed on the
very person who made the threat or provocation.
- The SC used to lock “immediately” to 1 hour.
- It became 22 hours in one case.
- In PEOPLE V. DIOKNO, a Chinaman eloped with a
woman. Actually, it was almost three days before
accused was able to locate the house where the
Chinaman brought the woman. Sufficient provocation is
present.
ARTICLE 13. MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES
• by a BAND
• At least four (4) armed male factor (all must be armed)
ARTICLE 14. AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES
7.) ON THE OCCASION OF conflagration,
shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other
calamity or misfortune;
8.) With the AID OF ARMED MEN to insure or
afford impunity;
ARTICLE 14. AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES
9.) Accused is RECIDIVIST;
10.) Offender has been previously punished by
an offense with an equal or greater penalty
or for two or more crimes with lighter
penalty;
Recidivism (Art. 14,par 9) Repetition (Art. 14. par 10)
- The offender has been previously punished
-The offender at the time of the trial for
for an offense to which the law attaches an
one crime shall have been previously equal or even greater penalty or for two or
convicted by final judgment of another more crimes to which it attaches a lighter
embraced in the same title penalty.
SUFFICIENT
LAPSE OF TIME
PLANNING (ENOUGH TIME EXECUTION
TO REGAIN
COMPOSURE)
ARTICLE 14. AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES
14.) Employing CRAFT, FRAUD OR DISGUISE;
15.) Advantage be taken of SUPERIOR STRENGTH, or means
employed to weaken the defense;
Abuse of Superior Strength. Use of excessive force out of
proportion to the means available to the person attacked to
defend himself. The use of force must be deliberate on the
part of the malefactor. (People v. Almendras. Dec. 20, 2001)
ARTICLE 14. AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES
16.) With TREACHERY;
Treachery. Exist when the offender commits any of the
crimes against person, employing means, methods or forms
in the execution thereof which tend directly ands specially to
insure its execution with out risk to himself arising form the
defense which offended party might make. (People v.
Perreras Dec. 5, 2001)
Suddenness of the attack does not by itself constitute treachery
in the absence of evidence that the manner of the attack was
consciously adopted by the offender to render the offended
party defenseless (People v. Ilagan, 191 SCRA 643).
ARTICLE 14. AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES
• The novelty of the manner in which the accused raped the victim by
winding cogon grass around his genitals augmented the wrong done
by increasing its pain and adding ignominy thereto.
ARTICLE 14. AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES
18.) After an UNLAWFUL ENTRY;
19.) A WALL, ROOF, DOOR, OR
WINDOW BE BROKEN;
20.) With the aid of persons UNDER
FIFTEEN YEARS of age or by mean of
MOTOR VEHICLES, motorized
watercrafts, airships or other similar
means; and
ARTICLE 14. AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES
21.) Deliberately augmented by causing other
wrong not necessary for its commission.
22.) Organized or syndicated crime group
(RA 7659-qualifying)
An organized or syndicated crime group means a
group of two or more persons collaborating,
confederating or mutually helping one another
for purposes of gain in the commission of a crime.
23.) Use of Dangerous Drugs (RA 9165, sec
25-qualifying)
ARTICLE 15. THEIR CONCEPT
• 09177232179
• Jams
• Mohammad Jamalul Giducos
ARTICLE 15. THEIR CONCEPT
• The one who uttered “kill him, we will bury him” while the felonious
aggression was taking place cannot be held liable as principal by
inducement.
• Utterance was said in the excitement of the hour, not a command to
be obeyed.
People v. Madall (1990)
• A hold order and warrant of seizure and detention were then issued by the
District Collector of Customs. Further investigation showed that Moonglow is
non-existent. Consequently, Mr. Gabisi and Mr. Yto were charged with and
convicted for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 which makes it unlawful
among others, for public officers to cause any undue Injury to any party,
including the Government. In the discharge of official functions through manifest
partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. In their motion for
reconsideration, the accused alleged that the decision was erroneous because
the crime was not consummated but was only at an attempted stage, and that in
fact the Government did not suffer any undue injury.
• a) Is the contention of both accused correct? Explain. (3%)
Art 3. 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 is deceit when the acts performed with
deliberate intent and there is fault when the
wrongful acts results from imprudence,
negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
Mens rea - is defined as "a guilty mind, a guilty
or wrongful purpose or criminal intent“
QUESTION:
Motive is essential in the determination of the commission
of a crime and the liabilities of the perpetrators. What are
the instances where proof of motive is not essential or
required to justify conviction of an accused?
•
When there is an eyewitness or positive identification of the
accused.
Requisites:
1. that the act done would have been lawful had
the facts been as the accused believed them to
be;
2. intention of the accused is lawful; mistake
must be without fault of carelessness. (United States
v. Ah Chong)
Causes which produce a different
result:
ANSWER:
Yes, Alexander can be held liable for the death of Carol and
Benjamin because of felonious act of running was the proximate
cause of the victim's death. The rule is that when a person, by a
felonious act, generates in the mind of another a sense of imminent
danger, prompting the latter to escape from or avoid such danger and
in the process, sustains injuries or dies, the person committing the
felonious act is responsible for such injuries or death. (US vs. Valdez,
41 Phil, 1497; People vs. Apra, 27 SCRA 1037.)
CASE STUDY:
Vicente hacked Anacleto with a bolo but the latter was able to parry it with his hand,
causing upon him a two- inch wound on his right palm. Vicente was not able to hack
Anacleto further because three policemen arrived and threatened to shoot Vicente if he did
not drop his bolo. Vicente was accordingly charged by the police at the prosecutor's office
for attempted homicide. Twenty- five days later, while the preliminary investigation was in
progress, Anacleto was rushed to the hospital because of symptoms of tetanus infection on
the two-inch wound inflicted by Vicente. Anacleto died the following day.
Can Vicente be eventually charged with homicide for the death of Anacleto? Explain.
CASE STUDY:
ANSWER:
Yes, Vicente may be charged of homicide for the death of Anacleto, unless the tetanus infection which
developed twenty five days later, was brought about by an efficient supervening cause. Vicente's
felonious act of causing a two-inch wound on Anacleto's right palm may still be regarded as the
proximate cause of the latter's death because without such wound, no tetanus infection could develop
from the victim's right palm, and without such tetanus infection the victim would not have died with it.
CASE STUDY:
Maryjane had two suitors - Felipe and Cesar. She did not openly show her preference but on two occasions, accepted Cesar's invitation to
concerts by Regine and Pops. Felipe was a working student and could only ask Mary to see a movie which was declined. Felipe felt
insulted and made plans to get even with Cesar by scaring him off somehow. One day, he entered Cesar's room in their boarding house and
placed a rubber snake which appeared to be real in Cesar's backpack. Because Cesar had a weak heart, he suffered a heart attack upon
opening his backpack and seeing the snake. Cesar died without regaining consciousness. The police investigation resulted in pinpointing
Felipe as the culprit and he was charged with Homicide for Cesar's death. In his defense, Felipe claimed that he did not know about Cesar's
weak heart and that he only intended to play a practical joke on Cesar.
Is Felipe liable for the death of Cesar or will his defense prosper? Why?
CASE STUDY:
ANSWER:
Yes, Felipe is liable for the death of Cesar but he shall be given the benefit of the mitigating circumstance that he did not intend to commit so
grave a wrong as that which was committed (Art. 13, par. 3, RPC).
When Felipe intruded into Cesar's room without the latter's consent and took liberty with the letter's backpack where he placed the rubber
snake. Felipe was already committing a felony. And any act done by him while committing a felony is no less wrongful, considering that they
were part of "plans to get even with Cesar".
Felipe's claim that he intended only "to play a practical joke on Cesar" does not persuade, considering that they are not friends but in fact
rivals in courting Maryjane. This case is parallel to the case of People vs. Pugay, et al.
CASE STUDY:
The conduct of wife A aroused the ire of her husband B. Incensed with anger almost beyond his control, B could not help but inflict physical
injuries on A. Moments after B started hitting A with his fists, A suddenly complained of severe chest pains. B, realizing that A was indeed in
serious trouble, immediately brought her to the hospital. Despite efforts to alleviate A's pains, she died of heart attack. It turned out that she
had been suffering from a lingering heart ailment. What crime, if any, could B be held guilty of?
CASE STUDY:
B could be held liable for parricide because his act of hitting his wife with fist blows and therewith inflicting physical injuries on her, is felonious. A person committing a felonious act incurs
criminal liability although the wrongful consequence is different from what he intended (Art. 4, par. 1, Revised Penal Code).
Although A died of heart attack, the said attack was generated by B's felonious act of hitting her with his fists. Such felonious act was the immediate cause of the heart attack, having
materially contributed to and hastened A's death. Even though B may have acted without intent to kill his wife, lack of such intent is of no moment when the victim dies. However, B may be
given the mitigating circumstance of having acted without intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed (Art. 13, par. 3, Revised Penal Code).
CASE STUDY:
While the crew of a steamer prepared to raise anchor at the Pasig River, A, evidently impatient with the progress of work, began to use abusive language against the
men. B, one of the members of the crew, remonstrated saying that they could work best if they were not insulted. A took B's attitude as a display of insubordination
and, rising in a rage, moved towards B wielding a big knife and threatening to stab B. At the instant when A was only a few feet from B, the latter, apparently
believing himself to be in great and immediate peril, threw himself into the water, disappeared beneath the surface, and drowned.
May A be held criminally liable for the death of B?
CASE STUDY:
Yes. A can be held criminally liable for the death of B, Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code provides in part that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful
act done be different from that which he intended. In U.S. vs. Valdez 41 Phil. 497. where the victim who was threatened by the accused with a knife, jumped into the river but because
of the strong current or because he did not know how to swim, he drowned, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for homicide of the accused because, if a person against whom a criminal assault is
directed believes himself to be in danger of death or great bodily harm and in order to escape jumps into the water, impelled by the instinct of self-preservation, the assailant is responsible for the homicide
in case death results by
drowning.
Which is not an impossible crime?
Frustrated
· All acts of execution are present
· Crime sought to be committed is not achieved
· Due to intervening causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator
Consummated
· All the acts of execution are present
· The result sought is achieved
Stages of a Crime does not apply in:
1. Offenses punishable by Special Penal Laws
unless the otherwise is provided for.
2. Formal crimes (e.g., slander, adultery, etc.)
3. Impossible Crimes
4. Crimes consummated by mere attempt.
Examples: attempt to flee to an enemy
country, treason, corruption of minors.
5. Felonies by omission crimes committed by
mere agreement.
Examples: betting in sports (endings in
basketball), corruption of public officers.
Desistance
Desistance on the part of the offender negates
criminal liability in the attempted stage.
Desistance is true only in the attempted stage of
the felony. If under the definition of the felony,
the act done is already in the frustrated stage,
no amount of desistance will negate criminal
liability.
No. Overt act begins when the husband mixed the poison with
the food his wife is going to take. Before this, there is no
attempted stage yet.
CRIMES WHICH DO NOT ADMIT OF A
FRUSTRATED STAGE:
1. RAPE
2. ARSON
3. BRIBERY
4. CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
5. ADULTERY
6. PHYSICAL INJURIES
7. THEFT
Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are
punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides
a penalty therefore.
Examples:
Conspiracy to commit sedition
Conspiracy to commit rebellion
Conspiracy to commit treason
Proposal to Commit a Crime
Elements:
1. A person has decided to commit a crime
2. He proposes its commission to another
Examples:
Proposal to commit treason
Proposal to commit rebellion
Conspiracy is punishable in the following
cases: treason, rebellion or insurrection,
sedition, and monopolies and combinations in
restraint of trade.
BB and CC, both armed with knives, attacked FT. The victim's
son, ST, upon seeing the attack, drew his gun but was prevented
from shooting the attackers by AA, who grappled with him for
possession of the gun. FT died from knife wounds. AA, BB and
CC were charged with murder.
In his defense, AA invoked the justifying circumstance of
avoidance of greater evil or injury, contending that by preventing
ST from shooting BB and CC, he merely avoided a greater evil.
Will AA's defense prosper?
Answer:
No, AA's defense will not prosper because obviously there was a conspiracy among BB,
CC and AA, such that the principle that when there is a conspiracy, the act of one is the act
of all, shall govern. The act of ST, the victim's son, appears to be a legitimate defense of
relatives; hence, justified as a defense of his father against the unlawful aggression by BB
and CC. ST's act to defend his father's life, cannot be regarded as an evil inasmuch as it is,
in the eyes of the law, a lawful act.
What AA did was to stop a lawful defense, not greater evil, to allow BB and CC achieve
their criminal objective of stabbing FT.
CASE STUDY:
Juan and Arturo devised a plan to murder Joel. In a narrow alley near
Joel's house, Juan will hide behind the big lamppost and shoot Joel
when the latter passes through on his way to work. Arturo will come
from the other end of the alley and simultaneously shoot Joel from
behind. On the appointed day, Arturo was apprehended by the
authorities before reaching the alley. When Juan shot Joel as planned,
he was unaware that Arturo was arrested earlier. Discuss the criminal
liability of Arturo, if any. [5%]
Arturo, being one of the two who devised the plan to murder Joel, thereby becomes a co-principal by direct
conspiracy. What is needed only is an overt act and both will incur criminal liability. Arturo's liability as a
conspirator arose from his participation in jointly devising the criminal plan with Juan, to kill Jose. And it was
pursuant to that conspiracy that Juan killed Joel. The conspiracy here is actual, not by inference only. The overt
act was done pursuant to that conspiracy whereof Arturo is co-conspirator. There being a conspiracy, the act of
one is the act of all. Arturo, therefore, should be liable as a co-conspirator but the penalty on him may be that of
an accomplice only (People vs. Nierra, 96 SCRA 1; People us. Medrano, 114 SCRA 335) because he was not able
to actually participate in the shooting of Joel, having been apprehended before reaching the place where the
crime was committed.
CASE STUDY:
At about 9:30 in the evening, while Dino and Raffy were walking along Padre Faura Street, Manila. Johnny hit them with
a rock injuring Dino at the back. Raffy approached Dino, but suddenly, Bobby, Steve, Danny and Nonoy surrounded the
duo. Then Bobby stabbed Dino. Steve, Danny, Nonoy and Johnny kept on hitting Dino and Raffy with rocks. As a result.
Dino died, Bobby, Steve, Danny, Nonoy and Johnny were charged with homicide.
ANSWER:
Yes, there is conspiracy among the offenders, as manifested by their concerted actions against the victims, demonstrating a common felonious
purpose of assaulting the victims. The existence of the conspiracy can be inferred or deduced from the manner the offenders acted in commonly
attacking Dino and Raffy with rocks, thereby demonstrating a unity of criminal design to inflict harm on their victims.
Art. 9. Grave felonies - are those to which
the law attaches the capital punishment or
penalties which in any of their are afflictive, in
accordance with Article 25 of this Code.
(JEMAA)
There is entrapment when: ___?
Elements:
1. unlawful aggression
2 reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel the attack;
3. in case provocation was given by the
person attacked, that the person making
the defense had no part in such
provocation.
Relatives entitled to the defense:
1. spouse
2. ascendants
3. descendants
4. legitimate, natural or adopted
brothers or sisters
5. relatives by affinity in the same
degree relatives by consanguinity
within the 4th civil degree.
If the person being defended is already a second
cousin, you do not invoke defense of relative anymore.
It will be defense of stranger. This is vital because if the
person making the defense acted out or revenge,
resentment or some evil motive in killing the aggressor,
he cannot invoke the justifying circumstance if the
relative defended is already a stranger in the eyes of the
law. On the other hand, if the relative defended is still
within the coverage of defense of relative, even though
he acted out of some evil motive, it would still apply. It
is enough that there was unlawful aggression against
the relative defended, and that the person defending
did not contribute to the unlawful aggression.
Defense of Stranger
Elements:
1. unlawful aggression
2. reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent
or repel the attack;
3. the person defending be not induced by revenge,
resentment or other evil motive.
State of Necessity
Art. 11, Par. 4 provides:
Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or
injury, does an act which causes damage to
another, provided that the following
requisites are present:
First. That the evil sought to be avoided
actually exists;
Second. That the injury feared be greater
than that done to avoid it; and
Third. That there be no other practical and
less harmful means of preventing it.
Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful
Exercise of a Right or Office
Elements:
1. that the accused acted in the performance of
a duty, or in the lawful exercise of a right or
office;
Elements:
1. there is an order;
2. the order is for a legal purpose;
3. the means used to carry out said order
is lawful.
The subordinate’s good faith is material here.
If he obeyed an order in good faith, not being
aware of its illegality, he is not liable.
However, the order must not be patently
illegal. If the order is patently illegal this
circumstance cannot be validly invoked.
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
Exempting circumstances (non-imputability) are
those ground for exemption from punishment
because there is wanting in the agent of the crime of
any of the conditions which make the act voluntary,
or negligent.
Basis: The exemption from punishment is based
on the complete absence of intelligence, freedom of
action, or intent, or on the absence of negligence on
the part of the accused.
A person who acts WITHOUT MALICE (without
intelligence, freedom of action or intent) or WITHOUT
NEGLIGENCE (without intelligence, freedom of action
or fault) is NOT CRIMINALLY LIABLE or is EXEMPT
FROM PUNISHMENT.
· There is a crime committed but no criminal
liability arises from it because of the
complete absence of any of the conditions
which constitute free will or voluntariness of
the act.
Elements:
a. A person is performing a lawful act
b. Exercise of due dare
c. He causes injury to another by mere
accident
d. Without fault or intention of causing it.
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE
Elements:
a. That the compulsion is by means of
physical force
b. That the physical force must be
irresistible.
c. That the physical force must come from
a third person
UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR
Basis: complete absence of freedom
Elements:
Elements:
a. That an act is required by law to be done
b. That a person fails to perform such act
c. That his failure to perform such act was due
to some lawful or insuperable cause
ABSOLUTORY CAUSES
16. That the act be committed with treachery
(alevosia).
17. That means be employed or circumstances
brought about which add ignominy to the
natural effects of the act.
18. That the crime be committed after an
unlawful entry.
19. That as a means to the commission of a
crime a wall, roof, door, or window be
broken.
20. That the crime be committed with the aid
of persons under fifteen years of age or by
means of motor vehicles, motorized
watercraft, airships, or other similar means.
(As amended by RA 5438).
21. That the wrong done in the commission of
the crime be deliberately augmented by
causing other wrong not necessary for its
commissions.
Classification of aggravating circumstances:
Inherent – Refers to those that must of necessity
accompany the commission of the crime. E.g.
evident premeditation in cases involving theft,
robbery concubinage and adultery.
Generic – They are those circumstances which
can generally apply to all crimes. E.g. recidivism,
nighttime, dwelling.
Specific – Refers to those aggravating
circumstances that apply only to particular
crimes. E.g. Treachery and cruelty in crimes
against persons, ignominy in crimes against
chastity.
Qualifying – Refers to those circumstances
which if present changes the nature of the
crime. E.g. use of superior strength which
qualifies the killing of a person to murder.
Art 15. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES. Their
concept. — Alternative circumstances are those
which must be taken into consideration as
aggravating or mitigating according to the
nature and effects of the crime and the other
conditions attending its commission. They are
the relationship, intoxication and the degree of
instruction and education of the offender.
The following are criminally liable for light
felonies:
1. Principals
2. Accomplices.
Art 17. Principals. — The following are
considered principals:
Exception:
o If the participation of one is so insignificant
o such that even without his cooperation,
o the crime would be committed just as well,
o then notwithstanding the existence of a
conspiracy, such offender will be regarded
only as an accomplice.
What are the other traits of an accomplice? does
not have a previous agreement or understanding;
or is not in conspiracy with the principal by direct
participation
REQUISITES:
1. That there be community of design;
1. By conditional pardon;
2. By commutation of the sentence; and
3. For good conduct allowances which the
culprit may earn while he is serving his
sentence.
Conditional pardon – contract between
the sovereign power of the executive and
the convict
Convict shall not violate any of the penal
laws of the Philippines
Violation of conditions:
-Offender is re-arrested and re-
incarcerated
-Prosecution under Art. 159
Commutation – change in the decision of the
court by the chief regarding the
(1)degree of the penalty;
(2)by decreasing the length of the
imprisonment or fine