Introduction To Criminal Law Flashcards

Question

Mala in se as to mitigating and aggravating circumstances

Answer 1

They are are taken into account in imposing penalty

Answer 2

When there is more than one offender, the degree of participation of each in the commission of is taken into account

Answer 3

The stages are: 1. Attempted 2. Frustrated 3. Consummated

Answer 4

1. Principal 2. Accomplice 3. Accessory * Penalty is computed on the basis whether he is a principal offender or merely an accomplice or accessory

Answer 5

Generally, the RPC

Answer 6

Penalties may be divided into _degrees and periods_

Answer 7

It is wrong because it is prohibited by law

Answer 8

Good faith is not a defense

Answer 9

Criminal intent is immaterial, BUT still requires intelligence and voluntariness

Answer 10

The act gives rise to a crime only when consummated

Answer 11

* Degree of participation is generally not taken into account. * All who participated in the act are punished to the same extent.

Answer 12

No such stages of execution

Answer 13

* Generally, only the principal is liable. * Penalty of offenders is same whether they acted as mere accomplices or accessories

Answer 14

Generally, the special laws

Answer 15

There is no such division of penalties.

Answer 16

No, dolo is NOT REQUIRED in crimes mala prohibita

Answer 17

THE ACT ALONE irrespective to its MOTIVES connstitutes the offense in mala prohibita

Answer 18

1. GOOD FAITH 2. ABSENCE OF CRIMINAL INTENT

Answer 19

Yes, they are still mala in se when the acts are inherently immoral even if punished under special law like PLUNDER which requires PROOF OF CRIMINAL INTENT (Estrada v Sandiganbayan, 2001)

Answer 20

Where malice is a factor, good faith is in defense.

Answer 21

It is a necessary ingredient of the felony defined in the Code but a special law can NEVER absorb a crime punishable under the RPC because violations of the Revised Penal Code are MORE SERIOUS than a violation of a special law (People v Rodriguez, 1960)

Answer 22

The crime of cattle-rustling IS NOT MALUM PROHIBITUM but a modification of the crime of theft of large cattle under the RPC (i.e. there are special laws which only modify crimes under the RPC therefore still mala in se) (People v. Martinada)

Answer 23

* Criminal Law is substantive. Criminal Procedure is remedial * Criminal Law is prospective in application. Criminal Procedure is retroactive in application. * Criminal Law is statutory and it is passed by the Legislature. Criminal Procedure may be promulgated by the Legislature (e.g. jurisdiction of courts) or the Judiciary (e.g. Rules of Court)

Answer 24

(PUCE) 1. Utilitarian Theory 2. Classical Theory 3. Positivist Theory 4. Eclectic/Mixed

Answer 25

**Exception:** If it is favorable to the accused. **Exception To The Exception:** (1) When the accused is a habitual delinquent. (Art. 22) (2) Where the new law expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of actions. [Tavera v. Valdez]

Answer 26

**General rule**: RPC provisions supplement the provisions of special laws. [Art. 10, RPC] **Exceptions**: (1) Where the special law provides otherwise. [Art.10, RPC] (2) When the provisions of the Code are impossible of application, either by express provision or by necessary implication, as in those instances where the provisions in question are peculiar to the Code. [Regalado, Criminal Law Prospectus] * In the absence of contrary provision in B.P. Blg. 22, the general provisions of the RPC which, by their nature, are necessarily applicable, may be applied suppletorily. [Ladonga v. People (2005)]

Answer 27

1. Pro Reo Doctrine 2. Equipoise Rule 3. Spanish text of the RPC prevails overs its English translation 4. Retroactive application if favorable to the accused 5. Prescribed, but undeserved penalties

Answer 28

**Pro Reo Doctrine** – Whenever a penal law is to be construed or applied and the law admits of _two interpretations_ - *one lenient to the offender and one strict to the offender,* that interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the offender will be adopted. Basis: The fundamental rule that all doubts shall be construed in favor of the accused and presumption of innocence of the accused. _Art. III, Sec. 14 (2), 1987 Const._ In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. Note: This is peculiar only to criminal law.

Answer 29

**Equipoise Rule** – When the evidence of the prosecution and the defense are equally balanced, the scale should be tilted in favor of the accused in obedience to the constitutional presumption ofinnocence. [Ursua v. CA (1996); Corpuz v. People (1991)]

Answer 30

In the construction or interpretation of the provision of the RPC, the Spanish text is controlling, because it was approved by the Philippine Legislature in its Spanish text. [People v. Manaba (58 Phil 665. 668)] There are incorrect translations of the Spanish text into the English text in the RPC.

Answer 31

See Characteristics of Criminal Law, Prospectivity and Art. 22, RPC. * Characteristics of Criminal Law (General, Territorial, and Prospective) * Art. 22, RPC. *Retroactive Effect of Penal Laws.* Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insifar as they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in. Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.

Answer 32

In case of excessive penalties, the court shall not suspend the execution of the sentence [par. 2, Art. 5, RPC]

Answer 33

1. To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt 2. To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him 3. To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of the judgment 4. To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross-examination on matters covered by direct examination. His silence shall not in any manner prejudice him. 5. To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself. 6. To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial. 7. To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of the witnesses and production of other evedence in his behalf 8. To have speedy, impartial, and public trial 9. To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law.

Answer 34

A right which may be waived is: * right of the accused to confrontation and cross-examinatin A right which may not be waived: * right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him

Answer 35

Criminal law has three (3) characteristics: (PGT) (1) General (2) Territorial (3) Prospective

Answer 36

General rule: The penal law of the country is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations. [Art. 14, NCC] SUMMARIZE: It is binding on all persons who reside or sojourn in the Philippines * 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. * 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 Generality - If the accused attacks the jurisdiction of the court because of the unique characteristic of his person (e.g. he is a foreigner, military, ambassador, President), the applicable principle is generality. If the accused attacks the jurisdiction of the court due to the unique characteristic of the place where the crime was committed (e.g. foreign vessel, embassy or high sea), the applicable principle is territoriality. a. Consular and diplomatic immunity - Consular officers are immune from criminal prosecution of acts performed in the exercise of function (1967 Convention on Consular Relation). Immunity does not cover slander (Liang vs. People, GR No. 125865, January 28, 2000), or reckless imprudence resulting in homicide for not being function-related. A Chinese diplomat, who killed another Chinese diplomat in Cebu, is immune from criminal prosecution (The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations). Unlike consular officers, diplomatic agents are vested with blanket diplomatic immunity from civil and criminal suits (Minucher vs. Hon. CA, G.R. No. 142396, February 11, 2003). b. 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 (Estrada vs. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710-15, March 2, 2001). It is submitted that a Vice-President even during his tenure could not invoke immunity from criminal prosecution for plunder on the following reasons: (1) plunder are not his official conducts as Vice-President; (2) the job of the Vice-President unlike the head of the executive department does not demands undivided attention; (3) and the implementation principal penalty of imprisonment for plunder is not inconsistent with the constitutional provision on non-removal of impeachable officer except through impeachment since he can function as Vice-President while serving sentence in prison.However, accessory penalty of disqualification, which involved removal from office, is not implementable since the enforcement thereof will offend the constitutional provision on non-removal of impeachable officer. c. Parliamentary immunity - An incumbent Senator is not immune from suit for being a protector or coddler of trading of dangerous drugs under RA No. 9165. Legislator’s immunity is confined to parliamentary privilege from arrest while the Congress is in session in all offenses punishable by not more than 6 years imprisonment and parliamentary immunity from prosecution for libel in connection with any Congressional speech or debate.

Answer 37

There are cases where our Criminal Law does not apply even if the crime committed by a person residing or sojourning in the Philippines. These constitute the exceptions: * Art. 2, RPC. “Except as provided in the treaties orlaws of preferential application xxx”. * Art. 14, NCC. “xxx subject to the principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations.” Exceptions in Generality: (1) Treaty Stipulations (e.g. Bases Agreement, VFA Agreement) (2) Laws of Preferential Application (e.g. Members of Congress, Any ambassador or public minister of any foreign State- R.A. No. 75) (3) Principles of Public International Law

Answer 38

* **Bases Agreement** entered into by the Philippines and the US on Mar. 14, 1947 and expired on Sept. 16, 1991. * **Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA)** is an agreement between the Philippine and US Government regarding the treatment of US Armed Forces visiting the Philippines. It was signed on Feb. 10, 1998.

Answer 39

Art. V, VFA, which defines criminal jurisdiction over United States military and civilian personnel temporarily in the Philippines in connection with activities approved by the Philippine Government. The US and Philippines agreed that: (a) US shall have the right to exercise within the Philippines all criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction conferred on them by the military law of the US over US personnel in RP; (b) US authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction over US personnel with respect to offenses, including offenses relating to the security of the US punishable under the law of the US, but not under the laws of RP; (c) US military authorities shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over US personnel subject to the military law of the US in relation to: (i) Offenses solely against the property or security of the US or offenses solely against the property or person of US personnel; and (ii) Offenses arising out of any act or omission done in performance of official duty. [Reyes, The RPC]

Answer 40

**Rule on Jurisdiction under the VFA:** (a) If the crime is punishable under Philippine laws but not under US laws then **Philippines has** **exclusive jurisdiction.** (b) If the crime is punishable under US laws but not under Philippine laws then **US has exclusive** **jurisdiction.** (c) If the crime is punishable under the US and Philippine laws then **there is concurrent jurisdiction but the Philippines has the right to primary jurisdiction.** (d) If the crime is committed by a US personnel against the security and property of the US alone then **US has exclusive jurisdiction.**

Answer 41

Examples: (a) Members of Congress are not liable for libel or slander for any speech in Congress or in any committee thereof. (Sec. 11, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution) (b) Any ambassador or public minister of any foreign State, authorized and received as such by the President, or any domestic or domestic servant of any such ambassador or minister are exempt from arrest and imprisonment and whose properties are exempt from distraint, seizure and attachment. (R.A. No. 75). **R.A. No. 75** penalizes acts which would impair the proper observance by the Republic and inhabitants of the Philippines of the immunities, rights, and privileges of duly accredited foreign diplomatic representatives in the Philippines. **Warship Rule** – A warship of another country, even though docked in the Philippines, is considered an extension of the territory of its respective country. This also applies to embassies.

Answer 42

The following persons are exempt from the provisions of the RPC: (1) Sovereigns and other heads of state (2) Ambassadors, ministers, plenipotentiary, minister resident and charges d’ affaires. (Article 31, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations) Note: Consuls and consular officers are **NOT exempt** from local prosecution. [See Article 41, Vienna Convention on Consular Relations] * **Public vessels of a friendly foreign power** are **not subject** to local jurisdiction. * Generality has **NO reference** to territoriality.

Answer 43

As a general rule, jurisdiction of civil courts is not affected by the military character of the accused. * Jurisdiction of the civil tribunals is unaffected by the military or other special character of the person brought before them for trial, unless controlled by EXPRESS LEGISLATION to the contrary. * Civil courts have **CONCURRENT JURISDICTION** with general courts-martial over soldiers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. * Civil courts have jurisdiction over _MURDER CASES_ committed by persons subject to military law. The civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the military courts or general courts-martial over soldiers of the AFP,. * Civil courts have jurisdiction over the _OFFENSE OF MALVERSATION (Art. 217)_ committed by an ARMY FINANCE OFFICER (*Ppl. v. Livara G.R. No. L-6021)* * Even _IN TIMES OF WAR,_ the civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the military courts or general courts-martial over soldiers of the Philippine Army, provided that in the place of the commission of the crime no hostilities ancd civil courts are functioning. (*Valdez v Lucero, 76 Phil.356)* * The RPC or other penal law is **not applicable** when a military court take cognizance of the case. The **_Articles of War_** apply, not the RPC or other penal laws.

Answer 44

* Section 1 of R.A. No. 7055 (shall be tried by the proper civil court but there are exceptions which are "service-connected crimes or offenses". under C.A. No. 408 as amended and known as Articles of War) * R.A. No. 7055 did not divest the military courts of jurisdiction to truy cases involving violations of Articles 54 to 70, Artciles 72 to 92 and Articled 95 to 97 of the Articles of War) * A court-martial is a court, and the prosecution of the accused before it is a criminal, not an administrative case, and therefore oit would be, under certain conditions,. a ba to another prosecution of the accused for the same offense, because the latter would place the accused in double jeopardy (*Marcos and Concordia v. Chief of Staff, AFP, 89 Phil; 246)* * Offenders accused of war crimes are triable by military commission (*Cantos v Styer, 76 Phiul. 748)* * Trial of war criminals in the Philippines is VALID AND CONSTITUTIONAL * A military commission has jurisdiction so lomng as technical state of war continues (Kuroda v Jalandoni)

Answer 45

* *General rule:** Penal laws of the country have force and effect only within its territory. (a) It cannot penalize crimes committed outside its territory. (b) The national territory comprises the Philippine Archipelago... [Art. I, 1987 Constitution]. (c) 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.[Art. 2, RPC] SUMMARY: penal laws of the Philippines are enforceable only within its territory * 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. * Territoriality – The ground occupied by US embassy is in fact the territory of the USA to which the premises belong through possession or ownership. A person who committed a crime within the premises of an embassy will be prosecuted under the law of Philippines because of the principle of territoriality (Reagan vs. Commission on Internal Revenue, 30 SCRA 968). * a. Convention of the law of the sea - Under the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the flag state of foreign merchant vessel passing through the territorial sea of another state has jurisdiction over crimes committed therein. However, a coastal state such as the Philippines can exercise jurisdiction over any crime committed on board such ship in the following cases: (1) if its consequences extend to the coastal State; (2) if it disturbs the peace of the country or the good order of the territorial sea; (3) if the ship master or a diplomatic or consular officer of the flag State requested assistance from the local authorities; or (4) if it is for the suppression of traffic in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances.Murder or serious physical injuries committed in a foreign vessel anchored in a Philippine port against a passenger thereof is within the jurisdiction of the Philippine court since this crime disturb the peace of the country. * b. Regime of islands - Under the principle of territoriality, the court has also jurisdiction over crime committed in Kalayaan Islands or Scarboruogh Shoal because the Baseline Law (RA No. 9522) declares that the Philippines exercise sovereignty and jurisdiction over it. c. Bigamy - Under the principle of territoriality, the court has jurisdiction over concubinage involving illicit relationship maintained in the Philippines; but it has no jurisdiction over bigamy involving subsequent marriage contracted in Taiwan. * d.a. Effects - For purpose of venue and territoriality principle in Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code, the place of commission of the criminal act and the place of occurrence of the effect of such act which is an element of the offense shall be considered. If one pulled the trigger of his gun in Quezon City and hit the victim in manila who died as a consequence, Quezon City and manila, which are the places of commission of the criminal act and the occurrence of the criminal effect, are proper venues. If the psychological violence consisting of marital infidelity punishable under RA No. 9262 is committed in a foreign land but the psychological effect occurred in the Philippines since the wife and the children of the respondent, who suffered mental anguish, are residing in the Philippines, our court can assume jurisdiction (see: AAA vs. BBB, G.R. no. 212448, January 11, 2018). However, if the commission of the criminal act consummates the crime and the effect thereof is not an element of the crime, the place of occurrence of the effect shall not be considered for purpose of venue and territoriality rule. Bigamy committed in a foreign land is beyond the jurisdiction of our court although the offended spouse is residing in the Philippines since the psychological effect of bigamy to him/her is not an element thereof.

Answer 46

ARTICLE I 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.

Answer 47

Art. 2, RPC embraces two scopes of applications: (1) **Intraterritorial** – refers to the application of the RPC within the Philippine territory (land, air and water). * In the intraterritorial application of the Revised Penal Code, Article 2 makes it clear that it does not refer only to the Philippine archipelago but it also includes the atmosphere, interior waters and maritime zone. So whenever you use the word territory, do not limit this to land area only. * As far as jurisdiction or application of the Revised Penal Code over crimes committed on maritime zones or interior waters, the Archipelagic Rule shall be observed. So the three-mile limit on our shoreline has been modified by the rule. Any crime committed in the interior waters comprising the Philippine archipelago shall be subject to our laws although committed on board a foreign merchant vessel. * A vessel is considered a Philippine ship only when it is registered in accordance with Philippine laws. Under international law, as long as such vessel is not within the territorial waters of a foreign country, Philippine laws shall govern. (2) **Extraterritorial** – refers to the application of the Revised Penal Code outside the Philippine territory. * Extraterritorial application of the Revised Penal Code on a crime committed on board a Philippine ship or airship is not within the territorial waters or atmosphere of aforeign country. Otherwise, it is the foreign country’scriminal law that will apply. * However, there are two situations where the foreign country may not apply its criminal law even if a crime was committed on board a vessel within its territorial waters and these are: 1. When the crime is committed in a war vessel of a foreign country, because war vessels are part of the sovereignty of the country to whose navel force they belong; 2. When the foreign country in whose territorial waters the crime was committed adopts the French Rule, which applies only to merchant vessels, except when the crime committed affects the national security or public order of such foreign country. **_The French Rule_** The French Rule provides that the nationality of the vessel follows the flag which the vessel flies, unless thecrime committed endangers the national security of a foreign country where the vessel is within jurisdiction in which case such foreign country will never lose jurisdiction over such vessel. **_The American or Anglo-Saxon Rule_** This rule strictly enforces the territoriality of criminal law. The law of the foreign country where a foreign vessel is within its jurisdiction is strictly applied, except if the crime affects only the internal management of the vessel in which case it is subject to the penal law of the country where it is registered. Both the rules apply only to a foreign merchant vessel if a crime was committed aboard that vessel while it was in the territorial waters of another country. If that vessel is in the high seas or open seas, there is no occasion to apply the two rules. If it is not within the jurisdiction of any country, these rules will not apply. ANSWERS: 1. Yes. Under the old Rules of Criminal Procedure, for our courts to take cognizance of any crime committed on board a vessel must be registered in the Philippines in accordance with Philippine laws. Under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, however, the requirement that the vessel must be licensed and registered in accordance with Philippine laws has been deleted from Section 25, paragraph c of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. The intention is to do away with the requirement so that as long as the vessel is not registered under the laws of any country, our courts can take cognizance of the crime committed in such vessel. More than this, the revised provision added the phrase “inaccordance with generally accepted principles ofInternational Law.” So the intention is clearly to adopt generally accepted principles of international law in the matter of exercising jurisdiction over crimes committed in a vessel while in the course of its voyage. Under international law rule, a vessel which is not registered in accordance with the laws of any country is considered a pirate vessel and piracy is a crime against humanity in general, such that wherever pirates may go, they can be prosecuted (\* piracy is hostes humanis generis). Prior to the revision, the crime would not have been prosecutable in our court. With the revision, registration is not anymore a requirement and replaced with generally accepted principles of international law. Piracy is considered a crime against the law of nations. In your answer, reference should be made to the provision of paragraph c of Section 15 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. The case may be regarded as an act ofpiracy as long as it is done with “intent to gain.” **_When public officers or employees commit an offense in the exercise of their functions_** The most common subject of bar problems in Article 2 is paragraph 4: “While being public officers or employees,[they] should commit an offense in the exercise of theirfunctions:” As a general rule, the Revised Penal Code governs only when the crime committed pertains to the exercise of thepublic official’s functions, those having to do with the discharge of their duties in a foreign country. The functionscontemplated are those, which are, under the law, to be performed by the public officer in the Foreign Service of the Philippine government in a foreign country. Exception: The Revised Penal Code governs if the crime was committed within the Philippine Embassy or within the embassy grounds in a foreign country. This is because embassy grounds are considered an extension of sovereignty. Illustration: A Philippine consulate official who is validly married here in the Philippines and who marries again in a foreign country cannot be prosecuted here for bigamy because this is a crime not connected with his official duties. However, if the second marriage was celebrated within the Philippine embassy, he may be prosecuted here, since it is as if he contracted the marriage here in the Philippines. Answer to the 2nd question: Yes. Falsification. Normally, the taking of the deposition is not the function of the consul, his function being the promotion of trade and commerce with another country. Under the Rules of Court, however, a consul can take depositions or letters rogatory. There is, therefore, a definite provision of thelaw making it the consul’s function to take depositions.When he agreed to the falsification of the deposition, he was doing so as a public officer in the service of the Philippine government. Paragraph 5 of Article 2, uses the phrase “as defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.” This is a veryimportant part of the exception, because Title 1 of Book 2 (crimes against national security) does not include rebellion. So if acts of rebellion were perpetrated by Filipinos who were in a foreign country, you cannot give territorial application to the Revised Penal Code, because Title 1 of Book 2 does not include rebellion. Illustration: When a Filipino who is already married in the Philippines, contracts another marriage abroad, the crime committed is bigamy. But the Filipino can not be prosecuted when he comes back to the Philippines, because the bigamy was committed in a foreign country and the crime is not covered by paragraph 5 of Article 2. However, if the Filipino, after the second marriage, returns to the Philippines and cohabits here with his second wife, he commits the crime of concubinage for which he can be prosecuted. The Revised Penal Code shall not apply to any other crime committed in a foreign country which does not come under any of the exceptions and which is not a crime against national security. * Extraterritoriality – Under the flag state rule, the Philippines has jurisdiction over hijacking of PAL airplane in an American territory since it its registered in the Philippines but not over murder committed in vessel registered in Panama while on high seas although it is owned by a Filipino. Under the protective principle, the court has jurisdiction over forgery of Philippine money committed in Taiwan whether by a Filipino or an alien but not over forgery of US dollars committed therein. Under the extraterritoriality rule, the court has jurisdiction over plunder, direct bribery and falsification of document by a public officer in a Philippines consular premises stationed in America but not corruption of public officer and falsification of document committed by private individual as principal by inducement. Under the universality principle, the court has jurisdiction over piracy committed on high seas for being a universal crime but not over murder qualified by the circumstance of taking advantage of the calamity brought about by piracy on high seas. The 12-mile territorial water of Taiwan or Sabah may be considered as high seas; hence, piracy committed therein can be prosecuted in the Philippines (People vs. Lol-Lo and Saraw, G.R. No. L-17958, February 27, 1922).

Answer 48

(1) Terrestrial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over land. (2) Fluvial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over maritime and interior waters. (3) Aerial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over the atmosphere. Exception: **Extraterritorial Crimes,** which are punishable even if committed outside the Philippine territory [Art. 2, RPC] 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 as stated above. 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.

Answer 49

ARTICLE 2. Application of Its Provisions. — Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who: 1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship; 2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands; 3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number; 4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; or 5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.

Answer 50

**Par. 1: Crimes committed aboard Philippine ship or airship**: * The RPC is applied to Philippine vessels if the crime is committed while the ship is treading: (a) Philippine waters (intraterritorial), or (b) The high seas i.e. waters NOT under the jurisdiction of any State (extraterritorial) * Two rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard merchant vessels while in the territorial waters of another country (i.e. a foreign vessel treading Philippine waters OR Philippine vessels treading foreign waters): (1) French Rule: It is the flag or nationality of the vessel which determines jurisdiction UNLESS the crime violates the peace and order of the host country. (2) English Rule: the location or situs of the crimedetermines jurisdiction UNLESS the crime merely relates to internal management of the vessel. (a) The Philippines adheres to the ENGLISH RULE. (b) **EXCEPTION TO ENGLISH RULE**: However, these rules are NOT applicable if the vessel is on the high seas when the crime was committed. In these cases, the laws of the nationality of the ship will always apply. (c) When the crime is committed in a war vessel of a foreign country, the nationality of the vessel will always determine jurisdiction because war vessels are part of the sovereignty of the country to whose naval force they belong. * Note: The country of registry determines the nationality of the vessel, NOT ITS OWNERSHIP. A Filipino-owned vessel registered in China must fly the Chinese flag. * International Theories on Aerial Jurisdiction (1) Free Zone Theory 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. (2) Relative Theory The subjacent state exercises jurisdiction over the atmosphere only to the extent that it can effectively exercise control thereof. (3) Absolute Theory The subjacent state has complete jurisdiction over the atmosphere above it subject only to the innocent passage by aircraft of a foreign country. Under this theory, if the crime is committed in an aircraft, no matter how high, as long as it can be established that it is within the Philippine atmosphere, Philippine criminal law (See Anti- Hijacking Law) will govern. Note: The Philippines adopts the Absolute Theory.

Answer 51

Under the International Rule, the law of the country where that vessel is registered will apply, because the crime is deemed to have been committed in the high seas. However, under the Archipelagic Rule as declared in Article I of the 1987 Constitution, all waters in the archipelago regardless of breadth, width or dimension are part of our national territory. Under this Rule, there is no more center lane, all these waters, regardless of their dimension or width are part of Philippine territory. So if a foreign merchant vessel is in the center lane and a crime was committed, the crime will be prosecuted before Philippine Courts.

Answer 52

**Par. 2: Forging/Counterfeiting and Coins or Currency Notes in the Philippines** * Forgery is committed abroad, and **it refers only to Philippine coin, currency note, obligations and securities.**

Answer 53

Par. 3: Should introduce into the country the above- mentioned obligations and securities. The reason for this provision is that the introduction of forged or counterfeited obligations and securities into the Philippines is as dangerous as the forging or counterfeiting of the same, to the economic interest of the country.

Answer 54

**Par. 4: When public officers or employees commit an offense in the exercise of their functions.** Crime committed pertains to the exercise of the public official’s functions: The crimes which may be committed are: (i) Direct bribery (A.210) (ii) Qualified Bribery (A. 211-A) (iii) Indirectbribery(A.211) (iv) Corruption (A.212) (v) Frauds against the public treasury (A.213) (vi) Possession of prohibited interest (A.216) (vii) Malversation of public funds or property (A. 217) (viii) Failure to render accounts (A.218) (ix) Illegal use of public funds or property (A.220) (x) Failure to make delivery of public funds or property (A.221) (xi) Falsification by a public officer or employee committed with abuse of his official position (A.171) (xii) Those having to do with the discharge of their duties in a foreign country. * The functions contemplated are those, which are, under the law: (a) to be performed by the public officer; (b) in the foreign service of the Philippine government (c) in a foreign country.

Answer 55

**Par. 5: Commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, (Title One, Book 2, RPC)** Crimes against national security: (i) Treason (A.114) (ii) Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason(A.115) (iii) Misprisionoftreason(A.116) (iv) Espionage (A.117) Crimes against the law of nations: (i) Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals (A.118) (ii) Violation of neutrality (A.119) (iii) Correspondence with hostile country (A.120) (iv) Flight to enemy’s country (A.121) (v) Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine waters (A.122) Note: Crimes against public order (e.g., rebellion,coup d’etat, sedition) committed abroad is under the jurisdiction of the host country. * Terrorism is now classified as a crime against national security and the law of nations. (See R.A. 9372, Human Security Act of 2007).

Answer 56

**PROSPECTIVITY** **General rule**: Acts or omissions will only be subject to a penal law if they are committed **AFTER** a penal law has taken effect. Conversely, acts or omissions which have been committed before the effectivity of a penal law could not be penalized by such penal law. Meaning: 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. **Exception**: Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect, insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony. [Art. 22, RPC] 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 (RPC Art. 22); 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. * *Exception to the Exception:** (1) The new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing cause of actions; or (2) The offender is a habitual criminal. [Art. 22, RPC] * Prospectivity -If the court in trying an accused, who committed a crime prior to the passage of the law, should give retroactive effect to the law provided that: (1) it is favorable to the accused and (2) the accused is not a habitual delinquent (Article 22 of RPC). If the law repeals a previous law or provision defining a crime, the applicable principle is not Article 22 of RPC but nullum crimen poena sine lege. Since the intention of the new law is to decriminalize an act punishable by the repealed law, the accused should be acquitted or released if the already convicted, even though he is a habitual delinquent. Reclusion perpetua, which has duration of 40 years under Article 27 of RPC and 30 years under Article 29 of RPC as amended by RA No. 10592 if the convict has undergone preventive imprisonment, is a lighter penalty than life imprisonment, which has no duration. Amendatory law, which prescribes reclusion perpetua instead of life imprisonment, shall be given a retroactive effect for being favorable to the accused (People vs. Morilla, GR No. 189833, February 5, 2014). If a child in conflict, who is a habitual delinquent, committed the crime prior to RA No. 9344, he is entitled to retroactive application thereof. Section 68 of RA No. 9344 expressly provides retroactive application of the privileges to a child in conflict with the law (Atizado vs. People, G.R. No. 173822, October 13, 2010, Bersamin) without condition. On the other hand, Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code provides retroactive application of the favorable law subject to the condition of non-habitual delinquency. Since Section 68 of RA No. 9344 is a specific provision while Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code is a general provision, the latter yields to the former. Generalia specialibus non derogant. Hence, the retroactive effect of RA No. 9344 is unconditional.

Answer 57

**Effects of repeal/amendment of penal law** **(1) If the repeal makes the penalty lighter in the new law,** (a) The new law shall be applied, (b) **EXCEPT** when the offender is a habitual delinquent or when the new law is made not applicable to pending action or existing causesofaction. (2) If the new law imposes a heavier penalty (a) Law in force at the time of the commission of the offense shall be applied. (3) If the new law totally repeals the existing law so that the act which was penalized under the old law is no longer punishable, (a) The crime is obliterated. (b) Pending cases are dismissed. (c) Unserved penalties imposed are remitted. (4) Rule of prospectivity also applies to judicial decisions, administrative rulings and circulars.[Art. 8, Civil Code] * **Rationale for the prospectivity rule**: the punishability of an act must be reasonably known for the guidance of society[Peo v. Jabinal]. * **LEGALITY**: Art. 21. No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission. * **Nullum Crimen Nulla Poena Sine Lege** –There is no crime when there is no law punishing the same. **Limitation**: Not every law punishing an act or omission may be valid as a criminal law. If the law punishing an act is ambiguous, it is null and void.

Answer 58

Rule of prospectivity also applies to administrative rulings and circulars In Co vs. CA (1993), it was held that the principle of prospectivity of statutes also applies to administrative rulings and circulars. In this case, Circular No. 4 of the Ministry of Justice, dated December, 15, 1981, provides that “where the check is issued as part of anarrangement to guarantee or secure the payment of an obligation, whether pre-existing or not, the drawer is notcriminally liable for either estafa or violation of BP 22.” Subsequently, the administrative interpretation was reversed in Circular No. 12, issued on August 8, 1984, such that the claim that the check was issued as a guarantee or part of an arrangement to secure an obligation or to facilitate collection, is no longer a valid defense for the prosecution of BP 22. Hence, it was ruled in Que vs. People that under the new Circular, a check issued merely to guarantee the performance of an obligation is covered by BP 22. However, consistent with the principle of prospectivity, the new doctrine should not apply to parties who had relied on the old Circular and acted on the faith thereof. No retrospective effect.

Answer 59

In some commentaries, there are distinctions as to whether the repeal is express or implied. However, 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. * **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 in spite 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:_ *_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.** *_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 be released. 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 completed, 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._

Answer 60

Consequences if repeal of penal law is partial or relative: 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 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 an 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 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 isbeneficial shall be applied to him unless he is a habitual delinquent in accordance with Rule 5 of Article 62.

Answer 61

Decriminalization - RA No. 10158 has decriminalized vagrancy by omitting portions of Article 202 of RPC involving this crime. Vagrants are victims of poverty and that the law on vagrancy serves to oppress the very people that the government sought to protect. RA No. 10655 has decriminalized premature marriage by repealing Article 351 of RPC. This provision is discriminatory because it is not applicable to men. Moreover, Article 351, which was sought to prevent a possible confusion as to who is the father of the child born within the period of 301 days after the dissolution of the marriage, is not anymore necessary since paternity and filiation can now be easily determined through modern technology.

Answer 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. * Repeal –RA No. 10655 has repealed Article 351 of RPC on premature marriage without reenactment. This is a total repeal in which the intention of the new law is to decriminalize an act punishable of old law. Atotal repeal deprives the courts of jurisdiction to punish persons charged with a violation of the old penal law prior to its repeal (Sindiong and Pastor, 77 Phil. 1000). RA 8353 expressly repealed Article 336 of RPC on rape but re-enacted it redefining this crimeunder Article 266-A. This is a partial repealin which the intention of the new law is not to decriminalize an act punishable of old law but to introduce changes. The effect of the new law is amendatory. This partial repeal of Article 336 does not deprive the courts of jurisdiction to try and punish offender for rape committed prior to RA No. 8353 (U.S. vs. Cana, 12 Phil. 241). RA No. 8353 shall be given prospective effect since it is not favorable to the accused. 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 implied repeals.** 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 P200.00, 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, the 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 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: 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. 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.

Answer 63

BASIC MAXIMS IN CRIMINAL LAW 1. Doctrine of Pro Reo 2. Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege 3. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea 4. Utilitarian Theory or Protective Theory 5. Actus Me Invito Factus Non Est Meus Actus “An act done by me against my will is not my act.” 6. El Que Es Causa De La Causa Es Causa Del Mal Causado - “He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” (a) This is the rationale in par. 1 of Art. 4 which enunciates the doctrine of proximate cause. (b) He who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the consequences which may naturally and logically result therefrom, whether foreseen or intended or not.

Answer 64

Whenever a penal law is to be construed or applied and the law admits of two interpretations - one lenient to the offender and one strict to the offender- that interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the offender will be adopted. This is in consonance with the fundamental rule that all doubts shall be construed in favor of the accused and consistent with the presumption of innocence of the accused. This is peculiar only to criminal law. Answer to the Question:If you will answer “no,” then you go against the doctrine ofPro Reo, because you can interpret the ISLAW in a more lenient manner. Taking into account the doctrine, we can interpret the ISLAW to mean that the penalty imposable and not the penalty prescribed by law, since it is more favorable for the accused to interpret the law.

Answer 65

**Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege** * There is no crime when there is no law punishing the same. This is true to civil law countries, but not to common law countries. * Because of this maxim, there is no common law crime in the Philippines. No matter how wrongful, evil or bad act is, if there is no law defining the act, the same is not considered a crime. * Common law crimes are wrongful acts which the community/ society condemns as contemptible, even though there is no law declaring the act criminal. * Not any law punishing an act or omission may be valid as a criminal law. If the law punishing an act is ambiguous, it is null and void.

Answer 66

Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea The act cannot be criminal where the mind is not criminal. This is true to a felony characterized by dolo, but not a felony resulting from culpa. This maxim is not an absolute one because it is not applied to culpable felonies, or those that result from negligence.

Answer 67

Utilitarian Theory or Protective Theory The primary purpose of the punishment under criminal law is the protection of society from actual or 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 and omissions which the society does not approve of. Consistent with this theory, the mala prohibita principle which punishes an offense regardless of malice or criminal intent, should not be utilized to apply the full harshness of the special law. In Magno vs. CA, decided on June 26, 1992, the Supreme Court acquitted Magno of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 when he acted without malice. The wrongdoer is not Magno but the lessor who deposited the checks. He should have returned the checks to Magno when he pulled out the equipment. To convict the accused would defeat the noble objective of the law and the law would be tainted with materialism and opportunism.

Answer 68

Felony A crime under the Revised Penal Code is referred to as a felony. Do not use this term in reference to a violation of special law. * _Punishable by the Revised Penal Code_ The term felony is limited only to violations of the Revised Penal Code. When the crime is punishable under a special law you do not refer to this as a felony, it is to be understood as referring to crimes under the Revised Penal Code. This is important because there are certain provisions in the Revised Penal Code where the term “felony” is used,which means that the provision is not extended to crimes under special laws. A specific instance is found in Article 160- Quasi-Recidivism, which reads: A person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve sentence or while serving the same, shall be punished under the maximum period of the penalty. Note that the word “felony” is used. * ANSWERS TO QUESTION 1: No. The violation of Presidential Decree No. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) is not a felony. The provision of Article 160 specifically refers to a felony and felonies are those acts and omissions punished under the Revised Penal Code. * ANSWERS TO QUESTION 2: No. It is not under the RPC. * _An act or omission_ To be considered as a felony, there must be an act or omission; a mere imagination no matter how wrong does not amount to a felony. An act refers to any kind of body movement that produces change in the outside world. For example, if A, a passenger of a jeepney seated in front of a lady, started putting out his tongue suggesting lewdness, that is already an act in contemplation of criminal law. He cannot claim that there was no crime committed. If A scratches something, this is already an act which annoys the lady he may be accused of unjust vexation, not malicious mischief. * Dolo or culpa However, it does not mean that if an act or omission is punished under the Revised Penal Code, a felony is already committed. To be considered a felony, it must also be done with dolo or culpa. Under Article 3, there is dolo when there is deceit. This is no longer true. At the time the Revised Penal Code was codified, the term nearest to dolo was deceit. However, deceit means fraud, and this is not the meaning of dolo. Dolo is deliberate intent otherwise referred to as criminal intent, and must be coupled with freedom of action and intelligence on the part of the offender as to the act done by him. The term, therefore, has three requisites on the part of the offender: * Criminal intent; * Freedom of action; and * Intelligence * If any of these is absent, there is no dolo. If there is no dolo, there could be no intentional felony (Visbal vs. Buban, 2003). * ANSWER TO QUESTION NUMBER 3: There must be (1) an act or omission; (2) punishable by the Revised Penal Code; and (3) the act is performed or the omission incurred by means of dolo or culpa. But although there is no intentional felony, there could be culpable felony. Culpa requires the concurrence of three requisites: criminal negligence on the part of the offender, that is, the crime was the result of negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill; freedom of action on the part of the offender, that is, he was not acting under duress; and intelligence on the part of the offender in the performance of the negligent act. Between dolo and culpa, the distinction lies on the criminal intent and criminal negligence. If any of these requisites is absent, there can be no dolo nor culpa. When there is no dolo or culpa, a felony cannot arise. * ANSWER TO QUESTION NUMBER 4: The word voluntariness in criminal law does not meanacting in one’s own volition. In criminal law,voluntariness comprehends the concurrence of freedom of action, intelligence and the fact that the act was intentional. In culpable felonies, there is no voluntariness if either freedom, intelligence or imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill is lacking. Without voluntariness, there can be no dolo or culpa, hence, there is no felony. In a case decided by the Supreme Court, two persons went wild boar hunting. On their way, they met Pedro standing by the door of his house and they asked him where they could find wild boars. Pedro pointed to a place where wild boars were supposed to be found, and the two proceeded thereto. Upon getting to the place, they saw something moving, they shot, unfortunately ricocheted killing Pedro. It was held that since there was neither dolo nor culpa, there is no criminal liability. In US vs. Bindoy, accused had an altercation with X. X snatched the bolo from the accused. To prevent X from using his bolo on him, accused tried to get it from X. Upon pulling it back towards him, he hit someone from behind, instantly killing the latter. The accused was found to be not liable. In criminal law, there is pure accident, and the principle damnum absque injuria is also honored. Even culpable felonies require voluntariness. It does not mean that if there is no criminal intent, the offender is absolved of criminal liability, because there is culpa to consider. * ANSWER TO QUESTION NUMBER 5: Yes. Criminal intent is not necessary in these cases: When the crime is the product of culpa or negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill; When the crime is a prohibited act under a special law or what is called malum prohibitum. * _Criminal Intent:_ Criminal Intent is not deceit. Do not use deceit in translating dolo, because the nearest translation is deliberate intent. In criminal law, intent is categorized into two: 1. General criminal intent; and 2. Specific criminal intent. * General criminal intent is presumed from the mere doing of a wrong act. This does not require proof. The burden is upon the wrong doer to prove that he acted without such criminal intent. Specific criminal intent is not presumed because it is an ingredient or element of a crime, like intent to kill in the crimes attempted or frustrated homicide/ parricide/ murder. The prosecution has the burden of proving the same. * ___Distinction between intent and discernment_ Intent is the determination to do a certain thing, an aim or purpose of the mind. It is the design to resolve or determination by which a person acts. On the other hand, discernment is the mental capacity to tell right from wrong. It relates to the moral significance that a person ascribes to his act and relates to the intelligence as an element of dolo, distinct from intent. * _Distinction between intent and motive_ Intent is demonstrated by the use of a particular means to bring about a desired result- it is not a state of mind or a reason for committing a crime. On the other hand, motive implies motion. It is the moving power which impels one to do an act. When there is motive in the commission of a crime, it always comes before the intent. But a crime may be committed without motive. If the crime is intentional, it cannot be committed without intent. Intent is manifested by the instrument used by the offender. The specific criminal intent becomes material if the crime is to be distinguished form the attempted or frustrated stage. For example, a husband came home and found his wife in a pleasant conversation with a former suitor. Thereupon, he got a knife. The moving force is jealousy. The intent to resort to the knife, so that means he desires to kill the former suitor. Even if the offender states that he had no reason to kill the victim, this is not criminal intent. Criminal intent is the means resorted to by him that brought about the killing. If we equate intent as a state of mind, many would escape criminal liability. In a case where mother and son were living in the same house, and the son got angry and strangled his mother, the son, when prosecuted for parricide, raised the defense that he had no intent to kill his mother. It was held that criminal intent applies on the strangulation of the vital part of the body. Criminal intent is on the basis of the act, not on the basis of what the offender says. Offense A crime punished under a special law is called a statutory offense. Misdemeanor A minor infraction of the law, such as a violation of an ordinance, is referred to as a misdemeanor. Crime Whether the wrongdoing is punished under the Revised Penal Code or under a special law, the generic word crime can be used.

Answer 69

**Look into motive to determine the proper crime which can be imputed to the accused.** If a judge was killed, determine if the killing has any relation to the official functions of the judge in which case the crime would be direct assault complexed with murder/ homicide, not the other way around. If it has no relation, the crime is simply homicide or murder. Omission is the inaction, the failure to perform a positive duty which he is bound to do. There must be a law requiring the doing or performing of an act.

Answer 70

Distinction between negligence and imprudence 1. In negligence, there is deficiency of action; 2. In imprudence, there is deficiency of perception

Answer 71

**Mens rea** * The technical term mens rea is sometimes referred to in common parlance as the gravamen of the offense. To alayman, that is what you call the “bullseye” of the crime. This term is used synonymously with criminal or deliberate intent, but that is not exactly correct. * Mens rea of the crime depends upon the elements of the crime. You can only detect the mens rea of a crime by knowing the particular crime committed. Without reference to a particular crime, this term is meaningless. For example, in theft, the mens rea is the taking of property of another with intent to gain. In falsification, the mens rea is the effecting of the forgery with intent to pervert the truth. It is not merely writing something that is not true; the intent to pervert the truth must follow the performance of the act. * In criminal law, we sometimes have to consider the crime on the basis of intent. For example, attempted or frustrated homicide is distinguished from physical injuries only by the intent to kill. Attempted rape is distinguished from acts of lasciviousness by the intent to have sexual intercourse. 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; remove the employment of force or intimidation and it is not robbery any longer.

Answer 72

**Mistake of fact** When an offender acted out of a misapprehension of fact, it cannot be said that he acted with criminal intent. Thus,in criminal law, there is a “mistake of fact.” When theoffender acted out of a mistake of fact, criminal intent is negated, so do not presume that the act was done with criminal intent. This is absolutory if the crime involved dolo. Mistake of fact would be relevant only when the felony would have been intentional or through dolo, but not when the felony is a result of culpa. When the felony is a product of culpa, do not discuss mistake of fact. When the felonious act is the product of dolo and the accused claimed to have acted out of mistake of fact, there should be no culpa in determining the real facts, otherwise, he is still criminally liable, although he acted out of a mistake of fact. Mistake of fact is only a defense in intentional felony but never in culpable felony. **Requisites of mistake of fact** That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be. That the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful. * Mistake of fact - Authorities, who manned a checkpoint because of information that there are armed rebels on board a vehicle, have the duty to validate the information, identify them, and to make a bloodless arrest unless they were placed in real mortal danger. If they shot the suspected vehicle, which did not stop after have been flagged down and killed the occupants therein, who turned out be unarmed civilians, they are liable for multiple homicides. The mistake of fact principle is not applicable since there is negligence or bad faith on their part (Yapyucu vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 120744-46, June 25, 2012). The accused shot with a firearm and killed by mistake a thief in the toilet, who turned out to be his girlfriend. Invasion of property is considered as unlawful aggression under Article 12 of the RPC because of the self-help doctrine under the Civil Code (People vs. Narvaez, G.R. Nos. L-33466-67, April 20, 1983). Even though there is no actual invasion of property, unlawful aggression as an element of defense of property will be considered as present because of the mistake of fact principle. However, the means employed by him firing shots through the toilet door is not reasonable; and hence, he is only entitled to privilege migrating circumstance of incomplete defense of property (US vs. Apego, G.R. No. L-7929, November 18, 1912). * Mistake of fact - Authorities, who manned a checkpoint because of information that there are armed rebels on board a vehicle, have the duty to validate the information, identify them, and to make a bloodless arrest unless they were placed in real mortal danger. If they shot the suspected vehicle, which did not stop after have been flagged down and killed the occupants therein, who turned out be unarmed civilians, they are liable for multiple homicides. The mistake of fact principle is not applicable since there is negligence or bad faith on their part (Yapyucu vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 120744-46, June 25, 2012). * A: 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.

Answer 73

Corpus delicti - Corpus delicti refers to the fact of the commission of the crime charged or to the body or substance of the crime. In its legal sense, it does not refer to the ransom money in the crime of kidnapping for ransom or to the body of the person murdered or the weapons used in the commission of robbery with homicide (People vs. Torres, G.R. No. 189850, September 22, 2014, J. Del Castillo).

Answer 74

Tetanus - There had been an interval of 22 days between the date of the stabbing and the date when victim was rushed to hospital, exhibiting symptoms of tetanus infection. Since infection is severe, he died the next day. The incubation period of severe tetanus infection is less than 14 days. Hence, he could not have been infected at the time of the stabbing since that incident occurred 22 days before the symptoms manifested. The infection was an efficient intervening cause breaking the connection between the physical injuries and death. Hence, the crime committed is physical injuries (Villacorta vs. People, G.R. No. 186412, September 7, 2011). If the victim was infected by tetanus at the time of stabbing, and the infection is the proximate cause of death, the crime committed is homicide (People vs. Cornel, G.R. No. L-204, May 16, 1947).

Answer 75

Offense punishable under special law - Practicing medicine without license is an offense punishable under special law but not afelony within the meaning of Article 4 of RPC. Hence, a quack doctor, who killed his patient while treating him, is only liable for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide (People vs. Carmen, G.R. No. 137268, March 26, 2001). If the victim accidentally killed is the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle, the crime committed is qualified carnapping or carnapping in the aggravated form under Section 3 of RA No. 10883. To prove the special complex crime of carnapping with homicide, there must be proof not only of the essential elements of carnapping, but also that it was the original criminal design of the culprit and the killing of owner, driver or occupant of the vehicle was perpetrated in the course of the commission of the carnapping (People vs. Mallari, G.R. No. 179041, April 1, 2013, J. Del Castillo). If the victim accidentally killed is not the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle, the crimes committed are simple carnapping and homicide. The concept of carnapping is the same as that of theft and robbery (People vs. Sia, G.R. No. 137457, Nov. 21, 2001). Although not punishable under RPC, it can be treated as a felony within the meaning of Article 4 of RPC (See: Dimat vs. People, G.R. No. 181184, January 25, 2012). Hence, the accused is liable for homicide, which is the direct and natural consequence of simple carnapping.

Answer 76

Sense of danger - If a person in committing threat, murder, rape or robbery creates in the mind of the victim an immediate sense of danger which causes such person to try to escape, and in so doing he injures himself, the person who creates such a state of mind is responsible for the resulting injuries or death (US vs. Valdez, G.R. No. 16486, March 22, 1921; People vs. Toling, G.R. No. L-27097, January 17, 1975; People vs. Castromero, G.R. No. 118992, October 9, 1997; People vs. Arpa, G.R. No. L-26789, April 25, 1969).

Answer 77

Under Article 3, it is clear that culpa is just a modality by which a felony may be committed. A felony may be committed or incurred through dolo or culpa. Culpa is just a means by which a felony may result. In Article 365, you have criminal negligence as an omission which the article definitely or specifically penalized. The concept of criminal negligence is the inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform an act. If the danger impending from that situation is clearly manifest, you have a case of reckless imprudence. But if the danger that would result from such imprudence is not clear, not manifest nor immediate, you have only a case of simple negligence. Because of Article 365, one might think that criminal negligence is the one being punished. That is why a question is created that criminal negligence is the crime in itself. In People vs. Faller, it was stated indirectly that criminal negligence or culpa is just a mode of incurring criminal liability. In this case, the accused was charged with malicious mischief. Malicious mischief is an intentional negligence under Article 327 of the Revised Penal Code. The provision expressly requires that there be a deliberate damaging of property of another, which does not constitute destructive arson. You do not have malicious mischief through simple negligence or reckless imprudence because it requires deliberateness. Faller was charged with malicious mischief, but was convicted of damage to property through reckless imprudence. The Supreme Court pointed out that although the allegation in the information charged the accused with an intentional felony, yet the words feloniously and unlawfully, which are standard languages in an information, covers not only dolo but also culpa because culpa is just a mode of committing a felony. In Quezon vs. Justice of the Peace, Justice J.B.L. Reyes dissented and claimed that criminal negligence is a quasi- offense, and the correct designation should not be homicide through reckless imprudence, but reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The view of Justice Reyes is sound, but the problem is Article 3, which states that culpa is just a mode by which a felony may result. * Is culpa or criminal negligence a crime? First, point out Article 3. Under Article 3, it is beyond question that culpa or criminal negligence is just a mode by which a felony may arise; a felony may be committed through dolo or culpa. However, Justice J.B.L. Reyes pointed out that criminal negligence is a quasi-offense. His reason is that if criminal negligence is not a quasi-offense, and only a modality, then it would have been absorbed in the commission of the felony and there would be no need for Article 365 as a separate article for criminal negligence. Therefore, criminal negligence, according to him, is not just a modality; it is a crime by itself, but only a quasi-offense. * However, in Samson vs. CA, where a person who has been charged with falsification as an intentional felony, was found guilty of falsification through simple negligence. This means that culpa or criminal negligence is just a modality of committing a crime. In some decision on a complex crime resulting from criminal negligence, the Supreme Court pointed out that when crimes result from criminal negligence, they should not be made the subject of a different information. For instance, the offender was charged with simple negligence resulting in slight physical injuries, and another charge for simple negligence resulting in damage to property. The slight physical injuries which are the result of criminal negligence are under the jurisdiction of the inferior court. But damage to property, if the damage is more than P2,000.00, would be under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court because the imposable fine ranges up to three times the value of the damage. In People vs. Angeles, the prosecution filed an information against the accused in an inferior court for slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence and filed also damage to property in the Regional Trial Court. The accused pleaded guilty to the charge of slight physical injuries. When he was arraigned before the Regional Trial Court, he invoked double jeopardy. He was claiming that he could not be prosecuted again for the same criminal negligence. The Supreme Court ruled that there is no double jeopardy because the crimes are two different crimes. Slight physical injuries and damage to property are two different crimes. In so ruling that there is no double jeopardy, the Supreme Court did not look into the criminal negligence. The Supreme Court looked into the physical injuries and the damage to property as the felonies and not criminal negligence. In several cases that followed, the Supreme Court ruled that where several consequences result from reckless imprudence or criminal negligence, the accused should be charged only in the Regional Trial Court although the reckless imprudence may result in slight physical injuries. The Supreme Court argued that since there was only one criminal negligence, it would be an error to split the same by prosecuting the accused in one court and prosecuting him again in another for the same criminal negligence. This is tantamount splitting a cause of action in a civil case. For orderly procedure, the information should only be one. This, however, also creates some doubts. As you know, when the information charges the accused for more than the crime, the information is defective unless the crime charged is a complex one or a special complex crime.

Answer 78

CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL LAWS EQUAL PROTECTION Art. III, Sec. 1, 1987 Const. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. DUE PROCESS Art. III, Sec. 14 (1), 1987 Const. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. NON-IMPOSITION OF CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT OR EXCESSIVE FINES Art III, Sec. 19, 1987 Const. Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.

Answer 79

Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines (RA 9346) Repealed the law imposing lethal injection (R.A. 8177) and the law imposing the death penalty (R.A. 7659) (Sec. 1) This Act also imposes the punishment of reclusion perpetua for offenses under any act using the nomenclature of the RPC (Sec. 2 (a)) and the punishment of life imprisonment for offenses under any act which does not use the nomenclature of the RPC (Sec. 2(b))

Answer 80

BILL OF ATTAINDER Art. III, Sec. 22, 1987 Const. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. Bill of Attainder- a legislative act that inflicts punishment without trial, its essence being the substitution of legislative fiat for a judicial determination of guilt.

Answer 81

(1) Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when done, and punishes such an act. (2) Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed; (3) Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed; (4) Alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense; (5) Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful; and (6) Deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty.[Reyes, The Revised Penal Code citing In re: Kay Villegas Kami, Inc.]

Answer 82

OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS (a) Must not provide imprisonment for non-payment of debts or poll tax. [1987 Const. Art. III, Sec. 19 (1)] (b) Must not restrict other constitutional freedoms, e. g. due process, religion, free speech, and assembly.

Introduction To Criminal Law Flashcards

(108 cards)